ARBITRATION COURT AWARDS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13235, 21 July 1906, Page 6

ARBITRATION COURT AWARDS.

A QUESTION OF JURISDICTION.

IMPORTANT LEGAL ■ ARGUMENT.

[BY TELEGRAPH.— ASSOCIATION - .]

.* - ■ • Wellington, Friday At the Supreme Court to-day - argument was continued in the special case stated for the opinion of the Supreme Court by-Mr. Justice Chapman, President,of the Court of Arbitration, as to the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court to make an award affecting employers beyond the territorial limits of/New Zealand. ' "

; Mr. . Levi (for the Union Company) contended that the jurisdiction .of the New Zealand Parliament to legislate could only be found in the wording of the Constitution Act. ; The English statute, 26 and 27, Vic.', c.: 23, defined the colony for. the purposes of the Constitution Act as " islands* lying within certain latitudes," but did not mention that jurisdiction extended to three miles beyond the coasts of these islands. The Imperial: Merchant Shipping Act of 1894,' section 689, gave power to colonial courts to take cognisance of 5 offences committed at sea in British ships if the ships afterwards touched at the colony to which the Act applied." Without that statute the New Zealand courts would have had no power to deal with offences committed on board ships even half a mile from the English coast, or, even if committed on beard a ship registered in Nov/ Zealand. Section; 35 ,of the English Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, gave our Legislature power to legislate for our coastal traffic, but such legislation • had to be reserved for consent of the British sovereign. " The Arbitration Act had not received the assent of the British sovereign, and therefore could not even affect the coastal traffic, of New Zealand, let alone traffic on. the high seas,: and: what was done on the Union Company's steamers in an Australian port. The company did not object to coastal -boats being bound by awards, although they contended that- awards could not legally bind them, but objected to be bound by awards made, without authority by/ the New Zealand Legislature to extend to, Australian ports. The registration of the Union Company's ships in New Zealand'did not make them New Zealand ships, but British ships, and the .law of England would apply to : those ships, not the law of New Zealand. Therefore awards would not apply to the Union Company's boats while in Australian ports or on the high seas. Mr. Levi also 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 the 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 such cases, and, therefore, there could be no breach.

Mr. Martin Chapman i Submitted that when a ship was at sea she was subject to the law of the Empire, and that law, he took it, ; could/ only be the law of England, tho 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 j territory to which she belonged she became British territory, and continued so long as she was at sea or intidal waters " where great ships lie.". Whether she was part of England, or part of Great Britain, was difficult to say, .but counsel 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 Homo or at sea.' A fortiori, when she was in a port of another, colony such a contention was legally, untenable, and on the widest interpretation could only be extended to the marine league from the coast measured from low water mark specified by the Territorial' Waters Jurisdiction Act, 1878. In this. Act, too, there was no. intention to give power to legislate for ships on the sea?' It was only intended to give power to 7 legislate regarding .-. the. conduct •.of persons, living in New •Zealand'.; He submitted that' tho award of the Arbitration Court did nob, bind the Huddart-Parker Company, which, was ah Australian company. In the ,pre; sent state of the law the Huddart-Parkei 1 Company could deduct from its men's wages, as soon as their boats were outside New Zealand, any amounts in excess Jof Australian rates that the company might be 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 Huddart-Par-. kei- Company's registration here did not make it " a person in New Zealand." As to the cooks and' stewards' award, that was, a local award applicable to the Wellington industrial district, and running no further. Mr. Justice Cliapman' said that he wrote " to the Government 10 months ago, asking that 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 it was not amenable to New; Zealand' laws, Parliament would prevent the company's .vessels from coming iu at all: . Mr. Chapman did not think they could do so. Such an action would probably bo ultra vires.

Dr. f Findlay: We could make it most unhappy- for you to come in, though. ■ After replying to arguments adduced," Dr. Findlay besought the Bench to give an early judgment oh the points raised. If the contentions of. tho: couusel opposed to him were correct, ; this- country was now exposed, so far as seamen and all others engaged on shipboard were concerned, to the', risks and losses occasioned by a great maritime strike, and to obviate which the' labour laws were primarily passed; - V *'/'■■:■'?■ '■: Judgment was reserved. »....-