TROUBLE ON STEAMER WAIKATO.

New Zealand Mail, 21 February 1901, Page 42

TROUBLE ON STEAMER WAIKATO.

FIREMEN REFUSE DUTY. POLICE COURT PROCEEDINGS INFORMATIONS DISMISSED. In the Magistrate's Court on the IStli, before Dr McArthur, S.M., four members of the crew. of the steamer Waikato —William Denham, Charles Stevens, Albert Palmer and Janies Quinn were charged with combining to impede the progress of the ship by disobeying lawful commands. Mr Myers conducted the case for the prosecution, and Mr Hindmarsh .(instructed by the Seamen’s Union) appealed for the defence. The defendants pleaded not guilty. Mr Hindmarsh asked that an adjournment be granted, in order that lie might procure the attendance of two men of the crew then aboard the vessel. _

Mr Myers objected, and said the owners were being put to an expense of £IOO per day by the action of the defendants.

Mr Hindmarsh asked the Court which was the mor e important, “A paltry £IOO per day or the .liberty of four men.” After some discussion, his Worship granted an adjournment of the case for two hour:?. When the case was resumed, Mr Gray appeared on behalf of Mr Myers, who was engaged; iii the .Supreme Court. Arthur Edward Gay, chief engineer of the Waikato, deposed that the four defendants wer e firemen on the vessel, and hacl all made coastal voyages in her. When the Waikato was ready to leave port on Saturday he had to take the four men off to her- in th e stream. They said they did not know that the ship was • going. When the ship was well under way, one of the defendants came to him, and said they would not work with two trimmers named Beach and McNamara, whom he had promoted to be firemen, unless witness agreed to pay the trimmers £8 per month each, on which condition they would teach them their duties. . ..-tness declined. He told them lie. had signed the trimmers on at £5 per month, and that he would give them an extra £1 monthly for acting as firemen. By Mr Hindnxarsh : The '-'Waikato should carry six firemen. Usually took on two extra men going Home. Nine firemen were the number required by the tonnage of the Waikato. Did not know that a man must serve for three months as a trimmer in New Zealand before he was eligible to act as a fireman. Did not think it outrageous for a fireman to object to an incompetent man. Had no conversation with his firemen about the number of firemen he was going to take Home with him. He had not yet asked the trimmers to sign on as firemen. He intended to promote three of the nine trimmers he had on board to firemen. He had appointed them, but he had not signed them on the ship’s articles. The reason why he took three extra, firemen on the Home voyage was because there were freezing chambers to be kept going. To Mr Gray : The full complement of trimmers, firemen, etc., employed aboard the vessel was sixteen —several in advance of the Board of Trade requirements. Captain Riddle gave evidence that his vessel left port for London shortly after noon on Saturday. After the engines were at full speed ahead, Quinn came to him on th e bridge, and wanted to speak to him. They said there were incompetent men aboard, and demanded that the police flag should be hoisted. Witness refused to do so, and the defendants then called upon two of the c-revv to witness that he (the captain) refqsefcb to do so.. He told them that the ship was in danger, and refused to speak to them until the ship was clear of the Heads. Then he produced the articles to them to prove that he had a full complement of men aboard, and that he had power to promote trimmers to he firemen- The men still demanded that the police flag h© hoisted, and refused to go below, except to bring the ship back to Wellington. He then put the ship about, made Wellington again, and then gave the men in charge for having refused duty. The English Act gave him power toappoint trimmers to be firemen —-and it was his intention to act .under it. . . By Mr Hindmarsh: Trimmers did just as well as firemen. As a rule, he promoted trimmers in the official log as firemen. He had a. right to promote any man to fireman at sea if he considered him competent. He was aware there was a New Zealand Act which prevented him from appointing as fireman a trimmer who had not been so engaged for at least three months. That was why he wanted to get out to sea. It wars Captain Smith who passed his ship in Wellington as being fit to proceed to sea. , . Arthur George Jeffreys (first mace;, Alex. Wills Hunt (third engineer) and George Lamb (fourth engineer) gave evidence confirmatory of that given by the caotain and the chief engineer. When the Court resumed at 2.15 p.m., Mr Hindmarsh stated that the defence of bis clients was a breach of contract by the ship’s officers. It was understood there would be three watches of three firemen each. During the trip from Auckland to Wellington the men found that incompetent men were em-

