New Zealand Times. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1874.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4268, 24 November 1874, Page 2

New Zealand Times. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1874.

We extract the following from the Greymouth Star of the 13fcli instant, illustrating the “ truck system,” which unfortunately is carried out, more or less, in the prosecution of the public works of the colony. The matter arose out of an action by Jackson & Franklyn, subcontractors, against one Hungerford. The Star writes As the full particulars of this case have never been made public they may be interesting to our readers. Franklyn and Jackson took a sub-contract for £124. They completed their work satisfactorily, and os they had only received some £4B in cosh, they naturally supposed that a balance was stlU due and owing. On seeing their employer, however, they found that the balance was on the wrong side of the ledger, and Mr. Hungerford was a creditor, Franklyn and Jackson owing him some twenty-four shillings. With his wonted generosity, however, our railway contractor agreed to call things square, to which amicable arrangement his sub contractors objected, and insisted on bringing their case before a court. £1 each, and subsequently £5 each, was offered those men to compromise the matter, but this they declined, admitting only the cash received, and some £42 allowed for assistance rendered by Mr. Hungerford’s men and horses The result of the flrst trial was a verdict given for tho plaintiffs for some thirty odd pounds. Execution wasdolayed to enable an arrangement to bo made for stores supplied by the contractor, and after meals that tho men denied all knowledge of eating, and re-

freshmonts that Franklyn and Jackson had no recollection of at all, had been carefully expunged by the lawyer engaged by the sub-contractors. It was agreed that some £l7 was due from Mr. Hungerford, and this was to be paid by his solicitor. Sundry delays arose to prevent payment from day to day, but no time was lost in bringing an action against the sub-contractors for breach of contract. This case was heard and dismissed, Mr. Hungerford's lawyer giving notice of appeal; and thus the matter at present stands. The foregoing is a correct account In every particular save shillings and ponce, kept out to prevent complications. We would. fain hope that this case is unique, but wo fear it is only a sample of many others, and that' the. laudable professions of the Minister for Public Works, as to the prohibition of the “truck “system” of payment on our public works, are more words and nothing more. It will scarcely be credited that the particular work under notice—the Greymouth and Brunner Railway—was the subject of inquiry by Mr. Tribe, M.H.R., in the session of 1873, when he was informed that in all contracts a clause should be inserted to secure to the workmen the payment of all wages in full, in current coin, at least once in every fortnight, on the works if possible, or in some building adjoining. With this assurance the matter was not pressed further, more especially as Mr. Reid, M.H.R., had been informed previously that a circular had been sent to the district engineers in charge of public works in various parts of the colony, calling their special attention to the clause referred to.. The evasion of this condition of all Government contracts was, however, so notorious, that in Westland it was brought under the notice of the Provincial Council, when it was ordered “ that there be forwarded to the “ Superintendent for transmission to the “ Minister for Public Works, a resolution “ stating that the clause in the General “ Government specifications prohibiting “ the truct system, and which also pro- “ vides that the workmen must be paid “ once a fortnight in coin of the realm “ on the works, is being grossly evaded.” The matter was again brought under the notice of the Government by Mr. White, M.H.R., last session, when he was informed that the District Engineer was convinced that the “ truck system ” was in force, but that the workmen made no complaints to him. The Government, however, caused the clause prohibiting “truck” to be published in the newspapers, and by handbills. The Minister for Public Works further said that “of “ course, if the Government got any “ tangible proof that the sjrstom was “ being carried on, they would at once “ take steps to put a stop to it.” It would seem, from the case under notice, that the perception of the Government in this matter is strangely dull. We do not believe this case to be materially different from the majority of Government, and other large contracts ; but the contractor has suffered exposure, and thus affords an illustration of the system. He seems to have kept a hotel and store, and from his having paid his sub-con-tractors £4B in cash would appear to have been more fair-dealing than persons so placed commonly are. Now, we ask, what is the use of inserting protective clauses for workmen if these are to be systematically evaded ? for it is well known to the public, and even to the wilfully-blind District Engineers, that they are evaded in the majority of cases. There surely can be no difficulty in compelling contractors to pay their workmen on the works in cash, thus leaving the men free to deal with whom they please for their supplies. In justice not only to the workmen, but to tenderers for works, the clauses of all contracts should be enforced ; for it is obvious that the man who intends to act up to the conditions stipulated is at a disadvantage with the less honest one, who knows the protective clauses are only put in for show, as long as he works pleasantly with the certifying engineer. Experience shows that it is foolish to expect workmen to make complaints. Some few may be independent enough to do so, but they prefer taking their labor elsewhere ; and others will submit to injustice rather than incur the worry and loss attending any attempt to obtain redress in a court of law. This is proved by the fact that, although for 300 years laws have been in force in England prohibiting the payment of workmen otherwise than in cash, the “truck “system” prevails; and that although recent English legislation provides that wages paid in a public-house may be recovered as if not paid, oven that stringent law is disregarded. The workmen should not be placed in the invidious position of complaining to the Engineer for protection. It is his duty to see that the conditions of contracts are properly fulfilled, and, failing to do so, he brings disgrace on the Government both here and abroad, inasmuch as the sham of high wages, paid in goods and drink, seems only to inflate the rate of labor here, misleading a few who have no experience to guide them, while in reality the delusion is being exposed by the laborers themselves in their correspondence with friends in other parts of the world. We must notice, however, another significant phase of the demoralising ‘ ‘ truck “ system.” Mr. Hungerford having, as we have seen, been compelled to pay his sub-contractors, has the satisfaction of knowing that the laborers themselves are quite satisfied with payment in stores instead of in money. One hundred and thirty-two of them stand forward in his defence. Meanwhile, it would be interesting to know how their letter to the local newspaper came to be written, and what “consideration” has been given and received. “ Men are men” on the West Coast, we presume, as elsewhere, and this remarkable document must have coat something considerable somehow. Meanwhile, we shall conclude by a further extract from the Greymouth Evening Star (November 17th), to which we invite the attention of the Minister for Public Works :

