SHIPPING AND SEAMEN BILL COMMITTEE (REPORT ON), TOGETHER WITH MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS, MINUTES OF EVIDENCE, AND APPENDIX.

Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1902 Session I, I-09

L—9

1902. NEW ZEALAND.

SHIPPING AND SEAMEN BILL COMMITTEE (REPORT ON), TOGETHER WITH MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS, MINUTES OF EVIDENCE, AND APPENDIX.

Report brought up Ist day of October, 1902, and ordered to be printed.

ORDERS OP REFERENCE. Extracts from the Journals of the Rouse of Representatives. Tuesday, the 22nd Day of July, 1902. Ordered, " That a Seleot Committee be appointed, consisting of ten members, to whom shall be referred the Shipping and Seamen Bill; three to be a quorum : the Committee to consist of Mr. E. G. Allen, Mr. Powlds, Mr. A. L. D. Fraser, Mr. Hutcbeson, Mr. Laurenson, Mr. T. Mackenzie, Mr. Millar, Mr. R. Thompson, Mr. Willis, and the mover."—(Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.) Ordered, " That the Shipping and Seamen Bill be referred to a Select Committee."—(Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.)

Wednesday, the 23rd Day of July, 1902. Ordered, " That the petition of A. H. Turnbull and others be referred direct to the Shipping and Seamen Bill Committee."—(Mr. G. J. Smith.)

Thursday, the 24th Day of July, 1902. Ordered, " That the petition of J. H. Bradney and others be referred direct to the Shipping and Seamen Bill Committee."—(Mr. Witheford.)

EBPOET.

The Select Committee to which was referred the Shipping and Seamen Bill has the honour to report that, after taking exhaustive evidence thereon, a,nd having carefully considered the provisions of the Bill and the evidence, recommends that the Bill be allowed to proceed, subject to the amendments shown in the copy attached hereto. The Committee is of opinion that the existing extended river limits should be reduced, and recommends the Minister to have the question of their extent referred to a Commission of experts with a view to having a rearrangement made. Geo. Fowlds, Ist October, 1902. Chairman.

i—l. 9,

' 1.—9

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS.

Friday, 25th July, 1902. The Committee met pursuant to notice. Present: Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones, Mr. B. G. Allen, Mr. Fowlds, Mr. Laurenson, Mr. T. Mackenzie. The Clerk having read the order of reference and also the extracts from the Journals of the House referring the petitions of A. H. Turnbull and others and J. H. Bradney and others for the consideration of the Committee, it was proposed by the Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones, seconded by Mr. Laurenson, That Mr. Fowlds be Chairman of the Committee.—Carried. The Clerk was instructed to insert notices in the Star and Herald newspapers in Auckland, the Times and Press (Christchurch), the Times and Post (Wellington), and the Star and Otago Daily Times (Dunedin), to the effect that the Committee would commence its sittings on Tuesday, the 29th July, and any person wishing to give evidence before them to communicate with the Chairman ; also to write to Mr. Jolliffe, Parliamentary Draftsman, and Mr. Allport, of the Marine Department, to attend the meeting on Tuesday : and give notice of same to Mr. W. Jones, secretary, Seamen's Union (Wellington) ; Mr. W. T. Young, secretary, Australasian Seamen's Union (Wellington); Mr. J. J. Craig (Auckland) ; Mr. W. A. Kennedy, Union Steamship Company (Wellington) ; Captain Munro (Christchurch) ; and Mr. W. Belcher, secretary, Seamen's Union (Dunedin), in order that they might appear before the Committee if they wished to do so. The Clerk was also instructed by the Chairman to distribute copies of last year's Bill to the members of the Committee. The Committee then adjourned until Tuesday, the 29th July.

Tuesday, 29th July, 1902. Present: Mr. G. Fowlds (Chairman), Mr. E. G. Allen, Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones, Mr. Hutcheson, Mr. Laurenson, Mr. T. Mackenzie, Mr. Millar, Mr. B. Thompson, and Mr. Willis. The minutes of previous meeting were read and confirmed. Mr. Hutcheson explained that the reason for his non-attendance at the previous meeting was that he had not received any notice. • It was resolved to proceed to take evidence, and decide on the question of taking evidence of the various Superintendents of Mercantile Marine later on. Mr. Bradney's petition was then read, and Mr. Bradney's evidence taken on same. Mr. C. Croucher, secretary, Marine Officers' Association, and Mr. W. Jones, secretary, Federated Seamen's Union, both of Wellington, also gave evidence on the Bill; and Mr. Jones asked to continue his evidence on next sitting-day (Wednesday). Messrs. Allport and Jolliffe were in attendance. Telegram sent to Mr. Munro, of Turnbull and Co., Christchurch, to attend on Friday, the Ist August. Telegrams to Messrs. Keith Banisay, Dunedin, and Mr. Belcher, sent by the Chairman. Mr. W. T. Young, secretary, Australasian Federated Seamen's Union, Wellington, written to that his evidence would be taken on Thursday, the 31st July. The Committee then adjourned till Wednesday, the 30th July, at 10.30 a.m.

Wednesday, 30th July, 1902. Owing to the late sitting of the House no meeting was held.

Thursday, 31st July, 1902. The Committee met pursuant to notice. Present : Mr. Eowlds (Chairman), Mr. E. G. Allen, Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones, Mr. Hutcheson, Mr. Laurenson, Mr. T. Mackenzie, Mr. Millar, Mr. E. Thompson, and Mr. Willis. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed. Messrs. JolliiTe (Law Draftsman) and Allport (Chief Clerk of the Marine Department) were in attendance. Mr. W. Jones, secretary of the New Zealand Federated Seamen's Union, Wellington, attended and gave further evidence, a shorthand reporter being in attendance for the purpose of taking evidence. Mr. J. F. Kirby, assistant marine superintendent of the Union Steamship Company at Dunedin, attended and gave evidence. Resolved, That this Committee do now adjourn until 10 a.m. to-morrow, Bead and confirmed,

1.—9.

Friday, Ist August, 1902. Present: Mr. Fowlds (Chairman), Mr. E. G. Allen, Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones, Mr. Hutcheson, Mr. Laurenson, and Mr. B. Thompson. The minutes of last meeting were read and confirmed. Mr. Allport, of the Marine Department, and a shorthand reporter were present. Mr Kirbv attended and continued his evidence before the Committee. Captain Munro, shipowner, of Christchurch, also attended and gave evidence. The Committee then adjourned till Tuesday, the sth instant, at 10.30 a.m.

Tuesday, sth August, 1902. Present: Mr. Fowlds (Chairman), Mr. E. G. Allen, Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones, Mr. Hutcheson, Mr. Laurenson, Mr. B. Thompson, and Mr. Willis. The minutes of last meeting were read and confirmed. Mr. Allport, of the Marine Department, and a shorthand reporter were present. Telegrams from Keith Bamsay, Duaedin ;H. Gouldstone, Auckland; and J. K. Kneen, Auckland, were received, and replied to by the Chairman. Mr. Hutcheson asked for copies of the Imperial Shipping Acts for the use of the Committee. The Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones promised to supply them. , TT • n, , Mr. William Thomas Young, secretary of the Australasian Federated Seamen s Union, Wellington Section, then gave evidence on the Bill, and was followed by Mr. William John McLean Tait, mate of the " Mapourika," who had not concluded when the Committee adjourned, and he was asked to attend again on Wednesday, the 6th instant, at 10.30 a.m. It was arranged to take the evidence of Captains Manning and Bolls on Wednesday, the 6th instant, at 10.30 a.m.; and James Mills, general manager, Union Steamship Company, on Friday, the 15th instant; and J. K. Kneen, secretary, Auckland Section, Australasian Federated Seamen's Union, on Tuesday, the 12th instant. The Committee adjourned till Wednesday, the 6th instant, at 10.30 a.m.

Wednesday, 6th August, 1902. Owing to the late sitting of the House no meeting was held.

Thursday, 7th August, 1902. Present: Mr. Fowlds (Chairman), Mr. E. G. Allen, Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones, Mr. Hutcheson, Mr. Laurenson, and Mr. Millar. The minutes of last meeting were read and confirmed. Mr. Allport, of the Marine Department, and a shorthand reporter were present. Mr. Allport laid on the. table copies of the Imperial Merchant Shipping Acts for the use of the was received from Mr. C. Croucher, secretary of the Mercantile Marine Officers' Association, asking when Mr. Tait could continue his evidence. A reply was ordered to be sent fixing Wednesday or Thursday, at his convenience, any time after 10.30 o clock. A letter was also received from Mr. Henry Guthrie, shipowner, of Dunedin, agreeing with the suggestions ol Messrs. Turnbull and Co., of Christchurch, for alterations and additions to the Bill. A deputation representing the ironfounders of the colony, consisting of Messrs. Cable, Wellington ■ McGregor, Dunedin; Bobertson, Wellington; Crabtree, Wellington; Fraser Auckland; Sealer, Wellington; Brindsley, Dunedin; and Winterhall (secretary, Masters Association, Christchurch, was introduced by Mr. George Fisher, M.H.8., and gave evidence on the Bill. Messrs. Keith Bamsay, shipowner and agent, Dunedin, and Alfred Harris, coal-merchant and shipowner, Wanganui, also gave evidence. The Committee then adjourned till Tuesday, the 12th instant, at 10.30 a.m.

Tuesday, 12th August, 1902. Owing to the absence of witness expected no meeting was held.

Thursday, 14th August, 1902. Present: Mr. Fowlds (Chairman), Mr. E. G. Allen, Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones, Mr. Hutcheson, Mr. Laurenson, Mr. T. Mackenzie, and Mr. Millar. The minutes of last meeting were read and confirmed. Mr. Allport, of the Marine Department, and a shorthand-writer were present. The following correspondence was received and dealt with, viz. :— • From Mr. Laurenson, suggesting that Messrs. Duncan, Chief Inspector of Machinery, and Hood, engineer s.s. •• Petone," should be asked to give evidence . Ordered to come up for consideration later. From Marine Department, covering etter from the Dunedin Chamber of Cony merce re claims on shipping companies for cargo short-landed, and pillages : Oidaed *o _be heW over till evidence is being considered. From Marine Department, covering etter fiom James Park Hokitika, re the carrying of a certificated master and engineer on an oil-engined scow that is trading between Westport and Jackson's Bay: Ordered to be held over till evidence „ bemg considered. From Captain Hugh Monro, Christchurch, covering his corrected evidence, and

iii

I.—g

IV

making'further suggestions : Ordered to be attached to his evidence in chief. From W. Jones, secretary, Wellington Branch, Federated Seamen's Union of New Zealand, asking that Mr. A. Kenny be allowed to give evidence :It was resolved to hear Mr. Kenny at this meeting. From J. J. Craig, Auckland, regretting that he would not be able to attend personally and give evidence, and stating that he had asked Mr. Malcolm Niccol to represent him : It was resolved to hear Mr. Niccol on Friday, the 15th instant, if possible. From Henry Hastwell, Wellington, certificated marine engineer, asking to be allowed to give evidence : It was resolved to hear Mr. Hastwell at this meeting. A petition was received from the House of Bepresentatives, from J. J. Craig and seven others, all residents of Auckland, re manning scale and State bounties: Ordered to be held over till evidence is being considered. Captain John Thomas Bolls, of the s.s. " Upolu," representing the Shipmasters' Association, Wellington ; Captain Aylmer Kenny, shipmaster, Picton; and Henry Hastwell, certificated marine engineer, Wellington, then gave evidence on the Bill. It was reported that Mr. James Mills would not be able to be present on the 15th instant as arranged, and it was agreed to take his evidence on the 21st instant if possible. The Committee then adjourned till 10.30 a.m. to-morrow. .

Friday, 15th August, 1902. Present: Mr. Fowlds (Chairman), Mr. E. G. Allen, Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones, Mr. Hutcheson, Mr. Laurenson, Mr. Millar, Mr. B. Thompson, and Mr. A. D. Willis. The minutes of the last meeting were read and confirmed. Mr. Allport, of the Marine Department, and a shorthand-writer were present. Captain Walter Manning, s.s. " Botomahana," on behalf of the Shipmasters' Association, and Malcolm Niccol, late shipowner, Auckland, representing J. J. Craig and others, of Auckland, gave evidence. The Committee then adjourned till Tuesday, the 19th instant, at 10.30 a.m.

Tuesday, 19th August, 1902. Present: Mr. Fowlds (Chairman), Mr. E. G. Allen, Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones, Mr Huicheson, Mr. Laurenson, Mr. Millar, and Mr. B. Thompson. The minutes of last meeting were read and confirmed. Mr. Allport, of the Marine Department, and a shorthand-writer were present. Mr. W. J. M. Tait continued his evidence, and Messrs. Herbert George Paul, chief engineer, s.s. "Waiwera" ; James Stewart, Helensville, representing Northern Union Steamship Company and Auckland Shipowners' Association; John Kenneth Kneen, secretary, Auckland Branch Federated Seamen's Union, gave evidence. Letters were received from H. E. Paul asking to be allowed to give evidence, and from James Stewart asking the Committee to bear Captain Stevenson of the s.s. " Wellington." Mr. Paul gave evidence as above, and it was resolved to hear Captain Stevenson on Thursday. It was agreed to take the evidence of the Chief Inspector of Machinery and the Superintendent of Mercantile Marine on Wednesday, the 20th instant, and to allow Mr. Hood, chief engineer of the s.s. " Petone," and Mr. A. B. Hislop, secretary of the Wellington Branch of the Marine Engineers' Association, to give evidence on the same day if they so desired. . It was resolved to obtain the views of the Superintendents of Mercantile Marine at Auckland, Lyttelton, and Dunedin on the Bill. The Committee then adjourned till Wednesday, the 20th instant, at 10.30 a.m.

Wednesday, 20th August, 1902. Present: Mr. Fowlds (Chairman), Mr. E. G. Allen, Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones, Mr. Hutcheson, and Mr. Laurenson. The minutes of the last meeting were read and confirmed. Mr. Allport, of the Marine Department, and a shorthand-writer were present. Mr Bobert Duncan, Chief Inspector of Machinery for the Colony, and Captain George Gordon Smith, Superintendent of Mercantile Marine, Wellington, were examined. A telegram from Mr. George Niccol, Auckland, was read, suggesting that Captain Beid, Ship-ping-master, at Auckland, should be called to give evidence as to the manning scale proposed in the Bill. It was resolved that Captain Beid be sent for. A letter was also received from Mr. W. T. Young, of the Seamen's Union, Wellington, stating that Mr. Belcher, secretary, Seamen's Union, Dunedin, would arrive in Wellington on Friday, and suggesting that he be the last witness examined on the Bill. A reply was ordered to be sent stating that Mr. Belcher's evidence would be taken on Friday, but that the Committee could not give any undertaking that he should be the last witness called.

Thursday, 21st August, 1902. Present : Mr. Fowlds (Chairman), Mr. E. G. Allen, Hon. Mr, Hall-Jones, Mr. Hutcheson, Mr. Laurenson, Mr. T. Mackenzie, Mr. B. Thompson, and Mr. Willis. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed. Mr. Allport, of the Marine Department, and a shorthand-writer were present.

L—9

Messrs. James Mills, managing director of the Union Steamship Company of New Zealand ; Francis Fletcher, captain of the scow " Ngaru," Auckland ; and Edward Stephenson, captain of the s.s. " Wellington," trading between Auckland and Whangarei, gave evidence before the Committee. Mr. Hutcheson asked that a copy of the ship's official log, the mate's log, and the engineer's log as at present kept on ships be obtained for the use of the Committee. Mr. Allport, of the Marine Department promised to obtain these. The Committee then, adjourned till 10.30 a.m. to-morrow, the 22nd instant.

Friday, 22nd August, 1902. Present: Mr. Fowlds (Chairman), Mr. E. G. Allen, Mr. A. L. D. Fraser, Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones, Mr. Hutcheson, Mr. Laurenson, and Mr. B. Thompson. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed. Mr. Allport, of the Marine Department, and a shorthand-writer were present. Mr. Allport produced a copy of the engineer's log and bridge-book as kept on the Government steamers for the information of the Committee. Mr. J. F. Kirby, of the Union Steamship Company, continued his evidence, and produced for the information of the Committee an engineer's log, an official log, a deck log, a chief engineer's monthly abstract, a master's home-trade official voyage report, a master's intercolonial voyage report, an engineer's report, and sundry other papers. Mr. William Belcher, secretary, Australasian Federated Seaman's Union, Dunedin Branch, was then examined. The Committee adjourned till 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday, the 26th instant.

Tuesday, 26th August, 1902. Present : Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones, Mr. Hutcheson, Mr. Laurenson, Mr. Millar, and Mr. B. Thompson. The Clerk reported that Mr. Fowlds would not be present, and, on the motion of the Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones, seconded by Mr. Thompson, Mr. Laurenson was appointed Acting-Chairman. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed. A letter was received from the Marine Department, covering letter from J. Kirby on the subject of seamen deserters. It was ordered that Mr. Kirby's letter be brought up when the evidence was being considered. Mr. Allport, of the Marine Department, and a shorthand-writer were present at the meeting. Captain William Douglas Beid, Superintendent of Mercantile Marine, Auckland, was then examined, and it was arranged to take the evidence of Captain Marciel, Superintendent of Mercantile Marine, Lyttelton, at next meeting. The Committee then adjourned till 10.30 a.m. to-morrow (Wednesday), the 27th instant.

Wednesday, 27th August, 1902. Present: Mr. Laurenson (Acting-Chairman), Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones, Mr. Hutcheson, and Mr. K. Thompson. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed. Mr. Allport, of the Marine Department, and a shorthand-writer were present. Captain James Alfred Henry Marciel, Superintendent of Mercantile Marine, Lyttelton, was then examined. Mr. Allport, at the request of Mr. Hutcheson, produced for the information of the Committee : Form of Certificate of Discharge; form of Certificate of Discharge and Begister of Service; form of Agreement and Account of Crew, Foreign-going Ship; form of Agreement and Account of Crew, Home-trade only, these being the forms used in New Zealand; also "Continuous Certificate of Discharge " as used under the Board of Trade regulations. The Committee then adjourned till 10.30 a.m. to-morrow (Thursday), the 28th instant.

Thursday, 28th August, 1902. Present: Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones, Mr. Hutcheson, Mr. T. Mackenzie, Mr. B. Thompson, and Mr. Willis. On the motion of Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones, seconded by Mr. Hutcheson, Mr. B. Thompson was appointed Chairman for the meeting. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed. Mr. Allport, of the Marine Department, was present, and produced for the information of the Committee: Form of Permit to sign Articles, and form of Declaration under Section 10 of the Act of 1894. The Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones announced that the Union Steamship Company had cordially invited the Committee to lunch on board the " Monowai " to-day at 1 o'clock, and afterwards to witness a boat and fire drill by the crew. It was resolved that, while thanking the company for its invitation, the Committee could not accept it for to-day, as several of the members could not be present, but that it would be very pleased to avail itself of the company's hospitality on some day next week, to be fixed.

V

1.—9.

The following correspondence was received and dealt with :—From James Mills, Dunedin, enclosing his corrected evidence, and stating that for convenience he had had it retyped : As there appeared to be no vital alterations, it was resolved to allow the retyped copy to go to the printer. From Charles Fleming, Superintendent, Mercantile Marine, Dunedin, stating that he had forwarded his suggestions for the improvement of the Bill through the Secretary of Marine : The Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones subsequently laid Captain Fleming's suggestions on the table, and it was resolved that they be printed with the other evidence. From Mr. M. McGregor, Auckland, on behalf of a large meeting of shipowners held there, conveying resolution protesting against any alteration of the law in regard to river limits. The Committee then adjourned till 10.30 a.m. to-morrow, the 29th instant.

Tuesday, 2nd September, 1902. Present: Mr. Fowlds (Chairman), Mr. E. G. Allen, Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones, Mr. Laurenson, and Mr. Willis. Mr. Allport, of the Marine Department, was also present. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed. The following correspondence was received and dealt with :—From the Trades and Labour Council, Auckland, giving its opinion that the extended river limits exemptions should be excised from the Bill. From Mr. Macky, representing the shipowners of Auckland, stating they were sending delegates, and asking when they should be present : The Chairman reported that he had since heard that the delegates were not now coming. From Trades and Labour Council, Auckland (telegram and letter), on the question of extended river limits. From Mr. McGregor, on behalf of shipowners of Auckland, stating that they were going to petition Parliament on the river-limit question, and that they would not therefore offer further evidence to the Committee. From Mr. James Mills, managing director, Union Steamship Company, Dunedin, giving further evidence on the Bill: It was ordered, That Mr. Mills's letter and enclosure be printed with the evidence. From Mr. W.A. Kennedy, manager, Union Steamship Company, Wellington, inviting the Committee to luncheon on board the " Waihora " at 1 p.m. on Thursday next, and afterwards to witness boat and fire drill by the crew : It was resolved to thank the Union Company for its invitation, and to accept it. It was resolved, on the motion of the Chairman, seconded by Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones, That the taking of evidence be now declared closed. It was also resolved, That the Committee proceed with the consideration of the undisputed clauses of the Bill to-morrow, the 3rd instant, at 10.30 a.m., to which date and hour the Committee adjourned.

Wednesday, 3rd September, 1902. Present: Mr. Fowlds (Chairman), Mr. E. G. Allen, Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones, Mr. Laurenson, Mr. T. Mackenzie, Mr. B. Thompson, and Mr. Willis. Mr. Allport, of the Marine Department, was also present. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed. A letter was received from Mr. W. A. Kennedy, local manager of the Union Company, stating that the company's superintending engineer would be prepared to give evidence if the Committee so desired. It was reported that a reply had "been sent to the effect that the Committee did not desire any further evidence on the engineering clauses of the Bill. The Committee then proceeded to consider the Bill. Clauses 1 to 3 were agreed to. Clause 4. Consideration deferred. Clauses 5 to 13 agreed to. Clause 14. Consideration deferred. Clauses 15 to 20 agreed to. Clauses 21 and 22. Consideration deferred. Clauses 23 to 33 agreed to. - Clause 34 was agreed to, with the addition to section 2, after the words " stamp duty," of the words " and be on a form approved by the Minister." Clauses 35 and 36 were agreed to. Clauses 37 to 43. Consideration deferred. Clauses 44 and 45 agreed to. Clause 46. Consideration deferred. Clauses 47 to 49 agreed to. Clauses 50 to 56. Consideration deferred. Clauses 57 and 58 agreed to. Clauses 59 to 67. Consideration deferred. Clause 68 agreed to, with the following alteration in section 4 : In line 4 of the section the words " (not exceeding one-half) " were struck out, and the words "agreed upon " substituted. Clauses 69 to 74 agreed to. Clause 75. Consideration deferred. Clauses 76 to 78 agreed to. Clauses 79 to 82. Consideration deferred. Clauses 83 to 85 agreed to. Clause 86 agreed to, with the following addition in section (1): of the words "or health" after " life, " in the last line of the section. Clause 87 agreed to.

vi

1.—9

Clause 88 agreed to, with the addition of the words "their respective duties as master, seaman, or apprentice," in the third line, after the word "of." Clause 89 agreed to. Clause 90 agreed to, after the word " inwards," in the fourth line of section 7, had been struck out, and the word " outwards " substituted. Clauses 91 to 104 agreed to. Clause 105. Consideration deferred. Clauses 106 to 115 agreed to. Clauses 116 to 119. Consideration deferred. Clause 120 agreed to. Clauses 121 and 122. Consideration deferred. Clause 123 agreed to, with the addition of the words " Superintendent, Collector of Customs" after the words " complaint to a," in the second line of section 1. Clause 124. Consideration deferred. Clauses 125 to 129 agreed to. Clause 130 agreed to, the word "immediate," in the first line of section (1), being struck out. Clauses 131 to 135. Consideration deferred. Clauses 136 to 140 agreed to. Clauses 141 to 166. Consideration deferred. Clause 167 agreed to, with the addition of the following new subsection to section (1) : " (j) Who, not being a passenger, is on board a ship, and refuses to leave such ship when requested by the master or any officer of the ship." Clauses 168 to 185 agreed to. Clauses 186 to 187. Consideration deferred. Clause 188 agreed to. Clause 189. Consideration deferred. Clauses 190 to 192 agreed to. Clause 193. Consideration deferred. Clauses 194 to 198 agreed to. Clauses 199 to 200. Consideration deferred. Clause 201 agreed to, the words " for attachment," in the second line of subsection (b), being struck out. Clause 202 agreed to. Clauses 203 to 205. Consideration deferred. Clauses 206 to 217 agreed to. Clause 218. Consideration deferred. Clause 219 agreed to. Clause 220. Consideration deferred. Clauses 221 to 230 agreed to. Clause 231. Consideration deferred. Clauses 232 to 235 agreed to. Clause 236 agreed to, with the omission of the words " or occurrence," in the seventh line of section (1). Clauses 237 to 289 agreed to. Clauses 290 and 291. Consideration deferred. Clauses 292 to 296 agreed to. Clause 297. Consideration deferred. Clauses 298 to 334 agreed to. Clause 335 agreed to, the word " white " being substituted for the word " blue," in the third line of the clause ; also omitting the words " white borders " in the same line Clauses 336 to 339 agreed to. Consideration of the schedules was also deferred. The Committee then adjourned till 10.30 a.m. to-morrow, the 4th instant.

Thursday, 4th September, 1902. Present: Mr. Fowlds (Chairman), Mr. E. G. Allen, Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones, Mr. Hutcheson, Mr. B. Thompson, Mr. Laurenson, Mr. T. Mackenzie, Mr. Millar, and Mr. Willis. Mr. Allport, of the Marine Department, was also present. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed. The following correspondence was received: —From James Park, Hokitika, re manning of auxiliary oil-engined vessels. From C. Philpot, Auckland (telegram), re scope of extended river limits. From J. K. Kneen, Auckland, forwarding for inspection of Committee four seamen's discharges. The further consideration of the Bill was then resumed. Clause 37 was unanimously struck out. Clause 38. Section (1), subsection (b), was amended by striking out all the words between " person " in the fourth line and " is " in the fifth line, and adding the vvords " sole and " before the word " constant" in the seventh line. Section 3 : All the words after " pounds," in the third line, were struck out. The clause as amended was then passed. Clause 39. Section (1) was amended by striking out all the words after " employment " in the fifth line, and by striking out the whole of section (2). The clause as amended was then passed. ' Clause 40 was passed without amendment.

vii

1.—9.

Clause 41. Section (2), subsection (b), was amended by striking out the word "sailors "at the end of the subsection, and substituting the words " A.B.s, O.S.s, and boys." A new subsection was also added to section (2): " (h.) The freeboard when loaded." The clause as amended was then passed. Clause 42. The words "or intercolonial" were added after the word " foreign-going m the third line. Section (8) was amended by adding the words " fails to make such indorsement or " after the word " master " in the seventh line. Section (11): The Committee divided on the question of striking out all the words after " terminates," in the fifth line, the voting being :— Ayes, 4 : Mr. E. G. Allen, Mr. Fowlds, Mr. Hutcheson, Mr. Millar. Noes, 3: Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones, Mr. B. Thompson, Mr. Willis. The words were therefore struck out. Subsequently, however, with the unanimous consent of the Committee, the section was reconsidered, and it was resolved that the words be restored. The section was therefore, passed as printed. The clause, with amendments, was then passed. Clause 43. Section (1) was struck out. Section (2) was amended by inserting the words " when the agreement is first signed " before the first word of the section, and by striking out the word " urgency " in the fourth line, the words " may be " and " on board and " in the fifth line, and inserting the words " during the currency of such agreement " after the word " master " in the fifth line. Section (3) was struck out. The clause as amended was then passed. Clause 46. Section (1) was amended by striking out the words " voyage or " before the word " engagement "in the second line. The clause as amended was then passed. Clause 47. Section (1) was amended by inserting the words " or being posted up as provided in the preceding clause, wilfully defaces or destroys " after the word "of" in the second line. The clause as amended was then passed. Clauses 50 and 156 to 159 were passed without amendment. Clause 335 was, with the unanimous consent of the Committee, further considered, and the words " with white borders," in the third line, struck out. The Committee then adjourned till 10.30 a.m. to-morrow, the sth instant.

Friday, sth September, 1902. Present: Mr. Fowlds (Chairman), Mr. E. G. Allen, Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones, Mr. Laurenson, and Mr. B. Thompson. Mr. Allport, of the Marine Department, was also present. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed. A letter was read from Mr. Edwin Hall, secretary of the Auckland Provincial Agricultural Association, covering resolution of his association protesting against any alteration of the law as regards extended river limits vessels at Auckland. The further consideration of the Bill was then resumed : — Clause 21. A new subsection was added to section (1) : " (e 1 .) If the ship is a fishing-boat exclusively employed in fishing on the coast of the colony, whether sea-going or running within river or extended river limits, then with a duly certificated master whose certificate shall be of a grade prescribed by the Minister." Consideration of the remainder of the section was deferred. Clause 1.60. Section (2) was unanimously struck out. The clause as amended was then passed. Clauses 161 to 164 were passed without amendment. Clause 165 was amended by adding the words "under fifty tons register" after the word " yachts " in the second line of the clause, and by striking out all the words after " apprentices " in the fourth section. The clause as amended was then passed. Clause 166. The clause was amended by striking out the word " skippers " in the fourth line, and substituting the word "masters," and by striking out altogether sections (1), (2), (5), and (8). The clause as amended was then passed. Clause 199 was passed without amendment. Clause 200 was amended by adding the word " Surveyor " after the word " Superintendent" in the first line of subsection (c), section (1). The clause as amended was then passed. Clause 201 was, with the unanimous consent of the Committee, reconsidered, and the word " fitted " in the second line of subsection (b), section (1), was struck out, and the word " attached " substituted therefor. .-,,,. ,„, , I■,, ,• , Clause 203 was amended by striking out the words " clear side in the fifth and sixth lines of section (1) ,and substituting the word " freeboard." Section (5) was transferred to the interpretation clause 'of the Bill (clause 4). The clause as amended was then passed. Clause 204 was amended by striking out the word " forty " in the first line of section (1), and substituting the word " twenty " therefor. The clause as amended was then passed. Clause 205 was amended by striking out the word " forty " in the second line of section (1), and substituting therefor the word " twenty." The clause as amended was then passed. The Committee then adjourned till 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday, the 9th instant.

Tuesday, 9th September, 1902. Present : Mr. Fowlds (Chairman), Mr. E. G. Allen, Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones, Mr. Hutcheson, Mr. Laurenson, Mr. Millar, Mr. B. Thompson. Mr. Allport, of the Marine Department, was also present. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed.

viii

1.—9.

Mr. Millar asked the Minister in charge of the Bill to procure for the use of the Committee at its next meeting: Copies of articles of steamers or sailing-vessels trading in restricted limits; increase of sailing tonnage registered in New Zealand for past five years ; total English tonnage for past five years or thereabouts. The further consideration of the Bill was then resumed:— Clause 14 was amended by adding the words " and that the provisions of this Act referring to load-lines are complied with " after the words " may be" at the end of subsection (g), section (1). The clause as amended was then passed. Clause 51. The Committee divided on the question of striking out sections (2) and (3), the voting being :— Ayes, 3: Mr. Allen, Mr. Hutcheson, Mr. Millar. Noes, 4 : Mr. Fowlds, Hon. Mr. HallJones, Mr. Laurenson, Mr. Thompson. The sections named were therefore retained. Section (2) was amended by striking out the words "or foreign " after the word " home " in the second line, the word " such " after the words " years on " in the third line, the words " on a " before the word "square" at the end of the third line, the words "on a" before the word "registered" in the fourth line, and by adding the words "as an ordinary seaman" after the word " years " in the third line. A new section was added as follows : " (2a.) Provided that when service has been on a steamship only the discharge shall be so indorsed." The clause as amended was then passed. Clause 52. Section (1) was amended by adding the words " provided that a Superintendent may remit the charge if he sees fit " after the word " articles " in the eighth line. Section (3) was passed provisionally on the restricted limit clauses, yet to be dealt with, requiring it. The clause as amended was then passed. Clause 53. Section (1) was amended by adding the words " or for three months in a similar capacity on land " after the word " trade " in the third line, and section (3) by adding the words "or greaser" after the word "fireman" in the first line. The clause as amended was then passed. Clause 218. Section (1) was amended by adding the words " flax, tow, or skins " after the word " wool" in the first line. The clause as amended was then passed. Clause 220 was passed without amendment. Clause 231. Two new subsections were added to section (3), as follows: " (a.) And as far as possible the Assessor shall have had experience in the trade in which the casualty happens, (b.) A Superintendent shall attend investigations when requested by the Minister to do so, and shall have the right to put questions to witnesses." A new section was also added : " The Magistrate may grant a change of venue." The general consideration of the clause was deferred. Clause 290 was amended by striking out all the words after " from " in the sixth line to the word " dangers "in the eighth line. The clause as amended was then passed. Clause 291 was amended by striking out the word " sea-going " after the word " British " in the first line of the clause. The clause as amended was then passed. Clause 298. It was agreed to add a proviso to this clause, draft to be supplied by Minister. The Committee then adjourned till 10.30 a.m. to-morrow (Wednesday), the 10th instant.

Wednesday, 10th September, 1902. Present: Mr. Fowlds (Chairman), Mr. E. G. Allen, Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones, Mr. Hutcheson, Mr. Laurenson, Mr. T. Mackenzie, Mr. Millar, Mr. Willis. Mr. Allport, of the Marine Department, was also present. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed. The Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones produced, for the information of the Committee, statements showing the number and net tonnage of sailing and steam vessels on the registers in the United Kingdom and New Zealand. A letter was received from Mr. N. D. Hood, president, Wellington Institute Marine Engineers, strongly supporting section 155 as printed. Consideration of the Bill was then resumed:— Clause 54. Section 1 was amended by adding the words " Provided further that the Governor may by Order in Council prescribe the number of firemen, greasers, and trimmers to be carried by vessels propelled by turbine." These words to come in after the word "carried "at the end of the second proviso. Section (3) was also amended by striking out the words " two men of a full crew as aforesaid " at the end of the first line and the beginning of the second line of the section, and substituting therefor " one-fifth of her complement of men in the engine-room, or one-fifth of her complement in the deck departments as prescribed in the Third Schedule, and each department shall be considered separately in arriving at the quota." Section (4) was amended by striking out the words " other than sailing-ships " at the end of the first line and beginning of the second line of the section, and substituting therefor " propelled by steam or other mechanical power." The clause as amended was then passed. Clause 55 was passed without amendment. Clause 56. Section (1) was amended by adding the words " and shall also return to him any previous discharges belonging to. such seaman, that may be in his possession " after the word " discharge " in the fifth line, and adding the words " in either case " after the word " fails " in the said fifth line. The clause as amended was then passed. Clause 59 was passed without amendment. Clause 60. Section (2j was amended by inserting the words " which shall be initialed or signed by the seaman " after the word " deductions "in the third line. The clause as amended was then passed. Clauses 61 and 62 were passed without amendment. Clause 63 was amended by inserting the word " steam " before the word " ship " at the beginning of the second line. The clause as amended was then passed. ii—l. 9.

ix

T q

X

Clauses 64 to 67 were passed without amendment. Clause 75 was amended by adding the words " and the Collector of Customs shall detain the final clearance of such ship until he is satisfied that the crew has been paid the current rate of wages ruling in the colony, or any difference between the agreed rate of such seamen's wages and the colonial rate of wages " after the word " payable " at the end of section (2). The clause as amended was then passed. Clauses 79 to 82 were passed without amendment. Clause 105 was amended by adding the words: " Provided that this section shall not apply at any port within the Australian Commonwealth in the case of men being absent from their ship at the time of sailing" at the end of clause (4). The clause as amended was then passed. Clause 297 was passed without amendment. A new clause was added after clause 297 : " 297 a. When any person takes, puts, or causes to be taken or put, on board any ship any gold, silver, diamonds, watches, jewels, or precious stones, he shall furnish to the owner or agent of the ship a list of such articles, with their value; and in the event of their being lost or destroyed the owner of the ship shall not be liable to pay a greater amount than such declared value. If the value of the articles is not declared at or before the time of shipment the owner of the ship shall not, in the event of their loss or destruction, be liable to pay more than fifty pounds. The owner of the ship may charge a special rate of freight for the carriage of such articles, whether they are put or taken on board as cargo or passengers' luggage." The Committee then adjourned till 10.30 a.m. on Friday, the 12th instant.

Friday, 12th September, 1902. Present : Mr. Fowlds (Chairman), Mr. E. G. Allen, Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones, Mr. Hutcheson, Mr. Laurenson, Mr. Millar, Mr. B. Thompson, and Mr. Willis. Mr. Allport, of the Marine Department, was also present. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed. A letter was received from William Belcher, secretary, Dunedin Section Australasian Federated Seamen's Union, in favour of the amendments proposed by the union delegates being embodied in the Bill. A circular was also received from J. W. Williams, secretary, Shipmasters' Association of New Zealand, giving the views of his committee of management as to the alterations that should be made in the Bill. The Marine Department produced for the information of the Committee 50 copies of articles of steamers and sailing-vessels trading in restricted river limits ; also copy of telegram from Superintendent of Mercantile Marine at Auckland, giving wages paid in Auckland restricted river limits, and number of vessels on articles in said limits. Consideration of the Bill was then resumed:— Clauses 117 and 118 were passed without amendment. Clause 119. Section (3), subsection (j), was amended by striking out of the sixth line the 'words " one month," and substituting therefor the words " fourteen days." The clause as amended was then passed. Clause 121. Section (1), subsection (b), was amended by adding the words " mate and " after the word " each "in the first line of the subsection. The clause as amended was then passed. Clause 124. Section (1) was amended by adding the words "that incapacitates from work" after the word " accident " in the first line ; the words " the master thereof shall forwith report to " after the first word "ship" in the second line; and the words "who shall "after the word " colony "in the third line ; and by striking out the word " shall "in the second line. The clause as amended was then passed, subject to its being revised by the Law Draftsman. Clause 131. Section (1) was amended by adding the words "but shall as far as possible deliver them up to the Superintendent or Collector of Customs at the place of desertion, or at first port of arrival " after the word " board "at the end of the section. Section (2) was also amended by striking out all the words after " leave " in the eighth line down to " and " in the ninth line, and all the words after "pay" in the eleventh line down to " any " in the thirteenth line, and by adding the word "or " after the word " pay" in the eleventh line. The clause as amended was then passed. Clause 132. Section (1) was amended by adding the word " or " after the word "master" in the third line, and by striking out the words " owner, agent, or consignees " from the fourth line. Section (2) was amended by striking out all the words after " requires " in the second line, down to the word " convey "in the third line. Section (3) was amended by adding the word "or " after the word " master " in the third line, and by striking out all the words after " mate " in the third line. Section (4) was amended by striking out the word " Justice " in the fifth line, and substituting therefor " Stipendiary Magistrate, or where there is no Stipendiary Magistrate available, then two Justices of the Peace." The clause as amended was then passed. Clause 133 Section (1) was amended by striking out all words after " earned " in the eleventh line to the end of the section. Section (2) was amended by adding the words "of a foreign-going ship after signing articles " after the word " apprentice "in the first line. The clause as amended was then passed. The following definition of " deserter " was added to the interpretation clause of the Bill: " ' Deserter ' means any seaman or apprentice who is absent from his ship without leave for a period of forty-eight hours without lawful cause or excuse, or any unlawful departure or absence from his ship with the intention of not returning thereto." The Committee then adjourned till 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday next, the 16th instant.

1.—9

XI

Wednesday, 17th September, 1902. Present: Mr. Fowlds (Chairman), Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones, Mr. Hutcheson, Mr. Laurenson, Mr. Millar, Mr. Thompson, and Mr. Willis. Mr. Allport, of the Marine Department, was also present. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed. Clause 124 as amended by the Law Draftsman was submitted, and it was resolved to incorporate it in the Bill as revised. Consideration of the Bill was then resumed: — Clauses 116 and 122 were passed without amendment. Clause 134. Section (1), subsection (b), was amended by striking out the word "five" in the sixth line, and substituting the word "two"; and by striking out the word "seven" in the seventh line, and substituting the word " two " therefor. Subsection (d) was also amended by striking out the word " three " in the seventh line, and inserting the word " one " in lieu thereof. The Committee divided on the question of striking out the word "all" at the end of the eighth line, the voting being :— Ayes A : Mr. Fowlds, Mr. Hutcheson, Mr. Laurenson, Mr. Willis. Noes, 2 : Mr. Thompson, Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones. The word was therefore struck out. The words "one month's" were then substituted for the word " all," and all the words after " wages," in the ninth line, struck out. The clause as amended was then passed, subject to the addition of a proviso to be submitted by the Minister affecting assaults by the master or officers. Clause 135 was amended by adding the words " where no penalty has been imposed" before the word " nothing " at the beginning of the section. Clause 141 was struck out altogether. Clause 142 was amended by striking out section (2). The clause as amended was then passed. Clause 143 was amended by striking out all the words after "be" in the third line of the clause, and substituting therefor "the words " handed over to the Superintendent of Marine at the first port of call after such forfeiture, who shall pay the same into the Public Account." Clauses 144 to 150 were passed without amendment. Clause 151. Section (4) was amended by striking out all the words after " relates " in the second line of the section. The clause as amended was then passed. Clause 152. Section (6) was amended by inserting the word " birth " after " every " and "or death " after " marriage "in the first line. A new section was also added : " (11a.) Every stranding or fire, and the circumstances under which the same occurred." The clause as amended was then passed. Clauses 153 and 154 were passed without amendment. Clause 155. Section (1): The Committee divided on the question of striking out the word " official " in the second line of the section, the voting being :— Ayes, 5: Mr. Allen, Mr. Fowlds, Mr. Hutcheson, Mr. Laurenson, Mr. Millar. Noes, 2 : Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones, Mr. Thompson. The word was therefore struck out. The section was further amended by inserting the word " engineroom " before the word " log " in the second line, and by striking out all the words in the fourth line, and inserting in lieu thereof the words " the engineer on watch at the time of any occurrence being recorded." Section (3) was amended by striking out all the words after "relates" in the second line. Section (4) was amended by striking out all the words after " same " in the fourth inc. Section (5), subsection (a), was amended by inserting the words "as far as possible " after the word " bridge "in the first line. Subsection (b) was amended by striking out all the words after "vacuum " in the second line. Section (6) was amended by striking out the word "ship "in the first line, and the words "of each " in the second line. Section (7) was amended by striking out the word "official." in the first line, and substituting the word "engine-room." Section (8) was amended by striking out the word "official" in the first line, and inserting in lieu thereof " engineroom;" and by striking out the word "five" in the last line of the section, and substituting " three" therefor. Section (9) was amended by striking out the word "official" in the second line, and substituting therefor the word " engine-room;" and by striking out the word " thirty "in the last line and inserting " twenty "in lieu thereof. Section (10) was amended by striking out the word " official " in the "second and fourth lines, and inserting the word " engine-room " in lieu thereof. Section (11) was amended by striking out the word " his " at the beginning of the third line, and inserting the word " the " in lieu thereof ; and by adding the words, after the word " log" in the third line " and the engine-room log shall at all times be open to inspection by the master and surveyor." Section (12) was amended by striking out the words "or extended river limits "in the second line. . The Committee then adjourned till 10.30 a.m. to-morrow, the 18th instant.

Thursday, 18th September, 1902. Present • Mr Fowlds (Chairman), Mr. E. G. Allen, Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones, Mr. Hutcheson, Mr. Laurenson, Mr. Millar, and Mr. B. Thompson. Mr. Allport, of the Marine Department, was also present. , The minutes of the previous meeting were read and connrmecl. Consideration of the Bill was resumed :— The following new clauses were added :— ~..,, t " 217 a The Governor in Council may from time to time make regulations respecting the loading and stowage, on any British ship, of ballast of any description, and may prescribe a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds for breach of such regulations." "280 a (Bemoval of wreck.) (I.) If any vessel is stranded or abandoned on the sea-shore outside the'limits of a harbour, the Minister may, by notice in writing require the owner of the vessel to remove it or any part thereof, from the sea-shore to the satisfaction of the Minister withm

1.—9

such time as may be specified in the notice. (2.) In. case the owner fails to comply with such notice the Minister may remove the wreck, and may recover from the owner in any Court of competent jurisdiction the expenses incurred in removing it. (3.) The Minister may for the purpose of removal destroy the wreck or any part of it, and may remove and take possession thereof, and sell the same, and may out of the proceeds of the sale reimburse himself for the whole of the expenses of removal, and shall pay the surplus, if any, to the owner. (4.) If the proceeds of such sale are insufficient to pay the whole expenses of removal, the Minister may recover the balance from the owner." Clause 130 was unanimously reconsidered, and a new clause added: " 130 a. Any master, mate, or engineer of a ship who wilfully assaults any engineer, seaman, or apprentice belonging to the same ship as such master, mate, or engineer shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds, or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months. Clause 223 was also unanimously reconsidered, and the following words added after the word " undermanning "in the fourth line of section (1): " or, in the case of a steamship, by reason of having insufficient coal or other fuel on board for the intended voyage." Clause 14 was reconsidered, and the words " of ships " in the fourth line of section (1) struck out. Clause 24 was further considered, and the words " shall be a British subject, and " added after the word " engineer" in the second line. Clause 21. Section (1) was amended by striking out all the words from the beginning of the section down to and including " passengers "in the second line. The following words were added to subsection (b), section (1) : " Provided that any ship running more than three hundred miles between terminal ports shall carry a second mate holding a certificate not lower than that of master of a fishing-boat or cargo-vessel under twenty-five tons register." The words to come in at the end of the subsection. Subsection (c), section (1), was amended by striking out all words after " foreign-going ship " in the first line, and the words " one mate " and " the " in the second line, and adding the word "a" after the word "least" in the second line. Subsection (c), section (1), was amended by striking out the word " of " in the first line, the words " and over" at the beginning of the second line, and by inserting the word " over " between the words " ship " and " twenty " and the word " five " after the word " twenty "in the first line. A new subsection was added : " (dl.) If the ship is a cargo-vessel only of over five tons or up to twenty-five tons inclusive net register, then with a duly certificated master whose certificate shall be of a grade prescribed by the Minister." A new subsection was added after subsection (m): " (m 2.) Or is a ship propelled by steam or other mechanical power." The proviso to the section was amended by striking out all the words after " passengers " in the fourth line down to and including the word " ship "in the sixth line, and all the words after " water" in the last line of the proviso; and adding the words, after the said word " water," " then with a master holding a certificate of not lower grade than that prescribed for master of fishing-boat or cargo-vessel of twenty-five tons and under." A further proviso was added : " Provided that the Minister may issue a service certificate to any person who prior to the passing of this Act has for a period of not less than one year been in charge of a ship as prescribed in this section." The clause, with the addition of the subsection passed per minutes of the sth September, and the amendments detailed herein, was then passed. Clause 22. Section (1) was amended by inserting between the tenth and eleventh lines the words " Master of fishing-boat or cargo-vessel under twenty-five tons register." The following proviso was added to section (2) : " Provided that the holder of a second mate's foreign-going certificate shall be entitled to ship as mate of a home-trade ship." The clause as amended was then passed. Clause 186. Section (1) was amended by striking out the words " only so " in the seventh line, the word "far" at the beginning of the eighth line, and the words "if built out of the colony "in the ninth line ; and by inserting the word " not " after the word " shall" in the sixth line, the word " except" after the word " survey "in the seventh line, and the words "if built out of the colony, then when she " after the word "or" at the end of the eighth line. The clause as amended was then passed. Clause 187 was passed without amendment. Clause 189. Section (3) was amended by striking out the word " person " in the fourth line, and inserting in lieu thereof the word " officer." The clause as amended was then passed. Clause 193. A new section was added : " (4.) There shall be paid by the master or owner the following fees on account of a ship which in consequence of damage affecting her seaworthiness or efficiency, that is to say, for the first survey the sum of two pounds, and for each subsequent survey the sum of one pound." The clause as amended was then passed. Clause 231 was passed as amended per minutes of the 9th September. The Committee then adjourned till 10.30 a.m. to-morrow, the 19th instant.

Friday, 19th September, 1902. Present: Mr. Fowlds (Chairman), Mr. E. G. Allen, Mr. Hutcheson, Mr. B. Thompson, and Mr. Willis. Mr. Allport, of the Marine Department, was also present. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed, but it was pointed out that the amendment of clause 21, after subsection (m) section (1), were not put as the Committee intended, and the Clerk was instructed to insert the subsection, as amended, in these minutes. The subsection should read as follows : ." (?»2.) If the ship is a ship propelled by any mechanical power plying within river or extended river limits, and which does not hold a certificate of survey authorising "the carriage of passengers, or is a ship propelled by steam or other mechanical power,

xii

1.—9

although carrying passengers, on any navigable lake or inland navigable water, then with a master holding a certificate of not lower grade than that prescribed for master of fishing-boat or cargo-vessel of twenty-five tons and under : Provided that the Minister may issue a service certificate to any person who prior to the passing of this Act has for a period of not less than one year been in charge of a ship as prescribed in this subsection." Clause 4 (interpretation) was then considered. The words " intercolonial trading ship or " were struck out of the fourteenth line. The definition of "desertion," as per minutes of the 12th September, was inserted after the definition of " Consular officer," and the definition of " free board," as per minutes of the sth September, after the definition of "foreign-going ship." The clause as amended was then passed. Schedule 1 was passed without amendment. Schedule 2. The fee for examination of second-class engineers of ship propelled by mechanical power other than steam was reduced to 10s., and the fee for examination of restricted-limits engineer of the like description of ship was reduced to the same amount. The fee for examination of master of fishing-boat or cargo-vessel under 25 tons was fixed at 10s. The schedule as amended was then passed. Schedules 3, 6, and 7 were deferred for future consideration. Schedules 4, 5, and Bto 15 were passed without amendment. The Marine Department produced for the information of the Committee a list of casualties to steamers, &c, within Auckland restricted limits from the Ist April, 1890, to the 31st March, 1902. The letter from the Dunedin Chamber of Commerce minuted on the 14th August was referred to the Crown Law Draftsman, with a request that he should draft a clause for insertion in the Bill to meet the case complained of by the Chamber. The Committee then adjourned till such time as the Chairman should think it advisable to call it again.

Thursday, 25th September, 1902. Present: Mr. E. G. Allen, Mr. Fowlds, Mr. Millar, and Mr. Willis. Mr. Allport, of the Marine Department, was also present. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed. Schedule 3 was passed, with the following addition to the end of the schedule : " In the case of steamships over 200 tons register not authorised to carry passengers the number of A.B.s required to be carried may be one less than specified in this schedule." Schedules 6 and 7 were passed without amendment. The following new clauses were added to the Bill: — " 297b. (1.) The agents in New Zealand of any ship not registered in New Zealand shall be deemed to be the legal representatives of the master and owner of the ship after the departure of the ship from the port at which she was discharged for the purpose of receiving and paying claims for short delivery or pillage of cargo ; and the amount of any such claim may be recovered from such agents in any Court of competent jurisdiction : " Provided that it shall be lawful for such agents, by notice in writing delivered to the Collector not later than twenty-four hours before the departure of any ship, to decline to accept any responsibility under this section in respect of that ship, in which case the master and some other person approved by the Collector shall, before the ship is allowed her clearance, enter into a joint and several bond, in a sum not exceeding the value of her cargo as shown by the ship's papers, for the payment of any sum which, together with costs, may be recovered against the agents of such ship. " (2.) No proceedings for the recovery of any claim under this section shall be taken unless notice of the claim is given to the agents not less than seven days after the delivery of the cargo in respect of which the claim is made." " 297 c. Every bill of lading issued by the manager, agent, master, or owner of a ship, and signed by any person purporting to be authorised to sign the same, shall be binding on the master and owner of the ship as if the bill of lading had been signed by the master." Clause 298 was reconsidered, and the words " except the last preceding section " inserted after the second word " or " in the fourth line. Mr. Millar moved, That this Committee recommend to the Government that the extended river limits should be reduced, and in no case extend ten miles beyond the mouth of any river or harbour limit, and only be granted in waters landlocked. Mr. Fowlds moved, That this Committee is of opinion that the extended river limits should be reduced, and would recommend the Minister to have the question of their extent referred to a Commission of experts with a view to having a rearrangement made. Mr. Fowlds's motion was carried, and the Clerk was instructed to have it embodied in the Committee's report to the House. It was resolved to recommend the House to allow the Bill to be proceeded with as amended by the Committee. On the motion of Mr. Allen, seconded by Mr. Willis, a hearty vote of thanks was accorded Mr. Fowlds for his great attention and ability in carrying out the duties of Chairman. The Committee then finally adjourned.

iii—l. 9.

xiii

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.

Tuesday, 29th July, 1902. Captain J. H. Bradney, of Auckland, examined. (No. 1.) 1. Mr. Millar.] You have had some experience of Auckland Harbour ?—Yes. 2. Do you trade outside Auckland Harbour at all ?—Not outside. lam restricted to the river limits. 3. In your opinion, as a practical man, do you consider that a vessel ought to be allowed to run between the boundaries of Bream Head and Cape Colville—outside the limits fixed by the present shipping laws of the colony ?—I do not. 4. I suppose, in your experience you can tell the Committee that very heavy weather is met with there sometimes ?—Yes, very heavy. 5. You consider that those limits are too great ?—I think any man trading outside the present river limits should be qualified. 6. Do you think, as a practical man, that there should be no such thing as an extended limit beyond three miles outside the harbour? —I think that is a very fair thing. 7. You consider that outside that all vessels should be placed on the same footing?— Yes. 8. Mr. Hutcheson.] Your petition refers mostly to the conditions as to master than to the engineer ?—I am not asking for any change with regard to engineers for oil-engines. Engineers recognise that a man would soon learn to drive an oil-engine without having passed the necessary qualifications for steam. 9. The conditions as to the various grades of mates and masters are the same whether the vessel is propelled by steam or any other motive power? There is no distinction between the masters' certificates? —None whatever. There are just three grades. 10. And you do not ask for any distinction as between the steam and other motive-power vessels in your petition ?—No. 11. Do you think, if a disaster took place, it would matter much whether it occurred at Whangarei or in Auckland Harbour, so far as the drowning of the people was concerned ?—I think not. 12. The same amount of skill would be required in handling a vessel with regard to the rule of the road whether it was in a small or a large harbour ?—Yes. 13. In your petition you are concerned as to the capacity of the men who have to take care of the lives of others ?—Yes. 14. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] You simply ask that the two classes of boats shall be placed on the same footing ?—Yes, except for engineers. 15. You would allow the present exemption to stand ?—Yes, except with regard to the master and life-saving apparatus. 16. You have had some questions put to you with regard to the restricted limits in the Auckland District: you know that district well ?—Yes, very fairly. lam a resident of Auckland the last forty-two years, and have been twelve years at sea. 17. When Mr. Millar said it would be unsafe to allow anything to go outside three miles of the harbour, your reply was, with a knowledge of the circumstances in Auckland Harbour and between Bream Head and Cape Colville? —Yes. I know that a great many masters are manufactured on the Waikato Biver. They may be bullock-drivers who have had a fancy to go on a boat, and after being twelve months on a boat they qualify as a master, and are admitted to any vessel in any harbour of New Zealand. If they remained on the Waikato Biver it would be right enough, but the chances are that they become ambitious, and in time, when you come to town, you might find them in charge of vessels running to Whangarei; and I think, in the interests of the travelling public and shipowners generally, it is too much to ask that these men should be allowed to take vessels outside the harbour, for which a man certainly requires a certain amount of nautical experience. 18. Mr. R. Thompson.] In your remarks you refer to masters who have qualified on the Waikato Biver : have you ever known them to be placed in charge of passenger-vessels ?—Yes. 19. Where ? —There is one running now to Kawau. 20. You mentioned that sometimes they have vessels running to Whangarei ? —I said it was possible. There is nothing to prevent it. I certainly know men who are running to the extreme of the restricted limits who really are not sailors. 21. I suppose that would be in small sailers?—No; passenger-vessels, and a very nice class of vessels too —much superior to anything I have seen down here. 22. Mr. Willis.] Do you think there would be any danger to any of those little launches running down the Wanganui, where it is calm water and any one can manage a launch? Do you think it is necessary that the master of such a boat should go through an examination ?—I do not see that you can make one law for one place and another law for another place. It should be made to apply to every part of the colony. Ido not know the conditions in Wanganui, but it is unfair for a man who has passed an examination to be prevented from making a living. All other trades are protected. It is all very well from one point of view, but you may be taking the bread out of a man's mouth. I—l. 9.

1.—9.

[C. CBOUCHER.

23. Where there are only a few little boats and few or no passengers should not an exception be made?—lt should be left to the authorities to arrange for in places like Wanganui. The trouble is that when a man is exempt from carrying a master or an engineer he gets a boat, and is not particular whether she is a sea-going boat or not, and there is nothing to prevent him carrying passengers. 24. Do you not think it would be possible for the Harbour Board to give licenses so as to meet those particular cases —such as pleasure launches, and whether it would be expedient to stop these launches running because in other cases it might be necessary that masters should be appointed ? —I think that in all vessels plying for hire they should be compelled to carry masters. 25. Mr. R. Thompson.] When you speak of vessels carrying passengers do you mean that that should apply to a boat capable of carrying fifteen or twenty passengers? —Yes, to any boat. 26. Have you any reason to state to the Committee why a man holding a master's certificate would be any better or more capable to manage a small boat of that kind than a man who has spent the best part of his life as a boatman and knows every nook and corner of the harbour, but who simply because he has not been to sea, is not considered competent ?—He wants twelve months' experience on a vessel before applying for his certificate and then he is qualified. It is not necessary to go to sea to do harbour-work. If he has had twelve months' experience on a harbour boat that qualifies him if he can prove to the examiners that he is a fit and proper person to take charge of a boat. 27. Mr. Millar.] What constitutes the safety of passengers under the master of a boat: is it not a complete knowledge of the rule of the road ?—Certainly. 28. Would not the knowledge of a certificated master make him observe the rule of the road, and is there not a greater liability of a collision taking place where there is an uncertificated man on the same water? —Yes. 29. The risk to those in the boat managed by an experienced man is equally great, and both are jeopardized?— Yes. 30. It is absolutely essential that men passing an examination should have a knowledge of the rule of the road ? —Yes. 31. Mr. Hutcheson.] Do you believe that the State has a right to interfere and satisfy itself as to the competency of any man who is intrusted in any capacity with the lives of other men ?—I certainly do. 32. The Chairman.] Have you anything further to lay before the Committee ?—I should like to say something with regard to the various petitioners. The owners, suffer from unfair competition. They have provided certificated masters, and carry engineers and life-saving apparatus, and are subject to annual inspections, and in some cases to half-yearly inspections, at an annual cost of £2 10s. for small vessels and £5 for large ones. And that is not the only expense. The examiners are very strict nowadays, and the vessels have to go on the slip, and the engines are pulled all to pieces, the shaft hauled in and out, and a thorough inspection given. If you are a small owner, as I am, with only one boat, you have to hire another boat while your own is undergoing an inspection, so that you can consider that the examination fees and expenses of a small boat will run into £35 or £40. Contrast that with an oil-launch, the owner of which is under no examination up to a certain tonnage. He can build any kind of boat and knock it together with wire nails. A boat that would be licensed to carry six if run by steam—this is an actual fact which occurred on the Waitemata Biver on Coronation Day—if run by oil may carry twenty-two passengers for hire. 33. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] What is the name of that boat?—l do not think she has a name. She is owned by a settler up the river. 34. Where does she ply?—The owner uses her for his own accommodation. 35. Where was she carrying passengers from ?—From Biverhead to Auckland. When the Customs authorities sought to interfere they found they had no authority. With regard to master mariners, if these launches are allowed to run without certificates these men are debarred from getting work at their own profession and have to go into the ranks of the unemployed. Now with regard to the engineers. They say that these oil-engines are an American production. 36. The Chairman.] Not all of them ?—Most of them. In Auckland most of them have been made by the Union Oil-engine Company of San Francisco, and I believe they are admitted to this country free of duty, and also the oil for their consumption. There seems to be encouragement offered to oust steam-engines of our own manufacture. We have to pay 25 per cent, duty on imported steam-engines. There might be some excuse for this if it were proved that oil was a better power than steam and was likely to render steam obsolete, but I think it has been proved beyond doubt that it is very incomplete and not at all likely to supersede steam at any time. I think if it is necessary for the public safety to have a master in charge of a vessel propelled by steam and going two or three knots an hour it must also be necessary for the public safety to have a master for a vessel if propelled by any other power. In talking to one of the members the other day he suggested that small steam and oil launches should be placed on the same footing; but I think that would be a great mistake in the public interest, because the tendency would be to build boats as cheaply as possible and to overload them, and sooner or later there would be a disaster. C. Crouoher, Secretary, New Zealand Mercantile Marine Officers' Association, examined. (No. 2.) 37. The Chairman.] Have you any remarks to offer on the Shipping and Seamen's Bill?— Yes. I did not think I should be called to-day and am not quite prepared. I have left some papers in my office, but have some suggestions I would like to make. I would suggest that the words " one hundred " in subsection (b), section 21, be struck out, and the word " fifty" be substituted therefor ; and that the following proviso be added: " That every ship trading between ports more

2

C. CROUCHEE.j

I 9_

3

than fifty miles apart shall have at least one officer beside the master, such officer holding a certificate not lower than that of only mate in the case of a foreign-going vessel, or mate in the case of a home-trade vessel." 38. Briefly give your reasons ?—My reason for it is that most of the owners of vessels of over 50 tons are carrying certificated masters, and I think that all vessels of over 50 tons and running over fifty miles should have a certificated mate as well as the master, because they are at sea in the night-time and the moment the master leaves the bridge there is danger to navigation, and there should be two competent men on board, one to take charge of the deck when the other is resting. We feel that it is right that the law should compel owners to do this, because if they complied strictly with the Act we feel that there would be many more accidents than there are through having incompetent men on the vessel. Many of the owners have certificated mates as it is, although the law does not provide for it. I suggest that subsection (c), "If the ship is a foreign-going ship and carries more than one mate, then with at least the first and second mate duly certificated," be amended by leaving out the words " and carries more than one mate." There is no doubt that foreign-going intercolonial ships should be compelled to ca.rry two mates. The master may be required at any moment to be on deck for the safety of the ship. Therefore we think it only right that he should have the time off, so that he may be called at any emergency, and have the first and second mates keeping watch. Another suggestion is that subsection (d) be struck out altogether. This is necessary to be consistent with the principle as to the river limits. My association feels that these river limits should be restricted to the five miles or harbour entrances, because it is really ridiculous to note the way in which the limits are worked. A man may come down from the country who has never seen salt water and take a position as ticket-holder on a ferry-steamer, or he can hire a launch 10 ft. long, set the engines going, and after a year of that work, or ticket-taking, he can get a certificate, which will entitle him to take the " Gothic " from Cape Colville to Bream Head, a distance of eighty miles, so far as the law is concerned. We think the river limits at Auckland should be restricted to Bangitoto Beacon. These men do not know the rule of the road in many instances. Collisions have occurred by such incompetent men being left in charge of the deck. I shall be glad to supply the instances where these accidents have occurred. I know an instance where a man with a river certificate has gone outside of Auckland Harbour bound for Tiritiri, and brought up on the mainland, and when asked if he had a compass replied, " What is the use of having a compass if you cannot see Tiri ? " I have seen some of the most ridiculous things happen to men in harbour with river certificates. I saw a man the other day in Auckland Harbour who was not attending to the rules of the road—in fact, he knew nothing about it—and nearly ran another vessel down; and I know one man who is in charge of an Auckland ferry-boat who a year ago was driving a baker's cart. He had never been on sea before that. There is no doubt the river limits ought to be restricted, or the Act should apply to all vessels where trading within river limits. It is utterly ridiculous that a man with a river certificate should have the power to take charge of the " Gothic." I propose a new proviso to section 22 : " Provided that every holder of a second mate's foreign-going certificate should be entitled to serve as a mate of a home-trade vessel if he is of the age required for 'a home-trade mate." The reason is that the certificate is much higher, and we think that if he holds a higher qualification than that of a home-trade mate he should be entitled to take the position of a home-trade mate in a home-trade ship. I propose that section 52 be struck out to be consistent, as it applies to river limits. Section 121, subsection (b), I suggest be amended by inserting the words "mate and" after the word "each " in the first line. That would make it that the mate and engineer shall be provided each with a cabin to himself, or there might be an additional paragraph, "That all mates up to at least three shall have separate rooms, which shall be located away from water-closets, et cetera." There is no doubt that if one deck officer is entitled to a cabin the other should be also entitled. Where two officers are in a cabin belonging to both one cannot have the privilege of bringing his friends in, as the other is equally entitled to come in, no matter what you are doing. My association thinks that should apply to deck officers. We know there are cases where second cabins can be given, but the owners will not do it. Section 122 also applies to river limits. We desire that section 155 be struck out. 39. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] For what reason ?—My association feels that an official log to be kept by the engineer is not required, seeing that the master keeps the official log in which all entries can be made concerning all departments of the ship; and if two heads are to be set up on the ship who are two distinct authorities there cannot be any discipline. We do not know that this provision would do this, but it might lead to it. We do not see why there should be any other official log on the ship than that of the master. 40. The Chairman.] Can the engineer now make an entry on the log ?—The captain can make the entry. 41. He can, but can he refuse to make it ?—I do not think so. Ido not think he can refuse to make any entry required by the head of the engine department. 42. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] That would cause friction. The captain is master of the ship. The engineer only keeps the log so that it may be of use in official inquiries. We want ah official log which does not interfere with the captain's powers at all ?—We do not think it is right that the captain should have to go and see the engineer's log if he wants to. Supposing the engineer refused to show it to him ? 43. We should provide for that. The log is only to keep an authentic record of what takes place in the engine-room ?—My association objects to it because it is setting up two heads. We propose that sections 161 to 165 be struck out. With regard to yachts, we feel that yachts, the same as mission ships, should be in charge of competent men. They may be as large as 1,000 tons, and we do not think it is right that they should go about with incompetent men in charge.

