STEAMERS ON THE HIGH SEAS.

Evening Star, Issue 12871, 21 July 1906, Page 2

STEAMERS ON THE HIGH SEAS.

In the Wellington Supreme Conrt yesterday, in the action brought to test the validity of an award of tho Arbitration Court in the case of vessels when out of Now Zealand waters, Mr Levi, for the Union Company, touched on the question as to place of payment. His company took up the position that if the event which entitled a seaman to overtime occurred outside tho colony (on the high seas or in an Australian port), it was immaterial that the actual payment was made in New Zealand; in short, the company said that there was no award to meet snch cases, and therefore there could be no breach. Mr Martin Chapman submitted that when a ship was at sea she was subject to the law of the Empire, and that law, he took it, could onlv be the law of England, the Sovereign State. When a ship was in a British port she was a mere chattel, and not part of any territory at all; but, by a fiction of law, once she went outside the water limits of the territory to which ahe belonged she became British territory, and continued so as long as she was at sea or in tidal waters “where great ships lie.” Whether she was part of England or part of Great Britain it was difficult to say, hut connsel submitted it was not competent to fix upon a part of the Empire (such as New Zealand) and say a ship was part of .that colony, whether she was at home or at sea, a fortiori when siie was in a port of another colony. Such a connection was legally untenable, and on the widest interpretation it could only ho extended to the marine league from the coast, measured from low-water mark, specified by tho Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act, 1878. In this Act, too, no intention to give power to legislate for ships on the sea was given. It was onlv intended to give power to legislate regarding the conduct of persons living in New Zealand. He submitted that the Award of the Arbitration Court did not bind the HnddartParker Company, which was an Australian company. In the present state of the law the Hnddart-Parkcr Company could from their men’s wages as soon as their boats were outside Now Zealand any amounts in excess of the Australia rates that the company might bo required to pay while in New Zealand. . He submitted, too, that the Arbitration Court award did not affect his clients’ boats while in New Zealand. The Hnddart-Parker Company’s registration hero did not make it “a person in New Zealand.” As lo the cooks and stewards’ award, that was a local award applicable to the Wellington industrial district, and running no further. Mr Justice Chapman said that he wrote to the Government ten months ago askingthat machinery to permit of a general award for the'whole of New Zealand be made. Mr Justice Edwards said it seemed probable to him that if the Huddart-Parker Company showed they were not amenable to Now Zealand laws the Parliament would prevent the company’s vessels from coming in at all. Mr Chapman did not think they could do so. Such an action would probably he nitre vires. , Dr Findlay: We could make it most unhappy for von to come in, though. After replying: to the- arguments adduced, Dr Findlay besought the Bench to give an earlv judgment on the points raised. If the contentions of the counsel opposed to him were correct, this country was now exposed, so far as seamen and all others engaged on shinbord were _ concerned, to the risks and losses occasioned by the great maritime strike, and to obviate which the labor laws were primarily passed. . Judgment was reserved.