ployed, which made the work very hard. His clients lodged a complaint about it when the ship was about to start. lie considered there was a breach of contract. by the company employing incompetent men. The delay in the departure of the ship was certainly unfortunate for the company, but, Mr Hindmarsh maintained, that was no fault of his clients. The evidence for the defence might contradict that of the prosecution, but counsel considered the evidence of the men should be considered to be as reliable as that of the officers of the ship. Counsel quoted a. case in which a man deserted, and it was held that it was justifiable on the ground that he hacl not been treated properly. Wilham Denliam, fireman, deposed that he had been employed for three years in the colony of New Zealand, principally on the steamer Rotoiti. He entered into a contract to serve as fireman on board the Waikato. The chief engineer told him there would be three men in daclt watch. There was- a great deal of “knack” in firing. He had been twelve years at the calling, and considered he could still learn certain things about it.

,Bv Mr Gray: Did not hear for certain" that the" two men Beach and McNamara were to be taken on until he (witness) was on board the vessel. Had heard rumours of it. . Consulted Mr Jones, the secretary of the Seamen’s Union, about the trimmers on Friday. It was not on Mr Jones’s advice that he and his friends went on strike. Mr Jones only advised them to see the Superintendent of Mercantile Marine. He complained to the second engineer on Saturday morning that the men whom the engineer proposed to put on were incompetent. It was not true that lie demanded £8 per month for the trimmers. He knew-that the ship’s authorities would not pay the trimmers £3 per month, and knowing that, witness said to the captain, “If you want them to act as firemen, pay them £8 per month y

By Mr Hindmarsh: The chief engineer told witness that competent firemen would be engaged. Two applied :n Christchurch to be taken on, but the engineer refused to engage them. Did not think the men McNamara and Beach hod discharges. Mr Gray put in a discharge of Beach s marked “conduct very good.” Nothing was said about McNamara,

Janies Quinn stated that he complained to the chief engineer that the ship was short-handed of firemen. The engineer told him that the captain would give no satisfaction, so witness then saw the captain, and asked him to put back, which he declined to do. His complaint was that the ship was putting to sea with only six firemen instead of nine. He had never seen a copy of the ship’s articles. John McNamara deposed that he was a trimmer on the steamer Waikato. He had had two months’ experience of trimming on the steamer Gothic —that was all his experience. On Saturday he was asked by the chief engineer to act as fireman. He told the officer he wanted £8 per month for that work, and the officer told him he would settle that in the stream. Witness told the officer he required £8 per month if he had to do fireman’s work. Th e latter offered him £6 only. By Mr Gray: Considered himself able to do firing all right; he had,stoked in a gas factory. William Beach said he had been firing for nearly three months. His evidenoe was on the same lines as that of the preceding witness. He also had had “gas factory” * experience. Mr Hindmarsh submitted that the ship’s officers could not treat the New Zealand Act as waste paper. The Act specified that men must possess certain qualifications before they oould be regarded as firemen, and it was perfectly legitimate■ for the men to object to the law being broken. Mr Gray argued that since the ship was only required to carry ten men, and yet had sixteen aboard, the captain had a right to put any of the men to assist at any work he chose. Dr McArthur: At any work ? Mr Gray: Yes, your Worship. Dr McArthur: Put a fireman on as officer P

Mr Gray: Not that; but it would be competent for him to put a sailor on to assist at the fires. The real trouble was that the men had entered into a combination to get the firemen £8 per month.

Dr McArthur, in giving judgment, said he Avas not at all satisfied Avith the Avay the men had been treated by the ship. He did not believe in giving mor© credence to one class than to another, just because it was a certain class; and he must say l\e was of opinion that the evidence given by the men was thoroughly reliable. There was no doubt in bis. mind that the men were given to understand that other competent firemen would be engaged, and it was equally clear that the ship’s authorities had offered! the two trimmers less wages than the regular firemen received. There A\ r as a conflict of evidence as to whether or not the firemen had made their complaints before or after the anchor was up, and he thought it was unfortunate that the men went aboard at the late hour they did ; but, taking into account

the circumstances which were responsible therefor, he had come to the decision that the men had made their pomplaints in good time. He would dismiss the informations. •Mr Hindmarsh asked for costs, but these were not allowed. It was understood that the men would return to duty on the ship.