1.—9.

4

[C. CEOUCHEE.

The " Ariadne " went ashore, although Ido not say she was in charge of incompetent men. It is a greater incentive for a man to wreck a ship if he has no certificate to be cancelled. We propose that under section 166 the provision shall apply to fishing-boats of 20 tons. Section 187 applies to river limits, but in a different way in regard to the Minister defining the limits. We consider it would be well to do away with all except strictly river limits. In section 189 we have a proviso : " Provided that the master shall be held responsible for any collision or accident if an incompetent person is left in charge of the deck." There are times when masters are allowed to carry certificated men, but they do not do so because of the expense. We think that if some blame is attached to the person responsible for the safety of the ship they will do so. We propose a proviso to section 199 : " Provided that the master holding a foreign-going certificate shall not be compelled to have his compasses adjusted by an adjuster, or have to pay any fees." We think it is rather a slur on a man holding a foreign-going certificate that he should be forced to have his compasses adjusted in the harbour when he adjusts his compasses outside at all times. I believe, according to the compass-adjustment regulations, the inspector or engineer inspects the azimuth-books of the master. We do not think the engineer would understand anything about an azimuth or an azimuth-book. We think a master mariner should be appointed to look after the deck department. 44. I do not quite see the objection to this clause ?—We consider that the master should not be compelled to have his compass adjusted, seeing that he has passed an examination showing that he is quite competent to do it himself, and will get a better adjustment outside than one taken in the harbour. It would suffice if the azimuth-book were inspected by one who understands what an azimuth is. In harbour they do not adjust for heel. 45. Mr. Millar.] The Board of Trade makes provision for the adjustment of the compasses before the vessel leaves on any voyage ?—Yes ; I believe it does. Section 217, subsection (4) : This is in connection with grain cargoes. We have a proviso we should like inserted. If the grain is carried in bulk we think restrictions should be placed in the Bill, because grain is liable to shift and run like water : " That if regulations are made at any time that a ship may carry grain in bulk, then it should be compulsory that the ship should be provided with proper bulkheads, shiftingboards, and feeders ; and in those holds that are not full at least two tiers of grain in bags should be stowed on top of the cargo to prevent it shifting." 46. Mr. T. Mackenzie.] Is that the system adopted in America ? —lt is adopted in the Black Sea, where I have seen it. There is one other matter I would like to mention, with regard to sand ballast. Ships are allowed to go away in sand ballast, and my association thinks there should be some restriction with regard to it. It runs the same as grain, and we think provision should be made for shifting-boards. The " Linda Weber " left port with sand ballast and was never afterwards heard of. 47. Mr. R. Thompson.] In the statement you have made you seem to think that river limits should be abolished altogether ?—Yes. 48. Are you acquainted with Auckland Harbour? —Yes. 49. I suppose you admit that the river limits, so far as New Zealand is concerned, practically refer to Auckland Harbour: it is the only place where there are any river limits to any extent?— Yes ; except in Hawke's Bay, and there they are not very large. 50. In your opinion, the vessels trading within these river limits should be abolished ?—Yes, altogether abolished. 51. What effect do you think it would have on trade : would it not increase the expense of running the small boats ? —I think not. Mr. Banson, of the Northern Steamship Company, told me it would be doing his company a good turn if the river limits were abolished. They would rather see it done. Their ships are better manned than one or two small firms who do not properly man their boats. 52. You speak of the danger of employing incompetent men as mates, and also want accommodation provided for the officers : are you aware that in the majority of the vessels trading within the river limits the officers do not live on board at all ?—Not on vessels going up to Whangarei ? 53. No ?—Not when they are away at night-time ? There is one officer who is required to live on board. Each officer provided with accommodation makes it his home. 54. For instance, the vessel makes a trip to Whangarei during one night and on the following night she is at Auckland, where the crew is at home? —But what about those who have not a home? 55. They do not stop on board the vessel ? —I know some who do. 56. Do you think it would be fair to compel these small owners to provide the same class of accommodation for their officers as they do on foreign-going vessels ? —I think that every officer, where he lives on board his vessel, should be provided with a cabin. 57. Would that not have this effect so far as trade is concerned between the settlements : that it w : ould increase the cost of freight, the cost of passage, and so reduce the price of produce very much to the settlers ?—Would it increase the cost of freight ? 58. Certainly ?—Well, I say that if a ship is not paying sufficiently well to permit of an officer being given a cabin to himself they should give up the trade. 59. How is the settler going to get his produce to market ?—I do not suppose any shipping company or owner will run his ship for sentiment. 60. Will you tell the Committee whether there have been any accidents, or shipwreck, or loss of life within the Auckland river limits within recent times in your knowledge ?—I have some instances in my office, but did not think I should be called to-day and did not bring them. There are the cases of the " Patiki " and "Taniwha." An A.B. was in charge of the "Taniwha's" bridge, and in the " Patiki " there was only one man on board who could steer. 61. How do you account for the wreck of the steamship " Triumph " on one of the islands?— I never heard of the wreck. I was not here at the time.

I.— 9.

C. CBOTTCHER.]

5

62. I have been living for thirty years at Whangarei, and I do not know of a single accident that has arisen through bad seamanship. The "Triumph" is the only case I know of ?—That may be right; but I say that where a ship is allowed to go to sea with incompetent men she becomes a danger to navigation, and she should not be allowed to go. Vessels which run out of the river limits at Auckland generally have certificated men on board of them. If shipowners carried out the law and only manned their ships according to the law there would be many more wrecks than there are. The shipowners where they need only put on one man usually put on two. The Northern Steamship Company could run all their ships with river-certificated men, but they do not; they have many home-trade-certificated men, and very often foreign-going-certificated men. 63. What is the object of your association in wishing to compel the owners of these small trading-vessels within river limits to incur unnecessary expense—to provide accommodation for members of the crew when they do not ask or wish for it ?—Why do you say they do not ask or wish for it ? 64. Because I know these men and where they live ? —But you do not know what communications have passed between the men and my association. 65. I do not know that ? —Well, they say they wish it. 66. Are you personally acquainted with Auckland Harbour ?—Yes; I have lain there with ships and run about there for years. 67. In within-river-limits ships? —No; a foreign-going ship. 68. Mr. Millar.] Has your association given any consideration to the manning scale ? —Yes, and I have notes about it. 69. From your practical knowledge and a knowledge of that scale do you consider that the scale could be reduced by any means with safety to the travelling public ?—No. The only way of doing it that I could see was by giving an equivalent. If you could get two ordinary seamen they would be better than one A.B. They would get lower wages. 70. Do you not consider that there ought to be two different scales of manning altogether for purely cargo-boats and passenger-boats ? —I think a vessel carrying over ten or fifteen passengers should be termed a passenger-steamer, because where they have many boats to man in an emergency they are not manned at all, and as for getting the boats out in boat-drill—it is something awful. At times you have not got the men to get the boats out or to swing them. 71. The " Botomahana," according to our Act, would be only compelled to carry seven able seamen. Do you think she would be able with only seven men to get her boats out ? —I am sure she could not. I was on her for fifteen months. 72. And could the " Takapuna "do so ? —I am sure she could not. 73. Do you think it possible to prepare two separate schedules, one for cargo and the other for passenger-ships? —Yes, I do. 74. And that consideration should be paid to the number of boats carried?— Yes. Boat-drills and fire-stations are really the most important things for the safety of the passengers and crews, and ought to be provided for. 75. The adjustment would in no way increase the cost to any company which had a reasonably large fleet, inasmuch as the reduction in number on the cargo-boats would go on to the passenger-boats ?—Yes ; a passenger-boat should be better manned than a cargo-boat. 76. Mr. Hutcheson.] In reference to the matter of an official log to be kept by the engineering staff, are you of opinion that provision should be made in this case compelling the engineer to submit his official log for perusal by the captain whenever the captain requires it ?—Yes. 77. Would that remove your objection to the engine-room keeping an official log? —No. 78. Are you aware that the object of an official log is merely to make the evidence disclosed in the log at any inquiry, Magisterial or otherwise, more reliable, and to put a greater sense of responsibility on the officer keeping that book than is at present upon him ? —But would not the same amount of responsibility rest upon him if the entry remained in the captain's log? Would the captain sign the chief engineer's log ? 79. Not necessarily. The object, I take it, for the engineer's log being made an official log is to enable the engineer to put down matter of a highly technical nature which probably the captain has no knowledge of. Provided it were at all times open to the perusal of the captain, so that he might satisfy himself as to what the engineer was putting in his log, would there be any objection? Would it lead at any time to doing away with the discipline of the ship; Ido not mean now, but later on ? Would there be a risk of taking away the authority of the master and setting up two heads in the ship?—We maintain that the master's log is sufficient for all entries on the ship. If there are any technical matters could not the engineer put them down and the master sign them. If there are to be columns in which to put special entries, could that not be done in the present log the engineer keeps, that being produced the same as a special log? We think one official log is sufficient on board. 80. In the event of the clause being retained in the Bill do you think it would be desirable to put the specific instruction in the Act that the log shall at all times be available to the captain ? —I do. 81. Mr. T. Mackenzie.] —You say there are seven seamen on the "Botomahana" now?— Yes. 82. Do the majority of seamen know how to handle a boat?—l should say the majority do, but there are individual instances where a steward knows more about it than a sailor. 83. The handling of a boat in the open sea is no special part of the training of a sailor ?—No, because he may go in a foreign-going steamer for a whole voyage and never touch an oar. 84. In a steamer like the "Botomahana" you have a very much larger proportion of stewards : what proportion of stewards are able to take a hand at the boats ? —The whole lot of them do.

1.—9.

6

[WILLIAM JONES.

85. That is part of a steward's duty ? —I should say, with the majority of them. There are some who get the buckets or blankets at fire-stations and provisions for the boats, while a majority of them attend to the boats and get the falls clear. In the way steamers are manned at present every man is felt. If you are lowering two boats, and you have an incompetent man at one fall and an incompetent man at another fall those two boats are hashed up for the want of competent men. 86. Yes; but if the stewards are trained men ?—Yes; but they are not trained men. I mean men able to put a boat into the water. 87. My question was this : I wish to know how many stewards could take part in the lowering of a boat in the event of an accident?— There would be some clearing the boats, and some gefting the boats ready. Only two men are required to lower a boat. 88. What part do the stewards play?— They help to get the boats clear and to swing them. Then we have the seamen to lower the boat and to go into the boat with the rest of the boat's crew and take an oar. 89. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] I believe you are a certificated officer ?—Yes. 90. What certificate have you ? —A master's foreign-going. 91. Have you considered the matter of reducing the number of hands on a cargo-boat and increasing the number on a passenger-boat ?—Yes. 92. And your opinion is that the cargo-boats are overmanned; that is what it comes to ?— Overmanned, I think, with regard to the larger boats, but not the smaller ones. The " Aparima " would require thirteen men, but I think eleven would be sufficient if there were no passengers. But if she had passengers, then she would require the full number. There are other cases where men could be done away with and two ordinary seamen employed in their place. 93. What is your opinion of the difference between an A.B. and an O.S. ?—For a steamship, two O.S. are better than one A.B. 94. With regard to the log, your fear is that the captain's power would be superseded by the engineer's ?—Yes. 95. Supposing there is no such danger, that the engineer's log is kept wholly by the engineer, and is kept open in the engine-room to the inspection of the captain all the time : do you see any difficulty then ?—lf kept entirely within those limits it would be all right, but we maintain there is no necessity for it. 96. Mr. Millar.] Do stewards keep watch and watch at night-time ?—There is a watchman, as far as I know. 97. But do the whole of the stewards go to bed at a certain hour ?—Yes. 98. Within your knowledge, do accidents usually take place in the dark?— Yes. 99. The stewards, then, being asleep, would be of no assistance in getting the boats over the side?—lt all depends upon the source of the accident. 100. Assuming that was caused by running ashore and you had six stewards as against four men in your watch, which would be the quicker, the four men or the six stewards ? —The four men, of course. 101. They would be there at once?— Yes. Ido not think that in that case the stewards would be of any material use. William Jones, Seaman, Secretary, Federated Seamen's Union of New Zealand, examined. (No. 3.) 102. The Chairman.] Have you anything to say with regard to the Shipping and Seamen's Bill ?—Yes. lam a seaman, and what I shall say will be of a practical nature. I only received a copy of the present Bill on Saturday morning, and I have not yet had time to go through the whole of it. Ido not know whether the Bill of last session is the same as the Bill now before the Committee. 103. It is practically the same Bill as that of last year?— Yes. I will start on section 37, regarding the license to supply seamen. We find by experience, particularly in Wellington, that there is no necessity whatever from the seaman's point of view for any such person to hold a license. We have a Superintendent of Mercantile Marine in each of the large centres, and we consider that licensed procurers of seamen are not at all desirable in any shape or form. A seaman is quite capable of going along to the Shipping Office bulletin-board and seeing what vessel requires hands. We consider this license to supply seamen is only another system of crimping ; at any rate, it assists in the direction of crimping ; and we most emphatically protest against any such licenses. Further, Ido not think that during the last year or two there have been any such licensed persons in Wellington. 104. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] That is so ; we have no licensed person in the colony. Our own officers carry out the work ? —The Government have been good enough to put duly qualified men on as shipping-masters in the different centres, and I do not think it is necessary to go further. We have had cases in Wellington that have come before the Magistrate's Court where it was shown that the fees charged were exorbitant, and these fees were charged against the men, and not against the owners of the vessels. We sincerely trust that the Committee, in making their report, will recommend that there shall be no licensed persons. Section 42, subsection (11): This is in respect of the fees payable upon the engagement and discharge of seamen. Seeing that we have at present, and also that it has been the custom for many years, twenty-four hours' notice on either side, we consider it very hard indeed that a man has to pay Is. for working only a few days, or even for twenty-four hours. Particularly is this hard in the case of men going on for the Union Company, where a man takes the place of a man who comes ashore for a week or only a few days. We do not grumble at the fee where a man is employed for six months, but where a man, perhaps, only has twenty-four hours' employment, for which he has to fork out a shilling. Ido not think these things obtain in any other trade, and Ido not think they obtain in

WILLIAM JONES.]

7

1.-9.

the British Islands. Some time ago a deputation waited on the Minister of Marine, and also some time previous to that on Mr. Seddon, and Mr. Seddon promised to look into the matter as regards the shipping-fee. He said that if he found the fee did not obtain in the United Kingdom he would see what could be done towards doing away with it in New Zealand. Where an individual agreement takes place, and where the man is only in the vessel a short space of time and is simply a substitute for another person, we consider it very hard, in view of the small amount of wages he gets, that Is. should be deducted. We think there might be something provided whereby these men who only sign on for a temporary engagement should go clear of paying any shipping-fee. 105. Of course you are aware that it involves work connected with the Shipping-master ?— We admit that; but it is very hard where a man is only on a ship for a few days, and we have many such instances, and he has to sign on and off. He pays Is. and the shipping company pays Is. Section 51 :We agree with the first part of section 51, but not with subsection (2). We consider there is ample facility for youngsters to go to sea in New Zealand without making them either one thing nor the other—that is, giving them A.B. discharges for two years' service in a steamship. Provision is made for the certificate of discharge showing the rating. I have never seen a discharge indorsed that the man is entitled to the rating of an A.B. for steamship-work only. We consider that in the interests of public safety and public property all seamen should be duly qualified. These men who go and do two years in a steamer and get qualified as able seamen get into other vessels and are simply a nuisance. We find from actual experience that they do not know one end of a ship from the other. We would like to see the provision struck out. Seeing that we have to depend for our officers and masters on the rank and file, from which they have to graduate, we consider it more desirable that these men should put in four years' service before being entitled to rate as able seamen. The British Act has no such provision, for, though the rating is somewhat similar to our own New Zealand Act, the British Act of 1894, which is the rating Act, reads that a seaman shall not be entitled to the rating of an A.B. unless he serves four years before the mast. I say there is ample provision made for New Zealand boys going to sea if they wish to go. But they do not go to sea on account of the inducements offering at present, which are keeping the boys back. They have something better to look to on shore. We consider it desirable that all men serving as able seamen shall put in their four years. It has never killed any one yet, and we have a better class of men on account of that. We have had some good evidence of this two-years-able-seamen business, and it has been found that they are a perfect nuisance on board ship. Section 52, subsection (1): We agree that seamen on signing articles shall produce their discharge, or furnish proof of being seamen. We think, now that we have competent men as mercantile Superintendents, that it is only necessary for them to ask a man a question or two to find out whether he is a bona fide seaman or not. Provision is made that if the Superintendent is satisfied the man can make a statutory declaration. But we have had instances where the men have made a statutory declaration before a Justice of the Peace and were no seamen at all. We have had such cases before a Magistrate, and have obtained convictions. Now that we have competent men acting in the capacity of Shipping-masters all that is necessary is to ask a man a few questions and the Superintendent can satisfy himself of his bona fides. 106. Are the instances you speak of of recent occurrence ?—No; not since we have had the Ship-ping-masters. What we now object to is this fee of 55., and for more reasons than one. In the first place, a man may lose his certificate of discharge by a fire or by a shipwreck; and, seeing that he pays a considerable amount of fees throughout the year in one way or another, this fee of ss. to enable him to sign articles is outrageous, and obtains in no other employment. 107. The object is to make him careful of his certificate ?—Well, they are not all Good Templars, but accidents will happen. I know of a case where a man lost all his clothes and papers through a fire on shore, and we had to send to England for copies of his certificates of discharge. And there are many other ways by which a man may lose his discharge. If it is a case of desertion there might be found some other way of dealing with the matter. But if the fee were made higher Ido not think it would prevent a man from deserting. Assuming that a man deserts, as a rule he is penniless, and the result would be, if a five-shilling charge for a permit obtained, that he either gets into gaol or is thrown on to benevolent aid, through having no means of paying the ss. The only way out of the difficulty is to allow him to sign articles, otherwise he is barred from taking employment. Section 53: We were very pleased to see, after having brought the matter to the Minister's notice, this item of "greaser" rating was inserted in the Bill. We consider it absolutely necessary that a greaser should be rated. Subsection (3) of the same clause : I would like to see the words "or greaser" added after the word "fireman." Section 55, subsection (3): With regard to this matter, we would like to see some provision made whereby a man would get his original certificate of discharge on leaving his ship. In a good many cases, in the Union Company particularly, where a good deal of this business is done with the purser, there are men who hand their certificates of discharge to the purser, and afterwards he (the purser) does not remember what he has done with them, and the onus of providing another one is thrown on the man. The purser through his negligence has lost it. This ought not to be. Provision is made in the Act for the discharge being cancelled by drawing a line through the name of the last ship. I suggest single discharges, and that the discharge be immediately given up to the man on signing articles after it has been cancelled, instead of remaining in the possession of the purser until he leaves the ship. This has been a great cause of complaint, and we would like to see some provision made for it. Section 65, subsection (1) : We would like to see the word " both" put in instead of "either" in the fourth line. 108. The Chairman.] If you do that you will simply render the whole thing nugatory. What is your idea ?—We think subsection (2) covers the thing entirely. 109. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] The one is for larger and the other is for minor cases. The idea was to save even the sailor the cost of going to law, as well as the owner ?—There are Superin-

[WILLIAM JONES.

1.—9.

tendents and Superintendents, and some of them are very much in favour of the employer. We consider that it should apply where both parties agree. Or we might reduce the sum stated from £5 to £1.

Thursday, 31st July, 1902. Examination of William Jones continued. 1. The Chairman.] We are now ready to take any farther evidence you may have to offer?— I propose to deal with section 75 and its subsections, and wish to draw attention to what might be an anomaly. Subsection (b) provides that the engagement may be terminated on twenty-four hours' notice, while section 82 in respect of this clause says, " If a seaman, having signed an agreement, is discharged otherwise than in accordance with the terms thereof before the commencement of the voyage, or before one month's wages are earned, without fault on his part justifying that discharge, and without his consent, he shall be entitled to receive from the master or owner, in addition to any wages he may have earned, due compensation for the damage caused to him by the discharge," &c. That was the vogue before and I suppose it is yet, and I wish to draw attention to what is considered an anomaly. 2. Mr. Hutcheson.] You say the two sections clash ?—We think so. One of the legal people I have spoken to says that under certain circumstances this would be warranted. 3. The Chairman.] Which section would you prefer ? Are you in favour of the twentyfour hours' notice ? —We think it is only right. My reason for bringing the matter up is simply to draw the attention of the Committee to it. With all the other provisions of section 75 we agree. Section 79, " Becovery of wages" :We had several matters of this kind under this same section in the Magistrate's Court. In one case a man had agreed verbally with the skipper of the ship to take a certain amount of his wages and forego the remainder. Now, the Act lays it down that he shall receive the whole of his wages, but the Magistrate ruled against the man, and the Seamen's Union took the matter up and instructed its lawyer to take the case to the Appeal Court, where the Chief Justice (Sir Bobert Stout) commented on the ambiguity of the Act in not making better provision for making it unlawful for any man to contract to take only part of his wages. The Act meant to do that, but had not fully laid it down. The Act intended to protect a seaman against himself, as it were. We think the Act should read in this way : that wherever a seaman is engaged and is discharged in the colony before completing the whole term of his engagement he shall be paid and may recover the full amount of wages due up to the date of such discharge notwithstanding the fact that he has not fulfilled such term, and no deduction shall be made from his wages as a consideration to the master or owner giving him such discharge, and any moneys paid by him to any person as a consideration for such discharge may be recovered by such seaman in any competent Court of jurisdiction. 4. Mr. Hutcheson.] You want to prevent a man from contracting himself out ? —Yes. 5. Mr. R. Thompson.] Would you not be doing an injustice to the seaman himself?—l do not think so. 6. Supposing a seaman comes out to New Zealand and has his family living here. He may be anxious to get his discharge in the colony to enable him to remain here with his family or relatives. Would it not be better to allow him to compromise with the skipper rather than that he should have to go Home and pay his expenses out again ?—The cases that have come under our notice are not those of men who have homes in the colony, but of men who have come out to the colony and get paid off, such as the case of the " Beacon Bock." These cases are in the majority. In that case the men were engaged at various wages, some high and some low. Some had shipped at Port Pirie and Port Adelaide at £8 a month. The ship had had a protracted voyage and the skipper did not want the men to remain, as wages were considerably lower in this colony. 7. They were not bound to take their discharge?—No ; but the skipper made the offer, and in some cases insisted on the men leaving here, and the men were glad to be rid of the ship. We had to take the case into the Magistrate's Court, and it cost the union a considerable amount of money to get the men's rights under the law. We want the law made with as little ambiguity as possible. 8. If your view is carried out you will reduce the seaman to a mere machine ? —The Act treats him as a mere child, and protects him against himself and against such contracts as I have mentioned. 9. Mr. Willis.] Do you think it is just that where a man feels that he can do well in the colony the Act shall say that he cannot make a compromise in this way, and actually prevents him, because the master may say, " I shall have to pay you your full wages, and therefore will not let you go " ?—There is a necessity for this clause being in the Act, otherwise what necessity is there for saying that where a seaman is discharged in the colony he shall be able to recover his wages ? If our legislation has gone so far as to provide against seamen being left on charitable aid, I take it that they should be able to get the whole of their wages up to the time of their discharge, as is already provided for. The seaman is only getting the money he has earned. 10. Mr. R. Thompson.] I refer to cases where it is a voluntary agreement between the seaman and the skipper. In a case of that kind there would be no appeal to the Court ?—There are cases where Jack is taken into the cabin and given a few nobblers of whisky, after which they can do anything they like with him. The skipper is better able to look after his own interest than the man is, and Jack is ignorant of the provisions of the Act, and that is how he comes to make such contracts. We hope that some such provision as we have suggested will be provided. Section 86, "Seamen not to sue for wages abroad": We ask that the words "or health" be inserted after the word " life " in the last line of the first clause, and the words " such ill-usage on

8

WILLIAM JONES.I

9

1.—9

the part or by authority of the master as to warrant" be struck out. Oftentimes a man's health is not good enough to proceed to sea in the. capacity of a seaman, and men are taken away when they should not be taken away. We think it is very hard that, where a man's health is so bad that he ought not to be made continue the voyage, he should not be able to go into Court and sue for his wages if the circumstances warrant it. We know that this is in the British Act. 11. Hon. Mr, Hall-Jones.] Are the words "or health " used in the British Act ?—-No ; but the clause is pretty well word for word as in the British Act. We have had cases in New Zealand where men have been refused hospital treatment, not by the hospital authorities, but by the ship's doctor and the master of the ship, on account of the proviso in the 1894 Act. On one occasion I went down on board one of our Home steamers and saw a man who was in what is called the ship's hospital. There was only a bulkhead between the so-called hospital (a deck cabin) and a double winch working day and night and over that man's head. The man had hurt his head and was in considerable danger. It was a matter of impossibility to talk in that place, and the noise nearly drove me mad. Further than that, he had no attendance whatever, except from any of his mates who came along. I saw potatoes there with their jackets on, and we consider that is no proper treatment for a sick man. We think it only reasonable that where hospital facilities offer such a man should be able to get them. Section 88, " Power of Court to rescind contracts " : We would like to see the following words added after the word " apprentice " in the third line : " arising out of their respective duties as master, seaman, or such apprentice." 12. The Chairman.] Does that make any consequential amendment ? It: does not seem to me that there is any added clearness, while there is a great deal of added verbiage in the suggestion? —I do not know that there is. Section 119 :We are agreed on these points, but we wish to draw attention here to Part 11. at section 164, " This Part of this Act shall, unless the. context or subject-matter requires a different application, apply to all sea-going ships registered in the colony." Section 119, subsection (2), says, " Where the ship from which any such seamen is left on shore as aforesaid is registered or owned out of the colony." We wish to make sure that there is no conflict between these two sections. 13. Part 11. says, " unless the context or subject-matter requires a different application." In section 119 it specifically says, "registered or owned out of the colony"? —We only wish to make sure of it. We agree with all the subsections of section 119, particularly with regard to subsection (3), where provision is made for intercolonial vessels to come under it. . I have had several instances under my notice, some of which have been submitted to the Marine Department, where men out of intercolonial vessels have not been provided for under the Act. In the 1894 Shipping Act intercolonial vessels are exempt from liability. The present clause provides what is wanted, and we hope it will go through as it reads. We do not think any of these vessels should escape from any of their liabilities. Section 131, " Desertion " : The subject-matter of this clause has reference to desertion. Of course, we do not wish to have anything excluded with regard to this matter of desertion ; but we do think that when a man loses his passage through not being properly notified as to the time of departure he should not be deemed a deserter under the Act, provided he reports himself to the Shipping-master in a certain time within twenty-four hours, if in the night-time, and to the tide-waiter at the Shipping Office if in the daytime. We have had instances where men have inquired as to the time when the ship will sail, and the time has been afterwards changed and the ship has sailed. In the case of colliers, the cargo is sometimes worked out quicker than has been expected, and the vessel has gone away earlier. Men when they lose their passage in this way forfeit all their emoluments, just the same as if they were deserters. It is not reasonable to suppose that men having families dependent on them in the colony would desert and perhaps lose a full month's wages. We would like to see provision made that men who lose their passages in this way may report themselves within six or twelve hours to the Shipping-master or the Shipping Office to explain the cause. 14. Mr. B. Thompson.] What is the good of a man reporting himself if the ship has left the pl ace ?—So that he may receive his wages up to that time and prevent being written off as a deserter. 15. Supposing half a dozen of the crew left, who is to pay for the detention of the ship?—l have never heard of such a thing arising. I have never yet found that where a man has lost his passage he has put the ship to any inconvenience. The captain has always been able to get a substitute, and if not the ship is not detained, because it can go away with three or four men short. Provision is made in the Act to enable him to leave under certain circumstances. 16. Mr. E. G. Allen.] Do you know of any cases where men have lost their wages ?—Yes, in many eases, especially in the case of colliers. 17. The Chairman.] What is the next point?— Section 134, subsection (c), "Assault on officers" : We consider it only right to have this provision, but at the same time similar provision should be made for assaults on the men by the officers. I had to take a case of the kind into Court to be dealt with under the common law. I saw a man knocked down and kicked by the chief mate of a vessel. A policeman saw the assault, and the injured man said, " I give that man [the officer] in charge," but the policeman walked away. I told the man to take out an immediate summons and proceed against the officer, in the meantime I went for the union's solicitor. The man went to the police-station and they would not give him a summons, but as soon as they saw me they gave the summons, and the mate was heavily fined. The Magistrate severely reprimanded the officer of the ship and also the policeman for not taking notice of the man's charge when made. We consider that a seaman is made of flesh and blood as well as an officer and that such provision should be made. 18. Mr. Willis.] According to this case the officer was heavily fined?— Yes, but had I not been on the spot he would not have been. The police took no notice of the man's complaint, nor did they take any notice of him when he applied for the summons. An officer can get a man immediately arrested, but with the man the onus lies upon him of proceeding against the officer under the 2—l. 9.

1.—9.

10

FWILLIAM JONES.

common law. We do not see that any harm could accrue to any one under such a provision, and we hope it will be favourably considered. Section 155, " Chief engineer to keep an official log" : With regard to this section,'l would like to have had a fireman along with me to explain the position more plainly. 19. Mr. R. Thompson.] Do you know that the shipmasters object to it ?—That is because it is taking away their authority ; but I think that in any serious accident it would be a protection. 20. Mr. Millar.] Do you not think all these accidents should be reported as under the Factory Act?— Certainly. There are many small accidents on board a vessel that are not reported, and I doubt very much whether the entries are ever made in the log-books. Section 158, "Fees to be paid on discharges and engagements " : The question of fees I referred to before is also applicable here. I pointed out that where a man is engaged temporarily he should not have to pay the amount that a man engaged for a full term of the articles has to pay. Section 159, " Begistration of seamen ": We think it only right there should be a Eegistrar and registration of seamen. It would facilitate the obtaining of copies of service that have been lost, and where the papers are required to enable a man to go up and pass his examination before the Marine Board. We are fully in accord with all the subclauses of section 159. Section 165, " Pleasure yachts and missionary ships exempt from certain provisions " : The provisions here would be all right if the yachts are not sea-going. I have been on a yacht myself of 800 tons register. This was the " Tybernia." We do not think that vessels of such a size should be exempt from the provisions of the Act in all the items, and that in sea-going yachts officers should be required possessing certificates of competency. 21. Mr. R. Thompson.] Have we got any such vessels in New Zealand? —We may very soon have them, and I suppose we shall have millionaires here some day. Suppose a yacht did go away to the South Sea islands, to go without certificated officers would be very dangerous. 22. Mr. Willis.] Would not the same thing apply to mission ships ?—Yes. Well, even mission ships carry human souls. 23. The Chairman.] In what way would you suggest an alteration ? —We think the crews should be under the same articles as other vessels in respect of provisions, water, and so on, and under the same system as to supplying seamen as merchant vessels, that is—through the Shipping Offices. The great difficulty is that people in charge of these small craft are not conversant with the rule of the road, and they might get in the way of other vessels and endanger them as well as themselves. 24. Mr. R. Thompson.] There have not been any accidents so far ?—There was an accident in Oriental Bay a little while ago —a small yacht and the s.s. " Botomahana." There ought to be some provision made whereby these vessels should not be allowed to get in the way of larger vessels. A similar argument might be applicable to section 166. This section says this provision " shall not apply to fishing-boats exclusively employed in fishing on the coasts of the colony, whether sea-going or running within river or extended-river limits." We have not, so far as lam aware, any deep-sea fishing-craft, but we might get them. It goes on to say that officers shall not be required to hold certificates and so on. I might say that in the Imperial Act every thing that applies to the merchant trade applies to the fishing trade. The Merchant Shipping Act says that a fishing-boat, being a trawler of 25 tons and upwards, shall not go out of port unless provided with a duly certificated skipper and a second hand. Seeing that the Imperial Act has made provision for this, we think it only reasonable that we should have a similar provision in our Act. 25. Mr. R. Thompson.] Have you got boats of that size here? —We do not know how soon we may get them. The whole of'the matter pertaining to the merchant marine applies to the men in the fishing service. We think that is necessary, although I recognise the Government wish to encourage fishing as much as possible. We all wish that; but, seeing that we have men ashore with their certificates in their pockets, we think they should get employment, instead of uncertificated men being allowed to take charge. There would be no difficulty or embargo placed on fishing-boats. Section 221, " Unseaworthy ships ": In the Imperial Act of 1897 a ship is deemed to be unseaworthy when undermanned, and I see that section 223 of this Act provides for that. What I now wish to deal with is in respect to the Third Schedule. We think that where a vessel is carrying two firemen—small craft—and is run over a certain distance a third fireman should be carried. There is provision made in the Act for a certain number of engineers based on the number of miles run, and as we have little steamers here which often make long trips—not ordinary but extraordinary runs—a third fireman should be provided. Where these men are kept continually on six-hour watches it is very hard for them on exceptionally long runs. There will be technical evidence presented as to the hours these men work. For instance, the " Kahu " went down to the Chatham Islands with two firemen. You have a provision already in this respect for the engineers, and we think it only reasonable that it should be made to apply also to firemen. It would be no great hardship to the shipowner, because the extra fireman would only be carried temporarily where an excessive number of miles had to be run. That is all I have to say with regard to the Act, and I have to express my own thanks and the thanks of my union for the patient hearing you have given me. 26. Do you not think it would be a very good thing if some encouragement could be given to our boys to learn to be seamen on the coast of New Zealand ?—Yes, I should be very pleased, because there is any amount of young stock to pick and choose from in New Zealand, provided the inducements were considered good enough. That is the main point. 27. Do you not think it would be much better that we should recruit our own mercantile marine from our own boys than from a foreign source ?—Quite so ; I am fully in accord with that. There are too many Dutchmen on this coast, to my mind. 28. So long as we do not train seamen we cannot help ourselves? —The matter of the supply, to my mind, is not in the training—there is ample room for training—but it is in the inducements offered to them. New Zealand boys will not go to see for the emoluments offered. Boys with the

1.—9.

11

WILLIAM JONES.]

education they get in this country are not going to sea to lead a dog's life for the small inducement offered. There is nothing solid held out to them, for even if they get to the top of the tree, for the slightest accident they lose their ticket. 29. Mr. Millar.] "What is the wage at the present time for boys on the New Zealand coast ?— Thirty shillings or a pound. 30. What is the wage for able seamen?—ln sailing-craft, £4 10s. and £5. Let the owners give some inducement and you will have no necessity to sing out for boys to go to sea. Judge Cooper said in the Arbitration Court that the romance of the sea was past, but I do not think so. There is any amount of romance in the sea if sufficient £ s. d. is attached to it. 31. Mr. Hutcheson.] Section 155 provides for an official log in the engine-room. You have told us that your union look with equanimity, if not with approval, on this matter : do you not think it would be necessary in the interests of discipline on board the ship that we should express in the Act that that log should be always available to the master, provided that his use of it did not interfere with the engineer in the discharge of his duties provided in the section ?—The master is the master of the ship, and the engineer signs articles under his jurisdiction. There will probably be some feeling on this matter between the master and the engineer. It has for a long time been said that the engineer is the boss of the ship, and the skipper is a navigator and nonentity. But there is no doubt the man on the bridge has got the eyes to see, while the other man is at the engines. I think the master should have accesss to the log-book at all times. 32. Do you not think, also, that the Act should make it quite clear that in the final event the master's log should be the official record of the whole ship, and that the other one should be clearly defined as appertaining to the engineer's department ?—Yes, quite so. 33. In the section referring to the compounding by the seamen with the master as to wages, it was suo-"ested by some member of the Committee that it might be convenient to the man on occasions to arrange with the captain in order that he might be free to join his relatives perhaps here : what is the custom now among seamen when making arrangements for a passage from the Old Country ?—ln a good many cases the man comes out at Is. a month, and gets his discharge and is ready to go to work immediately ;in other cases desertion takes place. Sometimes a skipper wants to pay a man off, but does not care to give him what he has earned. " 34. Mr. R. Thompson.] This was a special case where he was practically a native of New Zealand, or had relatives here, and intended to become a resident here. Do you know of any case where a'man wanted to compromise ?—Yes ; there was a young fellow whose people are out at the Hutt. He wanted me to go and see the skipper, but I said I could not do anything, as there was no provision in the Act. -■ j 35. Do you know the case of a coloured cook where the master ran him out of the ship and took him before the Court, and he was discharged with ss. ?—Yes ; the " John o' Gaunt." 36. If the Act remains as it is these abuses will be perpetuated ?—There is no doubt about that. 37 Are these reasons why the union are asking that a man shall not be allowed to contract himself out?— Yes. We had the " Machrihanish " case, which we took before the Court, and 38 You say, in short, that owing to the discipline under which the seaman lives he is liable to such pressure'as to amount to coercion, and that he is not a free agent—that the bargainingpower is all on the side of the captain ?—Yes, that is so. In the " Machrihanish " case the man was old and shipped in Glasgow. On the way out the skipper led him a dog's life. They said he was too old for use. They took him into the cabin and he made a verbal agreement with the skipper to give him two month's wages, and the man was glad of the chance ; this is the case that went into the Court of Appeal. ~,.,, , o 39. Mr. T. Mackenzie.] You said there were lots of opportunities for lads going to sea now I— Yes ' 40. Could you get a lad away yourself ?—I should not like to try, because the Marine Department would be down on me. It must be done through the proper authority. 41 There is a channel through which a boy could get a ship ?—Certainly. 42' Bon Mr. Hall-J ones.] You think the alterations proposed in the present Bill will improve the position of the seaman without affecting injuriously the interests of the employer ?—Yes, Ido so. We have gone very carefully through the Bill and do not see where the shipowner can be iniured—that is, so far as seamen are concerned. _ 43 With regard to the firemen, are you of opinion that with the engineer s official log their position will be improved, inasmuch as everything connected with their work will be noted in this log which will be an official document ?—Yes, in this way ; that matters pertaining to firemen will go into the engineer's log when they would probably not go into the master's log. 44. You think it would be an advantage to have an engineer's log provided it did not interfere with the skipper ?—Yes, so long as it will be open to the master of the ship. 45 With regard to fishing-vessels, I think there is some provision in the Imperial Act by which a master shall pass some special examination showing qualifications for the command of a fishing-vessel That would meet the case, I presume, in New Zealand?— Quite so; but Ido not think fishing-vessels should proceed to sea unless under a navigator thoroughly acquainted with the rules of the road. . 46 Mr Willis.] You have given reasons why a master should pay a man the full amount ot his wages when he leaves his ship. If a man wanted to leave and it was compulsory that the whole of his wages should be paid to him, do you not think the master would refuse and say, " I shall have to pay the whole of your wages "? Is that not rather against your own argument ?—That might be, but we do not think that a loophole should be allowed at all. If a man is discharged in New Zealand and comes ashore without any wages he becomes a charge upou the community, and that is the reason from our point of view, why that clause has been framed. It is not so much for the benefit of the seaman as for the community. The seaman would be a burden on the community.

1.—9.

12

JOHN FBANCIS KIBBY.

John Francis Kirby examined. (No. 4.) 47. The Chairman.] In what capacity do you want to give evidence ?—I am representing the Union Steamship Company, and am assistant to the Marine Superintendent at Dunedin. 48. Will you proceed with any remarks you desire to make ?—I will first refer to section 43, subsection (2). There is a change asked for in that subsection from the present practice. Section 6, subsection (2), of the 1894 Act provides that the master of a home-trade vessel could sign his crew on and off from his own vessel, and report the same to the Shipping-master after so doing. The change asked for will entail a lot of trouble on the master and a good deal of inconvenience to the shipowner, besides extra cost. Suppose the ship is lying at the Queen's Wharf, the whole of the crew would have to be signed on or off, as the case may be. The master would have to take the crew away from their work down to the Shipping Office to sign them on. This would take considerable time, the distance being fairly great, and seamen—and firemen especially—are not of a nature to hurry to get back to their work. Experience has shown us that, in many instances. We ask that the section in the old Act shall be retained and that the master shall still have the privilege of signing the crew on and off on board his ship, and report the matter to the Customs authorities, or Shipping-master, at the four principal ports. You might be in a hurry to get your ship away from the port, and it would be impossible to do so. Passengers may have to be taken on board and the ordinary cargo attended to just when your men would have to be taken away. The old section has worked very well during the last eight years since the Act has been in force, and has given every satisfaction to the authorities and to the masters and owners. The master does not get much time in port, and if he has to take his men away every time a change takes place he will have very little time to go home. On the arrival of his ship the office-work is taken over by the staff on shore, and the executive work of the ship is done by the chief officer, and this is the only opportunity the master has of reaching his home. Section 53, " Bating of greasers and firemen " : You will notice that the word " greaser" has been added to the section. It was not provided for under the old Act. If this section is carried it will mean that a greaser will have to put in six months' apprenticeship before he reaches that position. The Act says that three months as a trimmer is quite sufficient for a fireman. We find that when a man has been three months as a trimmer he is quite capable of acting as a greaser. Engineers will tell you that these are the best men they can get, but they are loaded now with an extra three months. We find it very difficult at times to get a good class of men for our steamers. We prefer colonial youths to join our service, because they are a better class than men coming from outside the colony, and it is a pity that young fellows from freezing-works, foundries, &c, should be loaded while men from outside are able to take these positions. As a matter of fact, if a man gets a fireman's discharge from a Home ship he can go on board a Union Company's steamer or any other steamer as a greaser without being loaded, although he may not have served the necessary time. I would suggest that the clause in the old Act be left as it is. 49. What would you suggest in the new Bill?—-That it be three months as a trimmer in lieu of the six months. He should act as a trimmer first before getting the position of greaser. If three months is sufficient for a fireman to act as a trimmer, I take it that three months is sufficient for a greaser. Section 55, " Discharge, of seamen " : This is really somewhat similar to section 43, which I have already referred to as taking away the privilege from the master of signing on and off on board the ship, so that the same remarks will apply in this case. Section 59, " Payment of wages " : This would entail on the master the work of giving a seaman an account of his wages twenty-four hours before paying him off. It would be impossible to carry this out on many occasions. The ship is often in and out of a port the same day, and notice may be given on the ship's arrival. She might be in port only eight hours, and it would be impossible to carry this provision out. It is necessary to have some such power on a foreign-going ship, where there is a slop-chest system on board, and a man gets tobacco, advances in money, and other things ; but for our ships the Arbitration Court award provides that the men shall be paid monthly, and there are no advances, and no tobacco supplied except for cash. The only items that are shown on the account are the amount of wages and the shilling for the shipping-fee. On the other hand, we get two receipts from the seaman. He signs the articles and the amount is shown, and he also signs the wages-sheet; so that you get two signatures. These forms cost 3d. each, and there is no earthly use for them. If they were of any use no objection would be raised. There may be a necessity for this clause on foreign-going ships, which may go on a voyage of two years or more. Section 75, " Bights of seamen in respect of wages" : We would like it made clear whether the seaman can give notice at sea or in port. If the notice can be given twenty-four hours before arriving in port, all hands immediately the ship has been secured could leave the ship. We have a tidal port at Dunedin, and the ship may arrive at noon and leave again when the tide suits, the men may have given notice twenty-four hours before, so that they could leave us in a difficulty through the company not being able to get other men to take their places. It might be the means of causing a ship to stay.a day or two longer than was intended. If it is made clear that the notice must be given at the final port of discharge that is all that we require. 50. Mr. Millar.] Would you always guarantee that the ship would remain twenty-four hours? —If it is found that the ship is not going to remain twenty-four hours the notice should not be less than eight hours, and in the event of either side not giving the eight-hours notice, it should give a day's pay in lieu of the notice. 51. The Chairman.] Would not a proviso that the twenty-four-hours notice should not expire within eight hours after the arrival of the ship meet the case ?—lt seems strange that notice can be given on the high seas. I think my suggestion would meet the case, that either side should give a day's pay in lieu of notice, to compensate the other side. 52. My suggestion is that a man should not be able to give notice and leave the moment the ship arrives ? —I should be very pleased to see something done in that respect, but also that a day's pay should be forfeited in lieu of notice.

13

r.—v.

John miancis kirby.J

53. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] You want the previous notice to be more clearly defined ?—That is so. The Shipping-master at Dunedin, in reply to me, said that a man could give the notice at sea. 54. I think eight hours' notice after the arrival in harbour would be a reasonable provision to make ?—Yes, that is so. We find that subsection (2) of the same section is a dead-letter. The ruling of the Shipping-master at Dunedin is that a foreign ship trading coastwise would have to man under the Act of 1884. We had a case which I brought under the notice of the Collector of Customs, that of a German barque which had loaded grain in the south for Auckland. The Collector of Customs' reply was that the Government could not see their way to interfere with any foreign ship trading coastwise, as it might clash with international law. That being the case, I maintain that the section is practically a dead-letter. On the other hand, take a ship signing articles in the Old Country, say, for two years, during a portion of which the ship is trading coastwise in New Zealand. The master does not comply with the manning scale, and, although under this section the Shipping-master can see that the articles are indorsed as to the wages to be paid, I feel sure that on arrival in the Old Country the Board of Trade would not allow the increase as shown on the articles to be given to the men. 55. The Chairman.] Not in face of the law in this colony that he is not to trade here unless he does that ?—Could you prevent him trading ? You did not prevent the German barque trading. 56. Did that ship comply with the manning scale? —I think not. The decision I speak of was given by the Solicitor-General to the Secretary of the Department. The same thing might happen at anytime again. We had the case of the " Quirang," which was short-handed when it arrived at Dunedin. 1 saw Mr. Belcher, the secretary of the Seamen's Union, and he reported the case to the authorities, and the master was fined £5 for being short-handed. Section 105, " Seamen not to be left abroad except on certificate of official" : We find this to be unworkable, and I have a section to suggest in lieu of subsection (1)-: "At any place in His Majesty's dominions (other than any port or place in the Commonwealth of Australia), of a Superintendent, or, in the absence of any such Superintendent, of the chief officer of Customs at or near the place ; and." To comply with subsection (4) of section 103 of the Bill the master would have to anchor his vessel out in the stream to find if any of his crew were on shore, and, if so, he would have to report to the Customs or other authority. That is rather a big order for a master, and he would have to keep the passengers waiting and to delay the mails, while the owner would be put to a lot of unnecessary expense, trouble, and delay. 57. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] It is intended to apply more to a foreign-going vessel than to a colonial boat ? —That makes a difference, and should be clearly shown in the Act. Section 119, "■ Provision for seamen left ashore when incapacitated " : We would ask that the whole of this be struck out, as we think section 117 meets the case. I think the men are provided for there, besides which you have the Workers' Compensation for Accidents Act, which all New-Zealand-owned ships now come under whilst trading in New Zealand waters, and also the Employers' Liability Act. 58. Mr. Millar.] It only deals with accidents, not illness contracted on board, unless it be an iufectious disease.—Subsections (2) and (3) provide for medicines and medical attendance. And if a man meets with an accident he comes under the Workers' Compensation Act. 59. But only for accidents?— Sometimes illness is brought on by an accident. We do not object to it while the ship is trading in New Zealand waters. If we bring a man back to the colony and pay his wages that would be a fair thing. Section 124, "Deaths and accidents at sea": The word "accidents" has been added to this section. We would ask that the words "serious accident "be inserted. The most trivial accidents would have to be reported to the Superintendent; but if it was made clear that the man was incapacitated from his ordinary work for a certain period it would be different, and would satisfy us. Section 131, " Desertion" :We have had a lot of trouble with this particular section under the present Act. Shipping-masters will not define what a " deserter " means, and we wish it to be defined. I maintain that if a man is not on board his ship at the sailing-time he should be termed a deserter unless the ship leaves before her advertised time. We may have had a great deal of trouble at such places as Greymouth and Westport when the men are paid at the end of the month. In this particular clause we ask that the definition of " deserter " shall be somewhat as follows : " Deserting seaman " to mean any person who fails to be on board his ship at time of sailing, provided that such ship shall not have sailed before her advertised time or the time shown on the notice-board at gangway : Provided also that if the seaman so absent shall have been prevented from joining through accident, illness, or other valid reason, and shall have notified the master, or shall afterwards prove to the satisfaction of the master that his absence was owing to accident, illness, or other valid reason, he shall not be termed a " deserter." Passengers sometimes ask what is the cause of the delay in sailing, and the usual reply is that a couple of firemen are short; so that if the term "deserter" w r as clearly defined we could prosecute these men, and prevent a lot of inconvenience to the travelling public and extra expense to the shipowner. 60. If your suggestion were to apply to ships on which the hour of sailing was posted you would be satisfied ?—Yes. On our ships notice is posted on the gangway. 61. It has been represented to us that sometimes, especially in the case of colliers, the ship gets away before her supposed time in consequence of being unloaded quickly?—We should have to provide that a notice-board should be put up, so that the men could see when the ship was leaving, although the hour was not advertised in the newspapers. 62. The Chairman.] Your proposed clause specifies that it should show the hour of sailing ?— Yes. If a man could show that he was there at that hour he would not be prosecuted. Immediately the master can ascertain from the office the time of departure the notice should be put up. If the notice were put up an hour or two after the ship's arrival that should meet the case. 63. I see one difficulty about it. The master might put a notice up at 9 o'clock in the morn-

14

1.—9.

[JOHN FRANCIS KIBBY.

ing that he would leave at 12, when he might not be able to leave until 6or 7 o'clock ?—I do not think the Union Company would do anything of that nature. 64. Mr. Hutohesou.] The suggestion we had was that the man left behind should report himself to the Collector of Customs or other authority, and pay any expense incurred by the shipowner through his own default. Twenty-four hours is given, I think, for him to report himself to the Collector of Customs? —He may have been on the spree and have had time to recover during that twenty-four hours, so that at the end of the time he is sufficiently recovered and in good form when he goes to the Collector and simply says that he missed his passage. 65. The desire is to prevent a man who by accident misses his passage being penalised by this Act, and to punish a man who wilfully deserts or loses his ship by being drunk. That is my reason for making the suggestion ?—The decent man is provided for, but the bad man we do not want to protect. Section 133, " Court may order deserter to be conveyed on board ": By the reading of this section —subsection (2) —every man could go ashore if he liked to give notice. There is no provision that he must procure a substitute and pay him accordingly. There is another case where a man can be fined, but in this all the man has to do is to go on shore and give forty-eight hours' notice to the master and remain on shore and you cannot deal with him. 66. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.} That is the present law. Have you experienced any difficulty under it ?—No ; but we ask that the section be struck out altogether. 67. Mr. Millar.} It does not relieve the man from any expense incurred?— But there is no provision made for a substitute. 68. The Chairman.} All that subsection (2) provides is that in case of the man having given forty-eight hours' notice the Court could not order him to be sent on board. He would still be liable for all costs incurred by the master or owner through absenting himself?— What we maintain is that the man should not leave the ship without the consent of the master in the first instance. The 1896 Act says that the master or seaman shall give twenty-four hours' notice. 69. Well, the man has to give double the notice?— But we want to reduce the notice. 70. Mr. Millar.} It is only for foreign-going ships? —We have foreign-going ships as well. Why not have a different section that will apply to intercolonial and home-trade ships ? 71. Mr. Hutche&on.} I think we ought to have a section that will apply to intercolonial, hometrade, and foreign-going ships ?—We ask for that addition, Mr. Chairman. Section 155, "Chief engineer to keep an official log" : All I ask in this case is that the word ''official" before the word " log "be deleted, and the letter "a" be substituted for " an." We are quite satisfied that the chief engineer should make all the entries shown with the exception of one in subsection (1), requiring that the log shall be " signed by the chief engineer and by either the second or third engineer." Our contention is that if it is to be signed by a second party it should be signed by the engineer on watch at the time something happens. The second and third engineers might be off duty, and the engineer on watch at the time, I maintain, would be the proper person to sign the log. 72. Mr. M. Thompson.} Why object to the word " official " ?—When you put another official log on board you have divided authority right away. 73. Mr. Hutcheson.} We have had a suggestion that the log should be at all times available to the master ? —Yes, I would agree to that, and to the Surveyor or Inspector of Machinery also being able to sight it.

Friday, Ist August, 1902. Examination of J. F. Kirby continued. 1. The Chairman.] Will you continue your evidence ? —I wish to refer the Committee back to section 153, subsection (2), dealing with log-books and home-trade ships. I might point out that in the case of home-trade ships it would be impossible to carry this out. We commission ships at any time of the year. We might commission a ship on the 9th June, and it would have to be handed over to the Superintendent of Marine within twenty-one days of the 30th. When a ship goes into commission and the articles are signed the ship gets a log-book at the same time. If the log-book is not sufficiently large to take all the entries, another is got, and the book and articles are sent back to the Superintendent of Marine on the expiration of the articles. We should like if you could see your way clear to make the clause read that the time shall expire when the ship's articles are handed back to the Superintendent. The present system is working well, and we have had no complaints from the Superintendents of Mercantile Marine. We contend that the other arrangement as suggested would be unworkable and uncalled-for. 2. If the clause read, "After the ship has been a clear six months in commission, or at the termination of her commission," would that meet your objection ?—ls not the present practice as good, if not better, than the proposed clause ? 3. Say, at the next half-yearly period after the ship has been six months in commission .— Either that or the present practice. 4. It does not need to be in the next month ?—lf a ship is in commission twelve months you must change your articles every half-year, and you must change your log also. 5. This is only intended to make all the half-years end at the same time. Ido not see that there is much advantage to be gained, and there might be a great deal of trouble. Supposing a ship goes into commission a month after this half-year, then she would not have been six months

JOHN FBANCIS KIEBY.]

15

1.—9.

in commission when the next term came round ?—No. It works very well at present, and gives no trouble. I wish now to refer to section 160. The whole of this section with its subsections is new, and, if carried, will undoubtedly throw a lot of unnecessary trouble on the masters and shipowner. I would suggest that articles somewhat similar to those issued by the Board of Trade shall be issued. If you do that you will get all the information required and asked for here. You do not get all the information by the present articles. You get all the other information asked for in the official log. Third Schedule : This requires a little alteration to make it more workable. It refers to the manning scale, under the head "Firemen, Trimmers, and Greasers." You will notice that for a vessel of 750 to 1,250 indicated horse-power four firemen, two trimmers, and two greasers are provided for. We do not want to reduce that number, but suggest an alteration which will make it workable. Four firemen are unworkable, and we have to promote one of these men to a greaser. Take a ship like the " Mapourika." She comes under this head. We cannot work four firemen, and you have to put one into the engine-room. If the fourth man was put on to the greasers it would do. Under this we should have to put the men on six-hour watches, which the shipowners do not want to do amongst firemen in this class of steamer. 6. Do the firemen and greasers get the same wages?— Yes. I have one or two new clauses I would like to see inserted in the Bill. The first one I would like to see substituted for section 63 : " In all cases when ships are trading in the colony the wages herein reserved shall not accrue due until completion of the agreement; but monthly payments, which are to be considered as an advance only on account of wages, shall be paid after the completion of five weeks' service on the first arrival at any port where there is a branch of a bank : Provided that Sundays and bank holidays shall not count as days within the meaning of this section." We find that a good many of our men who ship in the engine department, after they receive their month's pay, go ashore and get into trouble. The ship on many occasions has to go without them or employ a substitute at the expense of the owner. My clause is a fac-simile of that in force in New South Wales and Victoria at the present time. That is, it is placed on the face of the ship's articles, and is an agreement between the crew and the master. Tt means that a shipowner would always hold a month's pay in hand, and a man who was inclined to leave a ship suddenly would consider the matter before he did so. This is my reason for introducing the new clause. There is another clause I would like to see inserted. It has reference to the treatment of deserters, and is copied from the New South Wales Consolidated Act of 1898. 7. Where would that come in?—l think it might come in immediately after the clause I suggested yesterday—section 131 —although some other place might be found Where it would fit in better. It is section 88 of the Act of New South Wales. It reads : "When any seaman who has deserted from any ship, or has neglected or refused without reasonable cause to join his ship, or to proceed to sea therein is not apprehended until (a) after the departure of such ship from any port in New Zealand ; or (&) so shortly before such departure that he cannot conveniently be brought to trial prior to the same, or (c) so shortly before such departure that the master cannot reasonably be expected to attend' for the purpose of prosecuting him, and of producing original documentary evidence against him, the Shipping-master shall prosecute such deserter; and upon 'the hearing of the charge verified copies of the ship's articles and of the entry in the log-book in which respectively such offender's name appears shall be admitted as evidence against him." At the present time we have no power to prosecute a deserter after the ships leave ; and in New South Wales I expect they have had the same trouble with men in the past, and have seen the necessity of inserting this in their Act. The owner or agent or bond fide servant of the shipowner has no power at present to take this man before the Court. The proposed clause might have a good effect in putting down this sort of thing. Seamen are, as a rule, better men, and such a provision as this is scarcely needed for them ; but the firemen sometimes give us a lot of trouble. In this respect I wish now to refer you to the Third Schedule, dealing with the seamen to be carried on sea-going steamships (page 125). The alteration I am about to refer to has occurred to me and a number of other seafaring people, who agree that a cargosteamer pure and simple should not be called upon to carry the same number of men as a passenger-boat. I would suggest that the word " passenger " should go before the words " sea-going steamships "in the heading. Before going into the schedule proper I wish to bring under the notice of the Committee the difference in the manning of these cargo-steamships in the English-owned boats and those owned on the Australian and New Zealand coasts. I will deal first with the " Mercedes," which was here last week. She is a vessel of 2,925 tons, Englishowned, and carries 1 " lamps " or boatswain, 7 A.B.s, and 4 boys (shown as apprentices); under the proposed manning scale she would carry 1 "lamps" or boatswain, 8 A.B.s, and 1 boy. I cannot understand what there is for apprentices to learn on that vessel. She has no spars or sails, and the only thing that they could learn would be how to clean brasswork or wash decks. There is no seamanship to be learned. Then there is the " Breconshire," 2,323 tons, also Englishowned : she carries 1 "lamps" or boatswain, 7 A.B.s, and 2 boys; under the proposed scale she would carry 1 "lamps" or boatswain, 7 A.B.s, and 1 boy. Of Commonwealth-owned vessels, take the "Undaunted," 2,026 tons, and the " Moorabool," 1,947 tons: the former carries 1 "lamps" or boatswain and 7 A.B.s; as proposed, she would carry 1 "lamps" or boatswain, 7 A.B.s, and 1 boy : the " Moorabool" carries 1 "lamps" or boatswain, 6 A.B.s. and 1 O.S. ; as proposed, she would carry 1 "lamps "or boatswain, 7 A.B.s, and 1 boy. Of New-Zealand-owned vessels, take the " Aparima," 3,550 tons, and the " Whangape," 1,901 tons : the present manning of the former is 1 " lamps "or boatswain, 12 A.B.s, and 1 boy; as proposed, 1 " lamps "or boatswain, 9 A.B.s, and 1 boy : the " W T hangape," at present, 1 " lamps " or boatswain, 8 A.B.s, and 1 boy ;as proposed, 1 " lamps "or boatswain, 7 A.B.s, and 1 boy. Then, take the following comparison of expenses of the " Breconshire," 2,323 net tons, 1,800 indicated horse-power, and of a. New-Zealand-owned steamer of same tonnage and power : —

1.—9.

r JOHN PEANOIS KIEBY.

