The Marine Commission.

Temuka Leader, Issue 3471, 27 July 1899, Page 4

The Marine Commission.

■Wellington, July 24. The Marine Commission resumed this morning. Witness produced his calculation book, and Mr Hanlon tabled Captain Bendall’s and Captain McLellan’s examination papers for the purpose of comparison by the Court, the insinuation being that the answers in witness’ book had been copied. These were the papers afterwards given to Mr Allport by Yon Sohoen to prove his statement that the examinations were going from bad to worse, and evoked a reply from Mr Allport that his (witness’) suspicions seemed to be well founded. Captain Maroiel, examiner of masters and mates, deposed that he had inspected certain examination papers given him in December last, including Captain Bendall’s and Captain McLellan’s. Hound some inaccuracies in the last two which aroused his suspicion, as they were identical. In some of the answers there were so' many inaccuracies that he did not think the candidates had access toTowson’s book. Witness put aside the papers of four candidates as showing traces of suspicion. He could not identify the handwriting, but sailors’ writing often varied as their hands got hard or soft. He knew that Jones’ papers were suspected, and he was particularly keen in scrutinising them. When witness submitted his report the SolicitorGeneral wrote that there were grounds for suspicion, but nothing amounting to criminality. He was requested to make a further examination, and reported on each case separately. In reply to the Commissioners Mr Hanlon said that there were only four more witnesses to examine, and that the taking of evidence should finish to-morrow morning. Captain Marcial’s cross examination was continued by Mr Atkinson. Witness was fairly well competent to conduct au examination in compass work. To prove a problem absolutely correct it would be necessary to work it out in every known way. Errors in fractions were not sufficient to prevent a man passing an examination. He would be only too glad to give every assistance if the Commissioners thought it necessary to hold a further enquiry into the examination papers. Mr Travers pointed out that Captain Edwin had by an Order-iu-Council no power as an examiner. By that order only one examiner was named. In the eases of Captain Bendall and McLellan Captain Edwin was not responsiqle. Mr John Hutcheson, examined by Mr Travers, said that he had known Mr Allport for 19 years, and had always regarded him as the ideal of what a public officer should be. By Mr Atkinson: There were several matters in connection with the Marine Department that pointed to irregularities, and witness was told by Von Schoen of those which formed the subject of the enquiry. He had no suspicion of the names of the persons implicated which had not been divulged by Von Schoen. After hearing the case at the Magistrates Court Captain Jones spoke to witness about the matter. Witness told Jones he had no desire to do him an inquiry. Immediately after his speech in the House the Premier said “ Well, old man, you’ve either said to much or too little.” Witness replied that he was quite satisfied with the truth of his informant’s statement. Judge Ward objected to any reference to Mr Hutcheson’s speech in the House, characterising such a reference as being a grave breach of constitutional privilege. Continuing, witness said that in his opinion seamen should be put in direct contact with the Department instead of licensed procurers. He also wanted to see more stringent in spec ion of sailing vessels in respect of appointments, com-

forts, etc. These were all causes of complaint made by him to the Government. Witness’ representations were pooh-poohed. AVitness also suggested that the crews of foreign vessels should be mustered before the vessels left port. Some of the men who shipped as A.Bs had only taken one trip in an ocean tramp.

Judge Ward asked witness as to the employment of boys or apprentices.—Witness attributed the non-application of boys for service at sea to the fact that most of the mercantile work was done by steamers, and there the work was simply that of labour. Youths could not bo trained in steamships or steamers. By Dr Findlay: Had no hesitation in saying that he never told Captain Allman that Captain Jones was entitled to a certificate. Had only spoken to Captain Allman two or throe times in his life, and had no recollection of Jones’ name being mentioned. When A r on Schoen communicated his suspicions to witness about the marine examination the information was not given confidentially, but names were suppressed. Von Schoen told witness that he reached over his pupil’s shoulder and held his hand while he made answers to questions. By Mr Gray: Von Schoen told witness that he made out the examination papers himself. AVhen Von Schoen told witness about the fraudulent examination he refused to give names, but asserted that the person referred to was at the time in charge of apassenger vessel. Von Schoen did not express any feeling against Captain Allman. His complaint was that the examinations were conducted in a very erratic way; sometimes very strict, and at others very lax. AVitness stated that he had been credibly informed that Captain Jones had been an applicant for the mastership of the Government steamer Tutanekai, but had since been informed by Captain Jones that that statement was not correct. Jones was a practical seaman and of an upright character, but witness considered that a man in such a position should be able to handle navigation instruments.

By Mr Hislop ; The Premier and witness met in the lobby of the House after witness delivered his speech. He did not remember that the Premier said that he had consulted the officers of the Department, who denied what witness had stated.

