PRIVATE BENEFIT SOCIETIES.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 9736, 26 May 1897, Page 6

PRIVATE BENEFIT SOCIETIES.

(PRESS ASSOCIATION' TELEORAM.)

DUNEDIN, May 25. The Royal Commission on private Benefit Societies resumed to-day. Jno. Murcott, a fireman on the Tasmania, said he was told by the agent of the Union Company that he could not be taken on because he was over tLirty-six years. The Secretary was allowed to hand in a legal opinion of Mr Sim (Messrs Stout, Munday and Sim) as to the status of the Society. Mr Sim said it was absurd to describe the rules as not worth the paper they were written on and having no force in law. The rules were legally binding on all members and offic-ers of the Society, which was a perfectly legal Association. It was quite a mistake to suppose that members had no rights which could be enforced by law. The Committee had no power to control the disposition of the funds except as provided by the rules, and the Committee, Trustees, _c, were amenable to the Supreme Court. Two members having given evidence as to the benefits they had received from the Society, of which they spoke highly, The Hon. G. McLean gave evidence. He pointed out that the Secretary of the Seaman's Union made a mistake as to the Shipping and Seamen's Act, the clause he had quoted referring to foreign trade vessels only. The Company had always treated cases through the Customs. It wonld be a sorry day for the men when they were in the position of demanding their rights and no more. He supposed it cost the Company £600 or' £700 a year to provide for their men beyond their scrict legal liability. He pointer! out that on the Committee of tho Society the Company had nominated the Chairman. Asked whether it was not a fact, as stated by one of the witnesses, that the Society was started for another purpose than the benefit of the men, iv short to get a hold over the men, witness said no doubt there was this idea, to try and get ' the men to take an interest in the Company, and not walk away without any fault as they did in 1890. He knew of no rule preventing a man thirty-eight years of age obtaining employment. Some men at fifty were better than others at twenty-six. Replying to Mr Fisher, the witness said an honest man would give his evidence straightforwardly, and the Company would not .visit punishment on him' for; speaking out, but would think all the more of him for it. He was glad affairs were being enquired into as it would be for the benefit of the Company.