"Breconshire." New-Zealand-owned Steamers. £ s. d. £ s. d. Master (say) ... ... 20 0 0 25 0 0 First mate ... ... ... ... 9 0 0 15 0 0 Second mate ... ... ... ... 7 0 0 12 0 0 Third mate ... ... ... ... 5 10 0 10 0 0 Boatswain... ... ... ... ... 5 0 0 7 10 0 Carpenter ... ... ... ... ... 6 0 0 9 0 0 A.B.s ... ... ..'. ... (7 at £4) 28 0 0 (8) 52 0 0 Deck-boys... ... ... ... (2 at £1) 2 0 0 (2) 310 0 First engineer ... ... ... ... 16 0 0 24 0 0 Second engineer ... ... ... ... 11 0 0 17 0 0 Third engineer ... ... ... ... 8 0 0 14 0 0 Fourth engineer .. ... ... ... 6 0 0 11 0 0 Donkey-man ... ... ... ... 5 5 0 9 10 0 Firemen and trimmers ... (9 at £4 10s.) 40 10 0 Firemen and greasers ... ... ... ... (8) 68 0 0 Trimmers... ... ... ... ... ... (8) 19 10 0 Steward ... ... ... ... ... 6 0 0 10 0 0 Mess-room steward ... ... ... ... 200 400 Cook ... ... ... ... ... 5 0 0 10 0 0 Assistant cook ... ... ... ... ... 400 Total ... ... ... 182 5 0 325 0 0 182 5 0 142 15 0 Articles provide for twenty-six hands, six of which are to be A.B.s. The locally owned steamers would have to pay £1,713 more per annum in wages alone. This does not include overtime, which would amount to about £120; also extra victualling, four men at £100. a year. This will show you that the local owners are handicapped to a great extent both in the manning scale and in the rate of wages paid, especially on that class of cargo-steamer, which scarcely ever carries passengers. The number on the smaller ships is not decreased by my proposal, but when the higher tonnage ship is reached the decrease takes place. Proposed Amended Schedule of Seamen to be carried in Sea-going Cargo-steamers. Under 30 tons net register ... ... ... Not less than 1 certificated able seaman and 1 ordinary seaman or boy. Over 30 and under 100 tons register ... ... 2 certificated able seamen and 1 ordinary seaman or boy. 100 „ 200 „ ... ... 3 ditto. 200 „ 400 „ ... ... 4 „ 400 „ 600 „ ... ... 5 „ 600 „ 1,000 „ ... ... 6 „ „ 1,000 „ 1,500 „ 7 „ „ 1,500 „ 2,500 „ ... ... 8 „ And for every 1,000 tons or fraction of 1,000 tons net register above 2,500 tons, 1 able seaman extra In ships of over 600 tons 1 ordinary seaman and 1 boy may be carried in lieu of 1 able seaman. It will be admitted, I think, that the ship of the future —in fact, the modern steamer — may have but two pole masts. Indeed, in many instances, as you have seen in Wellington, they have none. Most of these ships have not a scrap of sail on board. The sailorising work is usually done on shore in the rigging-loft. Sometimes a man may be required to splice a pair of slings, or put a ratline or a seizing on ; and that is all, with the exception that men are wanted to steer, to heave a lead, or do ordinary jobs such as those. That is the work a seaman has to do on board a modern steamer. His work consists mostly in discharging cargo, driving a winch, and washing decks and paintwork. We maintain that a cargo-steamer should not be manned so highly as a passenger-ship. The boats they carry are for the crew only, and there are sufficient people on the cargo-boat to man them without falling back on the sailors to do it. It may be said that if the cargo-steamer carries too many seamen the passenger-steamers have not sufficient. We say she has according to the scale. But we found that the scale was slightly low, and put more men on than was provided for in the scale. The " Waikare" is 1,901 tons, and would carry according to scale nine A.B.s, but we gave her ten. She carries eight ordinary boats and two collapsible boats. I compiled some years ago a system of drill [produced]. New men, therefore, are at the end of six months just as good in getting out the boats as ordinary sailors. Each man has got his position as shown in the columns, and is properly trained in the manning of the boats. I might say, by way of explanation, that there are different classes of steamers. We have three classes of six-boat ships. We have cards for four-boat ships and two-boat ships. We also have cards for eight-boat ships and ten-boat ships. So that every class of ship in the Union Company's service is provided for; and in these passenger-steamers we hold that the number required is already carried. The firemen, stewards, and others are drilled every month, so that they are made thoroughly proficient in this work. For every drill which is held a return is made out, and we keep a register of them. If we find that boats are not put out we write to the master for an explanation.

16

JOHN FRANCIS KIEBY.I

17

I.—o.

8. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] You say that after six months these men get used to their work?— Yes. 9. What about the time before they get used to their work ?—But these men have a little idea of it when they reach us. This class of cards is the only one of a similar kind that I know of in the world. There is no ship in the world that I know of where every man and boy on board has a detailed station. We have young people joining us from the country as trimmers, but we do not put too many of these in one ship. We have to carry two boys in some of our ships, but we only put one on who has not been previously at sea. 10. Mr. Laurenson.] How often do you have these drills ?—lt works out about once a month in each ship. The return shows what has been done. It shows if there have been any absentees, and the condition of the boats and gear. The officer in charge of each boat has to sign the card and is responsible for the people in his boat, and I enter the particulars up in the register, and also the condition of the gear. 11. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] You say that some of your boats have over the number required by the statutory manning scale ?—Yes. 12. Will you let the Committee have a list of these boats ?—Yes. I have it here roughly ; but I will submit a list made up in a different and more complete form :— Manning of Union Steamship Company's Steamers, as per Company's Schedule. Steamers. Net Tons. A.B.s O.S.s Boys. Steamers. Net Tons. A.B.s O.S.s Boys. Moana ... ... 2,414 *15 1 2 Koonya ... ... 663 7 ... 1 Mokoia ... ... 2,154 11 2 1 Takapuna ... 472 8 ... 1 Monowai... ... 2,137 11 2 1 Botorua ... ... 576 7 ... 1 Waikare ... ... 1,901 10 2 1 Penguin ...' ... 517 7 ... 1 Mararoa ... ... 1,381 10 2 1 Janet Nicoll ... 496 6 ... 1 Wanaka ... ... 1,572 9 ... 1 Bosamond ... 462 6 ... 1 Bakanoa ... ... 1,393 8 ... 1 Haupiri ... ... 474 7 ... 1 Talune ... ... 1,370 9 11 Wainui ... ... 411 6 ... 1 Eotokino... ... 1,304 8 ... 1 Warrimoo ... 2,076 11 2 1 Manapouri ... 1,288 8 ... 1 Whangape ... 1,901 9 ... 1 Tarawera... ... 1,269 9 11 Moura ... ... 1,247 9 11 Waihora ... ... 1,269 9 11 Waipori ... ... 1,229 8 ... 1 Hauroto ... ... 1,276 8 11 Kamona ... ... 903 7 ... 1 Wakatipu ... 1,258 9 ... 1 Kotuku ... ... 662 7 ... 1 Botomahana ... 901 9 ... 2 Herald ... ... 370 6 ... 1 Hawea ... ... 1,114 8 ... 1 Omapere ... ... 352 611 Oonah ... ... 945 9 11 Wareatea... ... 288 4 1 1 Taieri ... ... 1,071 8 1 ... Mahinapua ... 239 5 1 1 TeAnau... ... 1,028 9 11 Orowaiti ... ... 283 4 1 ... Taviuni ... ... 910 8 ... 1 Kawatiri ... ... 322 4 11 Pukaki ... ... 917 7 ... 1 Corinna ... ... 820 7 ... 1 Kittawa ... ... 820 7 1 ... Flora ... ... 838 7 ... 1 Ovalau ... ... 767 7 ... 1 Pateena ... ... 550 7 ... 1 Mapourika ... 718 8 ... 1 Poherua ... ... 749 7 1 Botoiti ... ... 630 8 ... 1 Upolu ... ... 700 7 ... 1 Kini 702 7 ... 1 1 would like to add that the local shipowners, what with the increased manning scale and' the Acts of Parliament they are working under as compared with foreign shipowners, are to a very great extent handicapped, and we think that Parliament should do something to ease them. We have the Workers' Compensation Act, the Employers' Liability Act, and the Public Health Act to work under, and these give them a lot of trouble, and cause a good deal of expense. 13. The Chairman.] It has been represented to us that in some of the very large cargo-carry-ing boats the manning scale here is too low ?—I do not hold with that. On the contrary, I think ten men in ships up to 4,000 or 5,000 tons are quite enough to secure the ship. That is all you have, practically to do when they come into port. At sea their duties are light—such as steering and keeping the ship clean. 14. What about the boats in case of accident ?—Two boats would be more than sufficient. In ships of that class the average size of a lifeboat is about 350 cubic feet, which would carry thirtyfive persons. 15. What about the " Takapuna " ? —That is a passenger-steamer. We had to increase the number of men on that steamer because she is of small tonnage and carries a large number of passengers. We put eight able seamen on her —two more than the minimum scale provides for. We found that the scale for passenger-steamers in some cases was low, but is all right as a minimum. 16. What scale would you propose ?—I am prepared to go into the matter with experts and make suggestions. I also submit a schedule for your consideration, which would be the minimum:—

* Carries four men extra for coaling bunkers whilst in Vancouver trade.

Note.- Under the heading of " A.B.s" boatswains and lamp-trimmers arc included. 3—l. 9.

1.—9.

18

[JOHN FRANCIS KIEBT.

Proposed Amended Schedule of Seamen to be carried in Sea-going Passenger-steamers. Under 30 tons net register ... ... ... Not less than 1 certificated able seaman and 1 ordinary seaman or boy. Over 30 and under 100 tons register ... 2 certificated able seamen and 1 ordinary seaman or boy. 100 „ 200 „ ... ... 4 ditto. 200 „ 400 „ ... ... 5 „ 400 „ 600 „ 6 „ 600 „ 1,000 7 „ „ 1,000 „ 1,500 „ ... ... 8 „ „ 1,500 „ 2,500 „ ... ... 9 „ And for every 1,000 tons or fraction of 1,000 tons net register above 2,500 tons, 1 able seaman extra. In ships of over 1,000 tons 1 ordinary seaman and I boy may be carried in lieu of 1 able seaman. 17. You want a certain number of men to work the ship, and a certain number for emergency ? —Yes. My company put more men in the passenger-ships than in some instances required by the minimum scale. I would suggest that three experts be appointed to go into this matter of scale, as it is a matter of great importance. New Zealand is the only country that has a manning scale. The only condition the Board of Trade lays down is that a ship of 700 tons and 200 ft. long shall carry no less than three able seamen on watch—one man on the look-out, one at the wheel, and one as a stand-by—and two officers. Now, a ship twenty times that size would not be required to carry any more. According to that scale, you can see how unfair it is to a local shipowner. I think it would be a very wise thing to appoint three experts to go into this question of manning, because you will find, after you have passed this manning scale, that other countries will copy you. In providing a minimum scale you have to take the class of ship into consideration, and other things that you cannot go into on a Committee like this. I have another suggestion to make. We shall have here, perhaps, in the course of a year or two, turbine steamers, and may have at any time oil-fuel steamers, and there is no provision in the manning scale for that class of steamer. It will be necessary to provide for such vessels in future. lam told by engineers that no firemen will be necessary for oil-fuel steamers, as all you will want is greasers and people to attend to the fuel. I now wish to refer to the Sixth Schedule. I wish also here to make two schedules—one for passenger-steamers, and the other for cargo-steamers. My reasons are these : We will take two ships of a like tonnage. One is a cargo-ship, pure and simple : — Proposed Sixth Schedule for Cargo-steamers : Engagement or Discharge of Crews. £ s. d. In ships under 100 tons net register ... ... ... ... 0 '5 0 from 100 to 200 tons net register ... ... ... 010 0 200 to 300 „ ... ... ... 015 0 300 to 500 „ ... ... ... 1 0 0 500 to 750 „ ... ... ... 1 5 0 750 to 1,000 „ ... ... ... 1 10 0 „ 1,000 to 1,250 „ ... ... ... 1 15 0 „ 1,250 to 1,500 „ 2 0 0 „ 1,500 to 1,750 „ 2 5 0 „ 1,750 to 2,000 „ ... ... ... 2 10 0 And for every 250 tons or fraction of 250 tons net register above 2,000 tons, ss. Single discharges or engagements to be Is. 6d. " Whangape," 1,901 tons, 30 of a crew, at Is. 6d. per head, £2 55.; " Waikare," 1,901 tons, 84 of a crew, at Is. 6d. per head, £6 65.; " Whangape," at tonnage rates, present scale, would be £5 10s.; "Waikare," present scale, would be £5 10s. Our contention is that they should be paid according to result. I think that is a very fair manner to deal with this work. I have all to do with the engaging and discharging of men before the Superintendent of Marine. At Dunedin and Port Chalmers all the discharges are made out by the master, and all that the Superintendent has to do is to fill in the ages, places of birth, and so on, in the articles. In a ship like the " Whangape "it will take him half an hour, whereas it will take three times as long for the " Waikare." Ido not know what fees are paid by the shipowner in the Old Country (if any), but lam getting our general manager to cable Home for the amount. I should like the Government, if they can see their way to do so, to charge each member of the ship's crew every half-year. It seems to me very hard that a man who goes down to the sea in ships should be taxed in the way he s. The shoreman is not taxed in a like manner, and he has not to pay anything when he gets a job ; but every time a seaman gets a situation he has to pay a fee, and it may happen twelve times a year. I maintain that if any fees have to be paid at all they should be paid only every half-year. It could be shown on the man's discharge, and a column should be put in for that purpose, and the fee should not be charged again until six months had expired. 18. The fees, I am told, are charged to meet the cost of administration, for the work done on behalf of the ships?—l was told by Mr. Millar that the fees amounted to £2,500 or £3,000 a year. That amount would more than cover the cost of supervision by these officers, and I think the men should have some consideration. The schedule I have prepared I shall have much pleasure in handing in. I now come to a comparison of the surveying-fees paid in Victoria, New South Wales, Tasmania, and New Zealand. That is the Seventh Schedule:—

JOHN FBANCIS KIRBY.]

19

t q

Victoria. New South Wales. Tasmania. New Zealand. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. Under 300 tons 6 0 0 ... ... 12 0 0 Over 300 „ 8 0 0 ... 3 0 0 14 0 0 „ 1,200 „ . ... 14 0 0 ... 20 0 0 900 „ ... 12 0 0 ... 18 0 0 600 „ ... 10 0 0 ... 16 0 0 Take Victoria: For a vessel under 300 tons in Victoria the survey fees amount to only £6. In New Zealand it amounts to £12. That, we maintain, is too high a rate altogether. We ask that our fee shall be somewhat on the same lines as the Victorian fee. The same amount of work is done there as is done here. A vessel over 300 tons in Victoria would have to pay £8. The survey fee in Tasmania would be £3, and in New Zealand £14. There is a big difference there between the fees, especially with regard to Tasmania. We would not like to see it come down to that of Tasmania, because that is a very low margin, but we would like to see the Victorian fee adopted. Coming down to New South Wales, for a vessel over 1,200 tons it is £14, as against £20 in New Zealand. For a vessel over 900 tons, in New South Wales it is £12, while in New Zealand it is £18. For a vessel over 600 tons in New South Wales it is £10, and in New Zealand £16. So that in the sister-colonies the fees are considerably lower, and we ask that a fairer schedule shall be drawn up, so that the local shipowner shall not be handicapped so much as he has been in the past. 19. Mr. Laurenson.] Take section 38 : There is a very strong objection taken by the seamen to any one acting as an agent or as representing the masters and owners : have you anything to say about that ? —Yes; I have many objections in reference to that, and I have committed them to writing. The union asks for abolition of bond fide servant or agent in the employ of the shipowner. This was also asked by union when before the Arbitration Court, and it was clearly proven that it was not detrimental to the men's interests. The union has quoted one solitary case—viz., the master of the " Elingamite " being fined ss. at Lyttelton for carrying a trimmer who was not on the articles, owing to engineer failing to report to the master that he had engaged the person in question. Such a case as this cannot possibly happen in future, as section 39 of the Arbitration Court award provides that all notices to leave the ship must be given and accepted by the master, and the maximum penalty for any breach of the award is fixed at £100. Masters are sure to see that the award is complied with ; and under section 42, subsection (8), of the consoliated Act he is also liable in the latter case, and the maximum fine is £20. It has been stated that the agent or bureau system as adopted and carried out by the company is " entirely opposed to the interests of the men." On the contrary, it has been of great benefit to the men of good character and ability, as we are now in a position to know the good from the bad men. Consequently the good ones benefit by the system, but not those that misconduct themselves by getting drunk, deserting, and various other kinds of misconduct. If the union were sincere in trying to get a respectable class of men into their ranks (as they pretend to be) you would expect to get every assistance in their power to further the system, instead of requesting Parliament to abolish it altogether. The reasons for this proposed amendment are very clear to my mind—viz., the union want to take the control of the labour out of the hands of the employers. The unions should go further, and request the Government to pass a short Act for the purpose of abolishing the office of Inspector of Factories, as they act as Labour or Bureau Agents right throughout the colony. I might also point out that our system is carried out on somewhat the same lines as the Government's—that is to say, no person can get a permanent position in any of the Government Departments without first applying to the head at Wellington. My company do not go that far, but have provided a competent person at each of the four main ports; and I have yet to learn that it tends to rob a man of his independence, as stated by the union, to apply for employment to the officer appointed by the shipowner for that purpose. On the contrary, I think it will be admitted that, if there is one particular person and place to apply to, it is infinitely better for the applicant than having to go from ship to ship to seek employment. To make this clear, the best class of people that we can get as stokehold hands, ordinary seamen, and boys come from the country. Experience has shown us that they are far superior, both morally and physically, to the seamen and firemen that desert from the Home ships—that being the usual way they get clear from their ships in the colonies. So that if the union's suggestion was adopted it would mean that there would be very little chance, if any, of the colonial youth getting employment on the company's steamers in future, as it would be ridiculous to think that they, in some instances, would come fifty or a hundred miles every time a ship came into port to interview a chief officer or chief engineer on the off-chance of getting a job; whereas at the present time the applicant's address is taken, and when a suitable position offers he is sent for. Another objection is that officers and engineers are not in the same position to know the good men from the bad—that is, men get discharged at other ports and the reasons are not known to the officers; whereas the persons who engage this class of labour are fully posted as to the cause of all men leaving the company's ships {vide forms of reports). Under the present system every applicant gets the same chance—that is, of course, always provided that the person whose application has been longest in the book is suitable for the position that is offering. It is not true that one act of misconduct debars a man from further employment. Our practice is to give no less than three chances. It is also untrue that men are punished by being kept out of employment for an indefinite period if they object to go in a certain ship or certain trade. Their objections are given every consideration, and, if found reasonable, they are not sent, but are kept back for the next opening. Another statement made by the union is that we are losing the pick of the men by this system. This is not borne out by facts ; but we can prove to the contrary that we have a large number of men employed afloat who were in the service prior to this system coming into force, and they have never yet complained about their independence being taken from them nor being

1.—9.

20

[JOHN FRANCIS KIEBY.

subjected to any harsh treatment through this system, as alleged by the union. That being the case, the only conclusion any right-thinking person can come to is that it is the bad character —that is, those who are not amenable to discipline that have started this agitation to abolish this system which has worked so well during the last ten years ; and it has been admitted to me on several occasions by owners, captains, and engineers outside of the company's service that it is the best system that has ever been adopted to grapple with the last-named class of seamen and firemen. I might also point out that if the proposed amendment was accepted by the House the company would be placed in a very unfair and, I might add, somewhat serious position, in this way : The company have at present about forty ships trading in New Zealand waters, carrying about seven hundred seamen and firemen, that come under the Arbitration award, and it has been laid down by that Court that no discrimination shall be shown between union and non-union men, so that you would have to hand over to forty chief officers and forty chief engineers the administration of this particular clause. I maintain, therefore, that four competent persons, as already provided by my company, are sufficient to administer the clause in question, and not eighty as proposed by the union. Our system is carried out somewhat on these lines : When a man comes to apply for a position in the Union Company's service his name and address are taken down, and when a vacancy occurs on any steamer he is fitted for, and provided he is next on turn, he gets it. When he arrives at the office he is given an order to the chief officer of the vessel. [Forms produced showing the method adopted.] A report is sent in by the master every month respecting the conduct and ability of his crew. The same course is adopted in the engine department. By this means we are conversant with what takes place on board each boat, and why all men are discharged. But the officers of steamers other than the one the person has been discharged from are not in possession of this knowledge. 20. The There is a good deal of dissatisfaction, I believe, with that system. Complaints are made that men get black marks placed against their names without having any opportunity of learning the cause, or proving that they are'unjustified, while masters who want to take on certain men whom they know to be good men by former experience are unable to do so because of the black marks used under this system ?—I will come to that point later on. We are in the best position to know who are good men and who are not. I may add that the Masters' Association representative will address you also on this point. These men are acquainted with the system, and consider it a good one for the men It sometimes happens that a ship may be ready for sea when it is discovered that two or three firemen are on shore "on the drunk," and the ship cannot get away. On one occasion the Premier and Sir Joseph Ward were detained for nearly an hour on this account, two firemen being absent through drink, and we have had many cases of that kind. The only way we can grapple with the difficulty is by adopting this system, and I may add that I have not had a case of " blackball " for twelve months or more. If I find that a man has been discharged from the " Mararoa," say, for drunkenness, that he then goes on to the " Botomahana " and is again discharged for the same offence, and then goes into a third ship with the same result, I then conclude that he is incorrigible and incapable of looking after his duties. 21. Mr. Allen.] You give the man three chances ?—Yes, unless he assaults some one. It depends upon the nature of the offence, and a man has to be very bad before he gets dismissed from the service. I think the men will tell you that I am not very hard on them, and the same may be said for the four centres. Section 43 : This has reference to men signing on. I hold that there is no great hardship on a man if he signs articles for one or more ships. You might take as an illustration the case of a man who runs two factories, one at Thorndon and one at Newtown. If work is slack at one factory it is no great hardship for men to be transferred to the other, and the same principle should apply in the case of the shipowner if he has two ships of a like tonnage. 22. Mr. Laurenson.] The man signs to work on a hundred-ton coastal steamer and afterwards finds that he has to work on a two-thousand-ton steamer going foreign: that is the objection they offer—that they can be shipped from one steamer to another ? —There may be hardship in a man going from a comfortable ship into a less comfortable one. 23. Hon. Mi\ Hall-Jones.] Of course, you recognise that there are differences in ships, and in skippers too? — Yes, we admit that. The same master may also be transferred to the ship, although it does not always happen. 24. Would there be any great objection to striking the clause out ? —I do not know that it has happened in New Zealand yet, but I think it has happened in Sydney, in a ship running from Sydney to Newcastle. There they are continually on the run, and I think that is unfair. That is the only place where I know the system to be in vogue. 25. The Chairman.] Would it materially affect your company if subsections (2) and (3) were struck out of section 43 ?—The objection that would be raised from the shipowner's point of view is that he would have to pay the shipping-fees if you struck it out. He has the right to transfer the crew from one ship to another without paying the shipping-fees. 26. Mr. Hutcheson.] It has been represented to us that on small steamers, which are required to carry only two firemen, the firemen have to be continually on the run, and the representative of the firemen urges that three watches ought to be kept on the trip, however small: how would your company view that ? —The engineers have it it in the Act of 1896 that on a run of over 300 miles between terminal ports the ship shall carry no less than three engineers if her indicated horse-power is over 300 and under 1,250. 27. The proposal is practically to extend the same principle to the firemen? —Of course, I am not in a position to give an opinion on that point, because I have not talked the matter over with my principals. 28. You have had something to say about the status of greasers ?—-Yes.

HUCxH MONRO.]

1.—9.

29. It imposes a hardship with regard to length of service : supposing we put a proviso into the Act that men who had had the length of experience in freezing-works or other engine-rooms ashore should be given the same status as if they had acquired it at sea ?—Yes, that could be done, and would meet the case. 30. With regard to masters giving an account of wages, you suggest that the home-trade and intercolonial ships should be exempted from giving a detailed statement of the wages in paying off, seeing that they are working on a twenty-four-hours notice ?—Yes. 31. What is your practice now : do your company comply with that ?—Yes; but we think it a hardship. 32. In reference to the " Breconshire" competing with your company on unequal terms, did you not make a slip in comparing the scale when you said that it was very unfair competition for your company to be subjected to on the New Zealand coast ?—Yes; I made a slip there, as she is not trading coastwise at present. My contention is that the Board of Trade regulations would evade the terms made by the New Zealand laws in respect to wages and manning. 33. If, instead of releasing locally owned steamers from the present restrictions of the law, Parliament endeavoured in every way possible to impose similar restrictions on outsiders—in other words, to do what I have been advocating for the last three years, " Keep oor am fish-guts for oor am sea-maws "■—would not that be a similar benefit to the company as if we permitted a lowering of the standard of the manning of cargo-steamers ? —I hold with you that it would be a good thing if Parliament could see its way to bring these ships to compete on equal terms with the local steamers with regard to manning. It is a very important point, and a very serious one to the local shipowners, for they feel the competition very much indeed. 34. In other words, you would recommend this Committee to do whatever it can to compel the other people to come up to our standard in the matter of manning?— Yes, in passengersteamers. 35. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] With regard to the alteration in the manning scale of cargosteamers, I think you suggested that we should take the advice of experts ?—That is so. I have drawn up a minimum scale, but would prefer that it be submitted to experts, because it is, in my opinion, one of the most important things you will have to deal with. 36. Your suggestion is that we should follow somewhat the lines of the Old Country, where cargo-steamers can carry up to twelve passengers? —I said ten, but I would not mind raising the number to twelve. In the case of our Calcutta steamers we have horse dealers, and others, for which provision must be made. None of our cargo-steamers carry more than ten passengers. 37. Do I clearly understand from you that your scale for passenger-carrying steamers is higher than that proposed in the Bill ?—Yes ; our manning scale is higher than your minimum scale. We carry two men more in the " Takapuna," but she is a vessel of very small tonnage, with provision made for carrying a large number of passengers. It is only right we should do so for the sake of the lives of the passengers in ships of that class. I contend there should be very little alteration made in the present minimum scale for passenger-steamers. 38. I suppose you admit that the cost of survey should be borne by the ship?— Yes, we admit that; but we say that the charges are too high as compared with those of the other colonies. I think there are twenty-seven clauses of the Bill the unions wish to deal with, nineteen of which deal with discipline, and I think the other side should be heard, when matters pertaining to discipline are discussed. It is a very serious matter, for without discipline you cannot carry on the business of a ship. 39. Mr. Hutcheson.] In the matter of twenty-four hours' notice being given, would it be satisfactory to your company if the seaman gave his notice twenty-four hours before reaching port, provided that it did not take effect within eight hours after the arrival of the vessel in port?—l think that would be a very fair thing. Of course, they would have to comply with the Act; that notice can only be given at the terminal port in the colony. 40. It will act as beneficially to your company as to the men, because I know a case where a man was notified of his discharge twenty-four hours before arriving in port, and because the vessel left the same day the man refused to be discharged, and an extra man had to be carried at the ship's expense ? —Yes, that might happen. Hugh Monro examined. (No. 5.) 41. The Chairman. What is your full name ? —Hugh Monro. 42. In what position do you desire to give evidence before the Committee ?—As a shipowner from Christchurch. . 43. We shall be glad to hear any evidence you propose to offer on the Shipping and Seamen's Bill?—I would like to show you how we labour under a great many disadvantages as compared with outside shipowners, owing to the way in which we have to man our ships and to the regulations. I will refer to section 11, subsection (3), which says that the necessary forms are to be supplied at a moderate price. Well, Ido not think the price charged is at all moderate, and for your inspection I have brought three of the forms. One costs 6d., and the other two 3d. each. These charges I consider are about 200 per cent, too much. For every seaman we discharge the ship has to find an account form showing the wages due to him, and if we put two or three hundred hands through during the year it amounts to a considerable sum. In great Britain all these forms are provided free. Section 42 I take exception to. In subsection (6) I reckon the six months mentioned ought to be struck out, and twelve months substituted. 44. On what ground ?—lf we take out an agreement with a crew for twelve months the ship may go away from Lyttelton, and so long as she does not strike Lyttelton again within twelve months this agreement will do; but if she comes back, say, in six months and one day we have to renew our agreement again—we have to renew our articles.

21

1.—9.

[HUGH MONRO.

45. You object to the expense of reshipping ? —Yes. If any of our men want to leave the ship we never raise objections. 46. Mr. Millar.] If you altered this the master could say the man would have to go another voyage, and he would have no option?— But the articles have to be renewed, whether the ship wants it or not. It comes heavier on the ship than if half a dozen men want to leave. 47. Mr. Laurenson.] You want the agreement to be for twelve months instead of six, do you?— Yes. Section 46 lays it down that if a copy of the agreement is not available to the crew the master is liable to a penalty of £5. It is a common thing for these copies to be destroyed by members of the crew. Now, if we discharged one crew and another came on board and found no copy posted up they could make a complaint, and the master would be liable to a penalty of £5. I consider that if any of the crew is found to have destroyed a copy of the agreement he also should be liable to the penalty of £5. Section 51, "Eating of seamen": I am quite in favour of two years as being sufficient time in which any man can become an A.B. in a steamer, and I think three years quite long enough to entitle any one to become an A.B. of a sailing-ship. Surely, if four years is long enough to teach a man to control a ship, three years should be long enough to teach a man to perform an able seaman's duties. There is no regulation set down for rating of ordinary seamen. You can take a boy out of the streets and make an ordinary seaman of him. Ido not think it should be compulsory to carry boys or apprentices, because in many ships there is no place to put the boys in except the forecastle. We have four apprentices in one ship and two in another, and in one ship we have no place to put them in ; but owing to this manning scale I got a boy and put him on board for a fortnight. But T pitied the boy so much, because he had to mix up with the crew, who were liable to go "on the drunk," that I took compassion on him and put him into another ship, and put on an A.B. seaman at £4 10s. in the boy's place: and, although I had an A.B. seaman in place of a boy, I had difficulty in clearing ship at the Customs, because I did not comply with the manning scale—viz., in carrying a boy. I think the carrying of boys should be left optional—that is, where ordinary seamen or A.B. seamen are carried in' their place. Section 75 : I think the twenty-four-hours notice provided in this clause is very much abused at the present time in coasting-vessels. There are a great many coasting-vessels sailing out of Lyttleton, and, if it is possible, they make a practice of getting away to sea on the Saturday night, and the crew should block this by giving notice on the Friday afternoon. This puts the master in the position that he cannot get his vessel away, and, as a good many of these vessels run to bar ports, if they cannot strike the tide they cannot get in. I would suggest that provision should be made that if a vessel has been forty-eight hours in harbour without notice being given the twenty-four-hours notice should cease. In that time I think a man would have ample time to make up his mind as to whether he wanted to leave, and that he should not be permitted to leave at the last moment. That would be fair to both. Section 130: " Provisions as to discipline " : It very often happens that when a ship is ready for sea many members of the crew are so drunk that they are incapable of doing anything, and I think, if a penalty were attached to this Act, it might be the means of stopping some of it. The dairying industry is protected by samples of milk being taken for analysis, but I do not think any samples of drink supplied to seamen in Lyttelton are taken. I have seen seamen returning on board ship quite mad with drink. 48. Mr. Hutaheson.] Are you sure they are not guilty of a crime ?—-Yes ; but there is no penalty for it. 49. Section 320 covers that ? —I was not aware of it. Section 133, subsection (2): You will notice that under this subsection any member of the crew can give the master forty-eight hours' notice of his intention to absent himself from the ship. I say thai this should be abolished. 50. The Chairman.] I think you have misunderstood the intention of that clause. All that is implied is that if any seaman has given forty-eight hours' notice of his intention to leave the ship he cannot be put on board by force ?—That is so; but he can absent himself, and I say the clause should be abolished. Any irresponsible person on board the ship can be the means of stopping the ship for any period. Suppose a vessel has a thousand pounds' worth of cargo which the merchant has sold to be delivered within a certain time, the men may leave and prevent her sailing. 51. Mr. Hutcheson.] It refers not to a man on board the ship, but to one who has agreed to go and recants ? —Suppose we ship men forty : eight hours before we intend going to sea, they could give us notice immediately after, and if there were no other men available the vessel could not get away. Sailors sometimes sign on who have no intention of going in the ship. 52. Mr. Millar.] That is, after receiving advance notes ?—No ; there are many men who sign articles without any intention of going to sea. 53. Mr. Hutcheson.] The meaning of the section is this : to enable a man to recant, providing he does it within forty-eight hours' notice of the sailing of the ship ?—I think if he signs articles he should go on the ship. 54. The Chairman.] You could still get him and put him on board the ship if the time you had fixed to sail was within the forty-eight hours. This simply means that if he has given the full forty-eight-hours notice you cannot exercise the powers of capture and forcible return to the ship ? have been unable to get a crew in Lyttelton for our own ships in forty-eight hours—even in a week—and we only wanted half a dozen. Section 199, " Adjustment of compasses ": I think this should be abolished altogether. Say a foreign-going master passes an examination, and is granted a certificate which entitles him to take a ship to any part of the world, surely such a man can look after his own compasses. I have taken a ship all round the world, but when I come here lam practically told I know nothing about my compass, and I have to call in an outsider to do my work, and I think it is a slur on every shipmaster. I suggest that if a shipmaster on arrival produces his deviation-book —say, to the Shipping-master of the port —if the latter thinks the master of the ship has taken sufficient care of his compasses, and has the run of the deviation, he should be exempt from any swinging or adjusting; and if he has not taken sufficient care, then he should have the ship swung in every port he gets to.

22

HUGH MONRO. ]

23

1.—9.

55. Mr. Hutcheson.] This section merely gives the Minister power to make regulations ?—I recommend that the whole thing should be abolished if the master has a certificate enabling him to carry a ship all round the world. 56. Mr. Millar.] Have you been sailing out of England ?—Yes. 57. Did you ever get out of England without having your compasses adjusted?— Yes. 58. When?—l have brought four ships out of England, and not one ship's compasses were adjusted by compulsion. I adjusted two of the ship's compasses without being asked. 59. They always made it compulsory to have the compasses adjusted?—l do not know of any such compulsion at all. 60. You could not possibly take a passenger-ship out of London without having your compasses adjusted?—l took one passenger-ship out. 61. The Chairman.] What is the next point ?—Section 200, " Boat-drill ": I think it should be added that boat-drills should take place where practicable. Take many of the little vessels that run between Australia and New Zealand : They make many passages on which it would be an utter impossibility to have boat-drill at sea on account of heavy weather. 62. It should apply that they should have boat-drill in the harbour ?—Yes ; I say where it is practicable. Boat-drill in harbour and boat-drill at sea are very different. It would not be worth much unless it was at sea. 63. Still, it would comply with the Act if it was at the discretion of the master?—l should say it should be where practicable. Section 220, "Permit to carry deck cargo": The vessels engaged now in the New Zealand and Australian trade for timber have to get fresh licenses every voyage. I think one license per annum should be sufficient, instead of putting the vessel to the expense of one for each trip. 64. It might be made either special or general ?—I think the vessels in the timber trade should be general or annual. Some of these vessels make eight or .ten trips a year, and have to get a license for each trip. If it were annual it would mean that one license would do while they were in the trade. Section 284, " Light dues ": I think every New-Zealand-owned vessel should be exempt from light dues, similar to the ships in the whaling trade. We are under a great disadvantage as compared with other vessels; and I think we should get some concession, so that we could run our ships to compete with those large tramp steamers that come across from Newcastle, and which will bring a cargo of coal over for 6s. or 75., and we cannot possibly compete with them. Their wages are much smaller than we pay. A Swedish auxiliary steamer has brought a cargo of hardwood over from Port Stephens, and has only eleven hands on board all told, while on one of my sailing-vessels we have twelve. 65. Mr. Laurenson.] What is the tonnage of the Swedish ship ?—I think, 196 tons. She is something like the " Beautiful Star," and steams 7 knots. I think New Zealand vessels ought certainly to be exempt from the payment of light dues. Every time our vessels go to Kaipara they are charged 6d. a ton harbour dues, and I think that is too much. The only thing in the harbour is the buoys. Schedule 6 : I think it would be a fair thing if the contracting seamen were to pay half the cost of shipping and discharging. ■ 66. The Chairman.] Is not that what happens under the second part of the schedule ?—No ; we have to pay for the forms used in connection with the account of wages. 67. Mr. Laurenson.] But the seamen pay half the cost of the fees as it is now ? —Yes. 68. Do you think they should pay half the cost of the forms ?—Yes ; Whitcombe and Tombs would print them for about 200 per cent, cheaper. 69. You have advocated certain arrangements under which vessels would be run cheaper: would it not answer the same purpose if the Australian Colonies had a system of manning the same as we have, and regulations to the same effect as we have?— That would enable us to compete with the Australian-owned ships if they carried the same crews as we are compelled to do. The manning scale in New Zealand is ridiculous. I think it is a thing that wants amending very much for sailing-ships. You will notice here where a vessel of from 300 to 400 tons has six A.B.s, and a vessel 1,500 tons need only have ten A.B.s. That shows at once that the manning of the ships does not compare. I have drawn up what I think is a fair scale to meet our requirements : — 30 to 50 tons registered ... 1 A.B. 50 „ 120 „ ... 2 A.B.s, or 2 boys in lieu of 1 A.B. 120 „ 200 „ ... 2 A.B.s and 1 0.5., or 2 boys in lieu of 1 A.B. 200 „ 300 „ ... 3 A.B.s and 1 0.5., 300,, 400 „ ... 4 A.B.s and 1 boy, 400 „ 500 „ ... 4 A.B.s, 1 0.5., and 1 boy, or 2 boys in lieu of 1 A.B. 500 „ 600 „ ... 5 A.B.s, 1 0.5., and 1 boy, or 2 boys in lieu of 1 A.B. 600 „ 700 „ ... 6 A.B.s, 1 0.5., and 2 boys, or 2 boys in lieu of 1 A.B. 700 „ 800 „ ... 6 A.B.s, 2 0.5., and 2 boys, or 2 boys in lieu of 1 A.B. 800 „ 900 „ ... 7 A.B.s, 1 0.5., and 2 boys, or 2 boys in lieu of 1 A.B. 900 „ 1,000 „ ... 8 A.B.s, 2 0.5., and 2 boys, or 2 boys in lieu of 1 A.B. 1,000 „' 1,200 „ ... 9 A.B.s, 2 0.5., and 4 boys, or 2 boys in lieu of 1 A.B. 1,200 „ 1,300 „ ... 10 A.B.s, 20.5., and 4 boys, or 2 boys in lieu of 1 A.B.

1.—9.

24

[HUGH MONRO.

1 A.B. extra to every 100 (or part) tons registered. In all cases where extra A.B.s are carried over scale, 1 A.B. to count as 2 boys, or vice versd; 1 A.B. to count as 2 O.S.s. Apprentices to count as boys ; apprentices with 1A years' service to count as O.S. ; apprentices with 3 years' service to count as A.B.s. And in all cases one master and mate to be carried. If you do not happen to have the scale as laid down you will not be allowed to clear at the Customs. I think that where an extra seaman is required you should be able to get two ordinary seamen or boys. An apprentice with two years' service should count as an ordinary seaman, and an apprentice with three years' service should count as an A.B. I think an ordinary seaman should have eighteen months' experience. At present you can take a young fellow off the street and make him an ordinary seaman according to the rating, and I think a year's service should be enough for an ordinary seaman on board a steamer. 70. Some of your evidence goes to show that New Zealand vessels cannot compete in the intercolonial trade ?—They cannot. We have had three vessels in the intercolonial trade within the last year, and the following is a statement of the expenditure and receipts:— " Manuretva," 327 tons. From 20th July to 6th November (3| months)— £ s. d. Gross earnings ... ... ... ... ... 737 15 9 Gross expenses ... ... ... ... ... 639 15 10 Profit ... ... ... ... ... 97 19 11 From 7th November to 21st February months) — Gross earnings ... ... ... ••• ••• 629 16 11 Gross expenses ... ... ... ... ... 603 9 3 Profit ... ... ... ... ... 26 7 8 From 22nd February to 2nd June (3f months) — Gross earnings ... ... ... ... ... 579 8 6 Gross expenses ... ... ... ... ••• 562 2 3 Profit ... ... ... ... ... 17 6 3 From 3rd June to 18th August (3£ months)— Gross earnings ... ... ... ... • • • 639 8 7 Expenses 630 0 0 Profit 9 8 7 Voyage not yet completed. Valued at £2,000: allowing 6 per cent, for depreciation, it leaves 1\ per cent, to owners. Vessel engaged in the Kaipara, Sydney, and Newcastle trade. " Kinclune," 697 tons. From 28th September to 22nd March (5 months and 22 days)— £ s . d. Gross earnings ... ... ... •• • ... 1, 286 9 4 Gross expenses ... ... ... ••• ••• 1,405 8 5 Loss ... .. 118 19 1 Ship valued at £4,000 : allowing 6 per cent, depreciation, it leaves a loss of £233 Bs. sd. Engaged, Lyttelton to Hokianga, Hokianga to Melbourne, Melbourne to Hobart, Hobart to Lyttelton. " Timoru," 354 tons. From 9th November to Bth March (4 months)— £ s. d. Gross earnings ... ... ••• ••• ••• 779 11 6 Gross expenses ... ••• ••• ■•• ••• 701 6 6 Profit ... ... ... ... ... 78 5 0 From 9th March to 9th August (6 months)— * Gross earnings ... ... ■■• ••• ••■ 955 13 1 Gross expenses ... ■•• ••• ••• ■•• 1,080 0 0 Loss .. 124 6 11 Ship valued at £3,600 : allowing 6 per cent, for depreciation, it leaves a loss of £232 6s. lid. Engaged in Kaipara, Sydney, and Newcastle trade. 71. Mr. Millar.] What would be the total amount of wages you would pay the eight men on the " Kinclune "?—From £4 10s. to £5. 72. £40 at the outside ?—Yes. 73. Are you a practical man ?—Yes. 74. How many men would you have on watch—A.B.s ?—Four. 75. A man at the wheel and a man on the look-out?— Yes.

HUGH MONRO.]

25

1.—9.

76. How many men would there be to take in the upper topsail? You do not expect men to be at work night and day for £4 10s. On the trade between Kaipara and Sydney is it not a common occurrence to take the topsails in ?—Yes. 77. Do you expect men to be turned out of their watch below to do that sort of thing?— Yes. No ship engaged in the intercolonial trade can possibly afford to carry sufficient men in one watch to make topsails fast. 78. Can any one man go aloft and take the topgallant-sail in?—lt depends upon the amount of wind. 79. According to your idea, for an 800-ton barque you would have one man at the wheel, one on the look-out, and one to do any available work required in the ship?— There are one 0.5., one boy, and the officer. 80. That would give one watch of four and another of five, and one with three A.B.s and a boy. Do you reckon that one man and a boy are able to put a ship about—an 800-ton barque ?— Let me tell you the fashion of these vessels. The skipper generally takes the wheel, and the man is taken from the look-out to assist to make the topgallant-sail fast. 81. According to the Act you are not allowed to take the man from the look-out at all ?—An officer will never trust to the sailor on the look-out. 82. He is there all the time ?—Yes ; but he is never relied on. 83. You maintain that an 800-ton barque will be amply manned with one A.B. and two boys on the watch : suppose you had no interest in the ship at all yourself, would you as master like to have your ship with one man and two boys on the watch?—lf I were an officer I would. 84. Are you aware that the Board of Trade are now fully recognising that British ships are undermanned? —Since when ? 85. The solicitor of the Board of Trade has recommended the New Zealand scale?—The British ships are better manned than those of any country in the world, and the New Zealand ships are manned far beyond the British ships again. 86. Do you know how many men were before the mast in my time?— No. 87. Thirty-two men before the mast ?—The conditions are altogether different now. Are you aware that in the whole of New Zealand we have only twenty-seven ships engaged in the intercolonial trade and foreign trade ? And did you ever think for a moment how it was that a colony like this should own so few sailing-vessels ? What do you think is the reason for that ? 88. The simple reason is that British shipowners are selling their sailing-vessels to foreigners ? —That may be your opinion. And the said foreigners are competing with the same ships and sailing them with a less number of seamen. 89. Mr. Hutcheson.] Do you think that relief could be given to the New Zealand shipowner by compelling the outsider to come up to our standard as far as possible?—l do not know how that is to be done. Suppose a foreigner nas to come here and load up a cargo for South Africa or Mauritius, Ido not know how we could compel him to come up to our standard. Supposing there was a cargo now offering for South Africa, who is to compel any foreigner to sail under our regulations ? We have ships in the foreign trade. . 90. Are you subjected to undue competition in intercolonial trade, as in the case of this Norwegian steamer? —Yes ; not only that, but the tramp boats come from Newcastle, and bring 6,000 or 7,000 tons of coal. They bring over enough coal on freight to pay expenses. The only thing that I can suggest is that the manning scale of New-Zealand-owned vessels should be reduced and knocked into shape to give us a chance of sailing our vessels at a profit, so that we may increase our fleets, and that New-Zealand-owned vessels should be exempt from light dues; while at places like Kaipara and Hokianga, which are under Government control, we should be let off the harbour charges, which now are much higher than are paid to Harbour Boards. Also, on all logs carried by New-Zealand-owned ships the export duty should be refunded, for the following reasons : There are several places in New Zealand where logs only are shipped, places where there are no wharves or sawmills' Notably Kennedy's Bay. Ships can lie there at anchor, and the logs are rafted to the ships. Now, since the export duty came into force the trade has collapsed. The men who worked the logs are wanted no longer, neither are the ships that carried the logs. Some of the ships are laid up, others are seeking trade elsewhere. Befunding the duty will only mean taking it from one class and giving it to another. We ourselves had a contract to carry a quantity, but we cancelled the contract without charge, well knowing that the merchant in Sydney could not possibly pay 3s. per 100 ft. duty. We understand J. J. Craig also had a contract to carry 4,000,000 ft. of logs. He also cancelled ; now some of his ships are laid up. [Note. —The following letter was ordered by the Committee to be printed.] Sir,— Inglis' Buildings, High Street, Christchurch, N.Z., Bth August, 1902. Herewith I return my evidence (with a few minor corrections) given before the above Committee, and in reviewing the same I would refer to where the " Brodick Bay " and " Kinclune " are mentioned, and point out where the latter ship is at a great disadvantange in competing with the former-named ship. The former ship paid the seamen 75 francs per month (£3 2s. 6d.), and the seamen found their own provisions. The latter ship paid £5 to £4 10s. per month, and the cost of provisions ran to about 2s. per diem per man—another £3 per month—bringing wages to more than double on our colonial-owned vessels, and also in proportion to, say, one-third less hands —say, about fifty per cent, against us. Yours &c, T. H. Hanna, Esq., Clerk of the Committee, Hugh Monro. Shipping and Seamen's Bill, Government Buildings, Wellington. A good test of New Zealand shipowning would be to ascertain the profits of the oil-engine schooner " Countess of Banfurly " since she was first launched.—H, M, 4—l. 9.

1.—9

26

[W. T. YOUNG.

Tuesday, sth August, 1902. W. T. Young examined. (No. 6.) 1. The Chairman.] What is your full name ?—William Thomas Young. 2. And you represent ? —The Wellington section of the Australasian Federated Seamen's Union. 3. And you want to give evidence with regard to the Shipping and Seamen Bill ?—Yes. Before going into the Bill I would like to explain to the Committee that last year the executive council of the federation met in Wellington and considered this Bill. They sat two days, and as a result of their deliberations they have made certain suggestions, which I wish to bring before the Committee on their behalf. The first clause I wish to deal with is section 37, in reference to the granting of licenses to procure seamen. They strongly urge the Committee to abolish this clause and all other clauses in the Bill dealing with this provision. In our opinion, no necessity now exists to warrant these licensed persons being appointed. At no time were they of much service to any one except themselves, and it is beyond doubt they have been on several occasions detrimental to the interests of seamen. The detestable practice of crimping and fleecing seamen— which is not altogether unknown in New Zealand—is mainly brought about by these persons. Now that we have properly officered and established Shipping Offices there should be no difficulty in bringing employer and employed together to make their terms and engagements, besides which there are the columns of the public Press open to make known the wants of those who require men. I may say that so far as seamen and others are concerned they are sufficiently intelligent to obtain their own employment as well as any in the community without having licensed persons to procure them, Where seamen are concerned the question of wages crops up time after time, and in nine cases out of ten where there is any difference between them these licensed persons come in and dump down men at 50 or 60 per cent, less than the ruling rate. They are also largely responsible for men deserting their vessels. We have known cases where the men have been taken out of vessels and kept in boardinghouses until they were wanted. We see no reason whatever for the clause in the Bill, and hope the Committee will see it way to strike it out altogether. We have also struck out certain words in paragraph (b) of section 38, which simply follows the striking-out of clause 37, and also words in subsection (3) of the same section. Section 38: With regard to the bond fide servant in the constant employment of an owner acting as an agent, this is another institution we have good reason for taking very strong exception to. In the first place, we maintain, as a general principle, that the master or engineer should be the only persons authorised to engage men; and we go further in affirming that the master of a vessel should be the only person permitted to give or receive notice of any of his crew leaving the ship. In this connection I may draw your attention to a case which appeared in the Otago Daily Times of the 21st November, 1901, viz. : " At Lyttelton to-day Captain Wyllie, of the ' Elingamite,' was fined ss. and costs for a breach of the Shipping Act by carrying a trimmer to sea without having entered into a proper agreement. It appeared the engineer engaged the man without the knowledge of the captain, who, as soon as he knew of the matter, reported it to the Marine Superintendent at Lyttelton. Under these circumstances only a nominal penalty was imposed." The Union Steamship Company inaugurated the " agent " system after the strike of 1890, which has been continued up to the present time. Briefly, it is a "one-man labour bureau" entirely opposed to the interests of the men. At Dunedin no person can obtain employment except through the agent. He attends at the Shipping Office to engage and discharge the men, and the officers of the vessels have no more to say in the matter than you have. The evils arising from this system are many. Officers make sub rosd reports to the agent, of which the men are entirely ignorant, and rarely have an opportunity of defending themselves. The men are " sacked " without a word of explanation, and are often kept hanging about, sometimes for months, before they can get another job. Further, the men have no choice of selection as to the vessel or trade they will go in, but simply have to take what is offered, or suffer the consequences, which is indefinite idleness. Men possessed of a spark of independence will not submit to this dragooning, and the consequence is that the very pick of the men in the mercantile marine are drifting into other occupations, and leaving behind those who are amenable to the many impositions forced upon them. We are aware that many men are culpable, but it does not follow that because a person has committed himself in one ship—perhaps under a martinet of an officer—he could not conduct himself to the satisfaction of others. It is certainly wrong that one act of misconduct should debar one from work throughout a fleet of the dimensions of the Union Company, but that is what it has come to under the " agent " system. These and many other injustices will prevail while the " agent " system obtains, and we strongly recommend their entire abolition to your favourable consideration. I may say that, so far as Wellington is concerned, it is absolutely impossible for any man to obtain employment in the Union Company's service, either on deck or below, unless he goes to Mr. Sparks, who has the putting-on of all labour. The same thing applies to Mr. Kirby in Dunedin, who puts on all men, and has the right to discharge them himself if he wants to. These men are not serving under the man who engages them, and therefore he is not capable of judging of their abilities. He simply puts the men on the vessel where they have to work under the officers of that vessel, and we contend, as a general principle, that it is only right and proper that the officers of the vessel should have the right of engagement. There are instances where men have been kept out of employment for months under this system. I have known men to be out of employment for four months simply on account of some petty difference on board the vessel. This agent might have a spite on the man himself, and notwithstanding that the officer on the vessel might want the man he is prohibited from getting him because the agent will not allow him to go. We hope the Committee will abolish this system altogether, and provide in the shipping laws that the men shall only be engaged by the officer under whom they will have to work. Sec-

1.—9

W. T. YOUNG.]

27

tion 43 : This provides that agreements may be made by which seamen may be made to serve on two or more vessels belonging to the same owner engaged in the home trade. We respectfully urge that the principle sought to be established by this is inimical to the freedom of the individual. To establish this system will practically deprive seamen of any grain of freedom they now possess. It will mean that crews working under this stipulation can be summarily transferred, from one vessel to another without the slightest regard being paid to the crew's convenience, and we can plainly see that innumerable hardships will arise under this method. Indeed, the employee simply becomes a chattel of the owner to be moved about from ship to ship at the latter's discretion. This system has been in vogue in New South Wales, and experience has shown that in the case of one company they practically ran three vessels with two crews. We look upon the innovation as so pernicious that we shall feel disposed, if the clause becomes law, to instruct our members not to sign any ship's articles containing thai stipulation. That is the only alternative we shall have if this becomes law: we shall simply instruct our men not to sign any articles containing this stipulation. The provision to have this clause included in the articles does not in any way affect the principle. And while on this subject it may be mentioned that, as a rule, very little attention is paid to the reading of articles. In many instances they are not read, and even where it is done seamen are sometimes slow to apprehend the true import of their agreement until a practical illustration comes along of what it really means. We see absolutely no necessity for such a stipulation as this: that crews shall serve articles in one or more vessels belonging to the same owner. It is pointed out that you can practically run three vessels with two crews under this system, and a man may be on a vessel in the Union Company's service which may be running to the West Coast. He may be a married man and have his family in Wellington, and may not be desirous of going into the intercolonial trade or on a foreign voyage to Calcutta; but if this clause is carried the shipowner will have power to take that man out of his ship and send him to India or wherever it may be. It is not a right principle to adopt certainly in a democratic country, and I hope the Committee and the Minister will see their way to strike it out, as it really is not required. It takes away the liberty of the subject, because you give the shipowner power to transfer one man or a dozen men from ship to ship right throughout the fleet just as he pleases. The next section I propose to deal with is 51, subclauses (2) and (3). We recommend that these two subclauses be struck out altogether. My council is entirely opposed to differential grades of A.B.s for sailing-vessels and steam-vessels, and urges the desirability of making four years' service at sea essential before any person shall be rated as an A.B. We have cases cropping up day after day where boys go into steamships as brass-boys and at the expiry of two years they are rated as A.B. That is the system that is growing in the Union Company's service to-day, and it is a very dangerous one. If you are not very careful you will find before very long that you have no practical seamen on this coast at all. Yet that boy if he serve another two years in a steamer and has a total experience of four years has a right to go and ship as A.B. on a square-rigged ship that he knows nothing whatever about. That is the effect of that clause, and it is against the interests of the travelling public. When going to sea they place their lives in the hands of the ship's crew; and what is the position ? The position is that you have not got practical seamen in those vessels, and I am open to say that in the Union Company's service to-day I believe that there is about one-sixth of the men who have not served their proper term in square-rigged vessels. We contend, also, that two years' experience at sea is not sufficient to rate a person as A.B. for a steamship. Further, I may also point out that steamship officers must have had experience in sailing-vessels, and their qualifications of competency are identically the same as those for a sailing-vessel. If efficiency is required where officers are concerned, we submit the same rule should apply with equal force to the lower grades. That is perfectly true. Officers are compelled to have square-rigged service before they can pass an examination to go in a steamer, and, that being so, we contend, as a general principle, that the seaman shall have squarerigged service before being permitted to go in a steamer. And we think that every boy and man on going to sea should be compelled to have square-rigged service to give him a certain amount of knowledge of seamanship before he is allowed to go to sea at all. But the opposite prevails to-day. Therefore I trust the Committee will see their way clear to make a stipulation in the Act providing that in all cases four years' service shall be agreed to before a man can rank as A.B. We consider the two-years term should be abolished altogether, and I should like to see the Committee put a clause in the Act providing that in all cases the men shall show a certain period of square-rigged service out of that four years. . The next point is in reference to subsection (l)_of section 52. We propose to strike out the words " and on payment of a fee of five shillings," My council is strongly of opinion that the proposed charge of ss. for a permit to ship is altogether unnecessary. To place such an impost on those who may have inadvertently lost their discharges would be unfair, as their record of previous services may possibly, be in the Shipping Office where they desire to ship, and could be ascertained without any inconvenience or expense. With regard to deserters, impostors, and others who cannot prove any previous sea service, the council have indorsed the following resolution: "That the Hon. the Minister of Marine be requested to insert a further subsection in section 52 making it imperative that before a permit is issued to any seaman to ship, such seaman shall produce to the Superintendent the qualifications provided for in subsection (1) of section 51." It appears to us that the adoption of the foregoing resolution is the only effective method to block incompetent men from shipping, and will also deter to a large extent the many desertions which take place from foreign-going vessels if it is generally known that men cannot ship without a discharge. We think that the charge of ss. is altogether too high for a permit. It is the charge that prevailed in New South Wales some years ago, but it has been altogether abolished there, and a man can now obtain a permit in that State without any payment whatever. We see no reason why this charge should be made. In the past a seaman could obtain a permit by simply applying to the Shipping Office for a form of declaration, and after making the declaration the discharge was obtained free of cost. We maintain that sea-

T Q

28

[W. T. YOUNG.

men are sufficiently taxed now in regard to shipping-fees without putting any extra charge on their shoulders, and we hope the Committee will see its way to strike the provision out. We also desire that before a permit is granted the seaman shall produce to the Superintendent evidence showing that he is a bond fide seaman, and until that is done the Superintendent shall not grant him a form of declaration to enable him to get a permit. It is only when a man has lost his discharge from his last vessel that he requires a permit, because all his other discharges are cancelled—that is to say, they are indorsed by the mercantile marine officer—and he cannot ship again on that discharge, and if he produces this discharge to the Superintendent, showing that he is qualified as a seaman, then the Superintendent shall issue the required permit. It is no trouble at all to a man to bring his papers out of his pocket and show that he is a qualified man. Under the present system we might have a man coming down from the country and getting a permit who has never seen a ship before in his life. He walks into the office and says he wants a permit for such-and-such a vessel; it may be for fireman, seaman, or anything you like. The Shipping-master hands him a form and he fills it in, and he may be making a false declaration. 4. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] Is that the present system ? —Yes. 5. Are there no questions put to him ?—No. I know men who have gone to the Superintendent and said, " I want a permit," and it has been handed over to them. These men have come to my office, and I have sent them to a Justice of the Peace to get their declarations signed. It is not in the interests of the travelling public that such a state of things should exist, and we hope a stipulation will be made whereby a man shall not get a permit at all until he has shown the Superintendent his qualifications proving that he is a competent seaman. There is another aspect of the matter : men come from the United Kingdom in foreign-going ships and sign for three years, to be signed off in the United Kingdom. When they arrive here they learn all about the labour conditions and desert, putting the master of the vessel to great inconvenience. They apply to the Superintendent for a permit, and the next thing we hear of is that they are sailing on the coast. It is as much in the interest of the owner of the ship' as of the seaman that some stipulation should be made with regard to the granting of these permits. The next clause I desire to deal with is in regard to subsection (3) of section 52. We urge that this subsection be deleted, and request the Committee to make the manning and efficiency provisions of the Shipping and Seamen's Act applicable to all vessels trading within river and extended river limits so far as seamen are concerned. The Port of Auckland, with its extensive river and extended river limits, stretching from Whangarei to Cape Colville, is the place chiefly concerned. I contend that from Cape Colville to Whangarei it is practically the open ocean, and vessels can go out there without being compelled to carry qualified men at all. The owners can employ a lot of cowboys if they choose. In fact, I know one case in which a man ran passengers in a vessel to the Port of Auckland and after he got back again he used to go to the sawmill and work there all day. It must also be borne in mind that the paddle-steamer " Whakatere," belonging to the Northern Steamship Company, running between Auckland and the Thames, is allowed to carry a very large number of passengers. 6. Mr. R. Thompson.] When she can get them ?—I saw that vessel and other vessels in January going down to the Thames, within the river limits, piled up with passengers, and I thought to myself, " There is all the public travelling in those vessels, going practically on the ocean, and there is not a practical man supposed to be on the ship outside the master." We contend it is equally right that competent men should be carried in extended-river-limits vessels the same as other vessels. There is no immunity from accident even in those placid waters, as witness the collision between the s.s. " Stella" and a barquentine whereby the latter was sunk, and more recently the collision between the steamers on the Paeroa Biver. It is admitted that the men generally employed have had some sea experience, but that is not the point, as the owner recognises it is advantageous to employ such men. On the other hand, the owner could if he choose employ none but incompetents, and no one could protest, if the Act is permitted to remain as it is. The fact of the owner usually employing men of experience is the best proof available that seafaring knowledge is a requisite for those trades, and it is beyond question that no one will suffer or be put to the slightest inconvenience if the exceptions that now obtain are struck out of the Act. Another peculiarity of the position is that, while the law requires no guarantee of efficiency for seamen, provision is made that the master and officers must hold certain necessary qualifications. This appears to us an inconsistency which cannot be reconciled. Another grave and serious feature of this question is, the manner in which it affects members of the Seamen's Union where the Conciliation and Arbitration Act is concerned. When trying to improve the conditions of our members engaged in the limit vessels employers meet us with the argument that they are not compelled to carry seamen or firemen, and designate their employees as boys, ordinary seamen, or any term they choose. This practically puts us out of Court, although the men are signed on as A.B.s and firemen, and undoubtedly do the work allotted to those grades. We recommend that the following subsection be substituted for subsection (4) of section 52 : " Every master or other officer of a ship, or any person authorised to ship persons on board any vessel, who shall ship such person without the proper qualification provided in this Act, or who gives a discharge to any person who has not duly served in the capacity for which the discharge was given, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds." We deem the foregoing stipulation necessary, as we have reason to believe that men have been shipped in capacities they were incompetent to fill, and when discharged were furnished with discharges, which permitted them to ship in the same capacity elsewhere. I had one case of the kind under my notice, and probably Mr Allport is aware of it, as I referred it to the Marine Department. It occurred on board the " Dingadee " some years ago, where a man named McKenzie was shipped on the sth July, 1900. The vessel eventually came to Wellington, and this man was on board. He had no qualifications at all; he was simply a friend of the engineer. When

29

1.—9.