Some short time afterwards he told the Premier that an enquiry was necessary into the abuse of examinations; also that certain changes should be made in the Department. He had no further truck with Mr Hall-Jones. After his speech in the House he thought it advisable that a thoroughly competent man should be appointed to conduct the examinations. By Mr Hanlon: After his speech in the House the Premier expressed himself that witness’ charges were very important, and that witness should in the public interest disclose the name. The following day he gave the Premier the name of his informant. Hedidnot know at that time Captain Jones was the person interested. As far back as 1890 it was a subject of common talk among seamen about the way in which the marine examinations were conducted. He could not prove, hut he knew of a number of cases where candidates had been assisted in the examination-room. AVitness strongly denied the accuracy of the report in the Lyttelton Times of the alleged interview with him regarding the defects in the administration of the Marine Department. Captain Bendall gave evidence that he went up for examination as a licensed adjuster of compasses in December, 1896. He did all the work set for him without illegitimate reference to books or other assistance of any kind. No other candidate was present at the time. He could not account for the same errors appearing in Captain McLellan’s papers as were shown in witness’.

Mr J. A. Millar, M. H. E., gave evidence as to the operations of the Shipping and Seamen’s Act. Witness contended that no vessel should go to sea with fewer hands than was at present stipulated, and that any apprentices carried should be in addition to the statutory number of men. To make boys seamen they should be apprenticed for four years on sailing vessels. Boys did not care about going on deck. They preferred to go into the stoke-hole, where instead of getting £1 10s per month they got £0 10s and after serving three months were paid JSS 10 s.

The Commission adjourned till 11 a.m. to-morrow. Wet-lington, July 25 The Marine Commission resumed this morning. Mr J. A. Plimmer and Mr H. Beauchamp, who were on board the Duchess in 1898, both testified that they heard no conversation between the Premier and Captain Jones of the nature alleged by the latter. Sir A. Douglas, Under-Secretary for Defence, who was employed at the time as examiner, said that he had received complaints from candidates about the way the examinations were conducted, but there was no foundation for them. He had never been asked to sign a certificate when witness had not been present the whole time and would not do so. Mr R. Thomsen, M.H.R., gave evidence as to the difficulties in the way of boys getting on ships. The law should be amended to allow apprentices, for which there was no provision now. Mr P. Redmond, messenger to the Premier, said that he never went to the railway station to meet Captain Allman. The latter must bo mistaken. This concluded the evidence, and the Court announced that for the purpose of counsels’ addresses the charges against Captain Jones, Captain Allman, Captain Yon Schoen, Captain Edwin, Mr Glasgow and. Mr Allport would be formulated as follows:

Captain Jones —That in order to fraudulently pass his examination as master ho did procure, for the sum of £l7, from Captain Von Schoen, certain papers containing answers to questions purporting to be put in the course of such examination ; and did induce the examiner. Captain Allman, to receive such answers, as if they had been duly written by him in the examination room, whereby he fraudulently obtained a certificate of competency as master.

Against Captain Von Sohoen—That he provided James Jones with the answers to certain questions to be put to him at his examination for master, with intent to enable him to pass such examination fraudently and in contravention of the law, receiving as a consideration therefore certain moneys from the said James Jones. Against Mr Glasgow and Mr Allport— That they allowed James Jones to go vip foe examination as master without having a mate's certificate : that thoy accepted as authority for thus contravening the law a memorandum from the Minister of Marine unsigned, undated, unaddressod. Against Captain Edwin —That without having been present at the examination of James Jones for master he signed a certificate that the examination had been duly passed ; that he knew at the time of such examinations that the examination in question was held in contravention of the law, inasmuch as he knew that Jones did not hold a mate's certificate. Against Captain Allman—That in contravention of the law, and with intent to enable Jones to fraudulently pass lm examination for master, he received from Jonts certain papers prepared before his presenting himself for such examination, and did fraudulently certify that the examination was duly passed. In reply to Dr Findlay and Mr Atkinson, the Court said that they would not allow counsel to address them on the motives that actuated their clients. The addresses must be confined to the facts elicited in the evidence. The Commission adjourned, and resumed at 2 p.m. Mr Hislop said he assumed that he was to be heard on behalf of Mr Pirani, who had made certain allegations. Judge Ward said that the Commission had no power to hear Mr Hislop. as no I counsel appeared for the other side, nor had any witness been called for or against. Dr Findlay submitted that Captain . A'lman was entitled to show the motives which had actuated him in " passing" Jones. ' Judge Ward: We have nothing to do with , motives. The Commissioners are quite preL pared to give him the benefit of the doubt , when he says he believed that he had the authority of the Minister that the thing , was to be done. Mr Hanlon said that Mr Hutcheson had yesterday sworn that at the time he mad» < his speech he did not know that Captain Jones was the man indicated in tli6 infor- : mation given by Captain Von Schoen. Since then he (Mr Hanlon) had been told by Mr Millar that he had been informed by Mr Hutcheson soon after the speech that Jones was the man concerned in the allegations. In the circumstances it might be advisable to recall Mr Hutcheson. If what Mr Hutcheson said in evidence on this point was not", true, it nlacod a diffornnt com-

plexion on the matter. The Commissioners agreed that it would be as well to have both Mr Hutcheson and Mr Millar called to-morrow morning. The Commissioners then intimated that counsel could proceed with their addresses. Dr Findlay decided to leave the ease with the Commissioners without addressing them on behalf of his client (Captain Allman). Mr Travers, who aspeared for Captain

