PUNISHMENT FOB SEAMEN.

Evening Star, Issue 13014, 8 January 1907, Page 7

PUNISHMENT FOB SEAMEN.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —The conviction of M’Ruc on Friday last for assaulting the mate of the Poherua at ’Westport is a further illustration of both the method of arresting and tho penalties inflicted on men who occupy subordinate positions on shipboard. It is also curious to note the prison alternatives given by different magistrates. M'Rae wu-a fined 40s and costs, and in default.one month’s imprisonment. Your Friday’s issue reports a case from Gisborne, where a fireman on the high seas—a much more serious offence — gave an engineer a most unmerciful thumping. and was fined 60s, with 7s costs, or sevhn days’ imprisonment.. Now, bore are two cases—one a serious assault at .sea, inflicting severe personal injuries, the other a mere squabble, with little or no harm done, and -the lightest offender gets the heaviest penalty kidled out to him. That by the way. The point I want to empliasiso is the method of proceeding against M’Rae. The assault was committed at Westport. The vessel called at different ports before arrival at Dunedin, and notwithstanding all said to the contrary by Todd, the master, the man could have been prosecuted elsewhere. Tho master might, as well tell us that a person who committed murder couldn’t be arrested because tho Christmas holidays were on! The plain fact is this : that when the Poherua arrived hero several heads were laid together, and it was decided to prosecute. Instead of proceeding in the ordinary way by summons, a warrant wtus issued for M’Rac’s apprehension, which landed bin in gaol for a couple of days. This shows the venom at the back of the prosecution, which we are well aware of. David Todd, tlio master, is known to have no love for the Seamen’s Union or their members. Indeed, if rumor bo true, he is alleged to have said on more (ban one occasion that he would make things particularly hot for the men when he got the chance. Occupying a position as master, he has exceptional opportunities of making matters very sultry for those under him. For some- months David Todd was the shore labor-engager for the Union Company. During that time he several times bumped heavily up against the Seamen’s Union, and had to be put- in his proper place; hence those tears. Since then ho has been ptosecuted for leaving a West Coast port ehorthanded. This is also attributed to the Seamen’s Union; hence more tears. What I particularly wish to point out is that up to the coming into force of the 1903 Shipping Act an officer could only he proceeded against under tho common Jaw for assaulting a seaman, and common law penalties—five or ten shillings and costs — was the usual fine inflicted. Under the present law a subordinate can now have a warrant issued for the arrest of an officer committing an assault, and members of the Union should bear this fact in mind, and work on the principle that what is sauce for the sailorman’s goose is an equally good condiment for the officer’s gander. A few of the latter being escorted by men in uniform and thrown into gaol, as was MRa®, will possibly damp their ardor for that kind of business.

Another thing that might be eased down on i« those pretty little homilies read to the culprit by the Bench in cases of this kind. An assault committed on board a vessel safely moored at the wharf has no more serious results than a similar offence committed on the wharf, and all the homilies in the world can’t magnify it into anything wo iso.—l am, etc., W. Belcher. January 5.