W. 1. YOUNG.j

the vessel came to Wellington the men duly reported the matter to me, and I at once moved to have some action taken in regard to it. I communicated with the Marine Department, and asked that the master of the vessel should be prosecuted for shipping an incompetent fireman. I was informed by the Department that there was no power in the Act to do so, that the master could not be prosecuted until such time as he had given the man his discharge as a fireman. Now, there was a big laxity in the law. According to that there is no provision in the law whereby the master of a vessel can be prosecuted for shipping an incompetent man. He can only be prosecuted for giving a man a discharge for what he is not qualified to do, and the clause we submit to the Committee will meet this. To detect these breaches and prove a person to be incompetent is well-nigh impossible, as the person concerned is invariably a personal friend or relation of those who engage him, and would certainly decline to give evidence incriminating his friends. I think the stipulation we suggest could very well be put in the Act, and would not be inconvenient to the other side. Some liability should be placed on the master's shoulders for shipping an incompetent man, and the clause I intend to hand in will meet the case. We also recommend that subsection (4) of section 54 be deleted. This is struck out to be consistent with the principle already dealt with in respect of making all the provisions of the Act applicable to river and extended-river-limits vessels. We also recommend that subsection (3) of section 55 be amended to make it imperative that a seaman must be discharged before the Superintendent. We propose to strike out the words " but in the case of a single seaman he may be discharged on board." We agree that it is necessary sometimes to engage men at short notice where the services of the Superintendent have to be dispensed with, but in the case of discharges the circumstances are altogether different. Discharging men is a deliberate action consequent on proper notice fixed by statute, and can only be effected at certain places— generally where a Superintendent is located. That being the case, we contend that every person should be signed off before that official, who is undoubtedly the proper official to see that matters are equitably adjusted between employer and employed. Disputes are constantly arising re wages and other minor matters, but more especially with regard to the responsibilities of shipowners where sick and injured seamen are concerned, and unless discharges are made before the Superintendent the provisions of the law in this respect are very often evaded. We think that in every case of discharge it should be transacted before the Superintendent. Before a man can leave a vessel he must, according to law, give twenty-four hours' notice, and can only leave at a final port —that is, where the vessel's articles are taken out. That being the case, there is absolutely no inconvenience whatever in an officer going to the Shipping Office—at the head of the wharf in Wellington—and simply paying the man in the presence of the Superintendent. I have had an instance where men have been signed off vessels and through laxity on the part of the officer the men have left with two good discharges. Now, if one of those was at all ill-disposed he could sell one of those discharges to a man coming down from the country who had never seen a ship before, unless some one was smart enough to detect it. There are numerous cases of the kind arising day after day, and if the master of a foreign-going vessel must go to the Shipping Office to discharge a single seaman, then it is equally convenient for the master of a home-trade vessel to go there to discharge a man on similar lines, and we contend that that should be done, so that the Shipping-masters themselves shall know exactly what is transpiring between man and man. So far as engagements are concerned, we cannot see our way to ask the Committee to provide that all engagements should take place before the Superintendent, because there are cases where the ship must get men at five minutes' notice, with the result that they have to sign articles at sea, and at the first port of arrival the articles are taken to the Superintendent and indorsed; but it is quite different with discharges. We would also recommend to the Committee that all the words after the word "discharged" in line 4 to the word " then "in line sbe deleted in subsection (3) of section 56. We have very good grounds for asking the Committee to strike these words out. As will be seen, the effect will be to deter masters of vessels from giving seamen what is known as " Decline to report" discharges. These discharges are recognised by seamen the world over as bad discharges. You have doubtless noticed the recent legal decision given by the Court of Appeal in England, which practically debars a seaman who receives one of those discharges from gaining redress for defamation of character. A seaman depends entirely upon his discharge to secure employment, and any blemish on it carries with it the penalty of loss of livelihood. We contend that this " Decline to report " system is an astute method for damaging one's reputation and at the same time entirely exonerating the person who does the damage from any liability. Indeed, it is holding out an inducement to unscrupulous persons to malign those who come within the scope of their influence. We further submit there should be no intermediate course whatever. Every master should be compelled to state one's character as " good " or " bad," which would induce a little more caution on the master's part than what is shown under present circumstances. There are cases which have come within my knowledge where men have been thoroughly qualified, have been to sea probably fifteen years, and have received good discharges and certificates out of every vessel they have been in, but who have happened to get into a bit of a vessel where the officer or master has got some spite against them, because probably they were straightforward in standing up for the rights of those on board, and the master has declined to give them a discharge. Probably it is a bad discharge, and the men have no remedy against the master at law. We contend that in all cases the master shall be compelled to state specifically that the man is either good or bad ; and there should be no intermediate course whatever. The " Decline to report " discharge is looked upon all the world over as a bad discharge, and the master in nine cases out of ten simply gives such a discharge because he is afraid to say that the man's ability is bad, because he knows that if he states that on the discharge he is liable to be called upon to prove his statement. Paragraph (a), subsection (2), section 59: This paragraph is struck out because it conflicts with the principles we contend for re all seamen being

1.—9.

fw. t. youNG.

30

discharged before the Superintendent. Section 63 :We recommend that the words "or any ports in the Australasian Commonwealth " be inserted between the words " colony " and " and" in the Ist line ; also that the words " or within seven days after " in lines 3 and 4 of the same section be deleted. 7. Mr. Hutcheson.] There is no such word as "colony" in section 63?— That is a slight alteration in the Bill. The word " intercolonial" has been placed in here, which meets our requirements in that direction. The words interpolated are intended to provide that wages shall be paid monthly in Australasian as well as in New Zealand ports. The section as it now appears in the Act leaves it an open question whether the crews of intercolonial vessels are to be paid in Australian ports or not. It may be mentioned that up to the present time wages when due are generally paid at Sydney or Melbourne, and we desire that the practice should be definitely fixed by statute. The words deleted, "or within seven days after," appear to us a superfluity, having no meaning or bearing on the question whatever: the provision that wages are to be paid on the Ist of the month, or at the first port where there is a branch of any bank, covers everything that is necessary. Section 75 :At the end of paragraph (b) we propose the insertion of the words "given at any place" after the word "side." I think it would be better if it read, "given anywhere." The word "place" requires some amount of definition. The intention is to make it clear that notice of leaving or dismissal can be given by either side prior to the vessel's arrival at the port where the articles are drawn out. At present it is doubtful whether notices can be given outside the terminal port. It often happens that vessels arrive and leave on the one day, which precludes the twenty-four-hours notice being given on either side, and another voyage may be completed with exactly the same result. What we desire is that it shall be permissible for notice of leaving or dismissal to be given at any place, or at sea, provided it is lodged twenty-four hours or more before the vessel leaves her terminal port. I just wish to say a few words with reference to section 122, in connection with the accommodation of seamen. We have a provision in this section that the place allotted to seamen shall be not less than 72 nor more than 120 cubic feet. The latter part, no more than 120 cubic feet, is ambiguous. We all know that the minimum laid down here becomes the maximum. There is no case that I know of where a seaman has got more than 72 ft., and we contend that that is not sufficient spaceaccommodation. I know forecastles on this coast where six and eight men are living in a place about the size of a good-sized dog-kennel. They have to go down a little bit of a hole, and it is more like housing a dog than anything else. If there is any possibility of the Committee making this limit a little larger we would strongly recommend it. We recognise that some severe alterations would have to be made in some vessels, but still it is better that this should be done than that men should be cooped in little boxes as they are at the present time. No other section of the community is compelled to live under such conditions; and, as I said before, the provision for not more than 120 ft. is ambiguous, and 72 cubic feet becomes the maximum in all eases. If you look at section 121 you will find that it is distinctly laid down that, so far as the officers are concerned—at any rate, each engineer up to at least three, a separate room which does not open direct from the engine-room is provided for. Well, if it is right that the engineer should have proper accommodation, to be consistent firemen and sailors should have it also. In regard to subsection (3) of section 122, we recommend that the last paragraph of the section be deleted. This is also struck out to be in consonance with the principle that all the provisions of the Act should be made to apply to river and extended-river-limit vessels. With regard to subsection (3) of section 124, we recommend that the following words be added to the same subsection : " and shall in his annual report to the Secretary specify all such casualties as aforesaid." At present we have no record of these casualties, and we think it is but right and proper that a record should be kept of them. If the Committee think it is fully met already in the clause I will not go further into the matter. With regard to subsection (3), section 131, we recommend that the words "If the offence does not amount to desertion, or is treated as such by the master," also the words " in addition for every twenty-four hours of absence either a sum not exceeding six days' pay or," and the words "and is also liable to imprisonment for any period not exceeding fourteen days," be deleted. 8. Mr. B. Thompson.] What would you put in its place ? —Nothing. At the outset it may be said that we look upon the penalties laid down in this Act as being extremely excessive and altogether unwarranted. The object of deleting the above words is, first, to deprive the master of a vessel of the option to charge men with desertion when the offence is merely absence without leave; second, it appears to us to be monstrous that men should be penalised to the extent of a month's pay for being absent for five days. The imprisonment alternative should be abolished altogether, for, after all, this is about the most trivial offence that could be committed. So far as we can ascertain, there is absolutely no offence analogous to this that could be committed elsewhere which would carry such a heavy penalty. Indeed, to glance through the severity of the penalties one would imagine that the Act was framed to deal with a hardened set of criminals instead of what, in the main, are a hardworking and very often badly treated body of men. Looked at from any point of view, we hold the opinion that the fine of two days' pay for every day of absence should be sufficient to atone for the offence. We suggest that the words "or of absence without leave or otherwise absents himself from his ship without leave " be deleted from subsection (1) of section 132. This alteration is designed to obviate summary arrest for absence without leave, and makes the subsection apply exclusively to desertion. With regard to subsection (3) of the same section, we recommend that the words " but the infliction of that penalty shall be a bar to any action for false imprisonment in respect of the arrest " be deleted. It will be noted that the penalty against an owner for wrongful arrest is a monetary one not exceeding £20. Indeed, a fine is the leading characteristic of this Act where offences against the person are committed by the owner or master, irrespective of how serious they may be.

W. T. YOUNG. J

31

1.—9.

As against that, the most trivial default on the part of the seamen carries with it an imprisonment alternative. And, as if that were not sufficiently unfair, provision is made in the section under review altogether releasing owners from prosecution for illegal arrest provided they are mulcted to the extent of £20. There should be further redress than this for what is practically false imprisonment. We also recommend that the word " five " in line 6 of paragraph (b), section 134, be struck out, and the word " one " substituted in place thereof; also that all the words after the word " pounds " in line 6of the same paragraph be struck out. This alteration is suggested as we consider the penalties go beyond the bounds of reason. When a vessel is moored in a safe harbour there is only a minimum of risk attaching to wilful disobedience. The master can employ other labour, the liability for which is thrown on the delinquents. Where these offences usually occur is in deep-water vessels where the wages are, as a rule, very low, and to fix the minimum fine at £5 might mean the forfeiture of nearly two months' wages. We urge, therefore, that a minimum fine of £1 without an alternative will be a sufficient penalty for this offence. We recommend that the word "three" in line 7 of paragraph (d), section 134, be struck out, and the word "one" be substituted; also that all the words after the word "imprisonment" in line 7 of the same paragraph be struck out. The modification of this penalty is urged on identically the same grounds as those mentioned in connection with the preceding paragraph (b). The penalty of forfeiture of all wages as laid down in the words proposed to be struck out is also excessive, and might mean the forfeiture of one or two years' earnings. As a matter of fact, the Courts are given altogether too much discretionary power so far as alternatives are concerned, and instances are not unknown where the full penalties have been inflicted by inferior Courts whose knowledge of the law has been very limited. We also recommend that the following paragraph be substituted in place of paragraph (c), section 134 : " Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, any master, seaman, or apprentice proved guilty of the offence of assault while on the high seas shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds, or imprisonment not exceeding three months." Under our present shipping laws there is absolutely no penalty for assault committed by master or officers against seamen. When those offences occur the offender is indicted under the common law, and a small fine is the usual punishment inflicted. This is in marked contrast to the specific and heavy penalties applicable to subordinates. We think the new clause suggested above will apply all round and be equitable to all concerned. We recommend that section 135 be struck out, as it gives shipowners two legal remedies against seamen. This section is entirely new matter, and is presumably a reprint from the Imperial Act, and apparently it has been framed in such a manner as to give the shipowner every conceivable remedy against his employee, while every provision is made that the latter will experience great difficulty in securing any redress whatever. Prom our reading of the section it looks as if a seaman could be sued in the first instance for an act of misconduct, and then be sued a second time for breach of contract. A reference to subsection (3) of section 132 will show the ingenuity displayed in the differentiation between employer and employed. We recommend that the following new subsection be added between subsections (1) and (2) of section 141, viz.: " Provided that in the event of a seaman losing his passage at any port he shall not be treated as a deserter, provided the said seaman reports himself within twenty-four hours to the Superintendent at the place where the seaman is left on shore, or, in the absence of a Superintendent, to the Collector or other officer of Customs; and such seaman shall be entitled to the wages and other emoluments earned, subject to any expense incurred in hiring a substitute and the penalties provided in this Act for absence without leave." This new subsection is suggested with the view of making a distinction between deliberate desertion and missing passages either through neglect, misconduct, or inadvertence. When desertion is intended the deserter invariably removes his effects from the vessel. That act, it is admitted, constitutes desertion, and no exception is taken to the penalty allocated for the offence. But we do take exception to the procedure adopted where men miss their passages. A reference to subsection (2), section 131, will show that we propose to eliminate that portion giving the master discretionary power to say who is or who is not a deserter. This is a power surrounded with the possibility of many injustices being perpetrated. For instance, a seaman may have worked three or four months on a sailing-vessel and his wages be still unpaid. By some mischance, or even through misconduct he may miss his passage, and by that action incur the risk of all his wages being confiscated at the discretion of the master. With regard to steam-vessels, the circumstances are analogous, excepting that wages are paid monthly, and the offender runs the risk of losing at the outside one month's pay. No matter what the causes may be, we are of opinion that men should be paid what they have earned, less, of course, any expense incurred through misconduct or penalties for absence without leave. In the case where steam-vessels are concerned (coasting) there is rarely any difficulty in securing substitutes at the next port of call, and as a rule the vessel's crew suffer most of the inconvenience by having the extra work thrown upon them. We do not lose sight of the fact that shipowners may be inconvenienced and suffer loss by a crew combining to delay a vessel by missing their passages ; but in those instances they could be prosecuted for conspiracy, and would deserve adequate punishment. Apart from that, there are undoubtedly many cases where passages are missed through sheer accident or mischance, and a distinction might be made between coasting and intercolonial vessels and those engaged in foreign trades. We are aware that desertions occur pretty frequently from the latter, but it is rare for any one to desert from the other vessels, and owners are put to little trouble or expense. We therefore ask your careful consideration of this suggestion. We recommend that section 149, respecting seamen sentenced to imprisonment not exceeding one month being returned to their vessels prior to the expiry of their sentence, be struck out. There are good and solid reasons why this practice should be discontinued. There is no other occupation that we are aware of where a similar system is applicable. Any person other than a seaman sentenced to imprisonment has to complete his

1.—9.

32

[W. T. YOUNG.

term, and on general grounds a seaman should be treated identically the same as others. We desire, if possible, fco get away from the old idea that because a person signs to serve on board ship that his body belongs to the master until the agreement has expired. The master prosecutes a man for an offence which the law says is punishable with a certain term of imprisonment, but because the master requires that man on board his ship the sentence is abrogated. From our point of view, this is the most conclusive evidence that can be advanced in support of our contentions that the punishments allocated to seamen are extremely harsh and unnecessary. Men are either guilty or not guilty, and if the former they should expiate their offences in exactly the same way as others, and not, as at present, be conveyed from prison on the dictation of either the master or owner. The system, in fact, smacks too much of slavery. Another aspect of the matter is that men are so harshly—not to say brutally—treated that they would serve twelve months in gaol to get clear of their oppressors. Masters will sometimes insist on taking men back from prison for the sole purpose of making their lives miserable during the remainder of a voyage, and probably goad them into committing other offences. This law was enacted in the early part of the nineteenth century, when shipping matters were vastly different from what they are now, and we think it should be realised that there no longer exists any necessity for such a provision in our present-day laws. It may be mentioned that some time ago in Adelaide, South Australia, the master of a vessel tried to recover the body of one of his men from gaol before the sentence was completed. The man refused to leave until his term had expired, and on the case going to the Supreme Court the Judge upheld the seaman's contention, and ruled that the sentence must be completed. As a rule, the person condemned to gaol is usually avoided in most walks of life, but the seaman appears to be an exception, and it does appear as if the law itself looked upon their faults as being comparatively unimportant and condoned offences by the system now taken exception to. If the offences of seamen are serious enough to invoke the penalties laid down, let the law take its course and be vindicated in the usual manner. With regard to the Sixth Schedule, we recommend that the sums to be deducted from wages by way of partial repayment of shipping-fees in respect of engagements and discharges of crews (except officers) be 6d., as per Gazette notice dated the 28th November, 1895. Up to the date mentioned the fees were Is. each for shipping and discharging, but owing to representations made to the Hon. the Minister of Marine by the Seamen's Union they were reduced 50 per cent. This tax bears somewhat heavily on a large number of men. Employment is anything but constant, and they are constantly shifting from one vessel to another. It is possible for men to ship and be discharged from half a dozen vessels in as many months, and under the present schedule they will have to pay 2s. for each vessel. The charge of Is. has prevailed since November, 1895, and we ask that it be kept at that figure. One other matter we desire to bring under your notice is the present forms of discharge. They are what is known as " continuous discharges," having spaces on them for twelve or eighteen discharges. We should like to see them abolished altogether, and a system of discharge form introduced whereby a seaman could get a separate discharge from each vessel. Our members are constantly complaining about this matter, and when Sir Joseph Ward was Minister of Marine a promise was made that the " single disoharge " form would be adopted when the stock of continuous ones was used up. If a man loses one of the present forms he may lose ten or twelve qualifications, and that very often occurs. I trust the Committee will give our suggestions careful consideration, because we were sitting for two days deliberating, and went very carefully into the Bill, and what I have brought before the Committee is simply the result of the Council's deliberations. 9. Mr. Laurenson.] You object, on behalf of your union, to the payment of ss. before a man can get a permit to enable him to sign articles ?—Yes. 10. Take the case of a man who had got a bad discharge : If there was no fee, would he not simply tear his discharge up and apply to be signed on without a discharge at all w when that fee of ss. would deter him?—He cannot sign on without either a discharge or a permit. 11. He would have to pay ss. for the permit?— Yes. We could provide that before a permit was granted he should furnish the Superintendent with qualifications showing that he was entitled to be granted that permit. That is where we would meet your view in that connection. 12. But, suppose he conducts himself in such a manner that he gets a bad discharge, he may tear it up and apply for a permit without faking any notice of the master's discharge at all ? —No such cases have come under my notice. Even so, in my experience the ss. would not prevent him doing that. The most effective way to stop that is to adopt the clause we put before the Committee, which provides that before a man can get a permit he shall satisfy the Superintendent that he is thoroughly qualified to ship. 13. Would your union have any objection to extending the twenty-four hours notice provided in section 75, subsection (b), to forty-eight hours' notice?—l should strongly object to that, because it must be recognised that twenty-four hours is simply the minimum—you cannot give less than twenty-four hours' notice. You can give a week if you like, but not less than twenty-four hours. The master has power to give forty-eight hours' notice. Say a vessel is at Greymouth: The master can give a man notice to leave when the ship gets to Wellington, notwithstanding that the vessel may not get here for three or four days. 14. You would not like the time to be extended?—No, I would strongly object to it. 15. Section 149 : I understood you to say that you were very anxious to have that clause struck out, under which a man can be taken out of gaol and put on board a vessel ? —Yes. 16. Mr. E. G. Allen.'] You stated that you wanted all engagements to be made either by the master or engineer ?—By the officer of the vessel. 17. And then later on you said that a man named McKenzie, a friend of the engineer onboard the " Dingadee," had been shipped, and was an incompetent man : does that not seem to be contrary to your wishes ? You objected to this incompetent man being shipped by the engineer,

W. T. YOUNG." 1

33

1.—9.

but still you want them all shipped by the officers?—l want the whole of the men to be shipped, by the officers, for the simple reason that the men have to work under the officers, and not under the agent who engages them on shore ; and, in the second place, we want some penalty put in the Bill to render the master of the ship liable if he engages a man who is incompetent. 18. Do you not think there is less liability of employing incompetent men by the present system than there would be if they were engaged by people on board, who would practically know nothing about them?— That is not feasible—quite the contrary. You must recognise that the agent who engages these men knows nothing about their character. He picks up two men on the wharf—say, Jack Brown and Bill Smith —and says, " Go down to the ' Tarawera ' and say you are able seamen," and the officer has to take them, although he may not want those men. 19. But it is to the interest of the shipowner to get the best men ?—Yes; but the only way in which you can test the ability or character of the men is by having them on board ship. I might take men with discharges having three V.G.s on them, but that would not be evidence. You must have an opportunity of ascertaining whether a man is good or not, and the agent is not in that position. 20. Mr. Hutcheson.] You said the evidence you gave was the outcome of the deliberations of the executive of your union ?—Yes. 21. I presume they were gentlemen who understood what they were talking about ?—-AH experienced men. 22. I have here a copy of the evidence supplied through the courtesy of a shipowner. In reference to the two-years service on steamers, as an argument against that form of discharge your executive said, " Further, I may also point out that steamship officers must have had experience in sailing-vessels, and their certificates of competency are identically the same as those for a sailing-vessel. If efficiency is required where officers are concerned, we submit the same rule should apply with equal force to lower grades." Now, according to the Begulations for the Examination of Masters and Mates, I find this in section 42 : " Certificates applying only to steamships are issued to candidates who are either unable to comply with the regulation which requires them to have passed one year in square-rigged sailing-vessels, or who prove in course of examination that they are ignorant of the management of square-rigged sailing-vessels. All the qualifying officers' service prescribed for these certificates must have been performed in steamships." Not only does it say that they need not have had experience in square-rigged vessels, but it says specifically that the qualifying officers' service must have been performed in steamships. Were you aware of that at the time ? It is well known that there were special grades on steamships many years ago, which were specially used for the creation of a class of steamship officers. So that your argument, as bearing on the steamship A.8., has no weight when you compare him with the steamship officer ?—Certainly it is a wrong principle, whether it applies to the seaman or the officer. 23. Beferring to your suggestion that the master should be liable to a penalty for shipping incompetent men, is it not likely that a master in perfect good faith might ship a man who might hereafter turn out to be incompetent*?—l do not think so, if he produces his qualifications afterwards. 24. You have said he might produce qualifications ?—I contend that in that case the liability would not be put on the master's shoulders. The liability would be put on the man himself, inasmuch as he would be in possession of papers which could not belong to him. 25. You suggest penalising the master. Laws cannot be made flexible in that way—they must be general in their operation?—ln such a case I do not think the Court would inflict a penalty. 26. But there is the law. If you laid it down stringently that the master shall be liable for a certain specific act of his own there is no qualifying the Act—there is no discretionary power —and Ido not think it would be right to give power to punish one man and to let another go ?—I do not see any analogy between the two cases. It would only apply where a master shipped a man knowing him to be incompetent. 27. You made no such suggestion as " knowing a man to be incompetent." You have just told us that the proper way to know a man is to try him, and the moment of discharge is the time when the master will have had an opportunity of knowing what the man is like, so that he may declare what the man is from his experience ? —Yes. 28. So that the time of discharge is the time when the master can speak as to his ability, not at the time of shipping the man. You want to put the penalty on the master for shipping an incompetent man ? —Certainly. When we say an incompetent man we mean a man who is not in possession of the requisite qualifications required by the Act. 29. Then, why not say so ? You said that all men should be paid off before a Shippingmaster : can you not imagine ports in this colony where it would be absolutely impossible to pay off the men before a Superintendent of Marine—Kaipara, for instance? —Of course, there are only four ports which have Superintendents ; but there are Collectors of Customs. 30. If we put into the Act the words "or his deputy," would that satisfy you? Any officer of the Government can be made his deputy ?—Yes. 31. In reference to the special shipping agent in the permanent service of the companies, you told the Committee that he practically had the destiny of the men in his keeping: can you give the Committee any concrete instance where the private agentlhas procured the discharge of a man while the master of the ship was satisfied with him as being a competent and well-behaved man, or where the agent had procured the dismissal of a man contrary to the wishes of the captain ? — I have no data; but I have had cases brought under my notice. I have been threatened with the same thing myself. 32. Against the will of the master ?—I do not say it was against the will of the master ; but he was not desirous of my leaving the vessel. s—l. 9.

34

\W- J. M. TATE.

1.—9.

33. Do you know of any man who has been kept in a vessel in spite of the master, while the latter believed the man to be incompetent or undesirable in any other way, and who has been foisted on him against his wishes ?—There is no doubt about it—in dozens of cases. The master does not find out whether the man is incompetent until he is on board the ship. 34. Do you think it is likely that the agent would have sufficient influence to keep him there unless the man was competent ? —The agent has certainly power to do that. The officers have absolutely no say in the matter —especially in Dunedin. 35. Mr. Kirby told the Committee here that three chances were given to every man, no matter how great his misconduct, except for assaulting an officer or other person : how does that square with your experience ? —I do not know of any chances given to any man at all. If a man commits himself on board a ship he is discharged, and a report is sent on to Mr. Kirby. 36. Does he not give him three chances?—He gives him a spell on the beach for three months. I know all about his three chances! 37. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] About the discharge : You say that if you had to deal with a man you would not be satisfied with a certificate of " V.G." Good or bad, you would want to test that man on his qualifications ?—Yes. 38. But you do take the certificate as showing that the man is capable of doing the work ?— Not necessarily so. Ido not take it as being sufficient for a master, in a sense. I take it that a master uses his judgment, from experience of the man. 39. You would not be satisfied that a man was qualified by simply having "V.G." on his certificate ?—lf I was master of a vessel and a man came to me with a discharge which had one or two V.G.s on it, I would take it that it was an expression of the master's experience of the man. 40. Even though it happened to have " V.G." on it ?—lf I had an opinion of the matter one way or the other, I would be inclined to think, if the report was a true one, that the man would be good. 41. Supposing a seaman has lost his certificate of discharge and goes before the Superintendent, how is he to produce evidence of his qualifications ?—I do not think a case like that occurs once in ten years, where a man loses the whole of his certificates. 42. You mean that he would produce some prior evidence if he lost his discharge ?—Yes. 43. Are you aware that the Superintendents do question the certificates and make inquiries about men?—l do not think so. I went myself to get a certificate for a man, and the Superintendent gave me one. 44. You took the blank form away and it was filled in by the seaman ?—Yes. 45. Then what happened?—The declaration was taken before a Justice of the Peace, and the form was taken back to the Superintendent. 46. Were you with the seaman when he went back ?—No. 47. You do not know what questions were put to the man by the Superintendent ?—No. 48. Would not that be the right time to test the man's qualifications—after the form was filled in ?—I think the right time is when the form is applied for—that is the time when the .questions should be put. 49. And not when the form is filled in ? —No. 50. About the case of the man McKenzie : Are you aware that when McKenzie was taken on board there was a full crew without him ?—No. But the fact remains that McKenzie had been signed on the ship's articles. 51. In reference to a man rating as A.B. after two years' service on steamships, do you see any objection to that, providing the discharge states that the service has been on a steamship ?— We think that a man should not be termed a qualified seaman unless he has had four years' experience on a sailing-vessel, and we object to men going into the mercantile marine who are not qualified men. 52. In other words, you think experience on square-rigged vessels is essential?—l do not call a man a seaman at all until such time as he has had square-rigged service, and it is in the interest of the travelling public, although he might have been on a steamship for many years, that he should have served an amount of his time on a square-rigged vessel. 53. The Chairman.] Is there sufficient square-rigged service in these seas now to enable men to be put through in sufficient numbers to supply the steamships ? —I have no doubt about that whatever. 54. Is it not a decreasing quantity?— According to statistics there has been a decrease in sailing-vessels, but I think it has increased slightly again lately. W. J. M. Tate examined. (No. 7.) 55. The Chairman.] What is your full name ? —William John McLean Tate. 56. What is your position?—l am mate of the " Mapourika," belonging to the Union Steamship Company. 57. You desire to give evidence on the Shipping and Seamen Bill? — Yes. Section 21: I suggest that the words " one hundred," in line 1 of paragraph (b), be struck out and the word " fifty " be substituted, and also that the following proviso be added : " That every ship trading between ports more than fifty miles apart shall have at least one officer besides the master, such officer holding a certificate not lower than that of only mate in the ease of a foreign-going vessel, or mate in the case of a home-trade vessel." Most of the small vessels trading about the coast of New Zealand carry passengers, but the masters of these vessels work about the ports on the ship's business during the day, and this necessitates them going to sea at night-time, and they have nobody to relieve them when they want to lie down and have to intrust the deck to an-A.B.

35

L—9.

W. J. M. TATE.j

The distance between the ports takes all night generally to accomplish, and sometimes more through stress of weather, and we say they should be compelled to carry at least one certificated officer besides the master. A vessel might be kept outside, say, several days with only one certificated man on board, and he could not remain on deck all day and night. He ought to have another to relieve him. If a vessel is in charge of an incompetent man she is a danger to other vessels, and many of the men who sometimes have charge of the deck do not know the rule of the road. We often come across small vessels at night which have not even a light showing and with apparently no one about the deck, and we say that such vessels should have at least one officer on board to relieve the master when he goes off deck. 58. Does that apply to some of the steamers ?—Sailing-vessels are the greatest sinners in that respect, but even some steamers do not provide an officer. Another reason is that a lot of vessels of even under 50 tons go on comparatively long voyages —say, from Dunedin through Cook Strait down as far as Hokitika—without having an officer to relieve the master. We could quote accidents which have happened through uncertificated officers being on deck. Section 21, paragraph (c): That all the words after the word " ship," in line 1, to the word " the," in line 2, be struck out. We contend that all foreign-going vessels should be compelled to carry first and second certificated officers. These vessels golong journeys, and in cases of accident or sickness to either master or mate the whole of the responsibility rests upon one pair of shoulders, and the master should have another officer to act with him, otherwise the ship would sometimes have to be left in charge of an A.B. In paragraph (d) of the same section we suggest that the words "or extended river limits only "be struck out. We consider that going beyond river limits is a very dangerous practice on the part of inexperienced men. A man might serve his time about, say, the Auckland river limits, and obtain a river certificate which would allow him to go to Bream Head and Cape Colville, and that is a distance of ninety miles or more. The idea that it is always smooth water in extended river limits is a wrong one altogether. I have experienced some very heavy weather in the Hauraki Gulf. We contend that a river-limit man should be limited to the harbour-entrance only, and that an extended-river-limit man should have a home-trade or a foreign certificate. We suggest that all the provisions of the Bill relating to extreme or extended river limits be struck out, and this should be done to be consistent with the principle that all the provisions of the Act should apply to all vessels trading in extended or extreme river limits. Section 56, subsection (1) : We suggest, in connection with discharges, that the book form, similar to that in use in England, be adopted in New Zealand. There are several reasons to be urged in its favour : it provides a continuous record of a man's service, it is not so easily lost, it can be kept cleaner, and is more presentable; and the Board of Trade has adopted it after having had the single-discharge form in use for a very long time. We also think the section relating to the fiveshilling permit, if the book form is brought into use, would become almost useless. Many seamen get a single discharge, and if it is not satisfactory they tear it up, and go to the Shipping-master and obtain a new one. 59. Have you known any case where that has been done ?—Yes. And if he gets a copy of his discharge he gets one with three " V.G.s "on it. If the book form is not brought into use we would suggest that the fee be raised to 10s. Section 121: Paragraph (b) provides that each engineer up to three should be provided with a separate cabin. We propose that all mates up to at least three shall also have a separate room located where there are no water-closets and other such offices. There is not the privacy at present that we should have. If there are two officers in one cabin the rest of the one below is frequently broken by the other requiring to use the cabin, and the cabins are too small. They are not large enough to hold the effects of two men, and are generally very badly ventilated, and it is not healthy for two men to be put in such small places. 60. The firemen and seamen think they should have the same facilities too ?—That has been done in some ships at Home, but I think it has been done away with now, The " Samuel Plimsoll" had separate cabins for their seamen under the forecastle, but Ido not think other companies have adopted that plan since. Section 155: We suggest that this section be struck out altogether. The master's official log, up to the present time as far as.we know, has been quite enough for all official purposes in connection with the ship's crew and accidents, and we do not see the necessity for having another on board the ship. All the entries required by the Bill are kept by the engineer in a log. We have no objection to the engineer keeping a log with these entries in it if the word " official" is removed from the clause, so that two authorities will not be set up. The Bill provides that any accident to the machinery or to the hands in the engine-room' shall be reported by the master in his official log, and we do not therefore see the necessity for' having two official logs. 61. Mr. Willis.] What do you mean by " official " log : if a log is to be kept at all, would it not be an official log'?—The official log is the means by which official reports are made to the Superintendent of Mercantile Marine. The log has to be forwarded to the Mercantile Marine Office. Every time we have a boat-drill, or any time a man meets with an accident, it has to be recorded in the official log ; also any death on board, or any accident, or collision. 62. The Chairman.] Would you be satisfied if the word "official" were taken out and the clause made to read "engineer's" log?— Yes. 63. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] You are afraid of the two clashing ?—Yes. 64. Apart from that, have you any objection?—No, not if you remove the word "official." We have no objection to the engineer keeping any number of logs so long as they are not official. We are afraid the proposal will interfere a little bit with the discipline of the ship. There is only room for one master on board any ship, and if the engineer or anybody else is going to have equal authority to the master it will take away the power of the master at once. Section 165, " Yachts, missionary ships, and fishing-boats ": We consider that subsection (1) should be struck out. We cannot understand why the mates and masters of yachts ormissionary ships should not be required

1.—9.

36

[deputation.

to hold certificates as is required by officers holding similar positions in other classes of vessels; and if it is dangerous for one vessel to carry uncertificated officers it is equally dangerous for another. Some yachts and missionary ships run into considerable tonnage, and go great distances, and they require the same class of efficiency as the other vessels. At Home yachts are required to have certificated masters, or the owners have to pass an examination for a yachtmaster's certificate, otherwise they have to take competent certificated sailing-masters with them. 65. Mr. Hutcheson.] Would your objection apply to all yachts ?—No, so long as they did not go to sea. 66. Mr. E. G. Allen.] And if the words " whether sea-going or " were struck out of the second line would that suit you ?—-Yes. We do not wish to say anything about yachts in the harbour, but when vessels go across to Picton and such places they should go in charge of somebody able to look after them. Missionary vessels go all over the world pretty well. The same might be said of the fish-ing-boats. So long as they keep within harbour limits it is all right, but if they go down the coast to places like Napier or Picton, say, they should have a certificated man on board. Section 189 : We propose that the following provision should be added after paragraph 3: "That the master shall be held responsible for any collision or accident if an incompetent person be left in charge of the deck." According to the Bill it might be anybody who is responsible. We maintain that all vessels should have a responsible officer on deck When at sea. Many of my remarks as to section 21 will apply to this case. An accident happens and the master is said not to be to blame, but the man in charge of the deck; but we say the man in charge of the deck should have a certificate. The man who has not a certificate has nothing to lose and cannot be punished, and therefore does not suffer if he gets into a mess. We maintain that the master should be held responsible, and that would compel the majority of those masters who go to sea without a certificated mate to take one. 67. Mr. Laurenson.] You say that if the man in charge of the deck is incompetent, then the master shall be responsible ?—Yes. Several masters have refused to carry certificated officers, first, on account of the expense, and, second, because the law does not compel them. 68. Mr. Hutcheson.] Especially if the master is part owner?— Yes. Section 217, subsection (4): We desire the following provision to be added to this clause : " That if regulations are made at any time that a ship may carry grain in bulk, then it should be compulsory that that ship should be provided with proper bulkheads, shifting-boards, and feeders, and in those holds that are not full, at least two tiers of grain in bags should be stowed on top of the cargo to prevent it shifting." We have strong reasons for suggesting this provision, because it is a well-known fact that grain carried in bulk is the most dangerous cargo a ship can carry, and many ships have been lost through these precautions being neglected. You cannot ram the grain in—you must have a feeder built up with planks. In the event of the feeder breaking down at sea all the grain goes to one side, and you will probably lose the ship. We also think that something should be put into the Bill in connection with ships carrying sand and shingle ballast. As is well known, sand and shingle are similar to grain in the matter of shifting when a ship is at sea. The " Linda Weber," I believe, had sand or shingle ballast in her when she left on her last trip and was never heard of again, and I know from my own experience that I have had great difficulty in keeping shingle ballast in its place. Coming down from Auckland to Lyttelton we were hove-to off Cook Strait for thirty-six hours, and all the shingle ballast was pitched into the eyes of the vessel, although we had it all tommed down, but through not having anything to hold it up it was all shot forward.

Thursday, 7th August, 1902. A deputation representing the iron trade of New Zealand, comprising Messrs. Cable, Robertson, and Seagar (Wellington), Fraser (Auckland), Winter-Hall (Christchurch), and MacGregor and Brinsley (Dunedin), Was introduced by Mr. Fisher, M.H.R. (No. 8.) Mr. Cable (Wellington): We wish to bring a little moral suasion on the Committee with regard to allowing engineer's surveyors under the Act to remain as they are. We reckon that any attempt to appoint ship's carpenters to do that sort of work is behind the times. We havf steamers now coming to our ports with neither a mast nor scarcely a piece of wood about them. We have something like a quarter of a century's experience of the surveyors as appointed under the Acts in force, and have found them to act satisfactorily from a practical point of view, and the appointment of ship's carpenters to do the work would not be so satisfactory and would lead to confusion. Our next point has reference to the chief engineer's log. I am an old sea-going man myself, and there are several members of the deputation who can bear me out when I say that it is very desirable that the engineer's record of the work done in the engine-room should be official. At present the surveyors can either accept the statements on the engineer's log or refuse them. I understand that there has been a little pressure brought to bear against the engineer's log being treated as an official log, on the plea that it would be counter to the captain's authority. We do not wish to do that, because we know there can only be one man supreme in the ship; but we say that for an actual record of engine-room work this log should be regarded as official. The Chairman : There is nothing in section 15, " Surveyors of ships," saying that carpenters shall be appointed. Mr. Robertson (Wellington): We say the law should stand as it is now in that respect. The Chairman : You are under the impression that there is a proposal to appoint carpenters for the work ? Mr. Robertson : Yes, carpenters and boilermakers. We have seen it stated so in the newspapers. Boilermakers do one part of the work and the ship-carpenter does another part; but we say that the engineer has the knowledge to do all that is required, and past experience has been so satisfactory that we think it would be a pity to disturb existing arrangements. With regard to

1.—9.

DEPUTATION. |

37

the " official log," we know the idea amongst the captains is that we want to interfere with them. We do not want to do that. I have been to sea, and had a great deal of experience in the matter, and I say our reason for desiring the engineer's log to be treated as an official log is this : An engineer is transferred from one ship to another, and if he goes on one with a strange crew he does not know the state of the engines until he finds out by working them ; whereas if an official log were kept there would be a complete record of the state of the machinery, what repairs had been effected, and what parts had caused trouble before he went on board. He has only to go to the official log to read the records, and he then knows what state the machinery is in from a properly authentic source. It is very important to have it in the interests of the owner and everybody else. If the log is not made an " official log " each engineer can take it away with him when he leaves the ship. In fact, there is no log at all often, and if a fresh log is obtained the engineer is kept groping in the dark until he finds what condition his machinery is in. The Chairman : I think the feeling of the Committee is in favour of the log being kept, and being recognised as an official log so far as the engine-room work is concerned. The only difficulty that has been pointed out by some witnesses is the possibility of setting up a divided authority on the ship. Would there be any objection, so far as you are concerned, to this log being always open to the captain of the ship ? Mr. Robertson : It should be always open to the captain and to the Inspecting Engineer of the Government. The Government Inspector looks upon it as a valuable document, because it enables him to see the weak spots, and he can go immediately to them, because he knows where the repairs have been made. It will be a valuable assistance to him in doing his work. The divided authority cannot happen, as the log will only relate to machinery matters. Everybody recognises that the captain is the head of the ship, and no attempt is being made to take away his power in any shape or form. He will have the use of the log if he wants it. It has been suggested that the captain should record these matters ; but what does the captain know about engines ? I have taken captains down to look at machinery and they knew nothing about it, and you cannot expect them to, unless they are going to be practical engineers. Mr. MacGregor (Dunedin): I consider that no man is fit to be an efficient boiler-inspector unless he has been to sea a number of years. Men may be able to design a boiler, but the working and treatment of it are different things entirely. To employ a boilermaker for such work would be a step in the wrong direction. I know all about boilers, and got my experience at sea. Mr. Eraser (Auckland) : The surveyor, I should say, is a man who should have been educated in engineering and ironwork, and also had marine engine-room training. Ido not think a shipwright or boilermaker would meet the requirement. A great many difficulties arise between the contractor for repairs and the surveyor as to how machinery should be repaired, and I do not think we should be able to get much experience from either a shipwright or boilermaker. The Chairman.] Do you think the surveyor should have some knowledge of woodwork to enable him to perform his duties satisfactorily ? Mr. Eraser : Woodwork forms such a small part in steamboats now that it is of little account. The Chairman : But do they not survey other boats as well ? . Mr. Eraser: Very few. There may be a few small boats, and they get readily fixed up by repairs to equal their original strength. Mr. Hutcheson : There is nothing in .the Bill itself specifically appointing Inspectors or Surveyors, but in sections 15 to 18 there are powers given to the Minister to exercise his descretion. Section 15 says, " The Minister may from time to time, as and when and at such ports as he thinks fit, appoint either generally or for special purposes, and on special occasion, any person to be a Surveyor of ships for the purposes of this Act. " Section 18 says, " The Minister may from time to time, as and when he thinks fit, appoint any person as an Inspector to report to him," &c. I know something of this vexed question as between shipwrights and boilermakers—" wooden men and iron men," as they are commonly called—and I would ask Mr. Cable whether he would object to the Minister appointing for the survey of wooden vessels a qualified shipwright. Mr. Cable : No. Mr. Hutcheson : You are dealing generally with the permanent engine-surveyors ? Mr. Cable : Yes. Mr. Hutcheson : I do not think the Committee would be so ill-advised for one moment as to suggest to or empower the Minister to appoint a carpenter or boilermaker for the purpose of enginesurveys. If discretionary powers are given to the Minister, he will have the right to consider each special case, and there could be no objection to his appointing a master shipwright to look after the hull of a ship, and a qualified man with sea experience to look after steamships. In the Bill circulated last session there was a provision for the Shipmaster to have reasonable access to the engineer's official log. [Clause referred to.] In the present Bill all reference to the Superintendent of Mercantile Marine, the Collector of Customs, Shipmaster, and everything else is deleted. Mr. Robertson: Does not that word "official" include all those people who could have the use of it ? Mr. Hutcheson: No. Mr. Robertson : That is how I interpret it. Mr. Hutcheson: I will take Mr. Bobertson as the mouthpiece of the deputation and ask, Would you object to this provision being reinstated—that is, allowing the Shipmaster and other officials reasonable access ? Mr. Robertson : Yes, reasonable access to all those officials. It is, in fact, for their use. If that was in the old Bill it is what is wanted now. Mr. Hutcheson: It is entirely deleted from the new Bill, which makes the log the exclusive property of the chief engineer, and he need not show it to any person. If you turn to section 155 you will notice that the clause reads, " On every steamship having not less than two engineers the

1.—9.

38

[deputation.

chief engineer shall keep an official log, and the entries required to be made therein shall be signed by the chief engineer, and by either the second or third engineer." Now, some vessels carry four engineers. Mr. Gable : The fourth engineer does not have charge of a watch. Mr. Hutcheson : But the fourth engineer might be the only engineer there at the time of an accident. Now, would it meet your views if that clause were altered by the elision of the words " and by either the second or third engineer," and made to read that the log shall be signed by the chief engineer and engineer at the time on watch ? Mr. Cable : The only objection I can see is that the fourth engineer would most probably be an uncertificated man. Where there are four engineers in a ship the chief engineer is at the fourth engineer's call at any moment, and as a rule he does not go to bed until the fourth watch is over. Mr. Hutcheson: Still, he might be on deck at the time. Ido not see why the word of the fourth engineer should not be taken, seeing that he might have the advantage of being present when the accident occurred and the others might not. Why should they be called upon to sign a thing they did not see ? Mr. Cable : The fourth engineer might be a very young man. Ido not think it is desirable to introduce the fourth engineer. Mr. Hutcheson: Well, my suggestion would not preclude the second and third engineers? Mr. Gable : No. Mr. Robertson : We intend them to sign it. There is a slate kept for the purpose, and the chief engineer transfers the remarks from the slate, and the engineer who is on watch at the time of the accident has to sign the log along with the chief engineer. Mr. Hutcheson : I would say " the engineer in charge at the time." Mr. Robertson : I think that would meet our views all right, because we only want a proper record kept so that a stranger going on the ship would know the cause of the accident and whether it was through a defect in the machinery, and so on. Mr. Hutcheson : The ship's official log at present is signed by the most unofficial and most ignorant man in the crew, perhaps, even on engine-room matters. The alteration suggested is to make the clause read that the log shall be signed by the chief engineer and the engineer on watch ; but it does not preclude the second or third engineer from signing it also. Mr. Robertson : You will improve it if you put that in. Mr. Millar: You do not propose to make the engineer's log an official log of the ship? Mr. Robertson : Only of the engine-room. Mr. Millar : There are two other matters contained in this proposed log which have to be considered. It has been pointed out that one would usurp the authority of the other, because why should the engineer have to report the state of the wind and weather ? Mr. Robertson : That is done now. Mr. Millar: The Bill prescribes the manner in which the log must be kept, and it is enacted that the state of the wind and weather must be entered, and lower down it refers to keeping the load-line. Mr. Cable : The engineer does that now. Mr. Millar : What I want to point out is that you are giving this the force of statute law. Suppose a collision took place, which log would be taken in evidence ? In the official log the master might put down the mean draught of the vessel at, say, 19 ft. 6 in., and the engineer's log might show 19 ft. 3 in. : which log would be taken as correct ? Mr. Robertson : There are two logs for the weather. The engineer may be " hauled over the coals " for burning too much fuel, and his log would show that it was due to the engines being driven so hard. Mr. Millar: That is provided for, because it is telegraphed when he has to go full speed or half-speed. That is made portion of his official log, and that is right, because it applies to the engine-room. Mr. Robertson: That is really the point and where all the rows will come from—as to what orders are telegraphed. The man who makes a mistake always says it was not him, and the engine-room log is a protection against that. That is really our object in desiring the clause to be put in the Bill. Mr. Millar : The only part I object to is that referring to the entry of the state of the wind and weather, and also subclause (d), referring to the immersion of the vessel. The chief engineer never looks at the draught of his ship from one year's end to the other. Mr. MacGregor : I have been in steamers for many years : the engineer of every ship I have been in has recorded the draught. Mr. Millar: Take the ships going to Greymouth to load coal at night: have you ever known the engineer to take the draught of these vessels ? Mr. MacGregor: I have never been in that trade, but I have been on the coastal and intercolonial trade and have never known any ship leave the wharf without the draught being recorded in the engine-room. Mr. Robertson: And the engineer knows the quantity of coal in the ship, and the draught with that coal on board. That is my experience. When I got so much coal on board I knew how much draught the ship had. Mr. Millar: To show you the fallacy of your argument, a ship may go down three or four more inches with the same quantity of coal on board. Mr. Robertson: Ido not think so, because coal is always the same weight. Mr..Millar: Does not the vessel take in water sometimes? Take the case of Westport, where you load from staiths. The bins take two or three thousand tons of coal. A day's rain comes on

1.—9

DEPUTATION.]

39

eighty or ninety trucks of dry coal, which would put the ship down to a certain draught, and with a hundred or a hundred and fifty trucks it would be so much more. Mr. Robertson : Is that the way you measure it ? Mr. Millar : Yes ; by the pit number of trucks. Mr. MacGregor: With regard to the wind and weather, the sea has always a great deal to do with the amount of coal burned. I have always had to put down the state of the wind and weather in my log. Mr. Millar : The wind and weather has nothing to do with any collision—it might have in regard to an accident in the engine-room. But I take it that this log is to be taken as an official log of what transpires in the engine-room alone. Therefore I say the state of the wind and weather has nothing to do with what transpires in the engine-room. The Chairman : It would have some effect on the amount of coal consumed. Mr. Millar : That is a matter affecting the engineer and owner; it is not a matter-affecting the state of the engine-room. A master would not put a false entry into his log in regard to the weather. Mr. MacGregor : What possible objection can there be to a dual log? Is it not a fact that sixteen or eighteen years ago a vessel had a hole knocked in her bottom and went on running because she had a double bottom. The hole was not located until the ship was put into dock. The third engineer knew she had struck her bottom. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones : Did he report it ? Mr. MacGregor: No ; but he would have had to report it if there had been an official log. She struck a floating spar, and was allowed to go on running until she went into dock. If she had not had a double bottom there is no knowing what would have happened to that ship. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones : You have been through the clauses referring to the official log: do you apprehend any conflict between the captain and the chief engineer ? Mr. MacGregor : I do not think there is the slightest chance of it. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones : The intention was that the engineer should not be equal to the captain, but that he should have a log for a special purpose as well as the captain for general purposes. Is it not a fact that most of the accidents on board ship recently have been in connection with the machinery ? Mr. MacGregor : Yes. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones : You have read through the provisions in regard to what is to be entered in the log ? Mr. MacGregor : Yes. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones : So far as I can gather, the matter objected to is in connection with recording the wind and weather and the draught ? Mr. MacGregor: Yes. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones : Seeing that the engineer is to be held responsible for what transpires in the engine-room, in the event of a breakdown is not the state of the wind and weather an important factor ? Mr. MacGregor : That is an important factor in the event of the propeller being broken. The engineer should know the state of the wind and weather, because he may burn twice as much coal in one kind of weather as in another. Mr E. G. Allen : Would you not be satisfied if the word " official " were struck out and merely the word " log " inserted ? Mr. MacGregor: The words "official engine-room log" should be inserted. We do not want the engineer to come up on deck to steer the ship ;we want him to be down below. We consider that the ship is nOw so much under the engineer's care that he should be recognised on board as a responsible person. We are agreeable to last year's Bill in that respect. Mr. E. G. Allen : And do engineers generally agree to having an engineer's log ? You all agree to that? Mr. MacGregor : Yes ; and we represent a lot of engineers from Dunedin to Auckland. Mr. Hutcheson : Most.of Mr. MacGregor's reasons are in advocacy of the official log—that is, noting certain things ; and Mr. Millar's objection to such entries as those regarding the draught and the state of the wind and weather was based upon the interests of the owner and the master— that is, that it concerns the prevention of accidents, the saving of fuel, and other things such as those. Well, I would now ask whether the second engineer could not keep an unofficial log, noting all those things, just as the mate keeps the ordinary deck-log, which is not an official log, but confining the records to purely engineering matters ? Mr. MacGregor : Yes, providing the other log was kept along with it. Mr. Hutcheson : The principal reason, I assume, for the engine-room log being kept is that it is in the interests of the owners and engineers; but, as I have pointed out many times, it has no legal status, and cannot be produced, so far as evidence is concerned, as an official log. Now, it is proposed to give the engineers protection by making it an official log, but at the same time it is urged that there is a danger of conflict, especially in such matters as the recording of the state of wind and weather, when the parties concerned are under oath. Now, if the second engineer is competent to keep the engine-room log, there can be no objection to deleting the reference to the draught and the state of the wind and weather and other such things if still reserved for the engineer in his unofficial log. Mr. MacGregor: I consider that an official log is absolutely necessary with regard to the draught alone. It would be a check on the deck hands. Mr. Hutcheson: Ido not care who is to be the supreme authority, but one of them must be. Mr. MacGregor: I do not see that it would conflict with the captain's authority in any way.

1.—9.

40

[KEITH EAMSAY

Mr. Hutcheson : But if there were a dispute there would be a deadlock. Mr. MacGregor : One of them must be correct. Mr. Cable : Could you not insert a provision in the Bill that one of the engineers and one of the deck officials should jointly take the draught before the vessel left port, and that the report, together with the state of the weather, should agree ? There is nothing whatever antagonistic in our attitude towards the captain's authority. Mr. Hutcheson: I wanted to point out that, so far as the owners' interests are concerned, the official log is unimportant. Mr. MacGregor : Let me give an illustration of the value of an official log. About eight years ago the steamer " Napier," belonging to Mr. Keith Bamsay, changed engineers. Some little time after the new engineer had occasion to go down to clean the boiler, when it was found that the crown of the boiler was down. The engineer did not know he had to take the vessel out like that, but the fireman remembered it. That job cost Mr. Bamsay many pounds to repair. If this official log had been in existence it would have been some protection to any engineer coming after another. Without the word " official " in the clause the engineer might forget to record that the crown of the boiler was down. Mr. Laurenson : You say, in regard to clause 15, that you object to any proposal for a carpenter or boilermaker to be appointed an Inspector. What objection can there be to a boilermaker being appointed ? Mr. MacGregor ; Because he has not the necessary experience to enable him to understand the boilers. Building a boiler is a very different thing to treating it after it has been in use at sea for a number of years. The same thing applies to an engineer in a shop and one on a steamship. Mr. Laurenson : Are you aware that in Victoria boilermakers are appointed inspectors ? Mr. MacGregor : I was not aware of that. Mr. Millar : And they are appointed inspectors of bridges in America. Mr. MacGregor : That is a matter of construction, and is a different thing. Keith Bamsay examined. (No. 9.) 1. The Chairman.] What is your business? —Shipowner and agent, Dunedin. 2. You wish to give evidence with reference to the Shipping and Seamen Bill ?—Yes. My office, I understand, supplied you with copies of my suggestions. I have not had much time to go into the matter, but I spent a good deal of time with Mr. Kirby yesterday afternoon, and he gave me the outline of the evidence he gave before the Committee, with which I agree; and I now wish to confine myself to the objections we have taken in the memorandum I sent you. Section 19, subsection (a) : Insert the words " during working-hours" after the words " go on board any ship." This does not seem necessary to me, because the clause is from the Imperial Act. Subsections (d) and (c), " Bequire and enforce the production of books," &c, " administer oaths," &c.: This seems to me to be more the function of a Magistrate or Judge than a Marine Inspector, and the same applies to section 20, in the fifth, sixth, and seventh lines. Section 43, subsection (2), " Provided that in cases of urgency single seamen may be engaged by the master on board," &c. :In that connection will you kindly read subsection (3) of section 55? I beg to suggest that the engagement before a Superintendent is quite unnecessary in the case of a home-trade ship, and with steamers will be the cause of much loss of time, taking men up and getting them aboard again. The agreement for home-trade might be required to be signed by the Superintendent before being signed by the crew to show that nothing illegal was written therein, and ratified by him after the crew had signed, though the former is really not required, as he has to be satisfied before he ratifies. If the Superintendent were alloWed on payment of, say, 2s. 6d. extra to go on board a vessel to ship or discharge a crew this would reduce the inconvenience somewhat. It should be provided that when a whole crew is shipped or discharged the vessel shall not proceed to sea before ratification by the Superintendent. Agreements should be on the same footing. You can quite understand that a vessel may be short of fourteen or more men, and you cannot always get them at once. , The Superintendent is not always at his office, and has different duties to perform, and you might have to spend a considerable amount of time looking for him. It is extremely likely in regard to steamers, which come in and go out the same day, that unnecessary delay might be caused and a large amount of loss entailed on the owners. Section 46, " Copy of agreement to be conspicuously posted ": I would suggest as an amendment of subsection (1) the substitution of the following clause : " The master shall, at the commencement of every engagement of a crew, cause a legible copy of the agreement with the crew (omitting the signatures) to be posted up in some part of the ship accessible to the crew, and take all possible means to keep it there." This seems to me to be much simpler; and it is unnecessary to post the copy up at the commencement of every voyage. For instance, one of my steamers goes to Invercargill once a week, and if this is to be posted up every voyage it would be compulsory for me—although my men are engaged for six months—to have the copy posted at the end of each voyage. It seems to me that all that is necessary for the protection of the crew is that it should be put up and proper means be taken to keep it there. 3. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] You do not change your agreement every trip ?—You may put a new man there. 4. Mr. Millar.] It is verbatim with the English Act ? —I was not aware of that; it is not referred to as part of the Imperial Act. Section 52, " Every seaman on signing articles shall produce a discharge in respect of the capacity in which he wishes to engage " : I would suggest inserting after the word " engage " the words "orof a higher grade." My intention is that a man holding a mate's discharge may ship as an A.B. until something better turns up. If he was bound to produce a mate's certificate he could only get a mate's billet.

KEITH EAMSAY.J

41

1.—9

5. If you go a little further you will find that is covered by what follows. He is entitled to ship as an A.8., because his qualification is much higher?— But he would require to make a statutory declaration. 6. No ; because he must have been to sea the necessary time to qualify for his mate's certificate? —I see that now. But, as I said before, I only got at these details yesterday. Section 52, subsection (2): I suggest adding the following words : " and it will be thereby cancelled, and not serve the purpose for shipping on any other vessel." Section 54, subsection (3), "If a ship proceeds to sea short by not more than two men," &c. : I would suggest that some little latitude be given in a case of this sort, and that in cases of emergency it should be allowed that the Superintendent or Collector may give a permit to proceed to the vessel's next port in the colony shorthanded. I would suggest that if the master has three-fourths of his crew on board he should be allowed to go to sea. In this connection I may state that I had some experience in respect of the " Bimu," which was somewhat costly to me. Two A.B.s shipped in Dunedin. At Timaru they both went ashore and got drunk. Notice was put up giving the time she was to sail, but they did not turn up in time, and even if they had they were so drunk that they would have been a nuisance on board. The vessel was appointed to sail at 5 o'clock, and was kept waiting till 7, when it left without them. On returning to Timaru the matter was reported to the Collector of Customs, who seemed to be satisfied, but the law was set in motion and the captain was fined £5. It cost me about £10, besides other expenses, and I think some protection in cases of that kind should be given to shipowners. I believe one man did offer to come down the next day, but if the captain had waited for him it would have meant a loss to the " Bimu " of £16 or £17 for the day. The captain did all he could to get men, and reported the case at Wellington and also at Timaru; but the law was put in motion by some person or other, with the result, as I said, that it cost me £10, besides the expense of sending the captain up to give evidence. 7. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] Were those men deck hands?— Yes. 8. How many hands did the vessel carry ?—Four; but the mates did the work. 9. It was practically half your crew that left the vessel ?—No ; because the mates would do the work for the short distance to Wellington, and there was no risk to anybody on board; and if we had taken those men on board they would have been dead drunk and useless. 10. Mr. Millar.] This clause provides for a case like that you have mentioned? —Well, of course the Magistrate took his own view of the question, and it was an exceedingly unfair one to take in a place like Timaru. The clause was evidently not sufficient to meet this case. 11. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] The point is whether the skipper took sufficient time to look for substitutes ?—But supposing he had taken those men on board, they would have been absolutely useless. 12. Mr. Millar.] He could have discharged them in Wellington ?—He was fined for not seeing the police and getting those " drunks "on board. I think it was a very hard decision. There is another case I would like to mention. An A.B. named McLeod, who got drunk at nearly every port, went ashore at Greymouth and reported that the forecastle was flooded, which he could not prove. He only used this as an excuse for not proceeding on the steamer. I had to pay his wages in full or take him to Court. To do the latter meant detaining the steamer to get evidence, which would have been too costly. I think the Shipping-master should have power to deal with such eases, provided the wages involved do not exceed, say, £10 for all but officers, when the amount should be £25. Another A.B. could not be got in McLeod's case, and the cost of labour paid exceeded the wages due to him, and the owners had to pay both. In another case a fireman came on board the worse of drink on being shipped at the Bluff. He died the next day, and the owners had to pay £7 15s. as funeral expenses. I think I should have been allowed to bring the steamer away with one fireman short under those circumstances. Section 59, " Payment of wages ":I do not think this section should apply to home-trade ships, as it is only giving all hands unnecessary trouble. 13. Mr. Millar.] I think we have had evidence enough to show that there is not the same necessity for this in home-trade ships ?--Section 75, subsection (b), " Engagement of seamen in the colony " : I suggest that after the words " consequent on the completion of " strike out "a " and insert " each," and add at the end, after the word " side," the words " notice to expire at 5 p.m., or time of vessel's sailing, whichever first occurs." That gives them a special time when the notice might be given. It might be given at sea. Men have given notice at 8 a.m. at sea and gone ashore the next morning. That is not an uncommon practice, and it would obviate that if you put in the exact time. 14. We could put in so many hours after the vessel arrives at the port ?—Yes. The present practice is very awkward sometimes. Section 82: This seems a very arbitrary provision. You engage men for a voyage, and perhaps for some reason the voyage is not taken, when the crew have you by the throat and make you pay up a month's wages; whereas in an ordinary case you can engage a man and if you do not want him you can give him a week's notice. 15. That is entirely in accord with the Imperial Act ?—lt conflicts entirely with section 75, which provides for twenty-four hours' notice. 16. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] That is after the man has been working?—l would suggest that it be made to correspond with clause 75 by striking out the words " commencement of the voyage," and inserting in their place the words " completion of a round voyage," and also to strike out the words " or before one month's wages are earned." 17. After the completion of the voyage you come under the twenty-four-hours notice?— Suppose you engage a man for so many months, under the ordinary articles you can discharge him in twenty-four hours. Why should you give him a special advantage when you engage him for a trip ? and if he does not go the trip you have to give him a month's wages. Why not have the twenty-four-hours notice also ? 6—l. 9.

1.—9.

42

TkEITH RAMSAY.