Edwin and Mr Allport, in addressing the Commission, said, with regard to the envelope memo., that although the story was a singular one, and despite the conflicts of evidence, he thought he would be able to show that the story was a clear one. Ho ako that it was clear that two members of the Ministry were desirous of seeing Jones obtain a certificate. He admitted that Mr Seddon had only in view a service certificate, but ho contended that Mr Hall-Jones had also in view the possibility of a certificate of competency being granted. He did not suggest that either of the Ministers wished to see a breach of the law committed, but they were willing to see some of the regulations legally stretched in Captain Jones’ favour. As regards a certificate of competency, he thought the Commission would agree that the relaxing of tho strict regulations on the point could not inflict any wrong or risk upon the public. He contended that the statements of Allman and Allporb made it perfectly inconsistent that Mr Ilall-Jones could have given tho envelope to Allman as a re-

minder ; consequently, he submitted that the evidence of the Minister on that point was entirely, but perhaps not wilfully, incorrect, and that the envelope was intended as a direct instruction. It was clear that the destination of the envelope was the head of the Marine Department or one of tho senior officers. In regard to Captain Edwin having signed the certificate that Jones had duly passed, although he (Edwin) was not present in tho room during tho whole of the examination, counsel pointed out that Captain Edwin only followed what appeared to be the usual custom, although he (Mr Travers) admitted that in this connection his client ! had perhaps been indiscreet. Judge Ward : The Commissioners do not regard that charge as a very serious one. ' Continuing, Mr Travers contended that ' Mr Glasgow and Mr Allport had only ' carried out their instructions from the ’ Minister, although those instructions were ( not absolutely necessary by law. £ Mr Chapman, who appeared for Mr Gias- (

gow, read from Carpenter’s Mental Phy- ) siolrgy to show how a man’s mind might ( become a blank on acertain point, and yet ( full recollection of it come back to him i later on. This he contended was what c had occurred in Mr Glasgow’s case—the s necessary spring had been touched in his r brain and a recollection of having shown a the envelope to Mr Hall-Jones had come 'j back to him. The necessary spring, how- j ever, had not been touched in the Minister’s v memory. He submitted that Mr Allport d and Mr Glasgow had not accepted the en- p velope alone as authority for Jones’ ex- c amination. They also had Ministerial s instructions. r

Mr Atkinson, who appeared for Captain Von Schoen, said that the position with regard to the payment to his client by Captain Jones was this : The payment was merely in connection with the obtaining of a service certificate in 1895; then, if Jones’ statement was true. Von Schoen had designed and originated the whole matter of Jones going up for a competency certificate)

but counsel submitted that there was no evidence to show that the competency certificate was the other part of the original bargain. Von Sohoen was satisfied that, whatever occurred between him and Jones, it would be quite impossible for Jones to pass the examination. Von Sohoen was unable to state what dates payments were made to him by Jones, and the latter even said that Von Schoeu made no extra charge for the competency examination ; and that really meant that there was no payment at all for the competency certificate.

Mr Gray, who appeared for Captain Jones, pointed out that his client had sworn up the last that he only looked for a service certificate. He had told nearly everybody concerned in the case that he was unable to pass an examination- His bargain with Von Schoen was that for £l7 he should procure him a certificate of service. Jones placed himself entirely in Von Schoen's hands, but counsel contended that the service certificate only was running in bis mind. In Von Schoen’s hands, Jones, being

a simple mao, was like wax, and the scheme, which, counsel submitted emanated from the fertile brain of Von Sohoea, carte into operation. It was plain, all through his evidence, that Jones had no intention of connecting Mr Seddon or Mr Hall-Jones with the actual examination for a certificate of competency.

The Commission then adjourned till tomorrow morning.

July 26. When the Commission met Mr Hutcheson was not present.

Mr Hanlon said messengers has Jbeen sent to find bim, and it was perhaps not desirable 'that Mr Millar should give evidence without Mr Hutcheson, being there to heer it and being given a chance to refute if he could.

The Commission therefore adjourned till 2 p.m. to enable Mr Hutcheson to appear. The final sitting of the Marine Commission was held this afternoon.

Mr Millar, M.H.R., recalled, said that shortly after Mr Hutcheson made his speech in the House, Mr Hutcheson told him that Captain Jones was the man he referred te.

Mr Hutcheson, M.H.R., recalled, gave this statement an unqualified denial, saying it was a human impossibility for him to have known the name of the man at the time that the conversation took place. The Commission then finally adjourned.