THE ARBITRATION COURT.

Colonist, Volume XLVIII, Issue 44685, 21 July 1906, Page 4

THE ARBITRATION COURT.

THE TERRITORIAL LIMIT. Wellington, July 20. The Supreme Court; was engaged to-day hearing the special case stated by the President of the Arbitration Court. The question is one in connection with the shipping award, and the Court is asked to determine as to the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court to make awards affecting employers beyond the territorial bounds of the Colony. It; was alleged that breaches of the Cooks' and Stewards' Union award had been made while tbe Union Company's steamers were in Australian ports. Addressing the Court to-day on bebalf of tho Union Company, counsel contended that toe jurisdiction of the Court did not extend beyond the three-mile limit of tho New Zealand coast. He pointed out that section 35 of the English Merchant Shipping Aet> 1894, gave our Legislature power to legislate for our coastal traffic, but euch legislation had to be reserved for the 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 the traffic on tbe high seas, and what was done on tbe Union Company's boats in Australian ports. Tbe Company, though holding that the awards of the Court did not legally bind them,., did not object to the coastal boats being bound by the award : but it objected to be bound by the awards made without authority by the New Zealand Legislature to extend to Australian ports, Wellington, July 20. In the Supreme Court, Mr Chapman, counsel for Htiddart Parker and Co., followed much on the same lines as Mr Levi. He submitted that the award of the Arbitration Court could not bind Huddart, Parker and Co., which was an Australian Company. In the present state of the lawHuddarc. Parker, and Co, could deduct from its men's wages as soon is their boats were outside New Zealand, any amounts in excess of the 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. Huddart, Parker and Co. '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 Chapman said that he wrote to the Government ten months ago asking tbat'machinery to permit of a general award for the whole of New Zealand be made. "?■ T Mr Justice Edwards said it seemed probable to him^;.that if Huddart, Parker, and Co. showed itfwas not amenable r£ to News Zealand laws, Prliament would preven tthe Company's vessels' from coming in at all. :,Mr Chapman did not think they could do so, as such an action would probably be^ultra^vires. "^™ Dr. Findlay: We could make it most unhappy ior^ you to come in though. After replying to .'arguments adduced, Dr. Findlay ' besought the Bench to give an early judgment on the points raised. If the contentions of counsel opposed to him were correct, this country wns now exposed, so^far as seamen 'and?; all others engaged on shipboard were concerned, to the risked losses oceasioned v a by the great maritime strike, and to obviate, which* thejabor laws were primarily passed.^! . .^..j..J^.&- --\ Judgment waa reserved.