However much tho courage and gratitude of Mr. H nngerford’s workmen deserve admiration, it cannot be denied that tho step they have taken Is, to say the least, Imprudent. Actuated doubtless by the best possible motives, their action in publishing an admission that the truck system really exists on tho railway works, cannot but bo injurious to tho interests of the master they serve and seek to benefit. In reply,to Mr. John White, M.H.8., the Government stated that they had no knowledge of tho existence of tho evil he complained about. Certainly ignorance cannot now be urged os an excuse for non-interference in tins important matter, when one hundred and thirtytwo men come boldly forward to acknowledge tho existence of tho system, and furthermore state that if necessary they will petition the Minister of Public Works, asking him to sanction a direct violation of the law, or in plainer terms break an Act of tho Colonial Parliament, because tho petitioners arc very comfortable under the existing circumstances. One portion of this ill-advised letter from tho workmen on the railway to their employer is amusing from Us innocence. The writers say: —“No complaints havo ever originated on the works; such remarks and complaints as have been made emanated from persons who have no direct Interest In tho matter.” Wo heard a precisely similar argument brought forward by an Inebriate some few days since, who was charged with drunkenness. Ho urged with exactly the same amount of reason as that adduced by Mr. Hungerford’s workmen that ho was doing no harm, ho had paid for tho grog that made him drunk, and what business was his incapability to anybody save himself. Yet tho man was lined, because ho was breaking the law, and because the law must be uphold and tho interests and welfare of society preserved. For tho self-same reason this truck system must not bo allowed to prevail upon our public works. It is not a question altogether between tho contractor and his employes. It has a much wider significance as affecting tho important fact of whether or not a man Is to bo allowed to break the law with impunity. The law distinctly states that contractors shall not “ truck " with their •workmen, but shall pay them periodically in sterling coin of the realm on the works, and not in any store or public-house. While upholding tho law in its entirety, a Dunedin magistrate, to his honor bo it said, recently fined a publican for allowing a con-

tractor the use of his house to pay workmen therein. The great question to be considered is whether the system' is morally and socially injurious to the public welfare] and this was decided in the affirmative long since, the result of the decision being the insertion of the clause in the Public Works Act prohibiting. the. same. The question then being settled, the opinion of Mr. Hungerford’s one hundred and thirty-two workmen carries but little weight against the wishes of the people of New Zealand. Our own opinion, steadfastly maintained and openly expressed for the past ten months, has not been altered by the knowledge that certain laborers are satisfied with the way they are paid in kind. Admitting, for argument’s sake, that Mr. Hungerford’s men, as they state, are better off through being able to obtain stores instead of regular wages, t does not alter the question at issue in the slightest. The effects of the system are pernicious, and it is the duty of the people of Greymouth to interfere and enforce the prohibitory law provided to meet the requirements of the case. The contractor cannot suffer; hls*agreemont was made on the distinct understanding that it should be legitimately carried out, and the enforcement in their purity of the provisions of his agreement will certainly result in the abolition of the truck system, os it. is admitted to exist, and the good effects of such abolition on the people of Greymouth can bo better imagined than described.