18. Mr. Hutcheson.] It says that if you discharge him in accordance with the terms of the agreement, then inferentially he has no other claim. Your agreement says six months. You are at liberty to give him twenty-four hours' notice, and he has liberty to give you twenty-four hours' notice ? —Why not have the agreement for a month ? You do not mention foreign-going vessels in the clause. 19. Say the man is engaged for two years : supposing they wanted to discharge him, there is no twenty-four-hours notice, and it is at the captain's option unless you come back to the port ? —I quite agree that a man should be protected on long voyages. But suppose the owner of a schooner agreed with a man on a job for a month or six weeks, and engaged his crew, when something happened to cause the arrangement to fall through. Why should the seamen in that case have the right to demand a month's wages, while seamen in other cases can be discharged on twenty-four hours' notice ? 20. This clause is for foreign trade?— Well, put the words " foreign trade " in, it will take away the ambiguity that exists. 21. Mr. Hutcheson.] But the Shipping-master need not sign the crew on the ship's articles unless he is actually ready for sea? —Sometimes we are rushed for men, and when we can get them we put them on our articles. Sometimes we are stuck up for days and weeks for the want of men, and at other times there are more men available than we want. If this clause is to apply to foreign-going vessels I think it should be stated. 22. Mr. Laurenson.] Clause 41 specifies what an agreement is. Supposing a sailor had a row with the mate or the master of a vessel and was thrown on shore without a moment's notice after being on board a day or two, then the master is entitled to pay him a month's wages, because he has broken the terms of his agreement ? — He would not be entitled under the six-months agreement. What I maintain is this: that a man who signs an agreement as specified in section 82 is better off than the other man. 23. But section 82 refers to an agreement, while section 42 specifies what an agreement is. 24. The Chairman.] It will not apply if a man is discharged in accordance with an agreement ? —Then, all we have to do is to be pretty careful as to what the agreement shall be. I think there should be added a clause something to the following effect: " Any agreement made by Arbitration Court or Conciliation Board between a seamen's union and owners to be recognised as the legal basis as regards wages, overtime, and hours of labour, and time and place of giving notice." It seems to me that agreements have been arrived at between the Seamen's Union and the owners by , order of an Arbitration Court and have not always dovetailed into the Acts which we have in force, and the Committee might be doing an advantage to both sides if that were done. The Arbitration Court might instruct the owners or seamen to take a certain course under which they might be allowed to carry on for the term of an award, even although it did not tally word for word with the wording of the Act. Section 117 :In the other Acts there is confusion in reference to " sickness " and " hurt and injury," also the application to foreign and home-trade vessels. These matters are not made clear enough in the Consolidated Act. The words " until he is cured, or dies, or is brought back to the colony" are not suitable to apply to the home trade. I would suggest that this clause be made to apply to foreign-going vessels by adding these words (subsection 4) : After the word " ill" add the words " hurt, or injured;" also after the word " illness " add the words " hurt, or injury," as in section 118 following. In connection with these accidents, I would mention two little accidents that occurred in the South. S.s. " Invercargill" : In May, 1891, a man named Monson, when riding and standing up on a cargo-trolly on the Waikawa Wharf, jumped off to stop the trolly and hurt his leg. The owners of the steamer had to keep that man ashore at a cost of £3 15s. The man had no right to be on the trolly to begin with. Here is another case : A man named Mcßae hurt his fingers by getting them between a boat and the steamer's side. He went ashore on his own account, and afterwards returned and said he had been to the Hospital, where they had had to cut off two of his fingers. He was left on shore, and : kept at a lodginghouse. I found out afterwards that it was not true that his fingers had been amputated. The Shipping-master told him to report himself daily, as it had been reported that he was drinking. He did so for a day or two, and then cleared, taking the blankets from his lodgings with him. I merely mention these cases because Ido not know where our responsibility comes in. Morally, I had no responsibility for the man who got on top of the trolly, where he had no right to be. 25. Mr. Laurenson.] Had you to pay anything in the case of the man Mcßae ?—Yes; I had to pay £1 10s. 26. You got no medical certificate as to the injury ?—We got a medical certificate to say that his fingers were jammed, and a report afterwards that he had got his fingers amputated. After section 118 I suggest that section 105 of the Act of 1877 should be added; also a new clause, as follows : "In any case where a seaman is put on shore from any vessel trading beyond the colony, or the vessel is not registered in the colony, the master shall within twenty-four hours report the same to the Superintendent, and if the man is likely to be able to rejoin his vessel at that port the Superintendent shall see that his expenses are paid according to law. Should the vessel proceed to some other port in the colony before the man's recovery is sufficient to enable him to join, the master shall deposit with the Superintendent his wages and a sum sufficient to pay expenses according to law as under or of sending the man on to his ship if he recovers before she leaves the colony. Should the man die, the Superintendent shall pay expenses of burial out of money deposited for expenses. Should he not recover till after the vessel has left the colony, then the Superintendent shall pay his expenses to his port of engagement or discharge him where he is at the man's option given in " writing. Any balance in the hands of the Superintendent shall be refunded by him to the master or agent." Ido not think there is any shipowner who does not want to take his full responsibility with regard to any illness or accident which may occur in any way for which he may be respon-

1.—9.

43

KEITH RAMSAY.]

sible and I merely make these suggestions with the view to having them put in the Act so that there may be no misunderstanding, and that the owner may know what he has to do, and any one of the crew may know what his position is. There is amongst all the Acts so much confusion that you really do not know where you are. That is all I have to say on that point. Section 119, " Provision for seamen left ashore when incapacitated " : This does not properly apply to both foreign-going and home-trade, as when a seaman is left on shore out of a foreign-going vessel he should not be deemed to be discharged, as he may recover and rejoin his vessel before she leaves the colony. And in home-trade vessels men are often slightly unwell, hurt, or injured sufficiently to prevent their going for a trip or so, which may be short ones of one day to a week. It should be optional for the master and man to arrange that the latter should stay ashore providing the circumstance is logged in the official log and the time ashore does not exceed a month. To correspond with subsection (j) of section 119, penalty-clause 1 should come in here. That is also in the interests of the man who is slightly ill for a few days. He can be taken on if the opportunity offers. In the case of sickness, unless shown to be the result of the owner or master supplying bad food or water, or other default of the owner or master, the expenses attendant thereto and wa«es should not be charged against the owner any more than is the case m many other occupations on shore; but when a seaman is left ashore the matter should be reported to the Superintendent, who will see that his wages, &c, are paid to date and whose the responsibility is. The present Acts really point to this, in that the sickness must be of a month's duration before seamen are entitled to the benefit of this. Why should this be so if the fault lies with the master or owner? But in the cases of hurt or injury there could be no question of a month; but, unless it (hurt or injury) has occurred through the seaman's own fault, the master and owners should" provide what is necessary at once, at their own expense, with limitations as to total cost in wages, expenses, &o. You will at once see that the suggested alterations on my part are entirely in the interests of the seamen. All we want, as I said before, is to know where we are The Act says that a man must be laid aside for a month, and Ido not see why, if a man is laid aside for a few days—if it is through the fault of the owners—he should not be paid for them Section 133, subsection (2), "If a seaman or apprentice intends to absent himself, &c.: Subsection (1), of course, refers to the penalty. We cannot see the need of this; but we do see that under it the crew might agree among themselves to give this notice, and so stop a vessel. If it must remain it should be " written notice," and the following words added at the end: "if he is satisfied that the seaman or apprentice had proper cause or reason to give such notice and absent himself from duty, and his wages shall cease as soon as notice commences to operate. I think it would be a pity to place the owner at the mercy of two or three people without any cause whatever who could give notice and clear out and stop a vessel from sailing. Section 193, " Accidents to be reported to Minister " : There is a formal alteration I want to suggest, that after the words " transmit to the Minister " the following words be added—" through the nearest Collector of Customs "—which is the customary way of giving notice, and is the best. Section 205, " Load-line and disc to be marked" :It is suggested that this would be much better understood by officers of the Customs and the public if the words " the upper edge of which shall be drawn " were inserted after the , words " with a horizontal line," so that it is clear that it is the upper edge which must not be submerged. Many think it is the lower edge that should not be submerged. At the end of the present clause, after the words "through its centre," should be added the words "so that from top edge of this line to bottom edge of the line which marks top of the deck shall show the correct freeboard in accordance with certificate for same." I think Mr. Millar will agree with me that there has been a great deal of confusion, and it is desirable that there should be no misunderstanding. Part XI., Sections 290-296, " Liability of Shipowners" : I suppose this is passed on from the Imperial Act. . • Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones : Yes. I think there will be a suggestion from shipowners that they shall not be held responsible beyond a certain amount unless that amount is declared. I understand that Mr. Mills, of the Union Company, will give evidence on many of the clauses in the Bill; and I would suggest the desirableness of calling the Superintendents of Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin to give evidence before the Committee, for they are absolutely unbiassed, and could give information of great value. _ 28 Mr. Millar.] Very strong objection has been taken to men signing articles on home-trade ships having to go to the Customhouse, owing to the great loss of time. You only sign articles every six months. Take the " Eimu," for instance, which is the largest ship you have : I suppose your crew, all cold, is sixteen?—l think, sixteen or seventeen. 29 How long would it take those men out of the six months to go up to the Shipping Omce and sign articles ? Would not the Shipping-master put the whole lot through in a quarter of an hour ? --No; because you do not know whether the Shipping-master will be in. You cannot take them to the Customhouse. 30 Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] Is there no deputy there ?—Mo. 3l' Mr Millar.] Supposing you wanted to sign articles, would you not give the Shippingmaster'notice and he would fix the day ?—Yes ; but the men do not come down. ~',." 32 Could not the men walk up after they had finished dinner at half-past 12, and the Ship-ping-master agree to sign them on at a quarter to 1 ? Could not the whole lot then be put through in a quarter of an hour ?—Yes, if everything dovetailed, but in nine cases out of ten they will not do it. It is our experience that these things do not go smoothly when we want them to. It is a much easier matter if the thing can be done on board the ship, as the loss of half an hour may mean the loss of a tide in our bar harbours, and therefore the loss of a day. 33 Supposing you are signing on board ship, is it not a common occurrence for the Shipmaster'to come down and sign one man after another?—We generally go up to the Shipmaster's place.

1.—9.

44

[a. haeeis.

34. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] Do you sign a full crew at bar harbours ? Give us an instance where you would sign on a full crew ? —lnvercargill is a bar harbour. One of my vessels got on a bank there, and it cost £1,300 to get her off and repair damages. 35. With regard to the delay you mentioned on account of the absence of the Shippingmaster, I will look into that and arrange for a substitute to be present in his absence in future ?— Yes, it would be better. Alfred Harris examined. (No. 10.) 36. The Chairman.] What is your business ?—I am a coal-merchant and a shipping-agent, residing at Wanganui. 37. You want to give evidence regarding the Shipping and Seamen Bill ?—Yes. I propose to read my suggested amendments, as I only want to deal with those sections of the Act which have relation to the auxiliary boats. Clause 21: For subsection (k) I propose the following: "If the ship is a sea-going one, solely propelled by gas, oil-fluid, electricity, or other mechanical power than steam, with machinery of one hundred brake horse-power or more, then with a first-class engineer duly certificated for such ships." For subsection (1) substitute the following: "If the ship is a sea-going one, solely propelled by gas, oil-fluid, electricity, or other mechanical power than steam, with machinery of less than one hundred brake horse-power, then with a first-class or second-class engineer duly certificated for such ship." For subsection (m) substitute the following: "If the ship is a sailing-ship and fully equipped as such and fitted with auxiliary power of gas, oil-fluid, electricity, or other mechanical power than steam, with machinery not exceeding sixty brake horse-power, then such ship is exempt from carrying a certificated engineer." If the Committee recommended the amendments as suggested, you will notice that the Government under section 16 has full power of control and survey at any time, so as to satisfy themselves as to the vessel's efficiency in the interests of life and property. The reason I advance for some amendment in this direction is that, as you see, I ask only for vessels to be exempt which have the full complement of sails under the Board of Trade regulations. We have some eleven sails, and we are not only compelled to carry out all the conditions of a steamship, but also of a sailing-ship, so that our earning-power, minus expenses, is not half so great as under a full steamship. I would also say that we would be willing to satisfy the departmental Machinery Inspector that the engines in this case may be directly controlled on deck as well as below by the man at the wheel or whoever is in charge of the watch, where he can see everything that is going on. I maintain that vessels of this description are enabled to deal with trade that under other conditions could not possibly be dealt with. An attempt is being made to open up the timber trade at Mokau, and there are two mills there, but after struggling along for two years they have only been able to get away two cargoes. Insurance companies will not insure the boats on account of the dangerous navigation through rocks and reefs, and so on. It is impossible for large vessels able to sail to Australia to get in; therefore it must be done by small sailing-boats or auxiliary schooners, and if we have to carry a certificated engineer in addition to providing machinery and the space for the machinery in such small vessels the expense will be too great. We can only use this auxiliary power at a critical time, such as when crossing the bar, going up the river, also when becalmed at sea, and if the expense is made as great as if we were running the engines constantly the freight will be more than absorbed. I might say that up to the present moment there has been a difficulty in getting suitable men, and we are now sailing with the propeller off. Some two or three months ago we were delayed off the Foxton bar, and were unable to get in for a whole month, although we were willing to pay even for the towage of the vessel. We were floating about at the risk of the weather, and property and life were in danger. We sent our boat into the island trade, and arranged with the Department to take a certificated engineer. We were compelled by our charter to carry an engineer, and paid him £16 a month. When we got to Sydney we got stuck up, but we were able to put the mate in charge over the engines, with whom they were satisfied, at £8 a month, and wherever he went he was recognised as able to go successfully through the reefs and in and out of the islands of the Pacific for a period of nine months, and there was no trouble or difficulty whatever. When we got back here freights had dropped owing to the timber tariff of the Commonwealth. We were offered a charter to go to Surprise Island for guano, but it was impossible to get any insurance on the vessel. We had previously paid an insurance rate between the hurricane seasons of 16 per cent., but they now refused to take the risk at all. I endeavoured to get an engineer qualified for the ship, but could not get one. The "Countess of Ranfurly's " engineer was discharged, and I tried to get him, but he knew that men were at a premium and he would not come. At the last moment I got another competent but not certificated man, and shipped him at £16 a month, and he was recognised all round the islands, using the engines through reefs and hundred-mile calms, and enabling the vessel to return before the hurricane season. When we got back the skipper was fined £1(3, and we were accused of trying to evade the law, when we proved by the articles that we did not want to save money as we were paying £16 a month instead of £8 for a mate. We were informed by the Department that what we had done invalidated our insurance, and I replied that we had not got a penny of insurance. In trying to pick up this island trade we have to compete with German, Italian, French, Bussian, and Japanese subsidised boats ; and, in addition, all these provisions of the law which are enforced upon us here are not enforced upon those vessels. Yet we are supposed to cultivate this island trade, which under these conditions it is impossible to carry on. And I would call attention to this fact: that this class of auxiliary vessels is now being built for the German and French Governments. Four vessels have been built for the German Government and traders in Auckland, and are now trading to the islands, and we cannot possibly compete with them. When we were prosecuted at Auckland the master of the " Vite " was threatened as well. He took a certificated man away with an

A. HARMS.]

45

1.—9.

engine about the size of a sewing-machine, and paid him £16 a month ; but this man left the boat in the islands, and it was impossible to get another certificated man there. lam not sure whether he was prosecuted, but he came to me about it and said he would take the engine out of the vessel altogether. The Premier has just suggested at Home that the Imperial Government should subsidise vessels to compete against foreigners : Does that not apply to this country as well ? Ought not charity to commence at Home ? We have offers to go to Noumea, and, if we like, to trade under the French flag for them. If we do so we shall avoid all these restrictions and trade with profit; but why should I have to deny myself the privilege of trading under the British flag ? Why should I have to sail under the French flag because I wish to live ? We are not asking for relief where a vessel is going to sail with oil-engines as the only power, but only where machinery is put in as auxiliary to expedite the ship. We cannot get insurance, because these vessels run to bar harbours and shallow ports, which the insurance companies are very shy of. I may say that I was at sea seven months after the last amending Act was passed. I took over these engines without any assistance or expense from ashore I have run them successfully to all the dangerous ports round New Zealand, and never had a tow for a single mile. It was maintained before that the engines could not be worked because they were not mechanically perfect, but I could work them myself. I cannot, however, follow that work, because I suffer from the effects of oil-fumes and water. We do not wish to avoid reasonable expense in this matter, and in no case do I know of oil-engines being put into boats where the sailing-power has been allowed to depreciate or drop one iota. I will just quote a statement of the " Countess of Banfurly's " experience. I think she did not pay such high wages as we did by some £2 a month. " A sum of £400, voted by the Islands as a subsidy for the vessel, has already been largely exceeded, and it is safe to say that since she first arrived £900 has been disbursed by the Island Government on account of the schooner. An account of £50 for provisions gives the total £1,800 in seven months. The earnings of the schooner for that period will probably be £500, leaving a deficiency of £1,300." That is from the Auckland Star. The schooner, I think, took some 300 cases of oil, equal to 2,400 Imperial gallons, capable of supplying her engines for not more than 240 hours, at a cost of 12s. 6d. per hour for oil alone, under a full load out of voyage of about 5,088 hours. The Government at the time had great difficulty in getting a certificated, competent man to take charge of her oil-engines. The number of men offering is very limited, and under the regulations and rules the difficulty is that so many men are refused permission to sit for examination. I think the Government is protected in the fact that under the examination the Examiner has power to refuse the candidate a pass. Why should obstructions be put in the way of an intelligent applicant who wishes to submit himself for examination ? We brought two men from Australia, and they presented themselves for examination and they were refused permission to sit, and yet those men brought a vessel from Australia successfully into port. On one occasion the vessel went into Westport, and after she got in had to come out again because the man was not certificated. The boat was towed out. 38. Hon. Mr. Hall-J ones.] You were inside the harbour and had to be towed out again?— Yes. 39. When was that? Was it the " Toroa " ?—Yes ; two years ago. I was not on the ship at the time. I afterwards submitted this man's case to the Chief Examiner, and it is only fair to say that he said he did not think the matter had come before him. When I explained the matter to him he said, " Present the man and we will allow him to sit"; but unfortunately he had gone back to Australia disgusted, and since then he has been running a vessel successfully in Sydney Harbour. The oil fuel used is sold under the Standard Oil Company, and we are penalised by the price being raised from lOd. to Is. 4d., but I am hopeful that we may be able to use the shale-oil from Orepuki. If, however, we are to be penalised by the Government it will be impracticable to carry on the trade. I understand the Government's attitude is due to their concern for life and property. We were in Hicks Bay at the time the " Linda Weber " went ashore. The skipper did not like to run his vessel too far in ; she dragged her anchors, and I was able to get her back to safety again with engines. In another case we were off D'Urville Island in a gale, and were within a few chains of the reef through anchors dragging. We could hear the people shout from the shore, and yet with the assistance of the engines we were saved from going on that reef. And yet it is said that auxiliary power is no assistance in a gale of wind. I would now call your attention to Schedule VII. In addition to carrying a certificated engineer we are liable to a heavy survey fee of £12 a year, and yet a steamer of 1,250-horse power constantly running under steam-power is only liable to the same fee. We are penalised according to tonnage, and not according to horse-power. We might have a 4-horse-power engine the size of a nail-keg, and yet we would be obliged to pay a survey fee of £12 in addition to docking-fees. You will notice that the full sum is only £20 for the largest vessel, with, say, 10,000 indicated horse-power. 40. The Chairman.] You think a distinction should be drawn between auxiliary boats and steamships ? —Yes. If a larger vessel breaks down she is helpless, but in our case we are just as safe as any sailing-ship afloat. We do not object to surveys, but to the amount and the certificated engineer. 41. You mean that there should be different qualifications?— Yes. In addition to that, the sailing-ship is fully equipped with regard to the manning by seamen. I admit that if she carries passengers she should be treated in the same manner as other passenger-vessels. 42. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] In reference to the skipper who was fined £10, what was the charge against him ?—Leaving the wharf without a certificated engineer. 43. Was it not that he signed a man on who did not go with the vessel ?—Yes; I signed on myself and did not go. I endeavoured to get a man, and the man I spoke of promised to go. I believe he played the same trick on the Government. Then I signed and was going with the vessel, but there was a fair wind and I was not required. If the captain had signed me off at Noumea the Government could have done nothing.

1.—9.

46

[CAPTAIN HOLLS

44. Mr. Hutcheson.] You made reference to the tariff having a prejudicial effect on the timber trade ?—Yes. 45. I presume you were referring to the intercolonial trade ? —Yes. The ruling price was 3s. a hundred from Auckland ports to Sydney, and when we got back the price offering was Is. lOd. ; but by shipping to another port we got 2s. 46. That is sawn timber ?■ —Yes. 47. How does the import duty on logs affect the timber trade ?—There is very little of it done; and now, since they have given us some relief, it has fallen back to the old thing. Owing to the drought there is little butter to box over there. 48. After the imposition of the duty the log trade fell back ?—Yes ; but there was only a little. lam not in a position to talk of the log trade. At the present time we are simply trying to open up timber trade where no other vessels can go —such as Mokau, where only small vessels like ours can go in—and if we have to carry a certificated engineer it will be impossible to do that. 49. Mr. Millar.] What do you pay for towage there ?—£lo.

Thursday, 14th August, 1902. Captain Bolls examined. (No. 11.) 1. The Chairman.] What is your name ?—John Thomas Bolls. 2. You are a captain ?—-Yes, in the s.s. " Upolu." 3. You desire to give evidence on behalf of the Shipmasters' Association ? The first section I wish to bring before your attention is section 21, subsection (d), which deals with masters holding river-steamer certificates taking ships to extended river limits. Extended river limits go so far that I think it is necessary that the master should hold a certificate equal to that of a home-trade master. It is necessary that he should be a sailor, and a man who holds a river certificate is not a sailor as a rule. It is necessary that he should be able to use a chart, understand the compass, and use the lead. Very often ships plying within extended river limits carry a number of passengers, and therefore, if the master is not a sailor, I do not think it is quite the thing that he should have the lives of others under his charge. Section 37, " Licenses to supply seamen may be granted " : If licenses were granted to persons to supply seamen I think it would lead to great evils, as it is only natural that if a man has a license to supply seamen it would be to his advantage to get as many men shipped as possible; therefore it would lead, possibly, to him enticing men out of their ships, which is what is termed " crimping." I have had experience of that sort of thing in the Australian ports, where men have been enticed away and the master of the ship has had to give the same man who did this payment for getting other men. I therefore think it is a very dangerous thing to give licenses to supply men to anybody. I think the old custom of letting the master pick up his own men, or the bond fide agent of the ship, would be the best system to adopt. This also applies to section 38, subsections (a) and (b). The system we have been adopting, where one of the company's servants has had the men already at hand, saves a lot of time. Very often we have only a few hours in port, and sometimes on Saturday afternoons it would be impossible to hunt up a man ; but if the servant of the company has a man on the spot there is no time lost. 4. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] You prefer that system to the one proposed in the Bill ?—I think so. With the few hours we stay in port sometimes it is impossible to hunt up a man. Section 43, subsection (2), " Crews or single seamen shall be engaged before a Superintendent in the same manner as they are required to be engaged for foreign-going ships " : It very often happens that a ship arrives in port after shipping-hours, when it would be impossible to get before the Superintendent. It is Saturday afternoon sometimes when we get into a port, and we go away again the same day, but to carry out the meaning of this clause we should have to wait until Monday morning. Very often a master is up all night in the coastal trade, and if he has to go to a shipping office the next day to sign his men on it gives him no time to get his necessary rest. 5. The proviso in the subsection meets that, if it is a case of urgency ?—But how are you going to prove that it is a case of urgency? 6. That would be for the master to prove ? —lt would almost always be a case of urgency, because this coastal trade is very severe on the master, and it is only right that he should get a day to himself after he has had a night out. I think this should also apply to section 55, subsection (3), which deals with the discharge of seamen. 7. What do you suggest ? —That the men should be discharged on board the ship, and the discharges ratified before the Superintendent at the first convenient time. That is the system that exists now, and it seems to work very satisfactorily. 8. The Chairman.] The subsection provides for that, if it is reported to the Superintendent at the first port of call at which the ship arrives—that is, in the case of a single seaman?—l would suggest that it be made to apply to the whole crew. Very often to take the whole of the crew up to the Shipping Office means stopping the work. Sometimes the men will not go back straight to the ship, but stay away three or four hours before returning, and that means a lot of expense to the shipowner. The present system has been working very satisfactorily up to now, and Ido not think anybody can take any exception to it. 9. You are simply working under the law as it is here : there is no alteration made in the l aw ?—That is the usual way of doing it—signing the men on board ship, and getting the Superintendent to ratify the whole lot. 10. Mr. Laurenson.] You are able to do that in the case of a single seaman, but not in the case of a whole crew ?—That is the system now. 11. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] The whole crew ?—Yes, in the home trade.

47

1.—9.

OAFTAIN ROLLS.]

12. The Chairman.] You do it in violation of the law ?—Well, it is allowed by the Superintendent of Marine, who seemed to read the Act in that way. 13. Mr. Laurenson.] On the coastal ports of New Zealand?— Yes. Section 52, subsection (1), " Permits ": I think the payment of a five-shilling fee for a permit should be strictly enforced. It very often happens that a man who gets a bad discharge will tear it up and say he has lost it, and there is no record of the man's previous character. This fee will make him think before he tears up his discharge, because, as a rule, that class of seamen are at very low ebb for money. As it is now, they have just to make a declaration and say they have lost their discharge to get a permit. 14. Mr. T. Mackenzie.] You approve of that clause, then ? —Yes. Section 54, subsection (3), " If a ship proceeds to sea short by not more than two men of a full crew," &c. : Some ships have a very large crew and others a very small crew, and two men out of four or five would be a very serious thing. I therefore suggest that a scale be struck according to tonnage and number carried. I would say one in five up to 1,000 tons, and one in eight for over 1,000 tons. That would be a very fair margin. Section 105, "Leaving a seaman behind at any port": I think it would be a very difficult matter sometimes after business hours to obtain the required certificates from people on shore before you proceed to sea. Leaving Australian ports on Saturday afternoon, it would be a difficult matter to obtain certificates. 15. Mr. Laurenson.] This provision is in the British shipping articles ? —lt is right enough for deep-water ships, but in the case of ships running in New Zealand and Australian waters it would mean a great loss of time to hunt up somebody to get a certificate in order to proceed to sea, while the passengers and mails might be kept waiting a long time. 16. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] You have to clear at the Customs : if you are going to discharge a man, could it not be done at the same time ? —You perhaps do not know whether your man is ashore at the time, and not likely to turn up at sailing-time. 17. The Chairman.] You think some difference should be made between the words "abroad" and " intercolonial" ? —Yes ; I think that would meet the case. " Foreign-going " means, I think, intercolonial in this case. Section 124, subsection (1), " Inquiry into cause of death or accident at sea" : I think it should be specified what an accident is, and not any little trivial thing. I would suggest that after the word " accident " the following words be inserted : " causing serious bodily injury." 18. Or an accident that incapacitates, as has been suggested ? —Yes, that would suit very well. Section 130, subsections (1) and (2), "Misconduct endangering ship or life": Subsection (1) says any act "tending to immediately endanger the life or limb of a person belonging to or on board the ship." Well, there are cases where a man goes to sleep on the look-out, which may lead to loss of life and destruction. I would suggest that the words "or possible loss of life " be added after the word " immediate " 19. Mr. Hutcheson.] "Tending to the immediate loss": that anticipates the possibility?— Does that meet the case ? 20. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] Yes?— Section 131, subsections (2) and (3) : I would suggest that these sections be maintained in their entirety, dealing with desertions. As the word " deserters " seems to be very much misunderstood up to the present, I would suggest that it be more clearly defined. One person maintains that twenty-four hours out of the ship constitutes desertion, while another says it is when a man takes his clothes out of the ship. If the man can prove to the master that he has been absent through no fault of his own it should not then count. It has been a very difficult matter up to the present to get an entry made in the official log-book for desertion. If a proper definition could be obtained I think it would save a lot of argument and misunderstanding. 21. Mr. Laurenson.] You want us to define " desertion " : what do you suggest? —If a man is not on board his ship at the appointed time of sailing, unless he can give a valid reason for having been prevented from joining he should then be termed a " deserter." If he can prove to the master that it was through something he had no control over, then I should say you cannot rate him as a deserter. Section 133, subsection (2), "If a seaman or apprentice intends to absent himself," &c. : I would suggest that after the word " apprentice," in the first line, the following words be added—" after signing articles; " because, as it now reads, if he wants a day in port or wishes to take a holiday, all he has to do is to give forty-eight hours' notice that he is going on shore. It would make the section clearer, because I should say that is what the section means. 22. Mr. Hutcheson.] It says both in this Bill and the Imperial Act that he shall give this notice of forty-eight hours not less than forty-eight hours before the time he ought to be on board ship. Now, when a seaman has signed articles he ought to be on board his ship, and he must give forty-eight hours' notice prior to his signing articles ? —I think that would make it clearer. The way the Committee read this Bill and the way outsiders read it is quite different. You are better up in the reading of Acts and are able to grasp the meaning of them. 23. The Chairman.] You are only dealing with the power of arrest and putting the men on board the boat?— Yes; of subsection (2). 24. So that if the notice is given it must be, as Mr. Hutcheson points out, before the time when the man ought to be on board the ship ?—Yes, that is the way I read it; but by adding those words it would make it clearer. Section 134, "Offences against discipline": This should be strictly enforced. Section 153, subsection (2), "Official log-book to be handed to Superintendent" : The custom now is to hand it in every six months at the expiry of the articles, which keeps the whole matter straight. If it is handed in as the subsection says, it would lead to a great deal of complication. You would have the same men put on the official log-books over and over again. 25. The Chairman.] Supposing this were made on the 30th June, after the completion of a full six months, the idea being to make it two definite times during the year when the log should be in, or any shorter date the ship is put in commission ?—I think it would be difficult.

1.—9.

48

[captain rolls.

26. It would only be a little difficult on starting off if the articles were dated the 30th June to the 31st December. The six-months articles would then fall out regularly at those periods ?— Why not take out the six-months articles and official log-book at the same time, and have the official log-book dated the same as articles. It does not matter then when you hand both in together. 27. Mr. Laurenson.] What do you suggest?—To have the official log-book dated the same as the articles. It keeps the whole thing square, as we have it at present. 28. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] In the Bill a statutory period is provided, as in the Imperial Act ? —Yes; but I think it would lead to a regular mixture so far as the ships are concerned. It might act nicely for the Department. 29. The Chairman.] In the case of a change of crew in six-monthly periods you would have two entries instead of one ? —lf you had to take your articles out at a certain date, possibly your ship might not go into commission until a month before the date, and you would have to take out fresh articles. 30. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] You would prefer the present system ?—Yes. Section 155, " Chief engineer to keep an official log" : I would suggest that the word " official" be deleted altogether, as a master's responsibility knows no undivided authority. If there were two log-books in a ship it would lead to divided authority at once, which would be a very dangerous thing for the shipowner, the discipline of the ship, and the lives of everybody concerned. The ordinary log-book which the engineer now keeps is somewhat similar to the present one, without being called the " official log-book." 31. The Chairman.] But it cannot be produced as evidence at inquiries ?—lf it were produced at inquiries, possibly some discrepancies might creep in between the master's and the chief engineer's log-books, which might be very detrimental in a Court of law, and it would be very hard to say which they should take as evidence. 32. It would be just the same as two witnesses giving evidence from a different point of view in any ordinary case. Supposing this were made an official engineer's log, would that meet your difficulty ? —I would say keep the word " official " out altogether. Ido not see that it is going to benefit any one. 33. Mr. Laurenson.] Would it suit you to take out the word " official " and put in " a log " ? —Yes. 34. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] Do you fear that there might be a discrepancy between the records in the two logs ? —There is bound to be some discrepancy—perhaps in the matter of clocks. The entry of the time might not be the same. Take the case of a collison or stranding : the time recorded in the different logs might not be the same. Which are you going to believe ? 35. The Chairman.] Would it not be a fair thing if the engineer's department had a record as well as the captain's ?—The ordinary log-book is produced. It is not detrimental to the engineer not to have an official log-book. 36. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] What is the number of your deck hands, and what is the number of hands connected with the engineer's department?—We have seven men on deck, a boy, three officers, and the master. There are three engineers, five hands in the stokehole, and then there is the steward's staff. Ido not think there is anything more to say with regard to the official logbook, except that I think it would lead to great complication if the word " official" were left there. Section 159: I consider this provision a very good idea. Section 160, " Making out a list of the crew " : Frequent shipping of the crew would entail too much clerical work on the master. He has quite enough to do at the present time to do the thinking, without calling upon him to do a lot of clerical work. The names of the crew can be got from the articles and the official log-book. All the names of the crew are entered in the official log-book, and all will be found there that is required in making out a list of the crew, and I think the master should be relieved of that small matter. Where there is a registrar of seamen it would only be necessary to take the official logbook and articles, and he can get the whole information required. Section 164, Part II.: I would suggest that the man in charge of the yacht over a certain tonnage and going beyond extended limits should hold a certificate. 37. Mr. T. Mackenzie.] What tonnage ?—I should say, over 20 tons. 38. A master's certificate? —Of course, a yachtmaster's certificate. It would not be necessary for him to go into all the details of an ordinary master's certificate. If you turn back to section 75, subsection (1), I would like to refer to the twenty-four-hours-notice clause. Very often a ship is not twenty-four hours in a port to enable the master to give this twenty-four-hours notice. I think that if you made it eight hours after the ship's arrival in port it would be quite sufficient, because if you insist on the twenty-four-hours notice, and it had to be given at sea, there is nothing to prevent a number of men giving the notice on the previous day, and if the time expired on a Saturday it would give the master no chance of getting men that day. 39. The Chairman.] But are there not a number of boats that do not stop eight hours in port ? —I think there are exceptional cases, but most of them remain in port eight hours. Saturday is a very favourable day for sailing, and every point is made to prevent a sailor from working on Sundays. Section 218, subsections (1) and (2), "Wool": There are other articles besides wool that are liable to spontaneous combustion. Flax and bales of skins are just as liable, and I would like to see these added to this clause. Section 231, subsections (1) and (2) : I would suggest that the person on trial should have the right to apply for a change of venue. Very often to keep up the prestige of a port the man on trial might be sacrificed. Sometimes feeling runs very high, and he might not get justice. I am referring to subsection (1). With regard to subsection (2), I should say the person on trial ought to have the right to object to unqualified men or biassed persons trying his case. There are so many trades on the coast of New Zealand that it requires a man to know the ins and outs of a certain trade before he can give a qualified opinion.

CAPTAIN BOLLS.!

49

I.— 9.

I do not think a deep-water man is qualified to sit in a Court of inquiry where a man trading on the coast has got into trouble in certain trades, because he knows nothing about it, especially if it is connected with bar harbours. 40. Mr. Laurenson.] You are asking that a man on trial shall have the right of challenge?— I do not know about challenge —you might not have anybody else to take the Assessor's place at the time—but we should have the right to object if he is not a qualified man. 41. The Chairman.] What is to be done, supposing that right was given, and the Minister appointed somebody else : would you have a continuous right of challenge ?—No, there would be no ending to that if a man exercised the right of challenge on everybody who came along; but I think he should have some right for self-protection. There ought to be some exception taken to a man who is not considered qualified to sit on the Board. There is only one other little item I wish to refer to, and I think there is no section applying to it. I refer to the supplying of bad liquor to sailors in seaport towns. Sometimes it happens that men come aboard who are not drunk, but mad. Three parts of the trouble in this respect emanates from cases of this sort. I think there ought to be something done to stop it by testing the liquor, or something of the kind, in seaport towns. It is not the amount of liquor these men take that makes the men bad, but the stuff they drink—the quality of it. 42. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] Would it not be caused rather by the fact that, the men having been so long at sea without drink, on coming ashore it would have a greater effect on them ? —I am speaking of men sailing round the coast, and not those who are months at sea. Men I have spoken to tell me candidly that it was not the amount of drink that they took—and I quite believe them —but it was the poison they took at some of those small places, and I think it is a great shame that such a state of things exists. There should be some law made to apply to it, like the Food Adulteration Act, and somebody should be appointed to go round and test the liquors. It is painful to see some men come aboard in a state not fit for anything. 43. Mr. Hutcheson.] Beferring to the section providing for licenses to be issued to a person to ship seamen, we have had it represented to us that a servant of the Union Company who acts in that capacity at Dunedin—Mr. Kirby—has supreme control over the destinies of the men. I put a question specifically to a witness : Providing the captain of a vessel in the Union Company was supplied with a man or men, and he discovered the man to be incompetent or a badly behaved man, has he not the power to discharge him even against the will or desire of the agent of the company ? And the Committee was told most emphatically No ?—Certainly he has. There is nothing to stop him discharging any man he thinks fit. 44. On the other hand, supposing a man is found to be a first-rate man, but owing to some bias or "down " the agent may have on that man, would you be compelled by the authority of this agent to dismiss the man, although you were perfectly satisfied with him ?—Certainly not. Mr. Kirby has no power to discharge men. All we look to Mr. Kirby for is to send us a man if we want one, and he is handy. 45. The Committee was told that Mr. Kirby could have a good man discharged if he wanted to, and if a bad man he could make the captain retain him ? —That is not the case. 46. You suggested in referring to section 54, in connection with absentee members of the crew, that the number should bear some relation to the tonnage of the vessel. Section 54 makes it specially applicable to steamships, because the Superintendent is given authority to exempt sailing-ships. With regard to your proposal that a percentage should be allowed according to the tonnage and number of crew carried, do you think the Committee ought not to take into consideration the trade the ship is in as well ? For example, it would mean more for a vessel going into the intercolonial trade, because of the extended period of the voyage, than a vessel coming from Timaru to Wellington. In one case it would mean that the vessel would be only a few hours shorthanded, while in the other it would mean several days. Ought not the Committee to differentiate between the intercolonial and coastal trade ?—I think not, because one in five is not a great many. There are always plenty of men in a large ship. It is very seldom you would have more than two in a crew who would lose their passage. You might have a sailor and a fireman, and that is not much. 47. In reference to the engineer's proposed official log, the Committee had before it a deputation of master engineers—ironmasters in reality, although ex-marine engineers—and the first proposal they made to the Committee was that the marginal note ought to be altered so that it should read, " Each engineer to keep an official engine-room log"; and, so far as I could gather the purport of the evidence given before the Committee, it was that the function of the engineer's log should be confined to engine-room matters, and dealing with such things as diagrams and all the other questions of a technical character. Do you still think it would be possible to give the engineer his status as engineer without jeopardizing the discipline of the ship ?—I think by using the word "official" you would capsize the master's authority altogether. 48. No matter how you restricted it ?—Yes. 49. You consider the word " official " fatal to the whole thing? —Yes. 50. The Shipmasters' Association, I suppose, have thoroughly studied the proposal and deliberately decided that the word " official" would be fatal?— Yes. 51. And no modification or restriction would alter the fact ?—I do not see why they should have the word " official." They have their ordinary log-book to give all that information. 52. If we struck out the word "official " it would be equally effective?— Yes. 53. So far as the shipmasters are concerned, they think there should be one authority, and only one ? —Yes. There is only room for one authority. If you divide it the whole thing is upside down at once. I think, if you look round, you will find that the present system has not been abused in any way. 54. I do not think any member of this Committee, or any other member of Parliament, would do anything to interfere with the present single authority; but the question is, would it ? They 7—l. 9.

1.—9.

50

[captain bolls

want to see how. far they can safeguard the functions of the engine-room without in any way endangering the single authority of the ship ?—I think the engineer is fairly well safeguarded now with the log he uses. 55. About nautical inquiries : I do not think the Committee is fully seized of the exact position. If subsection (3) of section 231 were made to read, " Where the formal investigation involves or appears likely to involve any question as to the cancelling or suspension of the certificate of a master, mate, or engineer, the Court shall hold the investigation with the assistance of not less than two Assessors having experience in the particular branch of the merchant service in which the accident occurred," would that meet with your views, so that you might secure trial by your peers ?— Yes. 56. For instance, the officers of a mail-steamer would not be tried by men who had been on some billy-boy, and at the same time the master of a coasting-vessel would not be tried by the captain of an ocean-going steamer? —Yes. 57. Do you think an amendment of that subsection to provide definitely that the two Assessors should not only have experience in the merchant service, but experience in the particular branch of the merchant service in which the accident occurred, would meet the case ?—I think that would meet the case very well. 58. Beferring to the proposed new clause in reference to flax and skins, you will notice that section 218 says, " No person shall ship wool on board any ship for the purpose of being conveyed by such ship out of the colony in such a condition from dampness or otherwise as to be liable to spontaneous combustion." That is declaratory. The penalty is in the subsection : " Every person who commits a breach of this section," &c. You suggest that the Committee should also add the words " flax, skins, and other articles liable to spontaneous combustion." Will you tell me who you think is the shipper of the wool, and how you would prove that you had taken every reasonable precaution to test that the wool would not be liable to spontaneous combustion?—lt would be a very difficult matter for the captain to prove. 59. Who is the shipper of the wool ? Is it the owner, the shipmaster, the wharfinger, or the agent ? I want to know who we are going to put into gaol for the crime ?—lt is difficult to say. 60. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] Supposing you were going to take wool from Wellington to Lyttelton, who would be the shipper, in your opinion ? —The man who signs the shipping-note, I should think. 61. Mr. Hutcheson.] That is the agent or broker. How do you imagine you would take reasonable means of testing that wool was damp or dry, as the case might be, before you shipped it ?—I should say it would be impossible for a master to find out whether it was damp or not. Possibly months before the wool arrives in port the wool is dumped. 62. If he opened every bale right up could he test it ? —Certainly he could ; but look at the amount of loss of time and expense. 63. Do you think he could do it by that test?—He might. I do not know of any other means. 64. Do you think that after it has left the station, the wool-scourer, and the railway authorities there is any reliable test other than opening up the bales at the final port of shipment ?—I do not know of any other means than opening them up. 65. Mr. E. G. Allen.] Could you not test the condition of the wool by forcing in a small steel rod and taking the temperature of the rod ?—I am afraid you would have difficulty in forcing a steel rod into a bale of wool. It is put under hydraulic pressure, and I should think it would be almost impossible to get a steel rod in. The rod itself would get heated in the operation. 66. You have no suggestion or complaint to make about the liability of coal to ignite through spontaneous combustion ? —1 have never seen any case of coal igniting. I have carried coal from New South Wales to California without it igniting. Possibly if it was damp, and you had very wet weather when shipping coal, spontaneous combustion might arise ; but if it was dry and well ventilated I do not think there would be much fear of it igniting. 67. With regard to the engineer's log, you approve of the engineer keeping a log, but not an official log. Should the log be made more useful than it is at present ? It is proposed now that the log shall be kept as the Minister prescribes ?—Yes ; it is a. very good idea to keep a log in that way. 68. What are the entries under the present system ? —Everything that occurs in the engineroom—the revolutions, the density of the water, the amount of coal used, the oil used—almost everything you can think of. 69. And cases of insubordination ?—No ; that is reported to the master by the engineer. That is where the master has authority over the whole crew. 70. And you think that in a case like that the engineer should not enter into it—a case of insubordination ? —No. 71. Supposing he refused to report a case of insubordination, the captain would know nothing about it ? —lt is very seldom they would refuse to do anything like that. The engineers and masters work very amicably together, as a rule. 72. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] With regard to the wool clause—2lB—the first line reads "No person shall ship wool on board any ship," and so on: would you consider yourself the shipper as master of the vessel ?—No, certainly not. 73. Then, this section would not affect you ?—No. 74. Who would you look upon as the person who shipped the wool ?—The man whose name appeared as shipper on the bill of lading. 75. Have you known any case where there has been any danger from the wool being shipped damp endangering life and property?— No. I have known it in the case of skins. 76. But not in wool ?—No.

CAPTAIN ROLLS. }

51

1.--0.

77. Would there be any danger in shipping damp wool from New Zealand to the Old Country ? —Decidedly. 78. Are you aware that in Wellington at the present time tests are being made of dumped wool without opening the bales ?—I am not aware of it. 79. That is the case. I know that in Timaru wool was found to be heated after it was tested, With reference to the official log, you said you had about twelve officers and men on your ship, and about eight in the engine-room, including engineers, firemen, and greasers. You navigate the ship, but so much depends on the work in the engine-room being carried out properly : is not that so?— Yes. 80. Do you not think there should be some official record of what takes place in the engineroom, which is beyond your ken when you are on deck? In other words, would it not rather strengthen your hands if you had an official record of what took place in the engine room ? —I do not think it would. 81. Are you aware that there is no statutory obligation for any ship to keep an engineer's log now ?—No; but they have always been in the habit of keeping one. 82. But it is more of a scrap-book than a log, and could be torn up without any penalty. So long as the captain's power is not superseded, you see no objection to a statutory log being kept ? — No. 83. With regard to inquiries, you suggest that shipmasters in a similar class of trade shall be the Assessors associated with the Stipendiary Magistrate ?—Yes. 84. Take a ship going to the West Coast and in the coal trade: You have there the Union Company's boats, and boats competing against the Union Company : how could you get Assessors there who were not either in the Union Company's employ or were in the competing owners' employ ? —There are men now who are out of the trade. 85. Men who have retired? —Yes. 86. The Chairman.] Have you given any attention to the manning schedule of the Bill ?—I have looked through it casually. 87. You are not in a position to offer any opinion as to whether the manning scale provided in the Third Schedule is sufficient, or whether it would be possible to reduce it with safety ? —I do not think it is necessary to carry so many men in steamships as in sailing-ships, because a man at the wheel, a man at the look-out, and a man round the deck is quite sufficient on a steamboat at night-time. It is very rarely that a sail is set. To have men to steer and look out are the principal things. Aylmer Kenny examined. (No. 12.) 88. The Chairman.] What is your occupation?— Shipmaster, of Picton. 89. You want to give evidence on the Shipping and Seamen Bill?— Yes. Section 21, part (2), with regard to incompetency. I think it is a mistake that any vessels of any size should be allowed to run without masters, and in the case of vessels under 20 tons it is quite as necessary that a man should obtain a knowledge at least of the rule of the road and the lights as with a vessel of larger size. My reason for stating this is that there are a considerable number of small vessels on the coast at the present time under 20 tons the masters of which have absolutely no knowledge of the management of vessels ; and on one occasion I very nearly lost my own vessel, as well as the lives of the crew on board, through meeting a small vessel in the Strait, the master of which had no knowledge whatever of navigating a ship. He did not know even on which side the two vessels should pass. The result was that I had to break through the rules of the road in order to prevent an absolutely certain collision. It was blowing a south-east gale at the time, and had the two vessels collided it is practically certain that all hands would have been lost, because the weather was so bad that the dingy of any small vessel would not have been able to reach the shore. I saw the master of the vessel shortly after, and asked him why he did not give me sea-room, and his reply was that he thought it was my duty to give way to him. It was not a dark night, and I asked him why he did not carry a light, and he said he did not know he was required to carry a light. It happened, however, that it was a moonlight night, and I was able to see his vessel plainly, and we had gone out of the Sounds together, so that I was on the look-out for him all the time. I think that in future, as there are so many of these vessels running without certificated masters, provision ought to be made by which vessels of all kinds should be required to carry a man who can show at least that he knows the rules of the road and understands about lights. Ido not mean to say that he should be compelled to show that he had even passed an examination for a river-master's certificate, because there are plenty of these men who are quite competent as far as practical knowledge goes, and who do know the rule of the road, as a matter of fact, and about lights also; but owing to the want of education they are quite unable to pass any examination except a practical one. So that I think the grade of certificate ought to be granted, not exactly on a certificate of service, but between that of river-master and a certificate of service— that is to say, there would be a sort of examination, but merely in practical knowledge. 90. Mr. E. G. Allen.] You mean for fishing-boats and yachts, and so on ?—I think, for any kind of vessel. A man might go to sea and risk his life, and some people might say he should be able to do so; but that is not the point, because accidents and loss of life might be caused to other people through his want of knowledge. 91. Mr. Millar.] Your difficulty could be got over by providing that the Superintendent should grant a certificate to that particular man after examination ?—For vessels under 20 tons now they are exempt, and this is to meet cases of that kind. Then, there is the case of men who have been in charge of vessels, but through want of education have had to give them up. They have been unable to pass the necessary examinations through not being qualified to get a servicecertificate through having been mates only. The man may have been a mate for over twenty

1-9.

52

[A. KENNY.

years and never actually in command of a vessel, and therefore is unable to get a service certificate through the want of education. Such men have had to leave the sea altogether, and I know of three or four cases of the kind. Provision should be made to enable a man holding a mate's certificate of competency, and who has been in charge of a vessel, to take charge of a vessel up to 100 tons —that is, a fore-and-aft-rigged vessel. Of course, there are many trading-vessels on the coast of under 100 tons that are under the command of men who are absolutely illiterate. They are good practical seamen, but in many cases they can sign their own names, and that is all. There are some of these men who have been mates, but have had to leave the sea. Some have been sufficiently well up to pass the mate's examination, but could never pass the master's examination. I know of two cases in the Sounds of men who have passed the mate's examination, but could never get through for the master's examination, and the consequence is that they have had to give up the sea and take to shore-work. I think something should be done to meet cases of that kind. I may say that in making these suggestions lam rather speaking against my own interests, because I am now under negotiations for the purchase of a small vessel of under 20 tons, and if these suggestions are given effect to it will mean that I shall have to employ a certificated master for her, and give him higher wages. But, still, I think it is a thing that really ought to be done, as a result of my own experience. Subsections (k) and (1), section 21: I would suggest that auxiliary vessels not carrying passengers should be exempt from carrying engineers—that is, providing that they are so rigged as to be independent of machinery in the case of a breakdown. There are numbers of small vessels running in the Sounds, and there are four or five owners of them who propose to put oil-engines in them. To ask these owners to carry engineers would be quite out of the question. They want the engines for use simply when they get into a calm in the Sounds —it is not for outside work; and even in coasting out in the Strait anywhere between Port Underwood and the French Pass it would often add to the safety of the vessel if they had an auxiliary engine on board. Section 205, part (5), " load-line" :It appears that vessels under 40 tons are not required to have a load-line at all I think it is a mistake that any vessel should be allowed to trade beyond harbour limits without having a load-line, and I think there should be a minimum of 1 ft. of freeboard. There are many cases where you see small vessels run straight with a 3 in. freeboard. Ido not think there is anybody acquainted with the locality of Jackson's Head who thinks that less than 1 ft. of freeboard should be allowed. I have seen some vessels with not more than 4 in., and it is quite a common thing to go to sea with 6 in., and when one vessel does it the owners of other vessels think they ought to do it in their own protection because of the difference in cargo they can carry. Every ton of cargo is a consideration, and if one vessel is allowed to overload she can carry cargo at a lower rate than other vessels which do not overload. Therefore I think the freeboard should be fixed at least at 1 ft. Then, I consider that no cargo should be allowed to be carried in the cabin where there is no forecastle. It is a common thing in these vessels —especially where timber is carried —to have no bulkhead at all. The men have to crawl on the top of the timber into the cabin, and perhaps they will have no more space than 3 ft. When they leave the deck of the vessel they have simply to crawl on their hands and knees over the top of the cargo. The last thing I would like to suggest is that no vessel should be allowed to trade beyond harbour limits unless she has a crew of at least three hands. Ido not think anything of this kind appears in the Bill at all. 92. Mr. Millar.] You desire that there should be no such thing as extended river limits ? —lt depends on the definition of river limits. 93. The Chairman.] I think that would come in in clause 54 ?—lf you go three miles beyond the mouth of the harbour. Take Picton, for instance : I understand that the harbour extends down to Long Island, where you get very rough water. And it is still worse in the Pelorus Sound—you get a heavy sea there occasionally. I know that within ten miles of the heads a vessel has lost all her deck-loading, and that is a long way inside the river limits. 94. Mr. Hutcheson.] What certificate do you hold ?—A river-master's. 95. Are you also the owner of the vessel you command ?—No ; my wife is the owner, so I have an interest. 96. You told us of a danger you incurred in Cook Strait through lack of knowledge of the rule of the road on the part of the master of another vessel ?—Yes. 97. You also told the Committee that you had to break the strict rule of the road in order to avoid a collision ?—Yes. 98. Of course, you are aware that the rule of the road is only for your own guidance, and that persons in charge of the deck of a vessel are required to break the rule of the road in the exercise of the practice known to seamen in order to avoid a collision ?—Yes. 99. You have a certificate at stake, whereas the other man has not, and if in your endeavour to avoid a collision you had observed the rule of the road, and you had collided, would your certificate have been in danger? —I take it that it would not. I broke the rule of the road to avoid an absolutely certain collision. Had I not done it nothing could possibly have saved the collision. 100. Can you imagine a set of circumstances under which a man with a certificate is practically at the mercy of a man without a certificate ?—I can. 101. He runs the risk of losing his certificate, and practically his means of livelihood, through an incompetent man who has no certificate at stake : can you imagine such a set of circumstances ? —Undoubtedly. 102. And that is one of the reasons you urge on the Committee why a man should not be exempt from holding a certificate and be on the high seas in charge of a vessel, notwithstanding that the vessel may be under a certain tonnage?—My reason is chiefly that I think it is wrong that one man should be allowed to risk another man's life. It is more in regard to the danger to life that I am speaking.

1.—9.

H. HASTWELL.I

53

103. But the other matter is incidental and worthy of the consideration of the Committee ?—■ No doubt it is. 104. Broadly, you hold that where a man is charged with the life of his fellows the State has a right to satisfy itself that he is competent to hold that responsibility? —Yes ; but at the same time I recognise that there are plenty of men who are practically competent so far as seamanship is concerned who would not be able to pass an examination. They could pass an examination in practical seamanship, but have not the book learning to pass the written examination. 105. It is purely a matter of practical experience and special knowledge not involving book education ?—Yes. 106. You think there should be some examination in practical seamanship—an oral examination by competent authorities ?—That is so. 107. And that a certificate minor even to that of a home-trade master should be provided for masters of vessels under 20 tons ? —That is my idea. 108. Mr. * Millar.] Your objection to sea-going vessels would hold still greater so far as the river trade is concerned ?—I think that wherever a man is in charge of a vessel he ought to give proof that he is competent to hold the command. 109. Of course, you are aware that in some harbours there is a considerable amount of harbour traffic ? —I think there is far more danger in Wellington and Auckland Harbours than there is outside. You have sea-room outside, but you have no sea-room in places like Wellington and Auckland. I would say it is far more difficult for a man to come into Wellington Harbour than to manage his vessel in the Strait. If he is a small distance off his course in the Strait it is not a matter of much consequence, but in harbour he is in far more danger. 110. The Chairman.] Is it possible for any one of ordinary intelligence to be at sea for any length of time without knowing the rule of the road?— Quite. He must study it. 111. So that the fact of a man having been at sea for a considerable time would be no proof that he knew it ?—None whatever. I have known of men who have been at sea twenty years who have no knowledge of the rule of the road. 112. Do you think there are more accidents at sea through the want of knowledge of the rule of the road than there are accidents on land through people going out driving without knowing the rule of the road ? —I have had no experience in driving, and cannot answer that question. Henry Hastwell examined. (No. 13.) 113. The Chairman.] You are a marine engineer ?—Yes ; I have a Board of Trade certificate, extra first-class. 114. You want to give evidence on the Shipping and Seamen Bill? —Yes. I just want to say a few words with regard to section 155—the chief engineer's log. I think the position of a chief engineer on board a vessel is a very responsible one, and that anything that will tend to recognise his position will also tend to the improvement of the class of engineers on board vessels. The progress and the safety of the ship, in my opinion, depend equally upon the engineers as upon those in the deck department. For these reasons I think the keeping of an official log will be an official recognition of the responsibility and position of the engine department. With regard to subsection (4), I think it would be advisable, after the word " machinery," to add the words " either in the engine-room or on deck." It would be a great advantage to have these words added after the word " boilers," " or while following his employment in any part of the ship," also " any acts of insubordination or refusal of duty," and "give the date, nature, and cause of such accident or occurrence." With regard to subclause (5), (b), after the word "vacuum," I think it would be advisable to insert "the position of throttle-valve and expansion-links." I think it would be advisable if the words " and average speed " were left out at the end of this clause. The engineer cannot get the speed from his department. He must obtain that from the deck, second-hand. 115. Mr. Hutcheson.] I think that means average speed obtained by the revolutions ? —Of course, the actual speed would have to be obtained from the deck. 116. The Chairman.] Would there be any actual advantage in his putting down the state of the wind and weather?—l think it would, because it affects the speed of a ship very much. 117. And how can he ascertain that ?—He would have to go on deck and look. Ido not think it is really absolutely necessary even for that to be put in, because the engineer has merely to deal with his own department. Clause 153 : I think it would be a good thing if subsections (1) and (2) of this clause did not apply to the chief engineer's log. It would detract a good, deal from its value. The engineer's log is a record, so to speak, of everything that has taken place from the time the ship was first built. It would be valuable, in the case of a change of engineers, to the succeeding engineer, to the superintending engineer of the company, and also to the surveyor. Every engine department has its peculiarities and weak points that require specially watching, and I think it would be a great help to the future engineers of the ship if they had these recorded. In the interpretation clause of the Act there is no interpretation given of " engineer." We are told what the master, pilot, passengers, and seamen are, but there is no mention of the engineer. I think it would be advisable to have his definition included. 118. The Chairman.] The engineer comes under the definition of "seaman" there?— Yes; yet you can hardly include him among the seamen. The interpretation of "seaman" says, " ' Seaman ' means any person employed or engaged in any capacity on board any ship (except masters, pilots, and duly indentured apprentices)." 119. Mr. Millar.] If you inserted the word " engineers " in there it would do ?—Yes. 120. Mr. Hutcheson.] Section 155 : This Bill we now have in our hands is not the print issued at the close of last session, and there is a material difference in several clauses, amongst others in clause 155. In the original print there was provision made for access being given to the engineer's

1.—9.

[W. MANNING.

log on the part of shipmasters. It is not contained in this one. The engineer can keep his log locked up ?—I think it ought to be accessible to the captain. 121. Beasonably accessible ? —Yes. 122. There is a suggestion by ex-engineers and present ironmasters that the marginal note should be altered by the inclusion of the word "engine-room" after the word "official," so that it should read, " Engineer to keep official engine-room log." Of course, that is not material, but it indicated their desire that the functions of the engineer's log should be exclusively confined to the engine-room and its responsibilities and duties: is that your view ?—Yes. I think that is what is intended by this clause, although it is not specially mentioned. 123. The fact of the whole of this section turning on the engineer's log and making no reference to the master at all, and making it exclusively the property of the chief engineer so far as the ship is concerned, might militate against the clause passing at all, unless it was clearly indicated that, so far as the engine-room log had an official status, and so far as the discipline of the ship was concerned, it was entirely subordinate to the captain's log: would you have any objection to that ?—No. I have no objection at all to that. I do not think the engineers have any desire at all to encroach on the authority of the master in any way. They only want their position defined, and recognised as an important position. 124. We must be careful to avoid anything that will ultimately prove to be detrimental to the discipline of the ship, or will set up a dual authority ?—I do not think there is any desire on the part of the engineers to do anything in that respect. 125. Mr. E. G. Allen.] Are you an engineer on any steamer, or on shore ?—I am now on shore. 126. Have you had any experience ? —Thirteen years. 127. Mr. Millar.] In connection with these extra words you propose to put in, I can just see a possible chance of trouble arising. Would it not, if you pup those words in, make it compulsory for you to enter in your log-book that an engine-room hand bad been guilty of insubordination ?—■ Yes, if in connection with his duty. 128. You know that in any case of that description the master has to prosecute? —Yes. 129. Do you propose that that shall be taken out of the official ship's log, which is recognised by law, and that the man should be able to present the engineer's log-book ?—I think it should be entered in the captain's log. The engineer should read the offence to the captain, who should enter it in his log. I think the control of the engine-room should be under the engineer. 130. For all purposes ? —Yes. 131. Then, you have control of the ship at once ? —No; I think they are separate departments. 132. You are quite in favour of having a log for putting those things down which are mentioned in the section, because the engineer is qualified to do that?— Yes ; the engineer is qualified where the other man is not. 133. And the captain must be guided by his report? —Yes, he must be. 134. Have you found any trouble in regard to that ? —I have found, in cases where there has not been good feeling between master and engineer, that the master has not considered the report of-the engineer of sufficient importance to make an entry in his official log.

