ORDERED ABOARD AGAIN.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 214, 10 September 1925, Page 12

ORDERED ABOARD AGAIN.

SEAMEN ON STRIKE. ; I FINED FOR BEING ABSENT, j — '■ — ; SAY THEY WILL NOT GO BACK. The hearing of tlie charges against eight seamen of tlie s.s. Benicia was concluded yesterday afternoon at the Police Court, before Mr. E. C. Cutteu, S.M., who fined each man for being absent without leave and ordered him to be put on board the vessel. Mr. R. IMcVeagh appeared for the master of the steamer and Mr. Vallance for six of the men. Continuing the remarks referred to in last night's "Star," Mr. McVeagh went on to explain the course the strike had taken and the continued refusal of the men to go back to work. The agreement that had been made by the men when they signed on was quite in accord with the statute. It was to be presumed that the agreement was read over to them as provided and if so the men must have been aware of clause 11 regarding the j increase or reduction of wages. Counsel suggested that at that stage the Court j might ask the men if they would now j consent to return to their duties. j Counsel pointed out that the penalty j for the offence was that the men were j liable to forfeit two days' pay, and six j days' pay for every twenty-four hours if. tho offence was repeated, or in tlie alternative imprisonment up to ten weeks. .In the case of one of the men, who had admitted the second charge, the penalty was imprisonment not exceeding twelve weeks. Counsel asked for an order directing the men to be placed on the ship. In the case of a man named McQueen, a plea of guilty was entered to the second charge and not to the first. When the magistrate asked him if he had any reason for not doing as the other defendants had done, and pointed out that the penalty on the second charge was imprisonment only, which might prevent the Bench from extending leniency if it so desired, McQueen, in a strong Scots accent, said he would rather go to gaol than go back ou the steamer on starvation pay. He had agreed to work for £10 a month, and if he could not get that he would rather go to gaol. The magistrate pointed out the clause in the agreement providing that the men were to be bound to any increase or reduction. McQueen, who signed on in the United States, said the agreement was' not read out when ho signed' before the ViceConsul. The magistrate said the Court was bound to assume that it had been read over, and a man could not sign an agreement and then come into Court and say he didn't know what was in it. As McQueen did not apparently realise the- good advice the magistrate was giving him, Mr. McVeagh' said he could get round the difficulty, by proving the first charge. It was decided to take this course and Mr. McVeagh called the captain and mate of the Benicia, who proved that. McQueen refused duty and had been'absent several days without leave. Mr. Vallance said his clients did what they did aa a protest against the reduction of their wages during, the. progress 'of the voyage. The men had decided that they would not serve on the _hip after the wage? agreement had been varied by the owners. Mr. McVeagh asked what would happen if the National Maritime Board had. agreed to. an increase and "the owners had refused. In. response: to the Bench, Mr. McVeagh said he was asking the Court, to order, the men to' to placed on board the steamer. Counsel's client placed more importance upon that than upon? getting the men fined or imprisoned. The magistrate pointed out that the men might not ..remain on board. (Laughter from body of Court.) Mr.'McVeagh: We have considered the matter. We are not at the end of our resources. Mr.. Vallance pointed out that the Benicia was in a somewhat different position from tbe other vessels concerned in the strike, which counsel pointed out was world-wide and ,was not confined to tho- Benicia.' On the Benicia the firemen and stokers were all Lascars, and had not. gone out on strike. Now the Court was being asked to put the deck hands on board,, while in* all the other ships the men were not being interfered! with. . In answer to a question, the Bench was informed that the men before the Court were not in custddy; they had been proceeded against by summons. Fined and to be Sent Aboard. The magistrate 1 convicted and discharged on that charge the defendant who had pleaded guilty to impeding the progress ot the steainei-, and this left all the defendants on the same footing-, that js, having pleaded g»uilty to the charge of being absent without leave or good and sufficient reason. It had been admitted, said the magistrate, that the refusal to work was the outcome of a strike,. A strike, however, had nothing whatever to do with the Court, and could;not be taken into consideration in dealing with the case. ■ For the offence to winch they, had pleaded guilty the men were, under section 221 of the Imperial Shipping Act of 1894, liable to forfeit two days' pay, and in addition a sum not exceeding six days' pay for every twenty-four hours of absence. The men had been absent nine days. Counsel for the prosecution had also made application under section 224 of the Act, which said that where a seaman was charged with being absent without leave the Court might, if the, master . so„ required, and if out of the United Kingdom, cause such seaman to be conveyed on board his ship. After looking through the Act, the magistrate was satisfied that the Court had power to impose tho punishment under section 221 and also make an order under section 224. Under ordinary circumstances' where there were two. forms of. .punishment, one was exclusive of. the other. But in the present cise'it^was.sefc;out.in section 224 that, where/proceedings were-taken out of the- United; Kingdom,, the order /to have the. men- put on board' was-to "be in,lieu of committing the men to prison. Section 221 permitted monetary penalties and committal' to prison, so that the order in 224 was in place, of that part of the punishment."set out in 221 involving imprisonment. That seemed to show that the order under 224 did not prevent the imposition of a penalty under 221. - As he had said before, the present cases had to be considered quite apart from any question of strike. If a seaman absented himself without leave for a number of days the penalty .would have to be in accord with the number of ' days he absented-himself. The' men • before the Court had absented -them--selves for nine days except one, who : was absent for eight days. The Court would . impose' a penalty in .respect of :

two days' pay, as set out in section 221, ( and in addition for the nine days for j which they had absented themselves.,; He would assess the amount at 5/ per - day. Therefore a~ penalty of £2 15/ would be imposed in all.cases except in. the case of the man absent eight days, who would forfeit £2 10/. Court costs j 1 and solicitors' fees were also allowed, ; An order was also made :hat the '-. men be placed ou board the steamer, j and further, that the fines be deducted from the men's pay. j Court costs and solicitors' fees ; brought the total Hue in each case to £3 10/. | . When the magistrate announced that ' he would make an order for the men to be put aboard the ship, the eight defen- i dants stood up as one man and an- J nounced their determination not to work on the Benicia again at the reduced rate of pay, a Bentiment which was followed by a murmur of applause from the large number of seamen who watched the proceedings from the body of the Court.