Friday, 15th August, 1902. Walter Manning examined. (No. 14.) 1. The Chairman.] You are captain of the steamship "Botomahana"?—Yes. 2. And you appear here to give evidence on behalf of the Shipmasters' Association ?—Yes. The first clause we object to is clause 37, which deals with the giving of licenses to persons to supply seamen. We suggest that this clause should be struck out altogether. I have not much to say upon it, except that it favours the continuation of various abuses in connection with what is known as "crimping." The people who have been in the habit of supplying seamen have not been of any benefit to either the seamen or the owners, and we consider it would be beneficial for both seaman and owner if the clause were deleted. Clause 38 deals with the owner's agent. We suggest that this section with all its subclauses remain intact. The master generally has too much business to do to spare time to hunt up seamen, and we see nothing inimical to the interests of the men in being engaged by the chief executive officer of the department they wish to serve in. The chief officer, who is responsible to the master for the efficient working and conduct of all deck-hands, should certainly be permitted to make engagements, and it would be rank injustice to the chief engineer if he were not allowed to select his own staff of firemen, trimmers, and greasers. I would like to point out that these engagements are to a great extent preliminary. The actual agreement is entered into when the articles are signed in the presence of the master. I doubt whether the asking of a man whether he would join a ship could really be called an engagement, when, of course, the engagement really does not take place until the articles are signed. Before finishing with this clause I wish to deal with the case of the owner's agent. In each of the shipping companies' service it is beneficial to have some one who has knowledge of the men requiring employment. You can take their addresses and pick up men when they are required. Vessels come into port and only have an hour or two to stay, and by having a man in the position of agent you can get men at short notice. In cases where the owner has an agent to engage a crew the conditions are precisely the same as those under which officers are engaged. Officers are not engaged by the masters connected with large companies ; they are engaged by the Marine Superintendent, and the master has still the option of getting rid of an officer who is not suitable, for he is able to make representations that the officer is not a suitable man, and the latter is removed. Without this system of employing an

54

1.—9

W. MANNING.]

55

agent for the large companies it is quite possible for drunken and incompetent seamen and firemen to drift from vessel to vessel and become a nuisance wherever they go. It is almost impossible for any master or mate to keep a record of all the men who sail with him; but the owner's agent does this, and he knows the character and conduct of the men, and can prevent a bad character from getting into one ship when he has been discharged from another. You may possibly think that a bad discharge prevents a bad character from getting into another ship, but I would like to point out that very few masters care to give a bad discharge unless it is a most flagrant case; and even then the bad discharge is often torn up or lost, and the seaman or fireman merely goes to the Superintendent of Marine and applies for a permit to ship again, and which enables him to ship; so that really the bad discharge is no preventive against a bad character going from ship to ship. It is necessary in these days for us to devise some means of maintaining discipline, for the days are past when you could deal more severely with men. Therefore we think the owner's agent supplies this need in a way. With regard to clause 38, we suggest that after the words "as the case may be," in subclause (b), the words " either holds a license from the Minister for the purpose, or " be deleted. 3. That would be consequential if we struck out clause 37, would it not ?—Yes. The next clause is 43, subsection (2). That clause makes it compulsory for home-trade ships to sign articles before the Superintendent. We think that it is unnecessary. It causes a lot of trouble, and there are so many changes always going on—especially in steamers —that it is a continual source of annoyance. I see no advantage in whole crews, or even single seamen, going before the Superintendent. Possibly, in the time when strikes were in vogue there may have been some reason for introducing this clause to prevent men being taken an unfair advantage of by the owner when he was anxious to get his ship away ; but now that we have the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in force I consider it is quite unnecessary to put masters to the trouble of taking a whole crew before the Superintendent, either to be signed on or signed off. Very often in shipping a large number of men you have them all on board, and sometimes ship them in the morning and sail at night; and if you have to take up perhaps forty or sixty men to the Shipping Office you may not get them back again for an hour or two afterwards, especially if there is a publichouse on the road. lam not saying this is a general case, but cases of the kind do, of course, crop up. Section 52, the imposition of a fee of ss. for a permit to seamen to sign articles : As I pointed out to you in connection with one of the previous clauses, under the present permit system it is so very easy for a man who gets a bad discharge to conveniently lose it, and then to get a permit. I think this clause ought to remain intact, because I am inclined to think there will be some representations made to you to reduce this fee to ss. I believe lam not exaggerating when I say that the greater number of lost discharges have been purposely lost. Clause 54, subsection (3) : This deals with the master proceeding to sea with more than two men short, and there is a penalty, I think, of £100. In connection with this, I think some exception ought to be made with regard to vessels in the home trade as against those in foreign trade. In the home trade a great number of the voyages made by the seamen do not exceed over two days, and it is not so serious a matter to leave a man behind. And some exception ought also to be made in connection with bar harbours, where it is sometimes very urgent that the master should leave to catch the tide or when a fresh sets in, and the fact of having to wait for two or three men might possibly detain a vessel for a week. I think, also, that some discrimination ought to be made with regard to the tonnage of vessels. While two men short in a small vessel would make it rather hard on the remaining men, two men short in a vessel of, say, 2,000 tons, with a larger crew, would not be felt, especially in the home trade; and I am instructed to suggest that a scale should be struck in. order that a certain percentage should be allowed in proportion to the tonnage. It has been suggested that this clause should be altered to allow a master to go to sea with one man short in five on a vessel of 1,000 tons or under, and one man in eight on a vessel over 1,000 tons. The larger vessel would, of course, carry the larger crew. Section 55, subsection (3) : This clause merely applies to allowing seamen to sign off, and all I have said in connection with the other section in reference to signing on applies to this. What we merely want is that the master should be allowed to sign men off on board ship instead of having to take them before the Superintendent, just as we want to sign them on in the same way. Section 105 : This section deals with leaving seamen ashore or behind, and applies to our intercolonial service, although lam not quite certain whether it applies to the home trade. It is often very difficult for masters to obtain the certificate which is required under this clause. A vessel might be leaving, say, Melbourne or Sydney late on a Saturday afternoon, or any other afternoon, having to keep her time, with mails and passengers on board. The master might also be leaving after the shipping offices are closed, and it would be rather a cumbrous thing if, after the ship had got out into the stream, and it was found that one or two men were short, he should have to hunt up the Superintendent or a merchant in order that he might get the required certificate. Therefore I think intercolonial vessels ought to be exempt from this provision. I know the purpose for which the section is intended. It is to prevent seamen being left behind in inaccessible places. There have been cases where men have been left on almost a desert island and in other places where it would be very difficult for them to get another ship, or even to get away from the place at all. Still, I do not think a clause so severe and carrying such a heavy penalty should be adopted to apply to the ordinary intercolonial steamer. In subsection (4) of this section 105 it is stated that the master who commits a breach of this section is guilty of a crime, and I think the penalty is rather drastic—l think it goes up to two years' penal servitude. Section 124, subsection (1), re accidents : This provides that an inquiry can be called for when any accident or death has taken place. All we have to suggest here is the insertion of the words, after the word "accident," " causing serious bodily injury." The only reason we have for taking exception to this clause is that the accident may be only a trivial one, and we think it is unnecessary that an inquiry should be called for into an accident that is trivial.

1.—9.

56

IW. MANNING.

4. If we put in the words " any accident that may incapacitate him from work," will that meet your objection ? —Well, a man might smash his finger, and that might incapacitate him from work. I think if it were to read " accident causing serious bodily injury "it would meet the case. Section 130, subsections (1) and (2) : This is a section which deals with breach of duty and neglect. As this reads, it appears to us that a seaman can only be dealt with when he does any act tending to the immediate loss or to the destruction or serious damage of a ship. We are under the impression that some result must take place from the breach of duty before the man can be dealt with. 5. I do not think that is quite the reading of it, but the wording of it may be more fully considered. The Committee, I think, are of opinion that it means any act tending in that direction; whether immediate loss or destruction follows or not, if it is tending in that direction it is a breach of duty ?—On one or two occasions we have found men asleep while on the look-out, and if nothing has happened the man has possibly got fairly clear, but if anything had happened it would have been a very serious matter, involving possible loss and destruction. We think we ought to be able to deal with men who do that sort of thing. Section 131, subsections (1) and (2), " Desertion and absence without leave " : We consider this section ought to be maintained in its entirety. 6. Mr. R. Thompson.] You approve of the section as it is now printed ?—Yes, and we object to any alteration in it. 7. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] Do you see any hardship to the seamen in retaining that clause ?— No. It is necessary in these modern times that we should retain some method of preserving discipline. On the whole, I may say, taking the seamen and firemen of New Zealand, especially during the last few years, that their conduct has been very good ; but occasionally we get trouble from men off the Home ships—men who are confirmed drunkards, and who cannot stand a payday. These men do not turn up to their work, and we find from experience that the only way to deal with them is to touch their pockets; and if the clause is left as it is we can fine them two days' pay, if necessary, or any sum not exceeding six days' pay, and that is the only way, in my opinion, to prevent drunkenness in many cases. Section 132 : This section is one that is practically not much required for vessels of the class 1 am in, but for larger vessels and those going long voyages it is very essential. Very often, in the case of Home steamers leaving for a long voyage, if they were not able to get some of their crew who were absent or ashore drunk and get them on board by the aid of the police they would have difficulty in getting away. It is not altogether harmful to the men, because in a great many cases they have only been drinking, and they are very glad afterwards that they have been put on board, because "Philip drunk is not Philip sober," and when they come to their'senses they find what has been done has been beneficial to them. We therefore think the clause should be maintained. Section 103 is of a similar character, and deals with the case of seamen being imprisoned for any offence and being put on board before their sentence has expired. lam instructed on behalf of the Shipmasters' Association to advocate also the maintenance of this clause. Section 133, subsection (2), " Seamen giving notice of being absent " : This is rather an important clause, because it undermines most of the other discipline clauses. It seems somewhat absurd to think that a man by giving notice that he is going to absent himself without leave can practically clear himself of all the other penalties. I believe the clause was introduced to deal with the case of men signing articles and then finding themselves unable to be on board at the required time. But even if that is the purpose it is intended for it is very little good, because it is very rarely that they are not required to be on board within the forty-eight hours after they have signed. To sign articles and then not require the men to be on board until forty-eight hours afterwards is a very rare case. If the Committee wish to retain that clause, we suggest that after the word "apprentice," in the first line, the following words should be inserted : " after signing articles finds himself unable to join the ship at the required time." With regard to section 134, which deals with offences against discipline, we only ask that this should be maintained in it? entirety. Section 135 deals with imprisonment or fines for various offences, and is rather confusing in a way. It is a new clause, and we suggest that the last sentence of it nullifies the whole of the section, and therefore ask that the section be struck out. 8. The Chairman.] It gives you the option of taking the case before the Court if you like, or you can deal with it under section 134—you can take either the old remedy or the new?—We have not been quite able to understand that clause, perhaps. Section 153, subsection (2) : This is a new clause, and seems to us altogether unnecessary. 9. Mr. Hutcheson.] It is in the Imperial Act ?—The usual practice has been to hand in the official log on the expiry of the articles. It seems to us rather peculiar that the practice should be altered, and, as there are penalties attached to not handing it in, it is quite possible that a busy man —especially in a coastal steamer —might overlook the date or let the time run past when he ought to hand in the official log, for which he would be subject to a fine. We therefore suggest that the old custom should be adhered to, and that the official log be handed in when the six months' articles have expired. Of course, if the official log overran the articles you would have some of the remarks in the official log in one set of articles and in the log you would have comments, and like two articles in one official log. I see no benefit in handing it in in that specified time, and especially in regard to home-trade sailing-vessels. A man might be making a long passage and be unable to hand in the log at the proper time. It seems so simple that when you take out your articles you take out another official log. Section 155 :On behalf of my Association, I may say that we strongly advise that the words " an official," in subsection (1), be deleted, and the letter "a" be inserted in their place, and that this alteration also be made to apply to subsections (8), (9), and (10). In connection with this official log, we desire to point out that an " official log " has never yet been used for the purpose of recording the ordinary incidents of daily duties performed on board ship. It has always been a chronicle of such events as accidents, deaths, and unusual occurrences —drills, births, marriages, aud deaths, reports of character, the

1.—9.

W. MANNING. 1

57

infliction of punishment and fines. It has been one of the engines which has enabled the master to maintain discipline, and to protect his owner in various ways. I consider that the existence of a second official log on board a ship would only tend to divide and probably cause conflict of authority. All the information required by the various clauses contained in section 155 could be, and is now, equally well supplied in the ordinary log-book now kept by the chief engineers. It is not for me to positively take up the cudgels of the engineers, but I know something of the engineers' work ; and the chief engineer in steamers of the modern size has a large amount of clerical work to perform with regard to extracts and reports in the log they now keep. They have plenty of work to do now without having to keep what is now proposed. We have no objection to a log being kept, but we decidedly object to it being called an " official log." The fact of the engineer keeping an official log would not do away with the ordinary engineer's log. The owner would require to have some record of daily events, and it would mean that two logs would have to be kept. I cannot see, myself, the necessity for calling this an official log, because its nature is not that of an official log. If it is necessary in order to make a record of the events of the engineroom in an official log, why is it not necessary to make an ordinary ship's log an official log ? The log kept by the chief officer and signed by the master is accepted as evidence in Courts of Inquiry; and, if so, why is-it necessary to call the engineer's log an official log ? I may say that there is a tendency nowadays to impose work on the people who run ships, for the benefit of some of the Departments ; and we are a lot of hardworked people, and have very little time for scribbling, and that sort of thing.' We have no objection at all to the engineer keeping as many logs as he likes, but have a decided objection to him keeping an official log. If an official log is once admitted it will have the tendency to encroach on the prerogatives of the master, and in cases of trouble it will be very likely to complicate the statements in the two logs. Ido not think it is necessary for me to say anything more about this, except that I would suggest that, as both the delegates of the Shipmasters' Association are in the service of the Union Company, some other witness should be called to give evidence on this matter, and I would suggest that the captain'of one of the Government steamers be called—say, Captain Post—who would be an independent witness in a way. There is a tendency nowadays for the engine department to usurp the power of the master. Engineer surveyors survey the deck department and control many things they have not had much experience of. To my mind, it is absolutely ridiculous to have an engineer going on board a ship to survey the deck department. They are all right in their own place, but surveys that take place every six months ought to be conducted by a seaman—that is, so far as the deck department is concerned. Section 160 : This clause requires from the master a list to be made up and handed to "the Marine Superintendent twice a year such list to contain certain prescribed information. This means putting more work on the shoulders of an unfortunate class of men. In my ship alone there is a crew of about sixty-three, and they are continually being shifted. On an average we ship and discharge from fifteen to twentyfive men a month. Possibly they are shifted from one ship to another for various causes, and if at the end of every six months I have to make up a list of names and give the particulars required about them it means that I shall want a secretary. It will be almost impossible for me and other masters in coastal boats, running as we have to run, to keep a list like this in addition to the ordinary clerical business we have to do. If these things are required I would suggest that there be an alteration made in the style of the articles in use. The articles in the United Kingdom are more descriptive. They have more columns and more particulars are put in, and all the information that is required by section 160 could be obtained from an improved set of articles and from the Cl lO Hon Mr. Hall-Jones.] It would simplify the work for you?— Yes; we could get clear of this work altogether. Section 165 : This deals with the exemption of yachts from carrying a certificated master. The only thing we have to suggest in connection with this is that the Government should introduce a yachtmaster's examination certificate for yachts going beyond extended river limits Such a practice, I believe, is in vogue on the British coast. In mentioning this matter we mainly desire to protect the yachtsmen against themselves. There have been several cases in which yachts have been nearly lost, and I think it is necessary sometimes to protect people against themselves. Section 75, subsections (a) and (b), "Twenty-four hours' notice to be. eiven" ■ I am merely representing the opinion of a good many of our members who are running small vessels when I suggest that the following words shall be added : " That in cases where a ship has been in harbour for a period of not less than three days, notice must be given forty-eight hours before the ship's sailing-time." The reason we have for asking for this alteration is that a number of masters and owners of small sailing-vessels inform us that they have considerable trouble with their men The vessels go into, say, Lyttelton or some other port on a Monday or Tuesday ; the cargo is worked in or out, and the men are there till, say, Saturday. The men have been in harbour nearly the whole week, say nothing about leaving the vessel until they know she is going to sail on Saturday m>ht, and about 9 o'clock on Friday they give notice in a body, when it is often very difficult to obtain other men. If the vessel is going to a tidal harbour, especially one which can only be- worked during spring tides, the tide is sometimes lost by this means. We think the twenty-four-hours notice is right under ordinary circumstances, but where the vessel has been m harbour nearly all the week it is considered chat the men ought to give their notice at least forty-eight hours before sailing-time. Section 21: In clause (d) of subsection (1) of this section we suggest that the words " or extended river limits " be struck out. 11 Mr B Thompson.] What is your object in that ?—That at present unqualified people are able to command vessels out of what are called extended river limits. We consider that extended river limits, especially as they apply to Auckland, really require a man who has passed a hometrade examination. As the Act stands now, any man who has not been to sea at all, but who has served for a year in an Auckland ferry-boat or oil-launch, or anything of that sort, can get a river certificate and he then is practically able to do the same work or work of a similar character to B—l. 9.

1.—9.

58

[W. MANNING-

that of a master of a home-trade ship. Where extended river limits extend for such long distances as in Auckland a master ought to have some knowledge of the compass and the chart, and be a seaman. The examination for a river certificate does not embrace these qualifications. To have a man who has been only one year at sea, and has not the qualifications of a home-trade master to be in a boat that is possibly carrying passengers and a valuable cargo, is running a great deal of risk, and the river-extended people are not required to understand the use of the compass, chart, or lead, and many other things that we consider are necessary. You can get just as dirty weather between Auckland and Bream Head as in any part of New Zealand, and just as much thick weather and fog. Section 218 :We suggest that after the word " wool "in this section the words "flax and skins" be inserted. There is possibly more danger of fire from flax than from wool. Section 231, subsection (2) : The whole of this clause deals with Courts of inquiry. What we wish to point out here is that any person standing his trial for a marine accident, whether master, officer, or engineer, should have the right to object to any unqualified or biassed person being appointed as an Assessor. I suppose to the lay mmd any man who holds a master's certificate is qualified to be an Assessor, but in our business there are many specialties, and it frequently tends to a miscarriage of justice if the man who is appointed an Assessor is not used to the particular trade in which the accident has occurred. For instance, our Picton and Nelson trade is practically nothing more nor less than piloting, in which the master is groping among the rocks all the time, and has to go close to everything in order to make his passage. If an accident occurred in that trade it would not be fair to call in as Assessor a big-ship master, or merely an intercolonial master, or merely a navigator. It is impossible for many of such men to realise the necessity for our vessels having to go through shallow passages, and to keep close to the land, when, looking at the chart, they imagine there is a beautiful course outside of such places. Again, there is a great deal of pressure brought to bear on shipping-masters at the present time by passengers and everybody connected with the mails, and the general public are very keen in their desire to be in port at the exact time. In consequence of this our vessels are run to the minute, and the masters try to do the best they can to do so, and have to take many risks. The ordinary shipmaster—and especially the big-ship master— would not be willing to recognise the exigencies of such a trade. This also applies to the navigation of bar harbours. Any person standing his trial in such cases should have the right to apply for a change of venue. In many cases local feeling and prejudice are very strong, where possibly the people have borrowed a lot of money to spend on their harbour and want to keep up its good name, and I could point out cases where attempts have been made to sacrifice the master in order to save the reputation of the port. There is a tendency—l do not know who is to blame for it—to send bigger ships to harbours that were really made for much smaller vessels, and in cases of accident, where local feeling is likely to operate, I think the master or officer standing his trial should have the right to have the case tried in a place where there is no local bias or prejudice. In one case —that of the " Mawhera" getting on shore at Greymouth, under Captain Hill—l believe one of the Assessors was interested in a way with the local Harbour Board, and the other was connected with the tug-owner who was towing the vessel at the time, so you could hardly expect fair play there. Section 236, subsection (1) : This deals with the power of the Minister to call for an inquiry into any occurrence not amounting to a shipping casualty. Ido not know quite how to define the word " occurrence," but this is likely to entail some trouble to masters, as I consider the word "occurrence" means anything at all that happens. For instance, it might mean that the vessel got rather close to the land, or that she nearly hit a rock, or something of that sort occurred. 12. And the engineer had logged it in his official log?— Yes. Masters have trouble enough in connection with things that happen, and if they are to be subjected to inquiries into things that do not happen I do not know what sort of a life they are going to have. It frequently happens that a master in making his passage in thick weather will steer what to a layman would be considered a dangerous course. He might steer at an angle for certain reasons which might bring him suddenly close to land, when he would haul his vessel out and continue coasting along. 13. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] Suppose he had not time to haul his vessel out?— Then a casualty has happened. What I object to is that the master's conduct is questioned when nothing has happened. A passenger might lay a complaint, and say we had been steering a dangerous course. I frequently steer in a way that might be called a dangerous course. Again, in a fog the master goes groping his way with due caution, and goes as far as he dare to the land, and then he anchors his ship, possibly using every precaution ; but he cannot tell where he is to 50 or 100 yards. But when the fog clears up he may be in close proximity to the land, but perfectly safe ; and yet under this clause an inquiry might be held, because it might be considered that he was too close, and he might get into trouble and be censured for being so close. I have been very close sometimes myself, and Ido not think an inquiry should be held in any case like that. Therefore we propose that the words " or occurrence " should be deleted. 14. The Chairman.] That would leave it "any accident not amounting to a shipping casualty" ?—Yes. The next thing 1 have to suggest is that a new clause should be inserted in this Bill to provide that in making a survey of ships the deck department shall be surveyed by the various Marine Superintendents at the several ports. The surveys, I believe, are only made in Auckland, Wellington, Lyttelton, and Dunedin, and we have a Marine Superintendent in each of those ports, a qualified man, and in some of them highly qualified men, and I think that all matters connected with deck facilities should be inspected by a nautical man. With regard to the drink question, I am inclined to think that most of the trouble caused by firemen getting drunk is not so much due to the quantity these men drink as to the quality of the liquor supplied to them, and I think an alteration .should be made in the Act in force to apply to this. I notice in many cases that a man goes ashore and gets a few drinks into him which, if the liquor was good, might not do him much harm, but which now makes him practically mad.

W. MANNING.]

59

T Q

15. Mr. Willis.] With regard to small vessels such as yachts, what certificate do you think would be sufficient for the master or owner to hold ? —I do not know what the qualifications of yachtmasters are in England, but I think the certificate would embrace enough to give a guarantee of safety. 16. Simply an examination to show that he knew the rule of the road ?—Yes, and the chart. Of course, it is essential even for small vessels to have men of local experience in charge. During my many years' experience of the Wellington trade I may tell you that I have gone out into Cook Strait in a calm, and in less than two hours have been glad to get anywhere for safety, even in a steamer, which shows the necessity for men in those small vessels having experience and nautical knowledge. We have had men bringing yachts from Nelson to Wellington who have had no practical experience, and last year two yachts went down to Lyttelton, and got into trouble, I believe. 17. You mean your proposal to apply to distances outside extended river limits? —Yes. For instance, in Auckland a yachtmaster's certificate would not be required between Cape Colville and Bream Head. 18. You mean when they actually go out to sea ? —Yes. 19. Mr. Millar.] Do you consider that vessels propelled by oil, or anything else of the kind, ought to be allowed to run outside the harbour limits where there is a passenger traffic ?—No. 20. You are aware that at the present time some vessels of this class are exempt ?—Yes. 21. With regard to the extended river limits, do you consider that a vessel should be allowed to go out of, say, Opunake and run from there to New Plymouth ?—Certainly not. 22. Do you consider that a vessel should be allowed to run from Auckland to Whangarei, a distance of seventy miles, without coming under the operation of the Act ? —No ; it ought to come under the operation of the home-trade clauses. 23. Do you think it is safe in the interests of the travelling public, as well as the vessels, that these vessels should be allowed to trade outside the harbour limits ?—Not at all. 24. And that inside the harbour these vessels ought to be under the charge of qualified men for the safety of life and property, and that outside the harbour limits they should be in the charge of men who have a home-trade certificate ?—Yes. 25. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] Do you know what wages are paid to skippers of ordinary vessels now trading between, say, Cape Colville and Bream Head—that is, the difference between the pay now given and the pay given to a home-trade skipper ? —I do not think there would be much difference. 26. Boughly, how much ?—I should say, not more than £2 a month. 27. The addition could be made for, say, £4 a month ?—I do not think it would be so much as £4 a month. 28. When you were 'speaking of the official log you said that engineers kept a log at the present time?— Yes. 29. It is desirable, I suppose, that they should keep a log ?—lt is desirable. 30. And a record should be kept of what takes place in the engine-room ?—Yes. 31. Do you not think it would be better if some stamp were given to that by law, even although it was not called an official log ?—Why should an engineer's log be made more important than the deck log. If the deck log is good enough to be taken in evidence in a Court of Justice without having the stamp of " official," why should the engineer's log be put before ours ? 32. Your log is recognised by the Court?— Yes. 33. The engine-room depends upon the staff: how many hands do you carry ?—Eight deckhands and a lamp-trimmer. 34. And how many firemen ?—Twelve firemen. 35. Any greasers ? —Three. 36. That is fifteen as against eight deck-hands ?—Yes. 37. There is a great disproportion of deck-hands, which your log chiefly deals with, and the number of hands in the engine-room?— Yes ; but the stewards are subject to the master. 38. But eight men work the ship from the deck and fifteen work it from the engineroom. Supposing this log did not in anyway supersede the master's log?— Well, that is not stated. 39. With regard to sending in returns of the men on board every six months, we desire it for registration of the seamen, so that we could keep the registration in perfect order. You suggested that that could be simplified by our adoption of the articles of the Old Country? —Yes. 40. With regard to the inquiry in connection with the " Mawhera " mentioned by you, how long ago is that ?—About thirteen years. 41. I suppose you are aware that in appointing Assessors we sometimes have to fall back on masters in Home vessels, because we cannot get local men ?— I know that. 42. Suppose the Assessor was an officer appointed to sit with the Magistrate on all inquiries? —If he were a man of local experience it would be all right. A great number of the cases are coastal cases. 43. And it would require a man who had a good knowledge of the coast. The difficulty is to get suitable Assessors ?—Yes. 44. Mr. E. G. Allen.] You spoke about a scale where a vessel is short-handed: you suggested one in five in vessels up to 1,000 tons. 1,000 tons seems too much, because it is from anything up to 1,000 tons. If a vessel had only two or three hands you could not allow that ship to go away with half her men short?— Well, say one in five, two in ten, three in fifteen, and four in twenty. I would only ask forj that to apply to the home trade. It would not apply to vessels leaving Westport, say, for Sydney or Newcastle. On a vessel with a crew of four, two men short would

I. -9.

|M. NXCCJOL.

mean half her crew. On a vessel with a crew of fifteen my suggestion would only mean three men short. 45. Mr. R. Thompson.] And that would be only until they got to the next port? —Yes. 46. The Chairman.] What becomes of the present engineer's log?—It is handed in to the owner. 47. One idea as to the log is that it shall be a permanent record of the operations in the engineroom, and of accidents, and so on, so that a new engineer going into the ship would know what his engines had done in the past?:—He ought to get that from his ordinary log. We do not object to them keeping any particulars or information they like, but we say this is an extraordinary departure, because it is altogether subverting the nature of an official log. 48. With regard to engaging seamen through an agent of the company, does that prevent you discharging a man you do not want?—No, not at all. 49. Have you ever wanted to get a particular man and the agent would not consent to it ? —No. 50. There is a suggestion that it means blackballing men because they will not go with certain captains or in a particular trade : have you known any case of that sort ?—I cannot say I have. I have heard, of a case where a man was not employed for a bit because he was drunk and disorderly. There is one thing I have forgotten to mention : I want to ask if it is possible to introduce a clause by which every person who offers himself for examination for a master's or officer's certificate shall be a British subject or a naturalised British subject. In these times it is highly desirable to make the British mercantile marine as efficient and national as possible, and I think a clause having this object in view would be a good one. Malcolm Niccol examined. (No. 15.) 51. The Chairman.] You appear here on behalf of Mr. J. J. Craig and other Auckland gentlemen ?—I have been requested by certain shipowners—Mr. Craig and others—to appear and give evidence. I may state that I have been in the shipping business for the past thirty years, and being now out of business I have no interest of my own to serve. [Petition read.] The statements in that petition are borne out by my own experience. Ido not exactly know how far our manning scale compares with that of Australia. The feature I wish particularly to attract attention to is that there are so few ordinary seamen employed, and that there is a check upon the number of seamen bred. We are not training them. The young fellows desiring to go to sea are checked when they arrive at the grade of ordinary seamen. The number of ordinary seamen employed is so small that they are not able to get ships, and in numerous cases to my knowledge young fellows have had to go to Australia to enable them to complete their time. They do not ship to New Zealand, but to other ports, and there is a process of depletion going on, and young fellows who would in time become A.B.s and officers are checked in their training. This is the result of the Shipping and Seamen's Act, which is against the employment of ordinary seamen. Boys are frequently taken in these ships, but for various reasons they get the run when they get to Australia, where they are taken. 52. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] In New-Zealand-registered ships ?—There is nothing in the Act compelling the ships to bring them back, and, if they do not discharge the boys, things are made so unpleasant for them that the boys leave. I have no hesitation in saying that the majority of A.B.s are inferior to our young fellows who have had a couple of years or more on the coast, and I think the Act might be amended so that a greater number of O.S.s and a lesser number of A.B.s should be carried I should like also to see something to define what an O.S. should be. He might be one year at sea or more, and I think something should be placed in the Act to require him to have served a certain time at sea and to possess certain qualifications. 53. The Chairman.] Turn to section 51 and see how far that conflicts ?—lt is defined there what an A.B. is, but there is no definition of an O.S. An O.S. is anything outside of that. 54. The rating of A,B. shall only be granted after one year's sea service in a trading-ship? I think some discretionary power is allowed to the Superintendent of Marine to say when a man may be raised to the position of an A.B. Service in a scow or cutter does not qualify him. He is required to go to sea in a bigger ship before he can get a certificate. There are very few opportunities for a young fellow to become qualified as an A.B. That, I think, is a very serious defect and against public policy. I understand there is a proposal in the new Act to take away the exemption that at present exists in favour of vessels trading within river limits and extended river limits in regard to the manning scale. I think that would be a mistake in connection with river limits and some portion of the extended river limits, because some of these trips are made in daylight, and to compel such boats to comply with the manning scale would be a hardship and quite unnecessary. It must increase the cost of running these boats without any advantage to the public. 55. Have you any idea as to what would be the increase in the cost entailed?—No; I am not prepared to say, but I think Mr. Stewart, who is connected with that business, will be able to give you the information. 56. Is there anything else you wish to say? —I wish to say further from my experience that shipowners have great difficulty at present in competing with ships of other nations in the trade between New Zealand and Australia, and it is a pity to impose any more difficulties than are necessary. This manning scale is a difficulty undoubtedly. I think the Australian laws are slightly more in favour of the shipowners : that is, they allow a greater proportion of O.S.s than our laws. Beyond this, lam requested to draw attention to the hardship of the law requiring iron ships to be swung periodically and a certificate to be obtained from the Government Inspector. Mr. Craig represents —it is not my personal view—that the captains are and should be qualified to swing their own ships. It often bears very hardly on ships when they have to go some distance to

60

M. NICCOL.]

61

L—9.

obtain facilities for swinging. Invercargill vessels would have to go to Dunedin, and vessels at Kaipara would have to come to Auckland, and it is thought that the shipmaster should be sufficiently qualified to swing his own ship. 57. Can he swing it anywhere ? —No ; but he would choose his own time and get to a port where he could do it. 58. Mr. R. Thompson.] This question of river limits has been referred to by a number of witnesses before the Committee. There seems to be a desire on the part of some of the unions to take away all the present privileges that vessels have in trading between river limits and extended river limits. You, as a shipping-merchant of Auckland, have had experience : From what you know of that trade do you think it is absolutely necessary that some of these small steamers trading along the coast to Whangarei and Kaipara and other places should have certificated A.B.s ?—I do not think they should necessarily be certificated men, for the reason that I believe that men without a certificate would have better local knowledge and be less likely to make mistakes than men you would pick up merely because they have certificates. I am sorry to say that a great many of our so-called A.B.s are foreigners, and many of them are —I do not wish to speak disparagingly of them—not equal to the young fellows employed at present, who have a greater knowledge of the coast, and have a greater desire to rise in life. They are more clever and resourceful than the present class of A.B.s. 59. If the present privileges extended to vessels trading within river limits were abolished would it not add materially to the cost of running these vessels?— Yes. 60. And would it not add materially to the cost of carrying produce to Auckland?— Undoubtedly. 61. It would mean a large amount out of the producer's pocket ?—Undoubtedly. 62. Have you known of any accidents occurring within river limits, or extended river limits, as the results of these vessels not having certificated A.B.s on board ?—I have not heard of any, and I have instituted that argument myself, that it has been men with certificates who have come to grief, and not those who have not had them. 63. Mr. Hutcheson.] In answer to Mr. Thompson ]ust now, you said that practice showed that men with local knowledge were more successful navigators, as a rule, than casual strangers who had certificates. Would you object to a man with local knowledge satisfying the proper officer of the Government that he had some practical knowledge of the rule of the road and the use of the chart and lead, and other such matters for the safe navigation of vessels in the extended-river-limits trade from Bream Head to Cape Colville ? I do not mean an abstruse examination involving a great amount of education, but an ordinary examination dealing with a man's practical knowledge of such subjects ?—I quite agree with you as to the necessity for that. I think there should be some simple formula that all seamen should be able to answer and satisfy the Superintendent of Marine. 64. Just practical knowledge ?—Yes. 65. There would be no question at all of technical knowledge ?—No. I think you are right there. • 66. I think Mr. Thompson's question rather went outside the sphere of our investigation of this subject, because he alluded broadly to the experience of the crew in the matter of navigation. Of course, it is not necessary that any member of the crew but the officer in charge of the vessel should have that particular knowledge in regard to navigation. The mechanical knowledge of the men is quite another affair ?—Yes. 67. You mentioned one very important subject, and one which concerns this Committee very closely—the question of competition, more in the intercolonial trade, but in the home trade to some extent, of other vessels with those owned in New Zealand. Will you tell the Committee in what way that competition is felt by local shipowners—the principal causes of grievance of local shipowners in the matter of competition ?—The main grievance is that foreign ships that have come out by way of Australia frequently take a charter for coal for this colony and a timber charter back to Australia without regard to the current freight, and without much consideration as to whether the rates they accept will pay or not. They are feeling their way perhaps, and if they find it unsatisfactory they give the trade up; but the fact of them having taken that one trip, and other vessels coming along and being equally ready to take another trip, keeps down the rate of freights, for what one takes others are compelled to take. 68. How have the Federal and New Zealand tariffs on timber affected the colonial home trade ?—Very seriously, lam sorry to say. The trade has almost gone to pieces since the Commonwealth came into existence. 69. Can you suggest any way by which the New Zealand Government could remedy the trouble from this end of the route ? —No ; retaliatory steps are all you can take, but I do not think that would be advisable. 70. We have taken retaliatory steps with regard to our logs ?—Yes. 71. Do-you think an export duty on logs would assist the New Zealand ships?—l do not think it would benefit the New Zealand shipowner to any extent. They are not likely to be shipped on New-Zealand-owned ships in much greater quantity. 72. I have been informed by a shipowner that his firm and another firm he was aware of had entered into a contract involving a series of cargoes covering a considerable period and made prior to the export duty being placed on logs, and that the exporters of the timber had to ask them to declare the contract off, and that in a spirit of fairness, although they might have exacted some monetary consideration, they did agree to the cancellation of the contract? —I have no doubt there would be odd cases of that kind ; but it strikes me that it would not be in the interests of New Zealand if we were to encourage the export of balk timber in that way. We should suffer for it in a different way.

[m. niccol.

1.—9.

62

73. You want the Committee to understand that it is not a continued competition from one or several foreign vessels, but a series of attempts on the part of foreigners to unfairly compete with local owners, and the number of new attempts is ever increasing?— That is so. A number of the largest timber-merchants in Melbourne are foreigners—Norwegians —and some little time back, when freights were getting up, these timber-merchants of Melbourne particularly sent Home to Norway and got a number of foreign ships out for two years and longer periods at very cheap rates. These vessels came here and established the rate at once. The local owner had then to come down to their rates. It did an incalculable amount of injury at that time. These are the factors that make the lot of the New Zealand shipowner an unhappy one. 74. Then, the only means, in your opinion, the New Zealand shipowner has of successfully competing with foreign aggression is to come down to their level in all things ?—I would not recommend that by any means. It appears that our Government is not likely to impose any disability on these foreign ships—something always comes up to prevent that. All we can do is to approximate as nearly to their conditions as is safe. 75. You cannot make any suggestion whereby we might impose a disability on unfair competition by foreign ships ?—At present they are not allowed to carry any cargo on the coast without paying the rates of wages current in this colony, but I think we should go a step further and stop them carrying cargo altogether. 76. Do they evade the present law ?—Yes, they do evade it. 77. You think the solution of the difficulty is to keep the coastal trade for our local owners ? — Yes; to adopt the American method to that extent. 78. Mr. Millar.] I think you said that in the course of your long experience you never knew of an accident to result from the employment of inexperienced men ? —I said I could not recall any. 79. Have you any recollection of a collision occurring between, I think, the " Kiripaki " and the "Taniwha" some months ago?—ln the Thames Biyer; yes. It was the " Patiki" and " Taniwha." 80. Do you remember what the Magistrate said?— No. 81. He said that the " Taniwha " was entirely to blame, because there was not a man on board the ship who could steer but the captain, and he was down below ?—No ; he was in charge of the wheel at the time, I think. 82. And he was responsible for the accident ? —Yes. 83. And he was an uncertificated man ? —Sullivan was the master, and he holds a certificate. 84. The Magistrate said there was not a competent man on board the ship. And he was steering ? Do you think it was right that one man only on board should be competent to steer when she was running between Auckland and the Thames ? —No, I do not think it was right. 85. Then, that ship was not manned sufficiently ?—I do not admit your premises. I know there were men on board the ship who are able to steer, but owing to the tortuous nature of the river the master, who has special local knowledge, invariably takes the wheel at that part of the voyage. 86. You said that the principal object you have in coming here is to represent sailing-ship •owners, who say that their ships are overmanned : is not that what you said? —Yes. 87. What sized ships have these gentlemen you represent ?—Vessels running mostly from 300 to 800 tons. 88. Sailing-ships ?—Yes. 89. Have they been increasing their fleet lately? —Not lately. 90. Well, during the last three years? —There was a boom in that line about three years ago. 91. At the present time are they negotiating for the purchase of any more vessels? —No. At presenr. I have a few vessels on hand that can be disposed of. 92. We will take vessels of 300 tons, such as used to trade between Kaipara and Newcastle. That sized vessel, according to our Act, would carry five certificated A.B.s and one 0.5., and a vessel of 300 tons register would be a fair-sized ship ? —Yes. 93. Have you been to sea in command of any vessel?— No. 94. Would you consider a vessel of 300 tons register had sufficient or too many men ? There would be one man at the wheel, one man on the look-out, and one O.S. to do the hauling-round of the yards ?—The shipowners say so. lam not responsible for all they say. I did not hear of that petition until I heard it read to-day. 95. Supposing the number of O.S.s were increased, how many A.B.s would you consider necessary, assuming that two O.S.s took the place of an A.8., and what would be the saving a month ?—Perhaps a couple of pounds a month per man. 96. You are now paying £4 or £4 10s. a month for A.B.s ?—£4 10s. 97. And the current wage of an O.S. is £2 ss. ?—I do not know exactly, but from that to £3. 98. That would mean a saving of, say, £2 : would that make all the difference between profit and loss ? —lt would make some difference. We are seeking to reduce expenses as much as we can so as to get on the same footing as other folks. 99. You wdll agree with me that those who go to sea should have some protection as well as the shipowner ?—Yes ; and lam speaking in the interests of the young fellows. 100. Do you think the inducements are great enough to cause those young fellows to go to sea ?—There is a greater number of them applying than can get ships. 101. What do they want to go as—not before the mast?— They have to go before the mast first. . 102. Do they not want to go in the steamers? —No, that is not the inclination; they want to go in the sailing-ships. My experience is that there is always a greater number who want to go to sea as apprentices or O.S.s than can be taken. 103. You said that to evade the law shipowners took a boy, because we have made it compulsory, and immediately they get out of New Zealand waters they discharge him ? —Yes.

M. NICCOL.]

63

T q

104. Would you make a suggestion that, in the event of a vessel carrying four properly indentured apprentices, there should be a reduction of A.B.s? —I do not think that should be so. lam afraid they would not keep those apprentices. 105. The shipowners have to keep apprentices all the time, whether the ship is earning anything or not, while an A.B. or O.S. can be discharged? —Yes; and there are two mouths to feed instead of one. 106. We have heard it stated that an owner wanted to carry an extra A.B. instead of an 0.5., as compelled by law, but that he was not permitted ?—That may be a special case where a man wants to ship a particular man. 107. Have you known of a vessel to be stuck up at Invercargill or any other place for the adjustment of compasses ?—I know of one case in Invercargill. 108. How long had that vessel been without such adjustment ?—Probably long enough in that particular instance. It is not a very fortunate case to quote. 109. The whole cost of swinging, I do not suppose, amounts to a five-pound note, and then it is only done once in two or three years ? —Once a year. 110. That is if the vessel happens to come back to New Zealand ?—lt is not only the actual cost, it is also the time lost to enable them to do it. 111. Supposing a provision were made that this should only be done where it was suitable, because there are only two or three ports where it can be done ?—I think that would meet the case, and I presume the rule with regard to the twelve months would not be rigidly carried out. 112. I think the captain's work ought to be checked by independent men?— Yes, I think that is only fair. 113. It is customary in England and elsewhere for the captain's work to be tested?— Yes, I believe that is so. 114. Mr. E. G. Allen.] With regard to foreign vessels, do you think it would be advisable that reciprocity should be established between the Commonwealth and New Zealand with regard to the shipping laws: that is, with regard to foreign vessels taking cargo and passengers from New Zealand to Australia, and vice versd ? —lt would be an advantage if reciprocity could be established. 115. That is with regard to the shipping laws. Have you thought the matter out ?—I have not had my attention directed to that until this moment. I certainly think it would be a good thing at the first blush. 116. Do the American steamers take away many Auckland passengers to Australia?— Yes. 117. And bring them over to Auckland? —Yes. 118. Is not that greatly to the detriment of locally owned vessels?— Yes. 119. I suppose the American mail-boats do not take away much cargo from Auckland to Australia, or from Australia to Auckland ? —No. They took a lot of mutton, I noticed the other day, to Sydney; but that is quite exceptional. Time will not permit of them taking it. There is very little in the way of cargo-carrying either way. 120. Mr. Laurenson.] You say we have no provision for O.S.s and that there should be more O.S.s and fewer A.B.s, and you also stated that Australia had the advantage in being able to carry more O.S.s and fewer A.B.s. Assuming that our law was relaxed in that direction, do you think it would make all the difference in the paying or non-paying of a vessel ?—No. I was urging rather in the interests of the young fellows who want to go to sea and to make us independent of the foreign element that prevails. 121. This petition says that the New Zealand rates of wages are also far higher than obtains in other countries, from that giving us to understand that if wages were lower it would be better for the shipping. Is there not a difficulty in getting men now for the wages offering ?—There is always a difficulty about A.B.s. 122. Is it not a fact that on board the steamers they can always get as many deck-hands as they want, whereas with sailing-vessels there is a difficulty in getting the same class of men who go on board the steamers, and are not the small wages the reason for that ?—I do not think so. I think you will find the easier time they have on sailing-ships almost equals the advantage of higher pay. They are very much harder worked on the steamers. 123. And yet, although they have harder work, we find that they are more eager to get on a steamer, than on a sailing-ship ?—I do not know that they are. They have better accommodation and food. 124. Take a vessel of 1,000 tons and assume that she had the privilege of carrying four ordinary seamen and six A.B.s, also assuming that there was a difference of £8 saving per month through carrying the ordinary seamen, that would make a difference of £96 a year in that vessel's expenditure. Ido not suppose that would make the difference of the ship paying and not paying ? —It would make the difference between her being able to take a freight and being obliged to let the foreigner take the freight. 125. There is a suggestion in the petition that there should be an inquiry made by the Government of New Zealand in the direction of that made in England: that is, to cope with the decline in shipping ?—Yes. 126. Are you aware that in 1880 the registered tonnage of vessels owned in New Zealand was 66,000; in 1890, 98,000 ; and in 1900, 137,000 ?—I am not responsible for what is stated in the petition. 127. After all, when we examine into it we find that the shipping, instead of declining, is increasing at a very rapid rate ?—There has been a good time all round for the past ten years, and the number of sailing-vessels has increased in consequence of that and the immense quantities of timber shipped to Australia. 128. Summarised, I suppose your evidence amounts to this : that one direction in which the New Zealand shipowners would be relieved would be to prevent foreign vessels coming on the New

I—9.

64

[H. G. PAUL.

Zealand coast at all ?—That would be the greatest relief; but if we cannot get that we must be content with little crumbs. Vessels are frequently stuck up in Auckland for weeks before they can get men. 129. Mr. R. Thompson.] Is it not a fact that the great complaint in Auckland in reference to the manning of these ships is on account of the very small number of O.S.s they are permitted to carry, with the result that we are not able to train our own young men to become seamen ? —That is the whole root of the matter. 130. That owing to the limited number of O.S.s the present Act permits vessels to carry our own young men are unable to qualify themselves to become A.B.s? —Yes. I think Mr. Hutcheson has hit on the remedy —that our O.S.s should be required to pass through an examination showing practical knowledge, and, if qualified, be allowed to ship as A.B.s. 131. The Chairman.] When you said it would be an advantage if the foreign ships were shut out of the coastwise and intercolonial trade, of course, you mean it would be an advantage to the local shipowners ?—Naturally it would be to the advantage of our shipowners. 132. It would not be to the advantage of the people, who would have to pay the higher freight ? —I would not like to answer that.

Tuesday, 19th August, 1902. Herbert George Paul examined. (No. 16.) 1. The Chairman.] You are engineer on board the s.s. " Waiwera," I believe?— Yes. 2. You want to give evidence before this Committee? —Yes; chiefly in connection with section 155, relating to the chief engineer keeping an official log. For the past twelve years I have been running to New Zealand in all positions, from junior engineer to chief engineer. The last position I have held for four or five years. I have been two years in my last ship. I think it is very essential that the chief engineer should keep an official engineer's log not only in the interest of the engineers, but also for the shipowners and the public generally. Engineers are getting a great deal more machinery under their charge, and the more efficiency we can keep that machinery in the greater the safety of the passengers and the better it is for the shipowners. This applies specially to the boilers. When leaving a ship we never get a chance of seeing the man who is relieving us, and should there be an official log kept it will be left in the ship for his reference, and he will be able to see what has taken place with regard to the machinery for the past few years. All machinery has weaknesses and requires particular care of some special character. If you do not give the man this information he would be at a loss to look for the weak place, but if he sees by the log where it is he can guard against any accident that might occur in that weak spot. Of course, we are carrying New Zealand exports to market, and it is essential that we should allow the engineer to see by the log what the man he has relieved has to say about the machinery, because on that depends the carrying of your produce to market. When we reach London the surveyor comes on board and asks us at once how the engines have been doing during the passage and if we can give him any particulars of any weak spots. Now, if we had an official log all the weak spots would be entered in it, and it would be a guide to the surveyor when the meat or other produce is out and the survey starts When I was at Home last it took us a month to take everything out, and ten or twelve years back that would have been done in half the time. That shows how much the machinery under our charge has increased. If you kept ail this information in an official log the survey could be done in half the time, for the surveyor would be able to see what was in the log. I believe the information to be entered includes telegraphing, the stops and starts, and so forth. That is another essential thing. If an accident occurred in the harbour through reversing or going astern that should be entered up, as well as accidents in the engine-room. There are accidents to those in charge of the machinery, and no one can explain these better than the man in charge. In some cases there are dangerous parts in the machinery, and if these were entered up the men might be cautioned about them. The clause also provides for the entry of the number of revolutions daily on each watch, the pressure of steam, vacuum, state of the wind and weather, amount of fuel consumed, and average speed. We keep a log now, and some of this information we already record ; but, of course, our log is only for the voyage, and then it goes ashore. If it were kept on the ship it would be a splendid guide in the future not only to those below, but to the captain in charge, because it would give him a good idea as to what the ship was doing with regard to the coal consumed &c. When a new man joined the ship he would see what the state of the machinery was. There is no record kept of the overhauling that is required by this section at present, unless the engineer keeps it for his own benefit, and when he leaves the ship he generally takes that with him for°reference in the next ship. He keeps it as his own diary, and the man coming after him has no data to go upon, and that is what we want. With regard to indicator-cards, we generally leave a copy in the ship, but we do not hand the copy in to the surveyor as you do out here. You are a little bit ahead of us out here. We only hand it to our own people, and not to the surveyor. The work now coming under us is becoming very much more than it used to be. At Home my father was a sea-going engineer, and for the past twenty years has been in charge as an engineer for a <rood-sized company. He is in charge both below and on deck, and is keeping a book like this, but it is a diary. He takes it away with him, and does not leave it as a record for the next man. We hold responsibility now in our employ for all steering-gear. The steering-gear belongs to the deck ; but we have the whole of it under our charge—that is, the overhauling of it—and also the insulation. I think the official log should be kept in the ship for a certain number of years—say, five years and not delivered up, and should be open to the Surveyors and master of the ship. The

H. G. PAUL. 1

65

[1.-9.

second or third engineer should sign it, and if an accident occurs during junior-engineer watches it snould be signed by the man in charge, and he should initial the log. 3. Mr. Laurenson.] Would it not have the same effect if it ran as follows : " The chief engineer shall keep an. engineer's log," instead of inserting the word " official " ?—I think it would be far better to make it official, because there is very much more responsibility placed upon us. 4. If it were fixed by statute law it would have all the force of law —" official log for the engine r room " ?—Yes. 5. You pointed out different departments that were previously under the control of the deck department. You mentioned the steering-gear and the insulation of the hold ? —Yes ; they used to be under the captain's shipwrights, but now they are under the Engineer Surveyor, and he applies to us and we have to act under him. We can report much quicker than anybody else, because it comes under our charge. 6. In reference to control, how many men do you employ in the engine-room for the engines, including firemen and greasers, in the " Waiwera " ?—Thirty-four, including myself. 7. On deck how many are there ? —Twenty-four. 8. Would that include the captain?—No, not the captain. 9. Is that exclusive of the cooks and stewards ?—Yes. We have practically the larger part of the crew. The number of the crew varies with the number of passengers carried. If we have somany passengers we have to carry more men to man the boats. 10. Mr. R. Thompson.] Are you aware that the Shipmasters' Association object to the term " official " in this log ?—No, I was not aware of it. 11. Do you know any reason why they should raise any objection to the word " official "?— No; I should not think there would be any objection to that. It would probably be an advantage to the captain to have a record of what was taking place down below. It is going to help the captains. 12. Do you know of any reason why, or any circumstances under which, the keeping of an engineer's official log might iead to any friction between the chief engineer and the captain of the vessel ?—No. I think they would run better together. It would be such a help to the man having charge of the ship if he had a record of this kind, because it is very seldom that a captain changes his ship, while an engineer is shifted backwards and forwards for the convenience of the company which employs him. The log should be open to the captain's inspection. 13. Mr. Hutcheson.] I presume you would not advocate anything that could possibly lead to conflict of authority on board the ship ?—No, certainly not. 14. Are you aware that if it were enacted that the chief engineer should keep an engine-room log in conformity with these provisions—if he were compelled under the penalty of the law to keep it exactly as it is prescribed here without the inclusion of the word " official"—it would be given for all legitimate purposes the full status of law without the word " official " being included at ail?—l do not see that the word " official" affects it so much as that. 15. If the provisions were maintained in their entirety it would impose on the chief engineer a statutory duty. If you scan the clause through you will see that there is absolutely no reference to the engineer having to submit it to or give access to it at any time to the captain ? —I understood it did. 16. There is no reference to that. It is the exclusive property of the engineer so far as any other authority on the ship is concerned?—lt treats entirely with the engineer's department. 17. In paragraph (6) of subsection (5) the engineer is required to record the state of the wind and weather, and in paragraph (d) he is also required to record the state of the wind and weather and the immersion of the vessel. These are two points which are the particular function of the master?— Yes. 18. It is just possible, I think you will admit, that there might be a conflict in these two essential records in the case of litigation?—We already keep the state of the wind and weather. 19. Who imposes on you that responsibility? —The company. But if they impose that on us it shows it is necessary to do so. It must be for the welfare of the public and all concerned. 20. You said this would be for the welfare of the shipowner and the public generally : do you not think the owner is well able to look after his own welfare so far as the engines and so on are concerned ? —Yes. 21. You said it would be invaluable to the succeeding engineer to have a record of all defects in the machinery and of every accident worth recording while the engines were under the charge of his predecessor? —Yes. 22. I think every reasonable person will agree with you in that; but does not the present log, so far as it is available, record that detail?—We do not record anything of this description now. 23. Well, if the Act made it compulsory to keep a complete record would that not serve the purpose? —In the word " official "it would have a bigger meaning than at present. In keeping this record the engineer would take it as an official log and would be more painstaking. The log we keep now, as I said before, is more of a diary. 24. If the law said " shall keep official details " under penalties do you think he would not be just as liable to keep it officially?— Yes, certainly. 25. You are aware that two deck-logs are at present kept on a vessel—one the official log, and the other the mate's working-log? —Yes. 26. Are you aware that the master does not keep the mate's log?—He signs that log. 27. He has to give it up, and it is not available as an official record?—No, it is not officially retained. 28. You said the engineer should be allowed to retain the official logs. That is contrary to the custom in vogue at present? —It is for guidance more than anything else. 9—l. 9.

1.—9.

66

[j. STEWART.

29. You know that the official log does not detail the daily happenings. The details of the working are kept in the mate's unofficial log? —This proposal is more important than that. We trust entirely to the steam for our propulsion—upon the engines for the vessel's speed. 30. Well, admitting your argument, you will admit there must be one authority—whatever his title be, engineer or shipmaster —for the safe navigation of the ship? —Yes, for the safety of the ship. 31. Well, in the face of your contention that the engine-room log should have an equal status with the master's log, is it not reasonable to fear there might be a conflict of authority ?—Not necessarily. I think it would be the other way entirely. 32. You propose an official log to include breaches of the law, accidents, and other matters — a sort of " composition " log? —I do not know that that is proposed. 33. The point is this : that there is grave danger that if two official log-books of equal status were given to the two principal departments, acknowledging the increasing importance of the mechanical propulsion of the ship—there is still that danger of conflict of authority by giving two different departments co-equal power in the eyes of the law in recording from different points of view of the same duties ?—I think it would be run far better in the way proposed in the Bill, because the log on deck gives no record of what takes place below. 34. But suppose we make you keep a statutory log and not an official log. The point is this: that you have to keep a record of the state of the wind and weather and your log is given co-equal force with the master's log : you can imagine a conflict of evidence of that nature and consequently of authority ?—I do not see that. We have to keep it now and this only means making it official. Why should we have to keep it now ? 35. You are not required to keep it now so far as the law is concerned. If the law made it incumbent on you to submit your log for perusal you would have a log equivalent to the master's? —I think it is quite essential that the log should be kept. 36. Do you think it proper that the engine-room should keep an official log and not allow the captain to have access to it ?—I think it should keep an official log and allow the captain to have access to it, and that it be kept in charge of the ship. 37. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] Do you see anything in section 155 to prevent the captain seeing the engineer's log if he thinks fit ? —I see nothing of that kind. 38. Suppose you were in charge and the captain wanted to come and inspect the log-book, would you object to that being done ?—Certainly not. 39. Do you see anything in this section empowering you to refuse ?—No. 40. Do you see anything in this to bar the captain from doing that now?— No. 41. Supposing the " Waiwera " broke down, like the " Perthshire," and drifted about, could she carry sail ? —I have seen two accidents. She carries square sails, but she simply stopped and came up to the wind. We had two yards and sails, but we never sailed. 42. Does not that indicate the necessity for an official record of what takes place in the engineroom ?—I think so, because it means that if the shaft breaks I have no record of it, while if there was on official log I should have a record of any defects. 43. You keep a log at present ?—Yes. 44. But you do not enter all those details ?—No, none of these particulars in the Bill. James Stewart, of Helensville, examined. (No. 17.) 45. The Chairman.] You represent the Northern Union Steamboat Company?— Yes. 46. And also the Auckland Steamship-owners' Association ?—Yes. 47. And you desire to give evidence on the Shipping and Seamen Bill?— Yes. In reference to section 21, I wish to say that in Auckland we have a number of small launches engaged in tendering steamers which may be affected by this section. At -Waiwera, especially, there is a small launch engaged; it is necessary to have one, as there is no wharf for steamers at which to land passengers. A wharf is about to be built, but in the meantime a small launch is required to carry passengers ashore. We therefore ask that after the word " water," in the last line of the proviso to subsection (1) of section 21, the following words be inserted : " or any steam-launch acting as a tender." Section 38 :We wish the provision referring to servants of the company having authority to engage seamen kept in the Bill. The captains say that they have not the time to engage the men themselves, and that it is necessary very often for somebody to go out and find men when vessels are leaving hurriedly. 48. Mr. R. Thompson!] What is the practice now?— That is the custom now, and we want the Act as printed adhered to. Section 54, subsection (4) :We also want this provision kept in. On the Kaipara we depend for the manning of our steamers altogether upon the young fellows who come from within the harbour districts. A considerable amount of rafting is done there by half-castes, who have been brought up on the rivers and thoroughly understand the work. If masters had to man their boats with A.B.s they would be found to be quite unfitted for this work. Since 1894 this subsection has worked very satisfactorily, and no accidents have happened. 49. The Chairman.] Do you pay them the same rate of wages?—The rate is fixed by the Arbitration Court. 50. And is just the same as for A.B.s?—Yes. An award has been given which expires at the end of next year. At Kaipara we find a difficulty in getting English crews ; and foreigners are of very little use. One of our own men is worth two foreigners, especially on river-boats. So far as my own boats are concerned, the number of men will not be affected very much, but we would be obliged to carry A.B.s, whereas we now have men who joined our service when mere lads, and may be said to have been at the class of work all their lives. The ordinary A.B.s are not used to ou/work, and if we had to take them our own men would be thrown out of employment, because

67

1.— 9

J. STEWART.

they have not been to sea to qualify. It is quite a difficulty now to get a deep-sea man who can even pull a pair of oars. With regard to manning, take, for example, a vessel like the s.s. "Orewa," 37 tons, on the Auckland side. She carries a captain, mate, and a boy. Under the proposed manning scale she would have to carry two A.B.s and an 0.5., or boy, in addition to the captain and mate. The boat has not the accommodation or work for them. The same remarks will apply to vessels like the " Bose Casey " ; she would have to carry the same number of men under the manning scale as she would if trading to Sydney. 51. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] Do your boats go outside at all?— Not outside the river limits. Section 56, subsection (3) : We wish this to remain as in the Bill. 52. Mr. R. Thompson.] You approve of that as printed in the Bill ?—Yes. We do not require any alteration. We understand there is a desire to have part of the provision struck out, so that a captain would have to state reasons for dismissing a man. It is thought that this might lead to a lot of trouble, while the present custom has worked satisfactorily for us so far. Section 291: We ask that the word " sea-going " may be struck out of this clause, first line. 53. What is your object in wishing that to be struck out?—We wish it to extend to our vessels, which are not " sea-going " ; they just ply to rivers. 54. Mr. Hutcheson.] Why not have the word " British " struck out?—We want to have all British ships in the colony. We do not see why there should be any distinction made between a sea-going ship and a harbour-going vessel. Section 293: We ask that "gross" tonnage shall be changed to " registered " tonnage. 55. Mr. R. Thompson.] Under the present Act are vessels trading within river limits sufficiently manned ?—Yes ; we man them as the trade warrants ; they are fully manned. 56. Do you know of any accident having occurred on any of those vessels through not having A.B.s on board ?—No. We have had an accident or two in Auckland Harbour, but the vessels had A.B.s on board. The " Triumph," for instance, went ashore at Tiritiri. With regard to these small boats, there have been no accidents. 57. It is your experience that the young men who have been brought up locally and who have worked about the Kaipara make better men than the A.B.s you could secure ?—Yes, much better. They get into the work very quickly, and they are all expert boatmen. Our vessels are never out of sight of land. 58. Has there ever been any desire on the part of those men for any alteration in the law with regard to these boats ?—No, I should not think so, because it would mean a loss of work to them. 59. If there was any alteration in the law with regard to these river limits it would be a serious loss to those men?— Yes, that is so, because there are not many who are qualified as A.B.s. 60. Are A.B.s easily procured?— Just now they are very plentiful, but a short time ago we had a difficulty in getting them. lam pretty near the mark when I say that three-fifths of the A.B.s on the intercolonial sailing-vessels are foreigners. 61. Would it not be much better if our colonial young men were encouraged to qualify as A.B.s, so as not to permit the mercantile marine to practically pass into the hands of foreigners ?—Yes, it would be much better. The thing is to make it attractive for them. In Sydney they have a training-ship, and quite a number of boys have been obtained from her by vessels trading out of Sydney. 62. Supposing any alteration were made in the law which would compel the owners of these small steamers to increase the number of their hands and to carry more A.B.s, would that not mean an increase in the cost of conveying the settlers' produce to Auckland?— Yes, and it would have to be met. It would mean an increase in the cost of running, and the increase would fall on the settler. As far as my own boats are concerned, in the Kaipara trade we carry the same number of men as provided by the manning scale, but they are not A.B.s, and we could not get the same work done if they were A.B.s. We find that we can get better men about the river, and in about a month's time we can knock the rawness off them and they become really good men. In fact, the best man we have there is a half-caste. 63. Mr. Hutcheson.] Section 54, subsection (4): This says, " Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect ships other than sailing-ships plying within river limits or extended river limits." How do you interpret that subsection?—l understand it was framed to free steamers running within extended river limits complying with the manning scale. 64. But that subsection does quite the opposite'?—lt affects the sailing-ships. 65. There is evidently an error there J? —Yes. 66. Section 155, the question of the official engine-room log : Has your company considered the probable effect of that ? —No. 67. You are not prepared to express an opinion on that ?—No. 68. Have you any opinion as to how it would work out —having two official logs in the ship ? —A divided authority, I think, would not be very well for the ship. I understand that many engineers think they should have control of the ship. 69. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] Is that so? —That is their feeling—that they should simply carry a navigating officer. The argument is that they, having more responsibility, should have sole charge. 70. Mr. Hutcheson.] Section 293 : Why do you want the "gross" tonnage taken out ? Do you not consider the provisions of an ordinary bill of lading sufficiently penalising on the shipper without making it more so ?—This has been copied from the Imperial Act, and since then it has been altered. 71. Mr. E. G. Allen.] You said that if you were compelled to employ A.B.s on your vessels it would tend to reduce the income of the producer : that is, that the producer would have to pay for any increase in the wages ?—lt would be an increase in the manning. We should ha.ye to man our boats for a four-hours run just the same as for watch-and-watch on a twenty-four-hours run.

1.—9.

68

[J. K. KNKEN.

72. That would increase the cost ?—Yes. 73. And it would have to come out of the pockets of the producer?— Yes. 74. Do you not think it would come out of the pockets of the consumer? —It comes out of the pockets of the consumer, but the man who gets his goods to market has to pay indirectly for it. The man who sends down, say, twenty boxes of fruit gets no more by reason of our having to carry two extra men. 75. That would apply if the surrounding districts of Auckland were supplied with their fruit and produce more cheaply than another district you might be in a long way off. lam speaking on general principles ?—There are no other means of communication from the east coast than by these small boats. The bulk of the run is done in the daylight, and takes just a few hours. 76. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] With reference to the extended river limits, you say you carry the number of hands required by the scale?— Yes. That is necessary to work the cargo. 77. And you pay according to the scale awarded by the Arbitration Court?— Yes. 78. Does that scale differ from that paid to the A.B.s?—lt differs in this way: that in the case of a tidal harbour we do not pay for overtime. 79. What do you pay your men? —£6 10s., and we have very few O.S.s. They generally start at £5, and go up to £6 10s. a month. 80. On steamships the rate of wages is—what?—£6 10s. a month. 81. You pay so much ; but what about the other boats, do they pay the same? —In many of the boats running out of Auckland they do not have so much cargo as we have. We only carry these men in order to handle the cargo quickly. We do not require them for working the vessel. 82. The objection has been raised that you get your hands from ploughmen and suchlike people: where do you get them from, and what experience have they had ?—They have had no experience. The bulk of them have been on cutters and fishing-boats. They come from the farming districts, but they have all been used to boating and swimming. They are not quite so helpless as the ordinary A.B. It is not so long ago that one fell out of a boat, and another A.B. in the boat was unable to save him because he was not able to use the oars. 83. The Chairman.] Then, after these men you speak of have been on the boats within river limits they can become A.B.s? —No; they have to go to sea for twelve months, but they can become masters. 84. And after that they can be rated as A.B.s? —No; they might not be good enough to become A.B.s, but they can become masters within the river limits. 85. When once they get a certificate as a master within river limits is it not a fact that they can demand to be signed on a ship as A.B.s? —Not that I am aware of. 86. You said that you carry the same number of men as the manning schedule provides ? —Yes. 87. And that they are paid the same rate of wages according to the Arbitration award? —Yes. 88. Which deals with A.B.s and the other men on the same footing ?—Our object is not to cut the rate down, but to obtain the best men we can. We find that to pay best. The best man we can get is the young Englishman, who is much, better than a foreigner. 89. How can you say the scale increases the cost ? —I do not say it increases the cost to my boats. But if you take the " Bose Casey," the " Kapanui," and a number of others running out of Auckland, it would increase their cost. 90. Do they not carry the number of men provided by the schedule ? —No. The " Bose Casey," running to Waiwera, carries an A.8., an 0.5., the master, and mate; and under this schedule she would have to carry four A.B.s, together with one ordinary seaman, or boy. John Kennith Kneen examined. (No, 18.) 91. The Chairman.] You are secretary of the Auckland Branch of the Federated Seamen's Union ? —Yes. 92. And you want to give evidence in reference to the Shipping and Seamen Bill?— Yes. What I would like to bring under the notice of the Committee principally is the question of the river limits in Auckland. We want the exemptions struck out altogether in that respect. The reason is that the district is very extended. It is said by the owners that the water is smooth within the river limits and that the same dangers are not met with there as outside. I might mention that the Auckland Herald on the 26th November last reported the case of a collision between the "Taniwha" and "Patiki," in which the Magistrate said, "It was clear that the " Taniwha " was fully manned, and as to the " Patiki," he could not hold her to be so, as there was no one on board capable of taking the helm if anything happened to the master." On the 14th April the Star reported that heavy seas swept over the s.s. " Wellington " when on a passage to Whangarei and dislodged the boats from their positions, and threatened the lives of the master and the man steering the vessel. On the 2nd May the same vessel had to run back to Whangarei Heads for shelter while attempting to make a passage within extended river limits. The " Stella" has also had to run back to Whangarei Heads for shelter under similar conditions; and I have had to run back in a vessel I was in to Auckland for shelter. One would hardly expect to meet with such dangers as these in so-called smooth-water limits. I might say, with regard to the " Patiki " at the time of collision, that the only competent men on board of her were the master and engineer. The s.s. " Wellington " carries all competent men, and it would not be any hardship for other owners to carry the men required by the schedule of the Bill if the scale were made to apply to river and extended river limits. The " Wakatere "is not carrying what is required. She has a permit, I think, for 1,500 passengers for a daylight excursion, but in ordinary times she has a passenger certificate for 1,000, while all the A.B.s she carries are four, supplemented with four or five boys. She runs to the Thames. In the case of the collision between the " Taniwha" and the "Patiki," two practical men sat with the Stipendiary Magistrate, and it is very evident that those men must have concurred with what he said, and he stated that there, was " no statutory provision for them to carry competent men."

J. K. KNEEN.j

69

1.— 9

93. Mr. R. Thompson.] Where did that accident happen ? —On the Paeroa Biver. 94. That is not in the extended river limits ? —lt is in river limits, and the same conditions apply to the boats going to Whangarei. Under existing conditions a man has only to put in twelve months' service to enable him to go up for a master's certificate for river-limit vessels, and he could then take charge of large ships like the s.s. " Mararoa "if she went there. There is an area of 2,000 square miles in the extended river limits of Auckland, and I produce a map in connection with that for the information of the Committee. I might mention that there are no such things as these river limits in any other part of the world. The Board of Trade will not allow it. We do not see why this vast area should be exempt from the operations of the Shipping Act. 95. Mr. Laurenson.] What is the distance from Auckland to Bream Head? —Sixty miles. It is thirty-four to Cape Colville and sixty to Bream Head from Auckland. It will be about eighty miles from the Firth of Thames to Bream Head. Another reason for our objection is that this exemption means the creation of a lot of incompetent men. These men go in these vessels for a few months and then an A.B.s discharge is given. There is nothing to stop them. In one case a man with only three weeks' service got a discharge which would enable him to ship as an A.B. The Act requires that a man shall have two years' experience, and yet he can get a river masters' certificate and go and sign on as an A.B. in any class of vessel. 96. Mr. R. Thompson.] Are you sure of that ?—I am certain of it. With twelve months' experience a man is allowed to get a river certificate and he can then sign on as an A.B. 97. Mr. E. G. Allen.] You mean to say that a man who has not been to sea at all can get an A.B.s certificate?— Yes; by serving twelve months in a river-trade vessel and securing a master's river, certificate. 98. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] He must have sea experience before he can get a certificate ?— Yes, he should, but I am speaking of a man within my knowledge who had not any experience whatever. In an inquiry a river man was asked by one of the lawyers on which side his vessel was, and he did not know which was the port or starboard side. We are decidedly of opinion that the river limits want reducing, and consider that all vessels carrying passengers should be compelled to carry so many competent men according to their passenger certificate. With regard to the manning scale, I think it is sufficient for cargo-boats, but not for passenger-steamers. There would be sufficient men on a passenger-ship under ordinary circumstances, but in cases of emergency you want men to manipulate the falls and davits, and Ido not think there are enough. There should be two men for each boat. 99. How many boats does the " Wakatere " carry ? — Six. 100. And how many A.B.s? —Four. There is the " Mokoia," which has ten boats. I think two men for each boat is little enough for any passenger-steamer. According to the evidence of the Shipmasters' Association in 1894, they suggested three A.B.s for each 100 tons register in sailing-vessels. 101. Mr. Laurenson.] That would mean thirty A.B.s for a ship of 1,000 tons ?—Yes, that is their evidence. 102. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] Do you not think that is too much ?—lt is rather high. It should be on a sliding scale, in my opinion. The accommodation question is another matter; it is not enough. 103. The Chairman.] You refer to the forecastle ?—Yes. Seventy-two cubic feet of space is the provision. The accommodation on board vessels to-day is not half so good as it was twenty years ago. Improvements are being made for the travelling public everywhere on board passengerships, but the accommodation is deteriorating for the seamen. Take the "Doric" and other vessels like her: there is no accommodation to-day like it; and in the " Te Anau " and other vessels built twenty years ago the accommodation is splendid. In the " Ngapuhi," built recently, there is not near enough accommodation. The penalties for offences also seem to be very severe on the men. It is very rare nowadays committing so grave an offence as mutiny. These penalties were brought into existence at the time flogging was introduced into the navy. Well, we have abolished that, and the discipline is very different to what it was when flogging was in vogue. Engagement of seamen : I contend that the officer of the vessel should engage his own crew. The bond fide agent or servant of the company ought to be struck out of the Act altogether. 104. Supposing the officer has not the time, because his vessel is only stopping a short time in port?— There would be plenty of men looking for jobs. I know cases in Auckland where the officers wanted certain men and were not allowed to get them. An engineer told me on one occasion that if he could have engaged his own men in Dunedin he would have been able to get those able to perform their duties. The mate of the " Hauroto " asked me for a man, but because this man had refused to go on one of the other ships he was refused. I insisted and he was allowed to go. He must have been a good man or the officers of the "Te Anau" and the "Hauroto" would not have wanted him. Surveyors: The Marine Superintendent, we think, ought to be the surveyor for all deck surveys. What does an engineer know about boats, falls, davits, and other such things on deck? All the deck department, we think, should be surveyed by the Marine Superintendent. Inquiries : A preliminary inquiry was held in connection with a vessel that came into Auckland recently, and there was no practical man present except the Collector of Customs. We contend that the Superintendent of Marine should be present at all inquiries. 105. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] What inquiry was that?—The " Ardencraig." Engineers' official log: I think this should be struck out altogether. There should be only one master on board of a vessel, and I think this an attempt to usurp the master's functions. 106. Mr. R. Thompson.] Why does the Seamen's Union take such a deep interest in these river limits : what is the object ? It is a trade that runs very smoothly. The men are well paid and well fed, and there are no complaints that I know of. I would like to know why the unions seem to be so determined to abolish the river limits?—lt is a danger to the travelling public.

1.—9.

70

[j. K. KNEEN.

107. I have been one of the travelling public in that part for the last thirty years. Can you point out any accidents that have happened?— There were collisions between the "Stella" and " Waitemata," and between the "Bose Casey" and the " Kapanui," and the " Boyal Tar" was lost in river limits. 108. Those vessels were all under the control of certificated men ?—That is true, and only proves the necessity of having competent men on board of all vessels. 109. We have it in evidence that the men in this trade, although not A.B.s, are a class of men better adapted to it than A.B.s would be ?—They are all deep-water seamen in the s.s. " Wellington," and it is the same in most other boats. 110. The "Wellington " always employs a full crew. Beferring to many of the smaller boats, they would be very seriously affected if the river limits were abolished. Of course, you are aware that in that part of the colony there are some thirty thousand people whose only means of communication with Auckland is by these small boats, and that anything that would increase the cost of running the boats would fall on the shoulders of the settlers ?—Yes ; but they are not in such a bad position as the people of Opotiki and Whakatane. 111. But that trade has to be done by sea-going vessels?— Yes; but the "Bose Casey," " Kapanui," and " Kotoiti" are fit to go anywhere. 112. Why is the union so much against the trade ? It is an old-established trade, and there is no danger?—My reason is that it is creating a class of incompetent men, and a danger to the travelling public. 113. Your opinion differs very much from that of the shipowners who have given evidence here. We have just had Mr. Stewart's evidence, and he stated that the class of men they employ are far more suitable for that trade than A.B.s would be?— Mr. Stewart stated on oath before the Arbitration Court that he always endeavoured to get men who had some knowledge of seamanship. 114. Is it not a fact that the real object of the union is to get complete control of that trade ? I dare say you know what happened in 1890 when the settlers worked the vessels ?—Yes. 115. Is that not the fact—that the real object of the union is to get complete control of the trade so that you may do what you like ? —We cannot do that. The Arbitration Court is going to have something to say about that. 116. But something may happen in the colony by which the Arbitration Court may be set aside. I suppose you are aware that, during the strike of 1890 all the crews were ordered ashore, and the settlers had to man those vessels to keep up the trade ?—lt was not only there, but everywhere else in the colony. 117. And the settlers could do it because the owners were privileged, as certificated men were not necessary ?—I think the river limits have been extended since then. At that time Whangarei was not in the extended river limits. 118. However, you will admit that if this provision were struck out the trade would be entirely under the control of the union? —No, not at all; not more than any other trade in the colony. 119. Then, why do you want to abolish the river limits ? —Because it is creating an incompetent class of men and it is dangerous. 120. The question of danger does not come in at all, because I have been living there for thirty years and know-. In 1890 the men were ordered ashore, and the settlers' sons had to go and take charge of the vessels, or else the people would have been left without mails and provisions ?—The same thing took place all over the coast. , 121. If you took away the river limits the settlers could not work their own vessels and the trade could not be done ?—Why not have the river limits extended to the Bay of Plenty ? 122. Mr. Hutcheson.] You told us that a man by twelve months' service in restricted river limits could qualify as master in that trade?— That is so. 123. And that as a matter of practice the Marine Superintendent in Auckland granted an A.B.s permit to a man who had no other sea qualifications than the restricted-river-limits service ?—That is so. 124. You know that for a fact?— Yes ; the man's name was Allan Newman. 125. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] How long was that ago ? —About three months ago. 126. Mr. Hutcheson.] With reference to the 1894 Act whereby a man after two years' steamboat service may become a seaman (steam), can you tell the Committee what the custom is when such a man is discharged—whether his certificate is indorsed for steamboat service only, or whether he is given an ordinary clean A.B.s discharge?—He is given a clean A.B.s discharge. I have never seen a certificate of discharge yet with the two grades on it. 127. So that by means of the restricted and extended river trade and the manning of our coastal services we are doing all in our power to manufacture at the very highest speed incompetent seamen ?—Yes, that is so. 128. Every one, of course, must admit that two years' service on a steamer teaches a man absolutely nothing?— Just so. 129. One of your grounds of complaint in connection with the extended-river-limits trade is that it subjects properly qualified seamen to the competition of a hotchpotch class of men ?—Yes. 130. You further contend that the men who are intrusted with the lives of passengers in restricted river limits require to have some knowledge of seamanship, just as well as if they went further afield ? —Certainly they do. I have been in an easterly gale between Whangarei and. Cape Colville as severe as could be experienced in any part of New Zealand. 131. And the same skill in the lowering and handling of boats is as necessary, or more so, as on the deep sea? —Certainly. 132. You advocate that where a vessel is licensed to carry passengers she should have a quantity of men at least enough to supply two to each boat?— Yes. 133. Whether in the coastal, restricted-river, or extended-river-limits trade ?—lt should have the same for the Whangarei as for the coastal trade and for the Thames trade.

J. K. KNEEN.]

71

1.-9.

134. With regard to the towing and rafting trade, especially at Kaipara, we have been told that the class of men employed are more suitable for that trade than the average deep-water seaman :do you confute that statement ?—I do. The reason that they take these men is that they can do what they like with them. 135. Do you contend that, so far as building and securing a raft, handling a boat, and pulling a pair of sculls are concerned, a deep-water seaman without that particular experience is better than a young fellow who has been brought up at the water's side—say, at Kaipara?—Well, if a man has had no experience at rafting it is different. In my opinion, a man ought to have some special knowledge for rafting. But a deep-water man would soon get into it. 136. The statement was made that for that class, of work the young fellows were better than the deep-water men. Admitting the premises, do you think if that class of men were confined to that class of work you would have any particular objection to them being allowed to retain their privileges so long as they were restricted to that class of work ?—I think they ought to be ordinarily competent men before being allowed to take charge at sea. 137. But at Kaipara, looking at the rafting, towing, and so on, do you think there is any necessity for the same knowledge of seamanship ?—I do not think so; but let them be restricted exclusively to rafting. 138. We had it suggested here that the ship " Triumph " when she went ashore was properly manned?— She struck at night. If it had been daylight there might have been a different tale to tell. She was practically cast away. No one knew anything about it. 139. Mr. R. Thompson.] You admit she was fully manned by certificated men?— Yes ; but so was the " Wairarapa." 140. Mr. E. G. Allen.] You spoke of the want of accommodation : that would be the airspace of 72 cubic feet ?—Yes. 141. In your experience, have you ever heard men speak of the ventilation more than the airspace ? You may have plenty of air-space but no ventilation : there is no current, and when there is fresh air coming in, if the space is confined, it is not so unhealthy as a larger amount of space if there is not ventilation ?—ln several forecastles the man has to put his clothes in his bunk ; there is no locker. In the " Ngapuhi " there is plenty of ventilation, but no space. The men have to make a table of their knees when eating, and so on. 142. The men you represent object to the official log that is mentioned here ?—Yes, that is so. 143. Do they include the firemen and trimmers as well as the deck-hands ? Do they all object to it ?—Yes. 144. In reference to the quality of the drink, do you hear many complaints from the men about the quality of the drink they get at hotels at times when they go ashore?— Yes, I have heard complaints. I know one case where a man got liquor and returned to the vessel very ill and vomited on the side of the bulwarks, and the stuff took the paint right off. 145. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] With regard to the restricted river limits : Take a place like Kaipara : do you think it requires the same knowledge to handle a boat there as it does at sea ? — For a steamer, yes. 146. Even although you had no bad weather to deal with and land all round you ? If anything happened do you think it would require the same experience ? —lf we have a competent master and competent engineers we ought to have competent men as well to manage the boats. 147. About the s.s. "Wellington": You are not aware, perhaps, that I made inquiries and found that the report was not correct ?—I know she was delayed. 148. When do these boats leave Auckland for Whangarei ? —They travel at night. 149. Do you get many fogs?— Not often. The men are at sea all night in the " Wellington " and working all day. 150. What do you suggest as an alternative to the extended river limits ?—Abolish it altogether. 151. You would have a three-mile limit from the Heads ?—Yes; it would be about ten miles in the harbour. 152. The Chairman.] What would be the Heads ?—The North Head. 153. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] You raised the question of the accommodation for seamen, and I am sorry to hear that the accommodation is falling off rather than improving. Can you account for that?— There is no room for anything in the forecastle but the men. 154. Mr. R. Thompson.] Has the number of hands in the "Ngapuhi" increased since she came here? —She had the same number of hands when she came here. 155. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] About the man Newman: What trade was he in?—The Bay of Islands. 156. That is a sea-going trade? —Yes. He came to Auckland and got a river ticket. 157. I understood you to say he served his twelve months in restricted river limits. He then got his master's ticket for river service, and as a consequence he got a permit to sign on as an A.B. ?—That is so. 158. And you now say he was working about Bussell ?—He was working in an oil-launch. 159. Are you aware whether he had any sea experience before that?—No, I am sure he had not. He could not put an eye-splice in a rope. 160. The Chairman.] If you were to abolish the river limits altogether such boats as the " Kapanui " and other boats now going to the Wade, &c, would be affected?—lt would not make any difference to them. The Arbitration Court says they are to get the same rate of wages as on the coast between Auckland and Wellington. 161. Do they carry the same number of crew as they would be required to carry under this manning schedule ?—We do not know how the " Kapanui " and the other boats are, but it would make very little difference to the Auckland boats.

1.—9.

72

IV. J. M. TATE.

162. What about the " Wakatere " going to tne Thames?— That is the only boat it would affect. It is necessary that it should affect her. She carries a thousand passengers. 163. We have it in evidence that the men about the Kaipara are better boatmen than A.B.s? —That is not the case. There are some A.B.s who have been twenty years at sea and cannot row a boat, but others again are first-class boatmen. I went Home in 1893 in the "Gothic," and went on the " Majestic," trading across the Atlantic, when a man fell overboard, and he was picked up in a boat without the passengers or watch below knowing anything about it. 164. How may hands has the " Wakatere " ?—Three or four A.B.s. 165. Besides the stewards and firemen, of course ?—Yes. 166. Is it not a fact that all these men haye a knowledge of the boats ?—No; they are simply lost at a boat-drill. Examination of W. J. M. Tate resumed. (No. 19.) 167. The Chairman.] You wish to continue your evidence? —Yes. When I was here before I mentioned the necessity for having competent officers on the ship's deck, and I wish to call attention to the " Indradevi " and the schooner "Lily's" case, the "Botomahana" and the " Kestrel," the " Dingadee " and the " Kennedy," where there were uncertificated officers. Then there was the " Waverley." Mr. Jones, the second officer, who was in charge of the deck, had no certificate. Another case was the " Cygnet," at Tory Channel, only the master being certificated, although running in the same trade as other vessels between Lyttelton, Wellington, and Picton. When the " Boyal Tar" was lost the boatswain was in charge of the deck at the time of the accident, and he had no certificate. There was also the case of the "Lord of the Isles." This shows the necessity for having certificated men on deck. Vessels which have incompetent men on deck are, I take it, worse than derelicts. A derelict will not move, but you do not know what an incompetent officer is going to do. The " Linda Weber " had sand and the " Margaret Galbraith " had shingle ballast on board. It shifted with the " Margaret Galbraith " when struck by a squall off Banks Peninsula, and they had a narrow escape of a total loss. Sections 22 to 31, with regard to the examinations : We are all agreed that only Britishers should hold our certificates, and think that there should be some clause in the Act prohibiting foreigners from taking our certificates. No other country allows foreigners to draw their certificates. It is not only against the interests of the masters, but against those of the younger members going to sea. Foreigners are put in command of our ships, and I have known cases where a German master has sent over to Germany for a German crew to the exclusion of British sailors. I believe they are moving very strongly at Home to have the law altered in regard to this, so that British subjects only shall take British certificates. We are also of opinion that officers should have access to the charts. There is nothing in the Act referring to this. I would mention the case of the loss of the " Lizzie Bell " lately. She was going from Wellington to Newcastle. They were steering, as they thought, to pass Farewell Spit lighthouse about ten miles off, but the course set was so far out as to take them on the other side of the strait, in spite of fair winds and weather. The captain was the only man who was attending to the navigation, and the officers took the course from him and trusted entirely to him. If they had had access to the charts they could have checked his work, and would probably have seen that the ship was not going her proper course. Section 231, in reference to inquiries in cases of casualty: We are of opinion that men put on as Assessors in these cases should be men who have been accustomed to the class of vessel to which the accident has happened and to the trade in which the vessel is. For instance, a vessel meets with an accident at a bar harbour and men are set to inquire into the case who may never have negotiated a bar harbour themselves —deep-water men, probably, who have never seen one. We consider that they cannot be proper judges in accidents of that kind. Similarly in accidents happening to an ocean-going steamer, probably Assessors are appointed who have never been in an ocean-going steamer and know nothing about them. In connection with the appointment of surveyors, our association urges the necessity of appointing men who are shipmasters so far as the deck survey is concerned. At Home they are all shipmasters, appointed by Lloyd's, the engineer surveyors being a different branch; and in the event of owners building new ships the masters or marine superintendents are always sent down to supervise the building. 168. Mr. Hutcheson.] You advocated restricting the issue of our certificates to British subjects : do you include naturalised British subjects ?—When once they are naturalised we would have to grant them certificates. I believe that here, as well as at Home, there are a great many men who are not naturalised, but who hold our certificates. Foreign ships will not employ English officers. 169. In the matter of employing foreigners as seamen and in other subordinate positions, do you know of any case where British-owned steamship lines give preference to foreigners ?— I do not know of any cases, but I have been on board several sailing-ships where they do. 170. It has been alleged that certain large steamship companies out of London put a noticeboard on their gangway to the effect that none but Scandinavians need apply ?—That is quite a common thing. 171. But it is not within your experience in New Zealand? —No; they are taken indiscriminately here, whenever we take them. 172. You know that of your own knowledge—that they have at Home discriminated in favour of Scandinavians ?—Yes ; some will not take any other. 173. With regard to the officers having access to charts, no such disability is put upon the officers in the Union Company ? —No ; the rule of the Union Company is that they shall have access, and there is a separate set of charts put on board for the use of the officers. But I have been in vessels where the master has refused to let me have the chronometer time, or to take any part in the navigation of the ship.

73

1.—9.

W. J. M. TATE.

174. Does that apply to sailing-ships for the most part ?—Yes. 175. You have suggested to the Committee that the deck appliances—the general equipment of the ship aboveboard—should be surveyed by shipmasters, as distinguished from the present system of appointing engineer suryeyors ?—Yes. 176. What is your opinion about making it part of the Marine Superintendent's duty? How would that meet the views of the officers ? —He should be a good surveyor. We hold that the average engineer knows nothing about the compass-card or deviation-table. According to the Act now, he passes the compasses and everything. He has to overhaul our deviation-cards and initial them, and yet he cannot tell whether they are right or wrong. 177. Of course, you would leave the mechanical appliances, such as the steam-winches and so on, to the engineer ?—Oh, yes, everything of that kind would be left to the engineer. With regard to the adjustment of compasses, we think that the deep-water master should be let off paying a fine of 10s. for the non-adjustment of his compasses. The average shipmaster and masters of ships like the " Gothic " are well able to adjust their compasses throughout the voyage. 178. You are aware, I think, that at Home they have their adjustment-cards made up ?—Yes. 179. The New Zealand Act only applies such restrictions on New-Zealand-registered vessels. It is a question, to my mind, whether the compulsory adjustment of compasses in vessels owned in Great Britain is not ultra vires ? —Compulsory adjustment, yes. The ship that comes here with her compasses in good order can get out of the adjustment by paying a fee of 10s. But should the compasses be wrong the payment of 10s. would not put them right. 180. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] As a master of a ship would you rather ascertain the deviation of your compasses in the ordinary way, or would you prefer having some one else come to adjust them ? —I would rather adjust my own compasses and find the errors daily, as is done in every well-regulated ship morning, afternoon, or night when clear. 181. When adjusted by the adjuster you have to check-the compasses when you get to sea? —We have to do that. 182. I suppose there are many local circumstances that affect the compass? —Yes; they varyall along. 183. Do you think it would do if the Inspector were to see that the deviation was posted up to date ? —That would be a good thing. The compulsory adjustment is quite unnecessary for ships from Home unless after repairs, &c. ; it is the fine we speak of. 184. Some masters know the deviation of their compasses, but the adjuster comes on board and he finds something wrong and then makes the adjustment?— That is so. 185. When you get off the coast a few miles I suppose you find a difference ?—Yes. 186. With regard to the inspection of the deck-fittings, have you ever known any negligence owing to the Inspector of Machinery doing it ?—No; but we hold that he does not know so much about it as a shipmaster who has handled this kind of gear all his life. 187. You do not know of any omission on his part?— Not in my own experience. 188. With regard to clause 22, did you say that in no other country were British subjects allowed to be examined for certificates ? —No; that no other country allows any but their own people to be examined for certificates. 189. You do not include the colonies ?—No; other foreign countries. I take the colonies to be British. 190. The question came up about " None but Scandinavians need apply " : do you know that for a fact? —Yes. 191. What trade would that be in?— All kinds of trades. I have shipped a crew of Scandinavians myself. 192. What do you suppose is the reason for this?— Well, the average British seaman is not worth much when you get him to port. The first "pub "is generally too much for him, and he is no good afterwards. 193. Do they get more pay?—No; the foreigner is much more reliable, except when there is good seamanship wanted, and then the Britisher comes on top. 194. Does this apply to foreigners generally, or specially to Scandinavians and Norwegians ?—■ More particularly to Norwegians and Swedes. 195. What about Dutchmen? —Any one who says " Yah " for " Yes " is a Dutchman. 196. Mr. Laurenson.] With regard to clause 56, you recommended that discharges should be in book-form with a butt ?—No; a continuous record. They have done away with the single discharge at Home, and substituted the book-form. Every entry of a discharge is to be made in this book with the captain's signature to it. 197. You do not suggest that the captain should keep a book with a butt on it ?-—No. A man's character is recorded on the articles when the man is discharged.

Wednesday, 20th August, 1902. Bobert Duncan examined. (No. 20.) 1. The Chairman.] What are you? —Chief Inspector of Machinery, Chief Surveyor of Ships, and Chief Examiner of Engineers and of Engine-drivers of the colony. 2. And you wish to give evidence on the Shipping and Seamen Bill ?—Yes. I wish, first of all, to refer to section 21, having reference to river engineers. There is only one class of certificate for a river engineer proper, but in subsection (j) there is a provision for another class of restricted engineers, who are marine engine-drivers. I think there should be a limit placed on the size of an engine taken charge of by a river engineer. That engineer's experience before examination need only be one year assisting and attending the machinery of a steamer or having charge of the 10—I. 9.

1.—9.

74

\n. DUNCAN.

boiler of a land-engine, or having the actual charge of a land-engine and boiler for six months. That is the experience required at present. I am leaving out the shop service altogether, as very few of these applicants for river-engineer certificates have it. Taking the Port of Wellington alone, since I came here there have been four or five steamers added to the river trade here, and the tendency is to increase the size of these steamers' horse-power. I think the limit should be fixed at 500 circular inches on river steamers for river engineers to take charge of. In Auckland nearly all the Northern Steamship Company's steamers—l think they have twenty-eight or more, and at least twenty of them run within river limits, and all those steamers are carrying live freight—could run with river engineers as their only engineers. I do not say they do that in every case, for in the bigger boats they carry higher-certificated engineers for their own sake and the safety of the public. I think the limit for river engineers should be 500 circular inches. I spoke about this several times to the late Secretary of Marine, and I wrote about it in connection with the land engine-drivers, pointing out that this limit should be 500 inches, last year. I can produce the papers, although I have not them with me. The river steamers in Auckland carry more passengers than deep-water steamers out of that pore, and also all the live freight in the Port of Auckland itself. In Wellington they are getting numerous, and you cannot always depend upon the weather in harbours. I have seen weather so bad in Auckland that it has taken vessels two hours to get alongside, and in some instances vessels have sunk at their moorings. You must understand that the river limits there extend over sixty miles north of the Port of Auckland. What I have said is merely a suggestion. Section 97, subsection (a) : After the words " only mate," in the last line, the word " engineer " should come in. It is in the 1877 Shipping and Seamen's Act of New Zealand, and if it was necessary in the olden days it should be more necessary now, when engineers are more numerous and the engine-room staff has so much increased. Section 166 : This section treats of fishing-boats exclusively employed in fishing on the coasts of the colony. Subsection (1), " Eequirement of officers to hold certificates of competency or service " : By reference to section 413 of the Board of Trade Act you will see that captains of trawlers over 25 tons have to be certificated, and that does not mean tons register, but gross tonnage. There are twenty-one trawlers in New Zealand at the present time, and the better half of them are over this tonnage. They can go scot-free in New Zealand altogether, where possibly at a distance of ten miles off the coast the land would be invisible and they would be unable to see anything. We had a case the other day when the "Ellen Ballance " got beyond the limits, and difficulty was experienced in getting her in again. She is a very light-draught vessel. Why should these vessels be allowed to go scot-free from carrying a certificated master or engineer? Ido not know what th*e examination is in Great Britain, but it says that " certificates of competency as skipper or as second hand of fishing-boats, or any particular class of fishing-boats, may be granted by the Board of Trade in the same manner as certificates of competency as master or mate under the Second Part of this Act." The " Second Part of this Act " refers to the ordinary examination of masters and mates for competency. Now, why should they not pass a little examination of some sort, these masters of trawlers, for the safety of those on board ? There are subordinate hands who go to sea for a living -—they are not all owners. A great many hands are employed on these vessels, and why should 'the masters or engineers not have certificates? I have a list here from the Board of Trade returns of explosions on board fishing-vessels in Great Britain, and, without reading it to the Committee, I would like it to go in my evidence. [List put in.] It gives a good number of explosions which occurred through incompetent men being in charge, and which resulted in some cases in loss of life, and in nearly every case the boiler was the cause of the trouble ; and that is just our experience as Surveyors in New Zealand. I have a list of repairs here concerning all the trawlers in New Zealand for the last two years, together with the names. I can verify it from our books at any time. [List put in.] Section 199, "Adjustment of compasses": This has been a vexed question in New Zealand since about 1895 or 1896. I may say that the carrying-out of this compass-adjustment has affected me in many ways in connection with the survey of steamers, and a lot of complaints have been made to me by shipmasters. Ido not think any witnesses who have been before this Committee have met more shipmasters than I have in New Zealand. Igo round once or twice a year all over New Zealand, and meet most of the shipowners and shipmasters and engineers, and endeavour to settle all complaints they may have when I visit their district, and annually the question of adjusting compasses crops up. When it became compulsory for masters of foreign ships to have their compasses adjusted in accordance with the New Zealand law I was requested to visit these shipmasters, and I had a very unpleasant five minutes. I will give you the regulation of the Board of Trade for the adjustment of compasses. I will quote it from the " Eegulations and Suggestions as to the Survey of the Hull, Equipments, and Machinery of Steamships carrying Passengers." These regulations are a copy of the Board of Trade's, and are up to date, and there are probably more clauses in these books of regulations here referred to than in the Shipping and Seamen Bill itself. I will read two or three paragraphs respecting compasses which might be of interest to those more especially not acquainted with nautical matters. Clause 59 : " The compasses of every sea-going steamship employed to carry passengers must be properly adjusted from time to time ; such adjustment, in the case of ships surveyed as herein mentioned, to be made to the satisfaction of the Surveyor, and according to such regulations as may be issued by the Board of Trade." The Board of Trade, presumably, would be the Marine Department here. Clause 60: "On the first survey of a new steamer, whether built of iron, steel, or wood, the Surveyor should require the compasses to be properly adjusted or verified by a person selected by the shipowner as competent to adjust the compasses of ships. The certificate of such person to the effect that the compasses of the ship, if a steel or iron ship, are properly adjusted and a table of errors furnished, or, if a wooden ship, are properly verified and a table of errors furnished, should be handed by the owners to the Surveyor before the latter gives his declaration, and should be returned with ■the Surveyor's declaration .for transmission to the Board of Trade," which would mean the Marine

E. DUNCAN.]

75

1.—9.

Department here. "In vessels fitted with the electric light and power, as disturbing effects are likely to arise from electric circuits for lighting the binnacle, or from other circuits which may pass near the compasses, it is necessary that the adjustments should be made both with the dynamo at rest and with it running and with the various electric circuits on." That shows that the adjustment of compasses is not altogether a nautical matter. We had no hitch before. We had no regulations, and everything was left to the Surveyors, and our practice when these regulations were made was this: If no alterations or damage to the deck-fittings on a ship or to the hull, whether built of iron or wood, there was no adjustment of compasses called for if the master and mate had made the last trip in the ship and were going to make the next one; but if they were new men we insisted on an adjustment, and also when alterations to the structure of the ship were made, such as new deckhouses, new funnel, &c. If no adjustment was necessary we still got a certificate signed by the master and mate to say they were satisfied, which put the onus on the proper shoulders—that is, the master. I say that if a master has not the intelligence to tell when his compasses are out of order he should not fill the position of master. It has been said that the certificate of a home-trade master when he is qualifying for this certificate does not embrace questions on the deviascope. If they do not, the sooner they do the better, because the compasses are the keystone of the arch so far as the master of a ship is concerned. The certificate signed by the master and mate reads as follows : " Certificate re Compasses. —We, the undersigned, hereby certify that the compasses of the steamer ' New Zealand' are in all respects to our satisfaction. We know the errors, and can apply them.—Dated at Wellington, this day of , 189 . — , Master, , Mate." lam treading perhaps on velvet, but I am the son of a master and shipowner, and my family were all connected with the sea. My half-brother was one of the first shipmasters to open up trade with Fiji, and his eldest son up to his death was master of the Home steamer " Morayshire," and he held all the certificates he could—. steam, extra master, and so on. I have had talks with him and other shipmasters, and I have received letters from them on the subject, one of which I would like to read to the Committee. It is from the master of the British India Company's ship " Ugina." He was amongst the first to pass in navigation in connection with the City and Guilds of London Institute. While he was here he spent a considerable amount of his time at my house, and a large amount of that time was spent in talking of the compass. He states in his letter, " I feel I would be guilty of criminal negligence if I said nothing on the subject to you. Ships' compasses and their adjustments have been a very favourite study of mine for many years, and the more I know of the subject the more I am of opinion that none but those thoroughly conversant with it should attempt compassadjustment. There are so many details to be taken into consideration that, in my humble opinion, it is far better to allow for a known error of the compass than trust to deviations obtained by compulsory adjustment. Every shipmaster and officer can find the error and deviation of the compass by sun, moon, stars, and transit bearings of charted land-marks, and can apply those errors to his compass quite easily; and one soon finds out the change of error due to magnetic latitude, which is gradual as latitude is changed, and can make allowance accordingly. lam quite positive that if compulsory adjustment becomes law the casualty list will surely increase enormously." That is very important testimony, and he holds a very high position, and is a good man. I may say that I have had no trouble with shipmasters in surveying. I have touched on knotty problems with them, and have only had trouble with one master, and that was over the unseaworthiness of a ship. He said she was not making water. I ordered the vessel into dock, and when one of the Surveyors went down he found the tank defective, and the repairs cost thousands. She was a very large ship. I find shipmasters generally to be very amenable all over New Zealand. You may think that lam trenching on the captain's prerogative, but lam only acting in the interests of public safety. Before the time of adjustment, known errors have always been allowed for, and when the time comes round, for the next adjustment, and the adjustment is made, another crop of errors are introduced, which take another twelve months for the master to find out, and then this is all upset again by the annual compulsory system. There is a new clause in the Bill dealing with deviation-books—subsection (2) of section 199. The master should keep these on board his ship. He should be made responsible for his compasses, and, if the compulsory adjustment is not enforced, then he should sign the certificate as explained before in my evidence, which would throw the whole onus upon him. 3. Mr. Laurenson.] You would not go in for this compulsory adjustment ? —Not unless it was necessary at time of survey. I will touch on section 155 very slightly. I should like to show you, before going any further, the declaration of a deep-water ship and a river steamer. [These were shown to members of the Committee.] I understand this engineer's log has been assailed by the shipmasters largely in New Zealand, who have given evidence here. Why, I do not know ;it would be the finest record a shipmaster could have in a ship. i. The Chairman.] It has been assailed on the question of its official name. Very few have objected seriously to the keeping of a log if it is not called an " official log," which would bring it into conflict with the official log of the skipper; but the engineer would get his log, which would be called the "engineer's official engine-room log"?—It cannot do that. Section 29 of the Act defines the engineer as an officer by law, and why, if his utterances are in an official log, should they not be regarded as " official " just the same as the master holding command in that capacity on board the ship? The definition of "officer" is "one who fills a position of command," and " official " is the record of this officer's doings in a proper way. If you look up Chambers's Dictionary you will find this is the definition of these two words. It would be the finest record the captain could have on board his ship, for this reason : if the ship was slowed down at any time, or met with mishap in the engine-room, he would go to the engineer. Something might be wrong with a part of the engine, and he would see when it was examined last. He might say, " Don't you think that should have been examined before?" and he has got to give evidence on that;

j 9

76

[E. DUNCAN.

therefore it is in the master's interest that this log should be kept in an official manner. It concerns me largely, because I have to take a great deal of information from the engineers and masters and officers of the ships when accepting evidence for our surveys, and if the log were there it would be of great benefit. to me, It would also be the finest record for the owners of steamers, ■which now comprise more than 75 per cent, in the value of the shipping in the mercantile marine, and probably two-thirds of the value of the ship is taken up by the machinery under the care of the engineer officer. The chief engineer supervises about two-thirds of the crew—l am not taking the stewards into consideration, because if there are very few passengers there are very few stewards. Steamers of the " Majestic " class, and other ocean-greyhounds, would have about six deck officers and twenty-four engineers, and probably a hundred and fifty firemen and trimmers, and perhaps a deck crew of fifty. There is nothing in this log which is not already recorded on the very large steamers, but we want to get it for the smaller class of coastal steamers. 5. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] They have no log at all? —No. They have merely notes that are kept in a note-book, which is almost illegible when you come to read it, and when you come to decipher these notes you cannot do it. One notable case which occurred recently was that of the " Monowai." Her steam-pipes were due for testing. They had been tested in Australia, but as the engineer had no official log-book we had to get a note signed by the surveyor in Australia, who had seen them tested. If the engineer of this vessel had had an official log-book this would not have been required. We also examine stern-shafts for flaws and corrosion every two years. They are very liable to corrosion and natural decay through crystallization and galvanic action. When this was first brought into force in New Zealand the shipowners raised a cry about the examination of the stern-shafts of their ships, but we often find flaws, and most of these are covered up by this part of the shafting being in a stern-tube. The engine-room repairs are a most important factor in guiding us to see where defects have occurred between the last survey and the present survey, and if they are recorded officially in the engineer's log they could be taken as evidence at once that these repairs were carried out as set down in the book. In the meantime we cannot take them. It would save the shipowners the loss of many pounds a year if that were so. In other cases it would save docking. If a ship were in dock any time during the previous twelve months and was examined by an authorised surveyor of the Board of Trade, we accept that. If a steamer were seen in Sydney it would be accepted as a qualifying time up to twelve months, and we would not require it to go into dock unless something was required to be done to the hull. That would be in the master's log too ; but the question is relative to sea-cocks, &c, and to the propeller, and that would be one of the principal things we would go to inspect for the safety of the ship. 6. Would these things be recorded in the captain's log now ? —No ; the docking might be. 7. But the plant and machinery?—No ; and that is why we want to get the log. In paragraph (d) of section 155 the engineer is required to record the state of the wind and weather and the immersion of the vessel, but it is said that is the deck's prerogative. I have a lot of papers here, and among them are indicator-cards taken by me in the British Indian Company's service. Most of them are taken for finding out defects, and on the back of them you will find the immersion and state of the wind and weather. They are all recorded; so that it is not new. I may tell you it has been the law in New Zealand —every item —since the 31st January, 1895, and there is nothing new in this section which has not been carried out in New Zealand since then; so that little bits there which appear to be in the captain's prerogative have been connected with the engineer's survey since 1895, and I will read to you the first clause in the Order in Council: "In all sea-going steamships diagrams shall be taken under ordinary full-speed conditions from each engine of every steamship by the chief engineer, or other engineer in charge, at least once in every three months during which the vessel is at sea, or at such other intervals as the Surveyor may from time to time prescribe. Such diagrams shall be in duplicate, and shall show the date when taken, the scale, state of the weather, immersion of vessel, diameter of cylinder, length of stroke, boiler-pressure, or receiver pressure or vacuum, and the number of revolutions made per minute. All such diagrams shall be accessible to the Surveyor, and one duplicate of each set shall be supplied to him for his own use." So that actually there is nothing new in this provision, unless you want to delete it. And why should you ? The late Dr. Kirk, of Glasgow, brought out what I think are called the " wetted surface rules" for vessels immersed, so as to arrive at the indicated power necessary to drive them at a certain speed; and the speed, and the indicated horse-power necessary for this speed, are both dependent largely on the draught of the vessel and her immersed surface, and to arrive at proper conclusions from indicator-card the draught of the vessel has to be given. If a vessel draws more water it will need more power to drive her through the water. In a railway-train the greatest factor is the wind— that is, the surface exposed to the wind—and in my day in England I noticed that railway-carriages were screwed up within a foot of each other to prevent the wind acting on the surface of the front portion of each carriage as far as possible. It is the same with a ship. The wetted surface —the immersed surface—is an important factor, and we want to know that for our own information, for the reason that the greater draught does not always mean the greater number of revolutions. If greater horse-power is developed it means that you want more engineers for the ship, and that is provided for in the First Schedule in this Bill. I say the draught of water has more to do with that than anything else, and if a vessel is drawing 6 ft. more on one trip than another, and we compare those indicator-cards, we find how far steam has been carried by the indicator-cards, and we say you have indicated more horse-power. The state of the wind and weather has to do with that, for this reason : that I will defy any man to walk along Lambton Quay so fast with a gale of wind in front of him as he would in ordinary weather, and therefore I say the state of the wind and weather should be recorded in an engineer's official log. I have no objection to the engineer's official log-book being open to the master of the ship, or to the Surveyor, the Superintendent of Marine, or the Collector of Customs. There is hardly any occasion for you to put that in, because

1.—9.

R. DTJNCAN.I

77

if you look at section 14 of this Act you will see that the power of enforcing this Act is fully stated ; and if you look at paragraph (a) of that particular section you will see that any of the officers mentioned in the section may "require the owner, master, engineer, or any of the crew of any ship to produce any official log-books," so that without putting it specifically in connection with the official log it would be opeii to these people. It is already provided for in the position these officers occupy now as to power for enforcing the Act. 8. But if we put in that, the chief engineer is skipper of the ship ? —I do not want that at all. There would be no objection to the master seeing the log ; and what is the use of reiterating it when it is provided by the Act now ? No engineer would want to take command of the ship —in fact, he could not take command of the ship. In paragraph (c) of section 14, I think, the words "or engineer " should go in after the word " master." If you look at section 200, paragraph (c), you will see the words " permit any Superintendent, or Collector, or other officer of Customs to inspect such entry at any time." I think the words "Surveyor of Ship" should go in after the word " Superintendent," because it is very important that Surveyors should see anything that has happened to the boats. 9. Have you any access to the official log ?—Yes ; but why should the Surveyor be left out in this clause ? 10. Perhaps these people have not that power ?—They have it now. 11. That ought to come out? —Yes ; or the Surveyor should be included as well. 12. Mr. E. G. Allen.] Do you suggest who should come out or be added ?—Put the other one in—that would be better. In the Seventh Schedule there has been an omission which I think should come in—that is, the fee for seaworthiness which is in section 304 of the old Act. There was a fee enacted by Order in Council gazetted for pleasure yachts of £1 10s., a fee for gas-engine vessels and others of £1 10s. One was gazetted in June, 1889, and the other in 1898. I would like to deal with the survey of ships a little as at present .carried out. The present Surveyors examine ships from truck to keel, and carry out all the practical part of the Shipping and Seamen Act in New Zealand. At present there are thirteen Surveyors of Ships in New Zealand, and the survey of ships under the present system has never varied since its establishment. There has been no case of unseaworthiness and no case of loss of life through the indifference of Surveyors, so far as I know, during the whole of that time, and there has been no friction. For the last seven years all returns of surveys of shipping have passed through my hands, and, with the exception of the issue of the ship's certificate, the whole of this work is done through my office. The Board of Trade at Home are appointing only experienced engineers at the present time to be Ship's Surveyors. Lloyd's people, who are probably next in importance, are only appointing properly qualified marine engineers as their surveyors. Within the last few years at Sydney Lloyd's appointed an experienced engineer to represent them there. In England the Cunard Steamship Company, one of the most powerful companies in the world, so recently as a month or six weeks ago, appointed a marine engineer to supervise all their vessels, both on deck and engine-room, on their shore staff. The gentleman who gave evidence yesterday (Mr. Paul) has a father in England who is in command of a large steamship company, and has full sway over the whole of the fleet. In America the modern engineer is put in command of a battle-ship, and has to especially qualify in navigation to be engineer and navigating officer. An engineer's duties nowadays, on account of the absence of sails and yards and the disappearance of timber from most ships altogether, are becoming more important, and their education is being brought up to a very high standard. When 1 was at sea there was very little electric lighting, hydraulic gear, freezing, ventilating-gear for hot climates, and so on. Even the cooking now is done by steam. Now nearly all these items come under the engineer by reason of modern appliances under his supervision ; therefore this training is of the utmost importance when he becomes a surveyor, because of these points coming under his immediate notice as part of his every-day work. The horse-power of all steamers has increased probably 50 per cent, during the last ten years, and increased horse-power means an increased number of men and increased supervision over the scientific appliances in the engine-room. The ship of to-day, and especially the engine-room, as compared with what prevailed ten years ago is quite revolutionised ; therefore the present system of surveying ships, which has given satisfaction for so long, should not, in my opinion, be interfered with. 13. Mr. Hutcheson.] You have told us there are thirteen surveyors : are they all engineers ? — Yes. 14. Then, is each one of them in turn liable to be called on to inspect ships?— Every one. 15. Do they all inspect the compasses ? Is that part of their duty as well as inspecting the cargo-gear, and so on ? —Yes. 16. Are they all competent to examine the compasses and satisfy themselves about the proper working of them? —In the meantime, that is in the hands of licensed adjusters. They are passed by Government examination, and whoever examines these men is responsible for the way in which these licensed adjusters do their work. 17. You said that your Surveyors examined the ships practically from truck to keel: you do not examine sailing-ships, do you? —I have examined some myself, but not generally. Sailingships are going out of date altogether. They are not numerous, and the tendency is for them to disappear entirely. 18. That is a matter of opinion. I learn, through a friend, from a very recent source that there is a revival owing to the South African trouble?— Perhaps there is in France, where they have the bounty system. 19. Do you consider that marine or mechanical engineers are the best able to examine the gear and equipments of a vessel ? —What do you refer to particularly ? 20. The whole of the gear?—ln Auckland two-thirds of the vessels are of timber, and engineer surveyors have examined them for the last twenty years. There are certain vulnerable points

1.--9.

78

!~R. DUNCAN.

which we always look for, and our experience is as good as you could have from any special surveyor you could appoint for the purpose. I have examined wooden vessels myself, and I have found lots of defects in the stern, beams, planking, and other places, caused by worms and other causes. 21. I had my mind more particularly fixed on sailing-vessels. But I ask you if it comes within the course of the mechanical engineer's ordinary training to acquire any knowledge of the structure of a wooden vessel's hull, other than what he may pick up after he becomes a surveyor ? —I had two years' at wood-work when a boy myself. 22. I want you to disabuse your mind of any idea regarding yourself. There are thirteen Surveyors, and there must be discrepancies between them : do you think the average man, with probably a limited experience of wooden vessels, would have all the necessary experience in the structure of a wooden ship to enable him to go at once, immediately on appointment, and carry out a competent survey on the hull of a wooden vessel and her top hamper and rigging? —As a rule, I would not say they would have the knowledge immediately, and, moreover, we would not send a novice to survey a wooden ship. Yesterday I spent the whole of the afternoon myself at the Patent Slip at a wooden vessel, the steamer " Aorere." Probably a surveyor would be better qualified if he had been brought up and had served an apprenticeship as a proper shipwright for a wooden vessel. 23. Turn to section 155: did you compile this section about the official log?—-Well, I am not at liberty to say. 24. You practically said that in your evidence ?—No ; I said there was 25. You said there were things " I put in " ?—I only referred to subsection (d). 26. You told us that it was highly requisite for engineers to do certain things, and convinced me of the necessity for them to register and record the state of the wind and weather and immersion of the vessel for their own purposes. That is satisfactory. I want to ask you now if the proposal to make the engineer's log an official log might not cause it to come into conflict with the captain's official log. In other words, while for the purposes of the engine-room no one with any knowledge of a ship can be blind to the necessity for recording the data referred to, it is proposed now to embody it in an official log, which is a different thing altogether. In fact, this log will be a combination one, as would be the case if the mate's log and official log of the ship were kept as one. It will be one record instead of two separate ones, such as those which are kept on deck. Do you not think the record in its official aspect with regard to immersion and the state of the wind and weather would lead to confusion, if not conflict of authority ?—lt is not proposed to take the state of the wind and weather every day, but only at certain periods. 27. Paragraph (a) of subsection 5 states, " All telegraph calls from the bridge, giving the time and the nature of such calls respectively, with remarks thereon "; (b), " The number of revolutions daily on each watch, and the pressure of steam, vacuum, state of the wind and weather, amount of fuel consumed, and average speed," daily. It is a daily record of the state of the wind and weather and the immersion on the taking of the diagrams. That is highly necessary. But what I want to get at is this: that while we agree as to the necessity of recording and taking into Consideration all these conditions for engine-room purposes, yet we fear that they might cause a conflict of sworn testimony each in its degree unshakable—in fact, an illustration of the old adage, " The irremovable post and the irresistible force." What is the unfortunate assessor to do in the face of two separate sets of equally valid but contradictory evidence ? —I do not think so. After all, right is right and truth is truth. 28. But which is going to take precedence —each of the records is sworn to and attested ? —I will answer your question with a conundrum : The master of a ship, who was a sober man, had a drunken mate, and logged him " drunk again to-day." The next day the mate put in his log, " The master is sober to-day," and the master went for him for logging that he was "sober to-day." Who are you to believe ? They are both correct. 29. But much more prosaic deadlocks might occur than that ?—The man was drunk yesterday ; he is sober to-day. 30. The desire is to recognise the increasing importance of the engineer of the ship, and to give him a proper recognition of his importance—a proper legal status ? —Another thought has come to my mind : As at the present time on all well-appointed steamships the engineer records the state of the wind and weather for the use of the owner, why not state in the provision for the official log that it will be necessary for the engineer to keep another log to satisfy his owner ? Why not state it here ? 31. Because it may be at variance with the master's record. I have heard most experienced seamen differ as to whether it was a light breeze or a gale. Supposing Parliament imposed the statutory duties contained in this clause upon the engineer, without calling it an official log, an engineer would be required to keep that log-book, and for all the other purposes set forth it could be obtained ?—lt was only to satisfy the shipowner that the state of the wind and weather was put in. 32. If we remove the word "official" from the clause, and retain the log in every other respect, the fact of it being made compulsory to perform the duties set forth without designating it an official log would make it as binding on the engineer to keep it ? —lt would be of no use at all. As I stated before, Chambers's Dictionary defines " officer " as one who fills a position of command ; and " official " means the record of this office in a proper manner. Why should it not be official, seeing he is an officer by law ? 33. We wish to make the keeping of the log a statutory duty, but an official log has a technical meaning ? —lf you put it in as "an official engine-room log," that will be sufficient. At the present time the engineer can take the log with him when he leaves his ship, and take all the information with him. If you join the ship after him, and there is a breakdown, there is no record of the condition of things prevailing before the new man joined the ship.

E. DUNCAN.I

79

I.— 9.

34. If we remove the word "official " and still leave the conditions there, do you suppose the engineer would not do what the law compels him to do ? Would not every object be attained by the removal of the word " official," except that of putting the engineer into very doubtful relations with the master? —I do not think so. There is nothing in the word " official." I debated this same official-log matter with the Hon. George McLean, in Committee of the Upper House, in 1896, when it went through the Council with all but one vote. It would have been carried if the vote had been taken in the afternoon, but it took place in the evening, when the weather was wet and the attendance was small. The Hon. Mr. McLean was quite amenable to reason, and could see the points. The official log went through the Lower House that same year. 35. My question is this : Supposing Parliament says that all this information set forth here in detail must be given without calling it an official log, would any engineer dare fail to give it ?—I fail to see that the word " official " would be antagonistic to the master in any way. 36. My question is :If the word " official " is removed, would the engineer refuse to comply with all the conditions ?—He would not look upon it as the same log. 37. Supposing the law imposes penalties for non-compliance with the duties ?—I think not. He is an officer of the ship, and the duties should be recorded in an official manner. 38. I ask if the engineer would decline to comply with the law if this were made a statutory duty ?—You must go to the Magistrate with that. 39. In what way can the elimination of the word " official " affect an engineer in complying with legal duties placed upon him ?—You might make the master's log not official. 40. The law only recognises one authority : it makes the master the legally responsible person for all that has occurred ?—The master cannot understand everything that is put in this section with regard to these duties of the engineer in the engine-room. 41. And if the word " official " is left out it will not be necessary for the master to do it if the engineer is competent to do it. I ask you whether you think the retention of the word " official " is necessary for the validity of what Parliament should do ?—I think it is necessary. I have shown in my evidence how good it would be for the shipowner, the master and engineer, the surveyor of ships, and other officers of the Government to have access to it. 42. The Chairman.] But all that is not dependent on the word "official" being in?—My opinion is that it would not have the same weight at all with the word " official" deleted. 43. But you have not shown, with all your evidence as to the value of the log, that it cannot be attained without the word " official" in it ? —I do not see that at all. 44. Mr. Laurenson.] I do not think it is necessary to go on examining you as to the retention of the word " official." All that is necessary is that the engineer shall keep an official engine-room log ?—That is all that is necessary. Section 153, subsection (2) : I would suggest that this should not apply to the engineer, but that his log of the engine-room should be kept on board. 45. Mr. Hutcheson.] You told the Committee that practically all the requirements of these sections are already kept faithfully and fairly in all properly appointed first-class steamers, but that on some of the smaller steamers it was a mere jotting-down of things in a note-book which was the personal property of the engineer. Supposing we do adopt this official log-book, do you think it will impose an amount of work on small steamers carrying, say, two engineers which would be very hard and a considerable burden on the engine-room staff ?—They have to keep indicator-cards now, and some of these duties, such as telegraph calls, &c, have to be done now. 46. Mr. Laurenson.] That is on a very large steamer, but what about the small steamers using our ports every day ?—The captain is so used to these ports that he can go alongside by simply slowing down. Besides, it is a good thing to keep the man's education up. There is not much in that paragraph (o), and paragraph (d) has been in force since 1895. 47. Mr. Hutcheson.] It is applicable to steamers carrying two engineers, and it will take up a good deal of the leisure time of the working-engineer, whose hands are not always milky-white and soft, to enter all these details as to the consumption of fuel, and other things—it will take a good deal of the time which the engineer requires for rest ?—He can make it up in the engine-room in his watch, and it will be part of his duty. He will be amongst the machinery at the time, and will not require to cultivate his memory, because it is the actual watch he puts down from actual facts. 48. You are the best judge of that. I was simply asking what would be the effect?—l do not think it would affect them very much, and they would like it after a time. 49. Mr. E. G. Allen.] In reference to the adjustment of compasses, your remarks have opened up a new light altogether. You think the fact of electricity being so much used on modern vessels makes it more necessary ? —The Board of Trade found that the compasses were affected by the electrical current, and they made these new regulations. 50. Then, you think the want of knowledge of electricity would tell against the ordinary shipmaster in adjusting his own ship's compasses ? —No. The current would only be on at night-time, and when he wanted to adjust his compass he would put his dynamo on to try its effect. He would adjust his compasses in the daytime. 51. What is your opinion about the accommodation for crews in vessels : is it sufficient ?—lt is defined by Act and the Board of Trade regulations, and it is carried out in New Zealand thoroughly, so far as I know. I may say that there are very few complaints made as to the accommodation to me, and those that have been made have related to such things as a water-closet being too near the men's quarters, or a paint-locker too near, when we have ordered its removal or that it shall be double-lined. I do not think the men have much reason to complain, and they are well paid, too, as compared with the men in the Old Country, and well fed. 52. It has been represented to us that the accommodation is inferior to what it was ten or fourteen years ago—that is, that they had then a larger space per man than they have at the present time: are you aware whether such is the case ?—I could not go into that from the facts that are

80

|K. DUNCAN.

I _g

before me now. I would have to look up my records ; but from my own knowledge I know they have accommodation sufficient. ■ , , • j.u 53 What occurred to me was that the provision for 72 cubic feet might have induced the owners to make that the maximum ?—That is the space by law. First-class passengers get no more. . , ~ , , 54. Going back to the engineer's log, is there anything the engineer can be called upon to supply affecting his opinion ?—No ; there is no opinion called for. 55. And supposing you had an honest engineer, would not both records agree?— Yes. 1 have had conversations with the engineers of some of the Home steamers, and they all say they wish they had it under the Board of Trade regulations. 56. You are acquainted with subsection (9), which says that any one who makes a fraudulent entry in or omission from the official log shall be guilty of a crime ?—Yes. 57. Do you not think that would deter any one who might wish to make a statement contrary to fact ?—I do not think any one would make a false statement in such a log. 58 Supposing you were in charge, is there anything in subsection (5) that would be likely to induce you to keep the log from the skipper ?—No ; there is nothing to keep it froni him. 59" You are of opinion that the captain could at all times have access to it ?—Certainly. 60! And you think that in no case should the functions of the engineer supersede those of the captain?— Certainly. . ~ . , 61 With regard to small boats that have only two engineers on board, how long would it take a man to keep the record going ? Would it take a quarter of an hour on a fairly busy day ?—lt mlg 62 Say there is an indicator card to look after ?—That is only once in three months. 63. There are the telegraph calls and other duties: would they not take more than a quarter of an hour ?—Yes ; but sometimes a quarter of an hour would do it. 64 Hon Mr Hall-Jones.] I do not think you understood Mr. Hutcheson s question. Supposing the word " official " was struck out, and.the clause read, " For a steamship having not less than two engineers the chief engineer shall keep a log," that would be a statutory log, and it would have all the strength in a Court of law that it would have if you called it " official lhe engineer would have to keep it or he would be under a penalty. Now, does the word " official affect the position in the slightest ?—I think it ought to go m. 65 With regard to the compass-adjustment, do you have anything to do with that.-'—INo, that is left to the licensed adjusters and the masters. Of course we, as surveyors of ships, have to satisfy ourselves as to the efficiency of the compass before we complete our survey. _ 66. When you survey a ship's compass what do you do ?—We look at the deviation-cards, and ask the master if he is satisfied with his compass. 67 You do not interfere with the compass at all?— No. 68 It has been suggested that a master mariner is the better man to look after such things as deck-fittings rather than an engineer surveyor: have you ever had any difficulties in doing .that part of your work ? —No. -~ - _-;- -69. How many years have you been doing the work ?—Thirteen years. 70 Have you had any complaints on the part of the master ?—No. 7l' Have you known any deck-fittings to go wrong on account of any laxity in the survey /— I have not heard of any. In the better class of large vessels the lifeboats are built of steel. In one case—that of the " Monowai "—I went over all the fastenings for boat aetachmg-gear and ordered new ones at first survey in New Zealand. I might add that we deal with the boats shackles and davits' shackles at top and below, and there is now hardly a wooden fitting in a ship-even the mantelpieces are of steel. As far as the fittings go, it is only a case of enumerating. The alteration would only lead to a dual responsibility, and that would not be advisable at times. \s the deck surveyors are maturing by age in Great Britain, the Board of Trade are employing only experienced marine engineers to fill up all gaps as surveyors ofships. ; 72 With regard to vessels with wooden hulls, what proportion do they bear to steel and iron vessels ?—I do not think we have more than 5 per cent, of wooden vessels m Wellington. Probably it would be 70 per cent, in Auckland. • 73. Supposing you appointed a man versed m wooden vessels as a Surveyor, would you want one erience an( j se rvice, are you aware of any accidents?— No. There is only one case since I have been in Wellington, and in that the master gave false evidence. 1 stuck his vessel up for two days in Wellington before I would let him go to sea, for equipments lhat is the only case I have heard of in connection with an alleged faulty survey. In his evidence in Court he said he had not a lead on board, but he had one at survey, and one was found on the wrecked vessel of which he was master. . ti 75 Mr Laurenson.] Section 122, "Space for the accommodation of seamen : lhe clause says that the space shall not be less than 72 cubic feet. That means practically that each seaman shall have a bunk 6 ft. long, 2 ft. wide, and 4 ft. high. You said that was the accommodation reauired for a saloon passenger?— Yes, that is the minimum. 76 Still that applies to the saloon passenger only so far as sleeping-accommodation is concerned while for the seaman it applies not only to the sleeping-accommodation, but to the space in which he has to take his food and live in ?-There is the clear deck-space also 77 That deck-space to be provided is not less than 12 superficial feet. That would be 4 ft. by 3ft by' 7 ft high, perhaps. Do you not think it would be advisable to make the minimum somewhat more'? From your inspection of the vessels on the coast, do you think they adhere to that minimum, or do the "seamen get more ?-They generally have more. If you turn up your Board of Trade book you will see that the Act requires a certain specified cubical space, bee section " Merchant Shipping Act, 1894," subsections (1) and (3).

1.—9.

G. G. SMITH.]

81

George Gordon Smith examined. (No. 21.) 78. The Chairman.] You are Superintendent of Mercantile Marine at Wellington?— Yes. 79. We shall be glad to hear any evidence you may have to give with regard to the Shipping and Seamen Bill, as briefly and concisely as you can give it?— Yes. I would like to draw your attention to section 21, paragraph (b). I think, considering the number of accidents we have had lately in small vessels of about 100 tons register, that this provision should extend to a second officer being employed on such vessels—a qualified second mate. There are a great many cases showing the necessity for this. Section 43, subsection (2), " Crews or single seamen shall be engaged before a Superintendent in the same manner as they are required to be engaged for foreign-going ships " : The crews of home-trade vessels have been engaged up to the present on board and discharged on board. If this provision comes into force it will entail a lot of expense upon the owners. As it is at present it is, in fact, for the benefit of the owners and the men. When the crews have on one or two occasions signed on to home-trade vessels at the Shipping Office the coming-up to the office was all right, but it was the getting back to the ship where trouble occurred, and on one or two occasions the owners have had to employ shore labour while the men were away. 80. Mr. E. G. Allen.] The men go to hotels sometimes?— Yes, that is where they get to. I think the system is much better as we are working it now, and, so far I know, there has not been any hitch. 81. The Chairman.] There is no hurt to the men under the present system ?—No ;it keeps them on board the vessel all the time. It is entirely different with foreign-going ships. The men in those vessels go away from the colony, while in the home-trade vessels the men are always under your eye, and you can always get them. 82. Mr. Laurenson.] You suggest that they should sign before the master of the ship?— Yes, as at present. . 83. You would not suggest that the Superintendent should go on board the ship?— Well, I would suggest that, rather than that the men should come down to the Shipping Office. Section 51, subsection (2), "Bating of seamen": I do not think the time is sufficient even at present in steamers for men to become qualified as A.B.s. I have noted it down that a person so serving in a steamship may be engaged in cleaning brasswork for the two years, and have no chance to learn to steer, use the lead, or furl a sail, or otherwise learn the business of a steamship sailor. His chance of being able to handle an oar or manage a boat is most remote. I think he could serve at least three years, and at the end of that period the chief mate of such steamer, if he finds that the man is capable to perform the duties of an A.8., should be allowed to recommend him to the Superintendent as being fit to take up that position. The Superintendent would then indorse his certificate of discharge to that effect. The chief officer, in my opinion, is the man who knows most about his men, and I think three years instead of two is little enough even for a steamboat A.B. 84. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] What is the usual practice with regard to brass-boys ? How long are they kept at that work ?—They may be at that for a long time. It all depends upon the boy himself. But if he is any length of time in a ship the chief officer can tell whether he is good enough to be promoted. Section 105, subsection (1), paragraph (a), "Leaving seamen abroad" : I think this clause would be improved if the words " other than any port or place in the Commonwealth of Australia " were inserted after the words " His Majesty's dominions." That is simply taking in intercolonial vessels. It is really indorsing the agreement on the other side. This indorsement is never made in Australia; in fact, there are never any indorsements made on their articles. Section 124, subsection (1), " Where any case of death or accident happens," &c. : What is an accident ? Very often a man comes in with a sore finger, and that is an accident. This should be defined more clearly, and I suggest the addition of the words " which shall totally incapacitate him from work." Section 131, " Desertion ": In none of the Acts—not even the Merchant Shipping Act—is it clearly defined what a deserter is, and several suggestions have been made that we should try and get some definition of " deserter " into the Act. I have got one definition here : " A ' deserter' should mean a person who is not on board his ship at the time of sailing, provided that such ship shall not have sailed before the advertised time ; provided also the absentee shall not have been prevented from joining through accident, illness, or other valid reason." The only definition that I can find in any of the works on Shipping Acts is White's, who says that a deserter is a man who leaves without the intention of returning—that is to say, if he takes his effects away with him. But in some cases a fireman's effects are what you might call a sweat-rag of no value, so that you could not go even by that. Section 153, subsection (2), with regard to log-books: It states here that " The master or owner of every home-trade ship shall, within twenty-one days of the thirtieth day of June and the thirty-first day of December in every year, transmit or deliver the official log-book for the previous half-year to some Superintendent in the colony." I think the present system could not be much improved on. I suggest that the official log-book shall be delivered to the Superintendent at the end of the agreement. If it is delivered up as it is provided for here you will not be able to keep your records together, and you can keep a better record by getting the agreement and the log-book at the same time. 85. Mr. Hutcheson.] You advocate the retention of the present system ?—Yes. Section 160, subsection (3), paragraph (k) : With reference to this clause, I suggest that the present system should be continued. When the articles are taken out—say, in February—they run for six months, then they are delivered up to the Superintendent. I think that plan works very well, instead of having them all coming in on or about the one date. 86. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] You prefer the present system ?—Yes. 87. Mr. Hutcheson.] Section 155 : You notice these details as to the setting-up of an official log to be kept by the engineer ?—Yes. 11—1. 9.

82

[g. g. smith.

1.—9.

88. As a shipmaster and Shipping Superintendent, would you give the Committee a general outline of what the master of a ship puts in the official log-book—the kind of incidents and entries he makes ?—Any accident, such as stranding and collisions; and offences, such as fines and forfeitures and desertions. That would be about all that goes in. 89. Any breaches of the law ?—Yes, probably for discipline ; and also accidents. 90. In the case of each entry what is it incumbent on the captain to do: what is the duty imposed upon him. as to having it signed and attested '?—lf he puts in an entry against a man for an offence he has to read that over to him within a certain time, and if the man gives any reply that has to be put down. 91. Is each entry signed separately ? —Yes ; and has to be signed by the chief officer or chief engineer. Then it is brought to the Superintendent, and he stamps it. 92. There is nothing as to the economics or management of the ship entered in the log ?—No. 93. It is merely a Marine Court register, so that the Marine authorities may review what happens on the high seas ? —Yes. 94. The mate's log is kept also?— Yes, by the chief officer. 95. That gives all the details of the working of the vessel—her course, distance, progress made, sails set, state of the weather, and all the other details ?—Yes ; her draught, and so forth. 96. You notice by section 155 that it is proposed to make it legal—in fact, compulsory—on vessels carrying not less than two engineers to keep another official log?— Yes. 97. And you see that it is also required that the engineers shall enter in that log all accidents to the machinery and boilers; all telegraph calls from the bridge, giving the time and the nature of such calls ; the number of revolutions, and. so on; and, further on, the state of the wind and weather and the immersion of the vessel. Now, so far as your knowledge of the engine-room goes at present, do you know whether an official engine-room log is kept in a well-appointed ship?—The log they have at present covers all this. 98. And the master has not the slightest objection to the engineer putting anything he likes in the log about the state of the wind and weather ?—He could not stop him doing it, anyhow. 99. It has been pointed out by several shipmasters that the word " official " in this section is likely to lead to a conflict if this official log is produced in evidence—contradictory probably to the ship's official log : do you think there is any likelihood, if the engineers kept what is called an "official" log, that any conflict of authority might take place?—lt is just possible. 100. What kind of a dilemma would a Marine Court of inquiry be in if their decision in a case hinged upon the sworn declaration of two coequal authorities, both of whom were antagonistic to the other?—lt would be rather a bad state of affairs. Ido not know who would come out on top. The captain and engineer—you will find this to be the case every day—may not be very good friends; but the feeling of antagonism is wearing off a great deal. 101. Would this section tend to facilitate it wearing off, or tend to exaggerate it ? Would the engineer be likely at any time to try conclusions as to who was going to be " boss " ?—The point is this : You ask, do I approve of this being called an " official " log ? I look at it in this way : Sp long as you do not interfere with the discipline of the ship—-so long as the house it not divided against itself —I do not see why it should not be called an " official " log. So long as they stuck to this it would be all right, but give them this and they weuld want something else. 102. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] It is not what they want, but what is wanted for the safety of the public ?—ln all the logs I have seen it is to all intents and purposes an official log. A log would not be made any better by calling it an official log. This is just giving them what they have got, less being called " official." It would be taken in evidence, I presume. 103. It is not compulsory for an engineer on a ship, so far as the law is concerned, to keep any log at present ? —No. 104. Supposing Parliament determined that they should keep a log in conformity with the provisions of this section, then they could not avoid doing it except at their peril ?—No. 105. Would that provide what is required? —Yes. 106. Do you know anything in this section of which there should not be a correct record ? Is there anything superfluous in it ?—Not that I see. 107. You say that practically the present log kept by the engineer is an official log? He can put in that what he chooses, and he can erase anything he likes; but he cannot do that with an official log. What is wanted is something whereby a man is under a penalty for putting in wrong entries, so that there shall be a correct record of what takes place. Do you not think that is all conducive to the safety of all on board?— Yes. 108. Suppose a provision is put in the Act to make it absolutely beyond doubt that nothing in this official log shall conflict with the master's duties, would you see any objection to it, whether it was called an official or any other statutory log ? You said that something might come later on when they might want something more; but all we want is an authentic record of what takes place in an important part of a ship called the engine-room. Suppose we make it clear that the captain's responsibilities and position are to be in no way encroached upon, would you be satisfied, as the commander of a ship, to this being called an " official log " or a " statutory log, "as the case might be ?—Yes, I see what you mean. I have no objection to an official log, so long as it does not encroach upon the master's authority. 109. With regard to the question of men signing on board ship, is that not liable to abuse? It has been represented to me that if men are signed on on board there may be uneducated men amongst them who would not understand the articles, and there is a loophole for advantage to be taken of them ? —On home-trade vessels the agreements are all the same, and the men know them really by heart. If I start sometimes to read the articles over to them they say, "We do not want to know any more about them, we know them by heart." 110. About marine inquiries to be held, do you think it would be advisable to make provision that the Superintendent should attend and put questions to witnesses ?—Yes, I think that would be a good idea.

G. G. SMITH.I

83

1.—9.

111. So that he might bring out evidence as an expert ?—Yes. 112. Mr. Laurenson.] In reference to the accommodation for seamen, would it be a big tax on the owners to provide for greater accommodation ? —lt would in some vessels. 113. Have you ever heard seamen complain about the lack of accommodation ?—Very seldom since I have been in the Shipping Office. The accommodation is getting better, but it is not very good in some vessels for either the officers or the seamen. 114. The Chairman.] Is there any distinction made in the rating between a seaman who has been two years only on a steamer and a man who has been an A.B. on a sailing-boat? —If a man has put in two years as a seaman and is discharged as a steamboat A.B. before me, I indorse the discharge " For steam only." The only cases that have cropped up on several occasions are where young men have come to me and shown a two-years discharge, and I have talked the matter over to them for their own benefit, and told them to try and get a proper seaman's discharge. There was only one instance, I think, in which I indorsed a discharge " For steam only." 115. Do you think there should be a definition set up for ordinary seamen ?—There are ordinary seamen and ordinary seamen. Take the sailing-ship ordinary seamen. They are generally pretty good, and I reckon their qualifications are better than those of an A.B. who has served two years on a steamer. 116. You would not recommend that any special grade of certificate should be provided to distinguish them from men or boys going on ships for just a few months ?—I should say a young fellow should serve twelve months, because some of them come out of the bush and sign on as ordinary seamen, and you cannot stop them. 117. What river limits have you here (Wellington) ?—Three miles outside the Heads. 118. Mr. Hutcheson.] In reference to the engaging of seamen, you recommend the present system of allowing whole crews to be engaged by the master on board and afterwards reported to the Superintendent. I suppose your opinion on that would.apply in regard to the discharge of seamen? —Yes. 119. You want the discharge to be left in the hands of the master. We have been told here, and assured again and again, that any number of men have acquired A.B. certificates by two years' service on steamers —that men who have matured as A.B.s on steamers have got the master to discharge them with a full discharge: do you think that discharging them on board has been the loophole for the leakage ?—I hardly think so. When men are discharged on board a vessel the articles come to the office to be ratified. The articles are gone through very carefully as to the rating. If he is discharged as an A.B. he is rated so, and if discharged as an ordinary seaman he is rated as an ordinary seaman, and I check that over. 120. The particular information enabling you to act in that way may be withheld. The master of a steamer engages a man, and he may discharge him as an A.B. without comment?— You mean that he may be a steamboat A.B. and be discharged as a full-blown A.B. ? 121. Yes? —So long as there is a column in the discharge "For steam only," it is not possible. 122. If a master brought up a full crew to be discharged before you and all the men's services were detailed to you, you would undoubtedly indorse across the certificate in red ink " For steamboat only." But you do not get this information when the men are engaged and discharged on board?—l have only come across one case of a steamboat A.B. 123. But there are any number going about, and we have been given the names of some of them. Might not irregularities be committed which you yourself, if present, could check?—-It is just possible. Ido not say that it has not been done. It could be stopped by a continuous discharge. At present there is no column for horse-power. If that column were in the discharge and was filled in you could see whether the discharge was for steam or sail.

Thursday, 21st August, 1902. James Mills, examined. (No. 22.) 1. The Chairman.] What is your name in full ?—James Mills. 2. You are managing director of the Union Steamship Company of New Zealand (Limited) ? —Yes. 3. And you wish to give evidence on the Shipping and Seamen Bill ? —Yes. I only propose to deal with a few clauses in which I have taken especial interest. Mr. Kirby has dealt with matters of detail very fully, and it is not necessary for me to take up the time of the Committee with them. I will first ask you to turn to section 21, which provides for the number of officers and engineers to be carried by steamships under this Act. As you know, the time is now very close when we shall have turbine engines in use, and it seems to me to be proper, now that the matter is being dealt with, to make some provision to meet the altered circumstances, as turbine engines will not require so many engineers as the ordinary engines. With turbine engines I estimate that at the most even very large-powered ships will not require more than three engineers—that is, one in each watch—because they will have only the boilers and the auxiliary machinery to attend to. I suggest the following subclause after (m) in section 21: " (n.) If the ship is a sea-going ship propelled by turbine engines, the Minister may from time to time make such modification in the manning scale set forth in the Schedule hereto as he shall think fit, provided that in no case shall such ship be required to carry more than three certificated engineers." It seems to me that, as this Act is now being dealt with, and will probably have to serve its purpose for some years without further amendment, this change

[j. MILLS.

1.—9.

84

• should now be provided for. It is not possible to suggest a hard-and-fast rule until experience has been gained, and I have therefore suggested that it should be left to the Minister from time to time to make such modification as shall seem fit. I might be allowed to explain that the turbine engines simply present the outward appearance of a huge drum on the end of each shaft. You see no movement at all, and there is no machinery in the ordinary sense of the word. All the engineer has to do is simply to stand and look on. The next clause I would wish to refer to is section 22, subsection (4). It is proposed that an applicant to secure a third-class certificate must have been for at least three years employed in fitting or erecting machinery. I should be sorry to offer any objection to the qualification for engineers being sufficient, as they are a most important body, and becoming more important every day, but it seems to me at first sight that this might affect the supply of junior engineers. Many young fellows may not have an opportunity of being employed for three years in the fitting or erecting of machinery, although they may be employed in the mechanical part of their profession in a general way sufficient to qualify them. It is a point upon which some expert evidence should be taken, but it seems to me that to require three years' service in fitting and erecting machinery is rather a severe exaction. 4. Mr. R. Thompson.] What would you suggest ?—The old clause did not contain that provision. I should think, if the words " during three years at least of such service " were deleted, it would be quite sufficient for the purpose as a guide to the examining officer, who is really the person to judge. 5. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] All we provide is that the man may have been employed in the manufacture or repairing of machinery. He may not have much to do with engines? —These young fellows really get this experience after they go to sea, when the machinery is overhauled and taken to pieces. 6. But they must have that preliminary knowledge first?— They must know how to use their tools, of course, but they really get their most valuable experience after they go to sea. Section 43, subsection (2), makes it imperative in the case of home-trade vessels to engage men before the Superintendent. This will cause unnecessary delay. You all know how ships are worked in the coastal trade. They arrive in the morning, and are rushed away in the afternoon. To have to go to the Shipping Office, perhaps a quarter of a mile away, to engage or discharge members of crews would be a serious loss of time, and possibly delay the ship. Besides this, men would not always come straight back. I do not know any good reason why this should be necessary for vessels in the home trade, although it may be for foreign-going ships. I suggest that the first four lines in subsection (2) be struck out up to and including the word " single," leaving it to read, " seamen may be engaged by the master on board," &c. That is the practice at present, and, as far as I know, it has worked admirably. I suggest also, as a further amendment, to insert after the word "engaged" the words "or discharged," and in the following line, after the word " engagement," insert "or discharge." Section 54, " Complement of crew ": In view of the probability that before long we shall have vessels propelled either by turbine engines or by oil fuel, or perhaps both, I suggest that some modification be made in regard to the manning scale of ships of that class. The following addition to the clause would meet the case : " Provided also that in the case of sea-going ships propelled by turbines or by means of oil fuel the Minister may from time to time make such modifications in the manning scale set forth in the Third Schedule hereto as regards firemen, greasers, and trimmers as he shall think fit." It is impossible at the present moment to say what readjustment of the manning scale will be required to meet the altered circumstances, and I can only propose that it shall be left to the Minister to make such modifications as he may deem necessary. With regard to turbine engines, the same number of firemen and trimmers will possibly be required, but greasers will not be necessary at all. There is nothing for them to do. The turbine is enclosed in a casing, and oiling is done automatically. With regard to vessels driven by means of oil fuel, there is no firing to do, and only one man is required on each watch to regulate the supply of oil and look after gauge-glasses. Under this clause there is another class of ships I would like to see provided for—that is, vessels being towed from port to port within the colony. Some time ago, when having to tow a vessel from Auckland, we were obliged to provide that ship with a full crew, while, as a matter of fact, all that was necessary was two men on each watch to steer and keep look-out. lam at present making inquiries to see whether it would be practicable to tow coal-laden barges on this coast, but, of course, it will be out of the question unless present regulations are somewhat relaxed. It is a very common thing at Home to see barges of 300 to 1,000 tons capacity, fully loaded with coal, being towed by steamer from Newcastle to London or to a continental port, and for this purpose they are not rigged in the ordinary way, and have only a small crew. In this colony such a vessel would be compelled to be fully rigged and manned as a sea-going ship. This also may be left to the Minister, as in the other cases. I suggest the following proviso: " Provided also that the Minister may exempt ships or barges from the operation of this clause while being removed from port to port in the colony in tow of a steamer, and may make such other regulations in respect thereof as he thinks fit." 7. Mr. R. Thompson.] It is merely to provide for possible changes ?—Yes. The advantage in carrying coal in these barges is that they only require three men and the master to sail them, and when they get to their destination they can wait, if necessary, until the ocean-going steamer is ready to receive the coal into bunkers direct, and so avoid a second handling. 8. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] And is it proposed to use these barges as hulks?— Yes, to that extent. 9. Mr. R. Thompson.] You would not discharge the coal ashore from the barge at all ?—Not unless the barge was wanted. I have a further addition to this clause to propose. There is a very general desire that something should be done in the way of establishing a training-ship, and it. has always seemed to me that if some special regulations could be devised with regard to

j 9

J. MILLS.]

85

manning, &c, our company, being a large and representative institution in the colony, might see its way to procure a suitable ship to trade between Wellington or Lyttelton and Newcastle, New South Wales, and make provision in her to train a number of boys for a sea life. The manning scale in the colony required for some years past by the Act, and previous to that by custom, has always been a bar to any movement in this direction. Under the present Act such a ship as I propose would be compelled to carry a large complement of A.B.s, so that there would be no room for the employment of boys. What I propose is that in a ship of this character, sailing under special regulations and to some extent under Government control, the boys or_ apprentices should in some degree replace the A.B.s. I have drawn up my proposal in the following clause, which I would like to see introduced into the Bill: " Provided also that in the case of any sailing-vessel trading in the home or intercolonial trades being utilised as a training-ship for boys, the Minister may exempt her from the operation of this provision by allowing two boys, having not less than twelve months' service, to be equivalent to one able seaman, but in no case shall such training-ship carry less than six able seamen. The Minister may also make such modifications in the other provisions of this Act affecting such ship as he may think fit." You will note that it is proposed that two apprentices having twelve months' service shall replace one A.B , and I take it that good strong lads, after a year's training, will be quite capable of handling ropes, sails, &c. There can be no question of risk, as I propose that in any case there shall not be less than six A.B.s on board. A ship of 800 to 1,000 tons register would be quite efficiently manned at this rate, and she would be able to provide for the training of twenty boys, I should think. 10. The Chairman.] Your idea is that it would be in the form of a training-ship ?—Yes ;it is an attempt to meet the desire expressed very often for something in the way of a training-ship, and without any cost to the colony. 11. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] Would you be able to get the boys ?—I would not like to express an opinion on that. Ido not think they are so plentiful as some people think; but, at all events, it will be an experiment which will set at rest the question as to whether there is a general desire on the part of the youth of the colony to qualify for a seafaring life. While on this subject I would like to make a statement here, for the information of the Committee, as to the nationality of the crews of this company's steamers employed on the coastal and intercolonial trades. It has been stated freely that there is a large number of foreigners employed in our local services, but this is not the case. The return which I will hand to the Committee shows that, out of 2,108 employees, only 145 are other than of British extraction, being a percentage of 7 per cent, of the total number of employees afloat. The majority, of course, appear among the seamen and firemen, the percentage of this class being about 13 per cent. These figures, I submit, do not justify the impression which I understand exists in some quarters, and I feel sure they will be of interest to the Committee. nationalities of men employed on union steamship company's steamers. Deck Department. A.B.s, AcBritish... ... ... ••■ ... ••• ••• 377 Foreigners ... ... •■• ■•• ••• ... 93 Masters, officers, pursers, and carpenters — British... ... ... ... ••• ••• ••• 285 Foreigners ... ... ... ••■ ••- ••• 4 759 Engine-room Department. Firemen, trimmers, &c. — British... ... ... ... ... ■•• ••• 448 Foreigners ... ... ... ••• ••• ••• 29 Engineers — British... ... ... ... ••• ••• ■•• 18 .7 Foreigners ... ... ... ••• ••• ••• Nil 8 664 Providore Department. Stewards, &c.— British. . ... . . ... ... ••• - 666 Foreigners ... ... ••• ••■ 1" 8 685 2,108 Summary. British. Foreign. Deck department ... ... ■■■ ••• ■•• 662 97 Engine department ... ... ... ••■ ••• 635 29 Providore department ... ... ... •• "66 19 1,963 145 It will thus be seen that only 7 per cent, of the employees afloat are foreigners, 93 per cent, being British. 12. Mr. Hutcheson.] You could reverse that percentage if you liked ?—lt is due to the company, and not to the men making application. Now, in subsection (3) of the same clause (section 64) it is provided that " if a ship proceeds to sea short by not more than two men of a full crew," and so on. That provision was made to prevent a ship being stopped at the last

I;— 9.

86

.T. MILLS.

moment through being short of her full crew in certain events, but it does not appear to meet the case of ships of different classes. I suggest that the words " two men "be struck out, and " onefifth " substituted. In a vessel with a small crew carrying, say, four seamen and two firemen it would be a serious matter to have two men short, whereas it would be a small matter to have two men short in a ship of the " Mokoia " class, which has a crew of thirty men in the deck and engine department. 13. There would be a minimum of one for every five of the crew ?—Yes. A small vessel could not go to sea with less than four men. I have also a suggestion to make with reference to the first proviso of this clause. It says, " Provided that for the purposes of this section two first-year apprentices or one second-year apprentice shall be deemed to be equivalent to one ordinary seaman, and may be carried in his stead." If the object is to encourage the training of lads it will not serve the purpose, because the ships are always so fully manned that there is no inducement to carry more. I would suggest that after the words " one ordinary seaman," in the third line, you should insert " and one ordinary seaman and an apprentice or boy shall be equivalent to one able seaman." This would permit of one able seaman being replaced by an ordinary seaman and boy. 14. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] An ordinary seaman and a boy ?—Yes. Section 55, subsection (3): This should be struck out, as the discharge of seamen in the home-trade service is provided for by the amendment suggested in section 43, subsection (2). Section 59 :It is provided here that a seaman on being discharged should be supplied with a notice of wages to be paid twenty-four hours beforehand. This is quite impracticable in the home-trade service, where men go and come by mutual consent at an hour or two's notice. I would suggest that in the first line of this clause the word "foreign-going" be inserted after the word " every," making it apply to foreign-going ships only. In this case I think subsection (2), (a), should be struck out as a consequential amendment. The next clause to which I wish to refer is 75. This is intended to afford some measure of protection to the colonial seaman, and also shipowner. I would suggest, in order to make it effective, that the following words be added at the end of the new subsection (2) : " And the Collector of Customs shall detain final clearance until satisfied that current rate of wages has been duly paid." Section 80, subsection (2), provides that a man shall not be entitled to wages by reason of illness, if it is proved to have been caused by any wilful act or default. I would suggest that you add the words "or has not been contracted on board his ship." This is in accordance with the intention of the Act, namely —that where the man has contracted an illness on shore before going on board it is looked upon as his own fault. Section 105 : I understand a suggestion has been made that the following words shall be inserted after the words " at sea," in line 45 : " other than at any port or place in the Commonwealth of Australia." In this I fully concur. Section 119, subsection (3) : The last four lines impose a fresh obligation upon the shipowner in the shape of one month's pay after the expiry of the seaman's engagement. I think that should be struck out. There is no good reason for imposing this further charge on shipowners. After the word "engagement," in the twenty-first line, all the words to the end should be struck out. Section 124 : The words "such as totally incapacitates a seaman from work," after the word " accident " in line 34, should be inserted to avoid the necessity for an inquiry being held in cases of trivial accidents. Section 133, subsection (2), "If a seaman or apprentice intends to absent himself," &c: I suggest that the words "of a foreign-going ship" be inserted after the word " apprentice." It would not work in the home trade at all. 15. The Chairman.] You understand that it only limits the power of arrest. The person is subject to all the other penalties, but cannot be arrested and put on board his ship ?—ln any ease it would affect discipline in home-trade ships. Section 153, " Log to be delivered to Superintendent " : I would suggest that all the words after " days," in line 37, be struck out down to the word " year " in the following line, and the following words be substituted: "when handing in agreement in terms of clause forty-five." You will find that under the latter clause the master is required to hand in the articles within twenty-one days after the termination of the agreement, and it would be convenient for both ship and Superintendent to have the official log handed in at the same period. 16. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] Suppose you got a fair start from the Ist January to the 30th June ? —You cannot start an agreement at a fixed date, as it must run from the day the vessel is put into commission. Section 155 is entirely new matter, about which there seems to be a great difference of opinion. 17. The Chairman.] What is your opinion about that ? We shall be glad to get a somewhat impartial opinion about it, as we have been buffeted about by the engineers and officers with regard to it ?—This imposes a great deal of extra work upon engineers, and I cannot understand why it is wanted, as engineers already keep a note of all they enter in the owner's log or their note-books, and these are always available. I would suggest that in subsection (5), paragraph (a), the words " as far as possible " be inserted after the words " all telegraph calls," and in subsection (6) the words " of each," in the second line, be struck out. 18. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] Does that make any difference ?—lt would make it read, " a duplicate set once in three months," and so gives the Surveyor four sets a year. 19. How often do they get them ?—Once a month or oftener. They take them at odd times for their own information. 20. Would it not save a good deal of work for the company ?—No. We have to get the records, and the engineers would still have to keep a log for the company and to supply reports and abstracts as at present, so that a lot of extra work will thus be put upon them. 21. Would it not be possible to have a copy of these?— That would mean more work for the engineers. It would be very hard upon those in the small boats with only two engineers. They would want a clerk.

T Q

87

J. mills/

22. The question is whether there is anything here that is superfluous ?—I fail to see why this is necessary. . 23. The Chairman.] Is there in section 155 any danger of the master of the vessel being superseded by the engineer ? Will its tendency be in that direction ?—At the moment Ido not see that it will have that effect, unless it may be that it would appear to make them independent of the master, and so make them a little less amenable to discipline. 24. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] Should it not make them more careful in carrying out their work? —I do not think so. They do all this now. 25. But there is no obligation upon them now to make the entries correctly. There is no penalty provided here if they do not do it, and also for making false entries ?—These are not needed. . 26. Mr. R. Thompson.] It has been stated that the log kept at present by the engineer is taken away with him and not transferred to his successor. If this were made official the log would have to be left on the vessel for the use of his successor ?—Have the engineers made that statement ? , Mr. R. Thompson : Yes; all of them said that if the engineer leaves he takes the log with him. . . , 27. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] It is said that every engine has its peculiarities which, after experience, the engineer knows, but if he leaves the ship the incoming engineer would not know about them ?—That may be so in exceptional cases, but it is not universal lam satisfied that engineers have access to the records, as I have heard engineers refer to the log of their predecessors. . • _," 28. It would be an advantage to a new man on the ship to have this information ?—But you provide that this shall be handed in every six months. 29. Ido not think it should be?—lt would have to be provided. « 30. The Chairman.] With reference to the signing of this log, it has to_ be signed by the chief engineer and either the second or third engineer : do you not think it would be better to have it signed by the chief engineer and the engineer who is on the watch at the time of any occurrence which has to be recorded ?—Yes. In the event of anything out of the ordinary routine happening, I think that would be necessary. 31. And it should be at all times open to the inspection of the master?— Yes, certainly. An official log cannot be a secret log. It might be as well to provide for that, to avoid friction. 32. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] And also that the captain's power shall not be superseded ?— Quite so. Clause 160, it seems to me, imposes a good deal of work and trouble upon masters, and, so far as it affects the home trade, I suggest that it be struck out. 33. It has been suggested that we use the Home articles? -It seems unfair to impose all this work on the master of a ship. 34. Mr. Hutcheson.] It is provided in the Imperial Act ?—Yes, but there you are dealing with ships coming into port after a long absence. I do not think it should apply to home-trade ships. Section 157,' " Begulation of passengers " : I would like to suggest a further subclause to the following effect: "Is on board or demands to go on board any ship without a ticket or pass, or without any intention to travel by such ship, after being requested to leave." This is to help to control the people who crowd on to ships at the wharves on the arrival or sailing of a ship. It makes it an offence. 35. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] It is a very stiff provision ?—lt is necessary to have some control, partly for the convenience of bond fide passengers, and also as a protection against pilferers. We had only a few days ago the case of a passenger who took a handbag on board and put it into his cabin. Some one" went on board and took it away, and a claim is threatening for its value of £2,000. It should be understood that people have no right on board a ship without a ticket. Section 177 : I suggest the following subclause to this : " If a ship employed in the home or intercolonial trades is in the colony in the course of her voyage at the time of expiry of her certificate, a Surveyor may grant a temporary extension of such certificate for a period not exceeding three months on satisfying himself as to her seaworthiness." This is to meet the case of vessels passing through. It sometimes happens that they have very important engagements, and this would permit of their completing their round voyage without interruption. These ships are under the eye of the Inspectors all the time, and it would be fair to allow a vessel an extra month or so just to enable her to complete an important round voyage. Section 218, "No person shall ship wool while damp " : I suggest that you also put the word " flax "in. 36. " Flax and tow " ?—Yes, and tow. 36a. The Chairman.] Is it practicable at all—this clause 218?— I suppose it is. Section 284, in reference to light dues : This now reads (see line 31), " and in like manner may increase, reduce, or abolish such dues." The old Act says, " vary, alter, or abolish." Ido not know whether there is any hidden meaning in it. . , 37. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] "Vary" might mean " increase ?—Section 297, " Limitation of liability " : It provides that an owner cannot insert a clause in any shipping order relieving him from liability for loss or damage to cargo. I think the law at present existing imposes an unfair liability on owners. There was a case recently of a man travelling in one of our steamers who paid about £1 for his fare, and whose box was unfortunately dropped overboard while being shipped. It contained watches, and we had to pay £600 for it. Under the law as it at present stands a man might claim for damage up to £6,000 or £60,000, and the company is liable, although he might be only paying 10s. for his fare. I suggest a new subclause to this section : " (3.) Nothing contained in this Act or any other Act shall prevent the owner of any ship requiring from the shipper of cargo, or from any passenger in respect of his luggage, a declaration of the value of such cargo or luggage

88

[j. MILLS.

T Q

for the purpose of the contract, and demanding a special charge on any article or articles the value of which is declared over twenty pounds; and on any claim by such shipper or passenger for loss of or damage to any article he shall be entitled to recover in case of loss only the declared value, and in case of damage only such proportion of the declared value as the declared value bears to the true value; and if no value is declared and no special charge made the liability of the shipowner shall not exceed twenty pounds per article." That does not relieve the shipowner from liability, but imposes upon the passenger or shipper the obligation of declaring value and paying accordingly, which, I think you will agree with me, is quite proper. 38. Mr. Hutcheson.] There is a provision for that in the consignment note?— That applies to cargo only; but in any case the clause as it stands prevents us from making any such stipulation. As a matter of fact, as the law stands at present, the shipowner is liable, if the ship is lost or any accident happens through the fault of the captain or officers, up to the extreme limit for any and every package aboard. 39. Mr. T. Mackenzie.] It is an insurance clause ?— Yes. 40. Mr. E. G. Allen.] It would give you the opportunity of getting a special fare for a special risk?— Yes. That is all I have to say with regard to the main body of the Bill. In reference to the Third Schedule, I understand Mr. Kirby has submitted a schedule applying to the deck crews of steamers, suggesting a reduced scale for cargo-ships. This will, I hope, commend itself to the Committee. I have a suggestion to make with regard to firemen, trimmers, and greasers—namely, that in vessels over 750-horse power and not exceeding 1,250-horse power, three firemen, two trimmers, and three greasers should be carried. It provides for the same number of men as at present, but better divided, and is suggested by experience. 41. The Chairman.] You suggest one fireman less, and one more greaser?— Yes. We understand that brings it into line with the practice. With regard to the proviso at foot of schedule, I suggest that the method of calculating the horse-power should be more in line with the same provision in the schedule for engineers, and should read, " indicated horse-power to be the average power indicated during the previous six months, as shown by the chief engineer's log-book," I also suggest a further footnote here as follows : " Steamers over 3,000 indicated horse-power employed exclusively in the home trade of New Zealand may carry three trimmers only." The reason is that in the home trade, when making short voyages, there is very little trimming, as the vessels take in coal at short intervals. Under this scale, in the case of vessels of 3,000 tons and over you would have six trimmers who would be of no use. The next matter I wish to refer to is the Sixth Schedule. This provides for a very considerable increase in the present charge for shipping and discharging men. 42. The Chairman.] What present charges ?—The fee for engaging and discharging seamen is Is. 6d. each, and it is here proposed to make it 2s. The schedule for whole crews is also rather more. For instance, I have before me the fees paid for the s.s. " Poherua." The fees for engaging the whole crew came to £1 lis. 6d. 43. What size is she ?—749 tons. Under the new scale it would be £2 55., or at 2s. per head it would be £2 2s. 44. That is, it would be cheaper to engage them individually than by the whole crew ?—Yes. The practice under the present Act is that if the total fees at per head come to less than the schedule we get the benefit of it. 45. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] We do not desire to increase the fees. This is the provision under the old law. The Minister can charge up to that amount?— Will you put in the words " not exceeding " ? 46. That is provided in clause 158 of the Bill, " Such fees shall not exceed the sums," &c. ?— The next schedule (Seventh) deals with the survey fees. These I should like to see reduced, if possible. They are very much higher than those in Australian ports. In any case I would like to see a lower schedule for cargo-ships. It seems to me rather absurd to charge the same fees for cargo-ships as for passenger-vessels with all the accommodation, machinery, gear, and other things, all more troublesome and difficult of access. I submit a schedule of fees for the survey of passenger and cargo ships which I would like to see adopted by the Government. The fees for passengerships are somewhat similar to those paid in New South Wales, while those for cargo-ships are slightly less:— proposed schedule in lieu op seventh schedule consolidating shipping and seamen's act. Fees for Survey of Passenger-steamships. In Respect of a In Rtspect of a Certificate issued for Certificate issued over Six Months and for Six Months. not exceeding Twelve Months. £ s. d. £ s. d. For ships under 100 tons net register ... ... 200 400 over 100 and under 200 tons ... 3 0 0 6 0 0 „ 200 „ 400 „ ... 40 0 8 0 0 „ 400 „ 600 „ ..500 10 0 0 Every additional 400 tons an addition of ... 100 200 Maximum fee in any case ... ... ••• 700 14 00

J. MILLS.]

89

T Q Jl* U

Fees for Survey of Cargo-steamships. In Respect of a In Respeot of a Certificate issued for Certificate issued over Six Months and for Six Months. not exceeding Twelve Months. £ s. d. £ s. d. For ships under 100 tons net register ... ... 110 0 300 over 100 and under 200 tons ... 2 0 0 4 0 0 „ 200 „ 400 „ ... 3 0 0 6 0 0 „ 400 „ 600 „ ... 4 0 0 8 0 0 Every additional 400 tons an addition of ... 0 10 0 10 0 Maximum fee in any case ... ... ... 500 10 00 The only other matter I have to refer to is the question of light dues. This seems to indicate an increased scale of charges. I may say that the light dues paid in New Zealand by the Union Company for the year amounts to £9,013, so that it is a very considerable item, and any increase or reduction would be quickly felt. This Bill provides for a much higher scale than exists at present under the 1887 Proclamation. This schedule provides for 4d. on home-trade ships, whereas they now only pay Jd. 47. That is the maximum ; but there is a great difference between Jd. and 4d. ?—We are now paying under the Proclamation of March, 1887. There are no light dues paid by the intercolonial steamers in Melbourne, Sydney, or Newcastle. 48. Mr. Hutcheson.] With regard to the section dealing with the shipping or discharge of seamen on board the ship, a suggestion was made to the Committee that the Marine Superintendent might go on board where a whole crew was being shipped and perform his duties there : would your company have any objection to that as an alternative ?—No ; but it would take him away from his office. 49. It was suggested to the Committee that an improper use was being made of the two-years steamboat A.B. discharges, possibly due to the absence of the Superintendent at the time of the discharging of these men on the ship ; that the certificates were not indorsed, as they ought to be, " For steamboat only." There was an alternative suggestion made that the Superintendent should go on board the ship when whole crews were to be discharged: would you have any objection to that ? —No. 50. At present the steamboat certificates are not indorsed, and can be used for sailing-ships ?— I doubt if that is done. 51. In submitting your proposal for something in the way of a training-ship as an adjunct to your company, you proposed that a minimum of six A.B.s should be carried, with practically an unlimited number of cadets or apprentices : would you also be in favour of having a sufficient number of trained seamen to do the more essential duties—such as reefing and handling the sails and yards in tempestuous weather—always on board the ship, according to the tonnage ? —Yes; I take it that lads after a year's training would be fit for that work. The clause I have suggested provides that an A.B. shall be replaced by two boys having one year's service. 52. In another connection you made a suggestion that one ordinary seaman and an apprentice should be substituted for one A.8., but only to that extent?— Yes. It seems to me practicable. 53. Section 155 imposes the duty of keeping an official log on the engineers: does your company examine the master's official log at present from time to time ? —The logs are handed to the superintendent engineer. 54. I am referring to the master—the ship's official log, as it is technically called at present: do you examine the masters' logs ?—The superintendent does. 55. What is the nature of the entries generally made in those official logs ?—I do not know that I can tell you that. 56. Are you aware that none of the routine duties of the ship are recorded—the legal matters generally ?—Yes. 57. You have the officer's log so far as the navigation is concerned ?—Yes. 58. You notice that section 155 proposes to make a combination of these logs—that is to say, the routine duties, and what may be termed the legal requirements as well—and we notice that each engineer who has given information before this Committee seems to have the idea that the official log is to be kept on board the steamer, and that there is no intention of handing it over to the authorities on shore. So that the shipowners would not have the record available to them unless they required their engineers to make a duplicate of their present work ? —I take it that the proposed log would not be of use to both the ship and the Department. If it is to be for the use of the Department it could not be always on board. 59. Do you know that the present official log is more a kind of register than a working diary?— That is so. 60. And the use of the term " official " will in all probability lead to conflict in the technical meaning of the term ? —There will be two official logs. 61. It is an official register of all the happenings that may afterwards come under the purview of the officials on shore ?—Yes. 62. What I want to ask now is this : If the engineer staff, from the charm of this particular word, conceive the idea that they are invested with an authority coequal with that of the master, may not that cause conflict in the control ?—lt might magnify their office. 63. Do you think that this clause with the elision of the word " official " would, as far as the law is concerned, impose all the responsibility on the engineer, in so far as it would impose a statutory duty upon him, as if the word " official " were left in?— Yes. 12—1, 9,

90

[j. MILLS

1.—9.

64. The engineer witnesses almost universally had the conception that that log was to be kept on board the ship as a permanent record for the use of subsequent engineers, showing what had been happening in the engine-room. Therefore, so far as the company is concerned, it would be almost valueless, because you would not have it on your files ?—That is so. 65. I think you told the Committee that it would impose a duplicate set of duties on men who, on small steamers, have not too much time for clerical work?— Yes. 66. Do you find your steamers affected by the undue competition of foreign vessels either in the intercolonial or home trade ?—Becently there has been competition in the carrying of coal from Australia, but apart from that there has not been any of importance. 67. In the event of an accession to that competition, would it affect your company prejudicially on account of its having to work under our high standard ?—Certainly it would. The annual pay of our steamers is almost double what it is in similar ships manned by British crews. 68. You are aware of the attempts which have been made hitherto to bring all outside competitors under the same conditions. Are you aware of any means whereby the wages question can be successfully evaded in the case of a vessel coming from the Home-country and doing service on the coast of New Zealand ?—lt is assumed that there would be some protection afforded in the clauses of the present Bill. 69. Do you think we have put anything in this Bill, or any past Act, that could successfully compel the master of a foreign-owned steamer to do so, if he was not under obligation by his own Government to pay the crew until his return to his own port ?—Not so far; but the clause I have proposed, giving to the Collector of Customs power to stop a vessel's clearance until local wages have been paid, will have some effect: 70. I think that is the most practical suggestion we have got yet, because our law has been a dead-letter up to now. Have you any other suggestion to make, whereby the Legislature could protect the colonial-owned vessels as some compensation for the high standard that our law requires them to come up to ? —I see nothing else than to enact the same laws as are in operation in America, but I understand that would require Imperial sanction—that is, that foreign-owned vessels shall not trade between British ports. If the interference with locally manned ships becomes much more severe than it is now it must inevitably lead to a breakdown of wages, because local vessels could not compete with vessels with smaller crews and at lower rate of wages. 71. There was a Scandinavian steamer at Timaru lately carrying a crew of eleven which, if colonially owned or registered, would require to carry at least half as many more ? —lt is the same with the ships which are now going down to Westport to load coal for Hongkong. They bring coal from Newcastle to Lyttelton and other ports, and have crews of about two-thirds the number carried by the locally owned ships in New Zealand, and at little more than half the rate of wages. 72. Mr. E. G Allen.] I would like to ask if you noticed a question I put in the House with regard to reciprocal shipping laws between New Zealand and Australia ?—Yes. 73. Do you approve of that ? —I certainly do. 74. You find that you have very little protection against outside competition ?—Practically none. 75. Such a suggestion as I have made would, if carried into effect, I suppose, do away with the competition you are getting with the Oceanic Company between Sydney and Auckland. I suppose that company carries a large number of passengers in competition with your vessels ? — Yes. 76. Do you know if that company's vessels carry much cargo ?—No, they do not. 77. They have not time to take it on board, I suppose?— No. 78. Could you give the Committee any suggestions that would help it or the Government, in the event of their taking the matter up, to formulate a scheme whereby we could protect our shipping as against foreign shipping ?—lt would be impossible for it to be done by legislation at one end only ; it would have to be consented to by the Commonwealth Government. 79. Could you make any suggestion to the Committee that would assist it in bringing that object about ? —lt can only be done by this colony and Australia agreeing together to pass legislation providing that ships under a foreign flag, or carrying crews under lower scale of wages than those prevailing in the colonies, shall not trade between ports in this colony or the Commonwealth. 80. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] Similar to the American navigation laws?— Yes; public opinion seems to trend that way. I notice that in reply to a deputation the Acting-Premier of the Commonwealth said that he intended to bring forward some such legislation at the next meeting of the Federal Parliament. 81. In reference to foreign trade, you think the proposed amendment you suggest will assist the matter, and insure foreign vessels trading in the colony under the same conditions as your ships ?—Yes ; at all events, it will help in that direction. 82. Do you think that making these large vessels pay the rate of wages ruling in the colony for the time being is going to have much effect ?—Well, it will be a restriction which will have a moral effect as much as anything. 83. Their stay here would be brief, and the increased cost would not be large, because as soon as they left New Zealand they would go back to the old rate of pay ?—Yes, except on sailing-vessels, which lie in the ports for some time. 84. The vessel that Mr. Hutcheson referred to was a steamer ?—Yes. 85. She did not trade on the coast ? —I cannot say. 86. About the manning of the boats: can you give an opinion as to whether two years' service on a steamboat is sufficient to qualify a man for a certificate as A.B. on board a steamboat ?—lt is ample. There is little to learn. You will notice that on some modern steamers there are no masts at all. There was a ship in port the other day which had nothing but derricks. In such cases there is no seamanship required, as men have only to tidy the decks and take a turn at the wheel.

I— 9.

91

J. MILLS.]

87. It has been suggested that brass-boys after two years might be unfitted for the general class of work required and yet obtain a certificate : how long do you keep these boys at cleaning brasswork ?—I think, only about a year. 88. And while doing that work do they take their ordinary turn on deck ?—They do not do much else. 89. Do you carry many ordinary seamen ?—No ; I think, only one ordinary seaman in about six or eight of our larger ships. Our ships are so fully manned under the schedule that there is no room for carrying more. 90. It has been suggested that these ordinary seamen taken on have had no experience at sea: from what class do you recruit them ?—From those who have served as boys. Four years' service before the mast is out of the question nowadays. To carry that out would be to stop the supply altogether, because sailing-ships are so few in number. 91. Do you think that experience in a sailing-ship is necessary ?—No. 92. About the barges and hulks that you were speaking of some little time ago: how many men do you suggest you would carry in an 800-ton barge ? —Four at the outside, including man in charge —that is, two to each watch. 93. Supposing she broke away ?—She would have to be picked up again. 94. Could you always do that in bad weather ?—She might have to wait a few hours. They do break away occasionally on the English coast, but there seems to be no serious risk, because they are provisioned and have moderate sail-power, and they are picked up again. 95. You intended the training-ship to carry coal and similar cargo ? —Yes. 96. Mr. Laurenson.] Section 122, " Minimum space 72 cubic feet for each seaman ": Do you hold to the minimum space ?—No. On the new steamers they get the maximum space. This margin was to allow for existing ships that could not be altered. 97. Mr. R. Thompson.] What is the maximum space ? —l2O ft. 98. It has been said that one steamer has very fine accommodation, while another has not; for instance, there is the " Botomahana " and the " Mokoia." The " Mokoia " has not the same accommodation as the "Te Anau " ?—I do not know, but should doubt it very much. 99. We can take it that in the matter of accommodation the maximum is going to be the minimum ?—Yes. 100. The Chairman.] With reference to the competition in bringing coal from Australia, does the fact of that competition make it difficult to get cargo to bring here ?—lt has brought coal rates down by 2s. per ton, and they will not now pay local ships. 101. There would be plenty of freight offering at the lower rates ?—The lowering of the rates has a tendency to stimulate demand. 102. So that the effect of shutting out foreign competition would be to increase the cost of coal in this country? —Probably, because the vessels, being manned by local crews, could not carry at the same rate. 103. With reference to your remarks about the suggested proviso to clause 21 —that there should be not more than three engineers, and the Minister may prescribe for new conditions of turbine engines, and so forth—would it be wise to tie the number down to not more than three engineers ?—I put that in because, as a matter of fact, there is not work for even three engineers; but I recognise that it would be well to have one man on each watch. 104. Mr. R. Thompson.] If our own coal-measures were properly developed, do you not think that the coal-mines in New Zealand would almost fully supply the whole of this want, and that there is no great necessity for importing any large quantities of coal ?—That will come in time. So far it has been impossible for local producers of coal to cope with the demand. 105. Do the steamers of your fleet ever use Hikurangi or Ngunguru coal, or coal from other Auckland mines ?—We have used it. 106. Have you found it to answer?—lt makes good steam, but we require more of it. It is a lighter coal. The following letters were ordered to be printed with the evidence by the Committee : — Union Steamship Company of New Zealand (Limited), Sir,— Dunedin, 27th August, 1902. There is one point in the Shipping and Seamen Bill concerning which I omitted to offer evidence —that is, in reference to clause 53, providing for the qualification of a greaser to be three months' experience as a fireman. This seems to me to be quite absurd, as it would entail such a man having six months service before he could act as a greaser. lam of opinion that all that is necessary is that a man should have got his " sea-legs " and have a little general knowlege of the routine of engine-work, and he gets all this while engaged as a trimmer, so that the same qualification should suffice. What I suggest is that on page 25 all the words commencing at "unless" from the beginning of the third line down to and including "as" in the fourth line should be struck out, and that the word "or " should be substituted, reading as follows : to the rating of greaser or fireman unless he has served at least three months as trimmer." I would refer further to clause 155, which provides that the engineers should keep an official log. I was not quite prepared to give evidence on this point, as I understood that it had been dealt with fully by many other witnesses well qualified to speak, including engineers themselves. A point made in favour of an official log for engineers was that it would be kept on board a vessel as a record to be referred to by each successive engineer, and it was stated that at present engineers take with them their present logs, so that there are no records left on board. This astonished me very much, and I have since made inquiries and find it to be an absolute misstatement. lam told that the custom is for the records to be left on board ship from year to year, and that occasionally when the accumulation becomes cumbersome they arc sent up to the company's

1.—9.

92

[j. Mills.

store. The logs are therefore always accessible to successive engineers, and, in addition to this, copies of the regular voyage returns are filed on board for years and available for reference. In fact, it is absolutely necessary that they should be, so that an engineer should know, among other things, what repairs have been done from time to time. To verify this I instructed Mr. Kirby to go on board the " Tarawera," now lying at Port Chalmers, and find out what had been the custom there. He found in all thirty-nine log-books on board, one of them being dated as far back as March, 1887, and mentions that the average life of a log-book is three months, so that there are ten years' records on board the ship at the present time. He further states that the copies of the abstracts and returns sent in to the superintendent engineer at the end of each voyage are regularly docketed, and that he found them on board the " Tarawera " as far back as September, 1888. The chief engineer informed Mr. Kirby that he knew no case of an engineer taking a log-book with him when transferred to another ship. I have had an opportunity to make inquiries in other directions, and the evidence is substantially the same, and I think you will find this to be universal. The statement, therefore, that log-books are removed from the ships by engineers and treated as their own personal property is absolutely incorrect. I find there is a very strong feeling among engineers in opposition to clause 155. They state that it demands from them a large amount of detailed information, which will give them a great deal of trouble, and cannot be of any possible use to the Department; that everything necessary is at present achieved by the captain's official log, in which any matter requiring official notice in connection with the engine department is reported and signed by the engineer, as well as the captain, after consultation with the captain. If a separate official log is kept by the engineers it might lead to trouble and inconvenience owing to the engineers' and captains' returns not being stated in similar terms, and so give rise to misunderstanding when presented as evidence. Yours, &c, James Mills. G. Fowlds, Esq., Chairman, Committee on the Shipping and Seamen Bill, Wellington. Enclosed is letter received from Mr. Kennedy since writing foregoing. You will see that the statement that engineers take their log-books with them lacks confirmation. Union Steamship Company of New Zealand (Limited), Sir,— Wellington, 26th August, 1902. I have your letter of the 22nd instant from Christchurch. Shipping and Seamen Committee : I note what you say regarding the proposed engineers' log, and, as requested, have got Ferguson to make inquiries as to what is done with the log-books when engineers are transferred from one vessel to another. In a note to me he states that he has made inquiries on board "Botomahana," " Moura," "Hawea," "Janet Nicoll," and " Haupiri," and the chief engineers of each of these vessels state that log-books are left in the ship, and not taken away by the engineers when they are transferred, and in no instance do any of them know of an engineer having taken the log-book with him. Some of the engineers send the books to the head office, and others keep them on board the ship. The abstract sheets of the voyages are kept in bundles on board each ship from the commencement of each ship's career. Mr. Ferguson adds that he has no personal knowledge of any single instance of an engineer taking his log-book with him when he leaves his boat. I propose to see the Chairman of the Committee this afternoon and arrange for Mr. Ferguson to give evidence on this particular point. Yours, &c, James Mills, Esq., Dunedin. W. A. Kennedy. Francis Fletcher examined. (No. 23.) 107. The Chairman.] You are captain of an Auckland scow ?—Yes ; the " Ngaru," of Auckland. 108. And you wish to give evidence on the Shipping and Seamen Bill?— Yes, just one or two clauses. Beferring to the clause providing that an ordinary seaman shall serve four years before he can get an A.B.s certificate, I consider that imposes a hardship on the young colonials of NewZealand. The young fellows will not go to sea if they have to serve four years, and we find a difficulty already in supplying our small vessels with hands. The men out of deep-water ships are of no use to our trade, and we rely on our own young fellows. I have four on my vessels, and not one of them is twenty years of age, and I should have a difficulty in getting a crew to fill their place. If a young fellow cannot qualify in two years on the coast of New Zealand he ought to stop ashore. A few years ago all the young fellows looked forward to going to sea, but when they have to serve four years as ordinary seamen they will not go. We think that two years is ample. I went to the Marine Superintendent a few days ago to discharge a young fellow, and he would not give him an A.B. discharge unless he produced documentary evidence that he had been four years at sea. He is a son of an old captain in this colony (Captain Bonner). He threw it up, and will not go to sea any more. Section 55, subsection (4), places the master of a vessel in a bad position when he has to give reasons when a seaman is discharged. 109. As the Bill stands at present he does not need to state his reasons ? —Yes, and that should remain. With regard to the river limits in Auckland, the general opinion is that the river limits should remain as they are from Whangarei to Cape Colville, so far as the owners of the small vessels are concerned. It seems to be a great hardship that a lot of men should be deprived of their vessels. They deem it to be smooth water all round there. 110. Mr. Laurenson.] Do I understand you to say that at present you can hardly get enough men to man the coasting-vessels ?—lt is the particular class of men we require. We require smart young fellows who can jack timber and swim if they fall off a log. The deep-water men cannot do that class of work. 111. And if this clause stands it will make it difficult for you to get young men ?—Yes; they will not go to sea if the clause is carried.

P. FLETCHER.]

93

L—9.

112. You think it should be two years' service ? —Yes. 113. The Chairman.] You mean for coastal service within the river limits?—No; for the whole coast of New Zealand. 114. "In addition to three years' service in a cutter." That means four years. It is not intended that the four years shall be spent in deep water? —We have .no articles, and there is no documentary evidence that these young fellows have been on these small vessels; and the Superintendent will not allow them to qualify as A.B.s until they have evidence that they have the service. 115. Down south there is a good deal of complaint among the masters of trading-schooners about the clause that allows a sailor to leave on giving twenty-four hours' notice. They say that under this clause the sailor gives notice on the Friday that he is going to leave on the Saturday; and the result is that they may not be able to ship a man at once, and have to remain until the Monday or Tuesday, and perhaps lose the tide. Have you heard any complaints about that?— No ; I have found no inconvenience up north in respect to that. It seems to work very well. 116. Mr. R. Thompson.] You said that in your opinion two years' service on board a small coastal vessel should qualify a man for an A.B. ?—Yes ; that is, with the recommendation of the master of the vessel. 117. Do you approve of the Bill, as printed, in reference to the retention of the river limits? —Yes. 118. In your opinion, if the river limits or extended river limits were abolished it would be a great hardship to all those young fellows who are now employed on those vessels ?—Yes, it would be a great hardship. It is a training-ground. 119. You consider it is a good training-ground for those young men ? —-Yes. 120. If the river limits were abolished, would it have the effect of disabling those young fellows from employment ?—Yes; a number of them would have to be discharged. 121. In that case could their places be filled by A.B.s who would be as well qualified to do the work as the men now doing it ?—-No, not in the work of running the scows. They are not qualified to jack timber, and so on. 122. Then, you find by experience that the young men born and bred in the district, and who are accustomed to that class of work, are better qualified for it than ordinary A.B.s would be?— Yes, there is no doubt about it. 123. Mr. E. G. Allen.] Where do you get your hands from generally when you recruit them ? —Out of the small vessels, or from the settlers' sons if we can possibly get them. There are many bays and creeks where the settlers have to depend upon the use of small boats, and the young settlers become smart expert men, able to pull boats and go to sea. 124. Would it be possible to take men without any experience on the water—say, labouringmen ?—They would need some breaking-in. In the small vessels we only have four or five men, and we try to get as expert men as we can; but it all depends upon the man individually, and whether he takes to the work. 125. You are prevented from taking such men now ? —Yes ; we have to carry a certain number of qualified men according to the size of the vessel. 126. That applies to the extended river limits ?—Yes. Edward Stephenson examined. (No. 24.) 127. The Chairman.] You are captain of the s.s. " Wellington " ?—Yes. 128. Belonging to the Northern Steamship Company, and trading to Whangarei ? —Yes. I have been the master of vessels running out of the Port of Auckland for the last twenty-eight years, and within extended river limits for the past twenty years. lam intimately acquainted with all the small steamers running out of Auckland, and with the ports they run to. There are about fifteen steamers engaged in running within extended river limits, and their registered tonnage ranges from 30 to 262 tons. My steamer, the " Wellington," is the largest of these steamers. Their runs occupy from three hours up to seven or eight hours. They trade to Wade, Waiwera, Warkworth, Matakana, Omaha, Mangawai, Waipu, Whangarei, Thames, Paeroa, Coromandel, and Wairoa South, and there are as well a number of steamers in the Kaipara Harbour. I say that it would be absurd to insist on these small steamers being manned as provided in the Third Schedule to this Bill, and in the same way as if they were sea-going steamers. Most of these steamers neither require the number of men provided for in the Third Schedule, nor have they accommodation for them or the work for such a number of men to do. Take, for instance, the small steamer " Orewa," running to the Wade, a distance of twenty miles, being a run, with stoppages, of three hours. She is 37 tons, and now carries a captain, mate, engineer, and an ordinary seaman, who are ample to do all her work. Under the schedule she would have to carry two A.B.s and one fireman more than the crew she has carried since she was built, four years ago, Such a complement would be absurdly ridiculous for her size, trade, and run, and would be simply ruinous to her owners. Take the " Bose Casey," which steamer is engaged on a five-hours run to Waiwera and Warkworth, and is just over 100 tons. For the past twenty years she has carried a captain, mate, engineer, fireman, one A.8., and one ordinary seaman. Under the schedule she would have to carry three more A.B.s and one more fireman, although the crew she now carries has been sufficient to do all her work for the past twenty years. Take the " Botomahana," trading to Coromandel, a four-hours run 129. What tonnage is she? —130 tons. She now carries a captain, mate, engineer, two firemen, three A.B.s, and one ordinary seaman. Under this schedule she would have to carry one extra fireman and one extra A.B. 130. How many firemen does she carry now ?—Two.

I—9.

94

[c. stephenson.

131. That is all she would have to carry under the Bill—two firemen up to 250-horse power? —Take the " Wakatere " —she is 195 tons —running to the Thames, another four-hours run. She now carries a captain, two mates, two engineers, three firemen, one greaser, five A.B.s, two ordinary seamen, and two boys. Under this schedule she would have to carry one extra fireman, one extra trimmer, and one extra greaser. All these steamers have been running these short trips for many years with the number of men their trades require with safety to the public, and are able to fix their rates of freight and passage so as to allow the country settler to get his produce to market at a reasonable freight, and to travel to town at a fair rate. If these steamers had to carry the men as provided by the schedule they would simply have to raise their rates to such an extent that it would be prohibitive. I know of no instance where these vessels are insufficiently manned, or of a single instance where the life of any person or the safety of the steamer has been jeopardized by there being not sufficient A.B.s or an incompetent crew aboard. In regard to the other sections of the Bill, we would like a slight addition to the proviso to section 21. We ask to add after the word " water," in the forty-seventh line, the following words : " or any steam-launch acting as a tender." This is to provide for small steam-launches going out to the anchorage to take off passengers from steamers. In such a case we wish the Minister to have power to dispense, in such instances as he thinks desirable, with the necessity of having a man with a master's certificate. This does not affect the engineer, who must have a certificate. In section 38 we wish the provision referring to servants of a company having authority to engage seamen kept in the Bill. Section 51 :We understand there is a desire to strike out subsection (2), doing away with the right of any person to be rated as an A.B. after two years' service on a steamer. Section 54 :We understand there is also a desire to strike out subsection (3). If this were done and a captain went to sea with two men short he would be liable to the penalty provided in subsection (2). Of course, this would not affect me personally, as my ship is running within the limits, but it would affect some of my company's vessels. 132. We have had no representations made to remit subsection (3) of section 54. The evidence has been in favour of increasing its power in the case of crews of larger steamers instead of confining it to two. There has been no evidence asking that it should be excised?—l do not wish to have it done away with. 133. Mr. R. Thompson.] You approve of the subsection as it is printed ?—Yes. Section 56, subsection (3): We wish this to remain in the Bill, otherwise we would have either to give everybody a "V.G." discharge or state why he was discharged. He could then bring an action against the captain, and, having nothing to lose, the captain would be put to great expense and trouble even if successful in defending the action. Section 291 :We want the word " sea-going "in the first line struck out, otherwise this provision would not extend to vessels running within extended river limits, as most of them do not have " sea-going " certificates. This section has been copied from the Imperial " Merchant Shipping Act, 1894," and it is necessary, in order to adapt it to the circumstances of the colony, to strike out those words. 134. Mr. Laurenson.] You want all the privileges of the sea-going ships and to be exempted from the disabilities ? —-Why ? 135. You foreign-going ships to comply with the clause with regard to manning and other provisions, but you do not want any liability ?—No ; that is all I have to say. 136. Mr. R. Thompson.] Do you consider that two years' service on board coastal vessels should enable a young man to qualify as an A.B. ?—I think so. We have many lads in Auckland and on the coast in out-districts that we run to that have been accustomed to sailing yachts and fishing-boats and trading in cutters for some time, and I have always found that these, when they became ordinary seamen, were equally as smart as the average A.B. ; in fact, more so than the A.B.s I have taken out of deep-sea-going vessels. 137. In fact, you have found them more suitable for your trade than foreign-going A.B.s?— Yes. There are many men qualified on deep-water vessels who are not able to paddle a canoe or row. Our lads are quite capable of doing that or anything required of them. 138. They are good boatmen ?—Yes. 139. If the law was altered and the present proposed concessions were granted to vessels trading within river limits, would it not be the means of throwing a large number of very good and useful men out of employment who do not hold certificates now ?—Decidedly. 140. I suppose you pay the full rate of wages to these people?— Yes ; we pay according to the Arbitration Court award. 141. And if these small vessels trading within river limits were compelled to carry the same number of A.B.s as the ocean-going steamers, I suppose the result would be to increase the cost of conveying the settlers' produce to market ?—Yes ; the freights would have to be raised. 142. In fact, the whole cost of that alteration would have to be borne by the settlers in these districts ? —Yes ; by the settlers and producers. 143. During your long experience on the coast are you aware of any accidents or loss of life or property that has taken place at any time within the Auckland river limits or extended river limits through these vessels not carrying full crews of A.B.s on board?— No. The " Triumph,' which ran ashore at Tiritiri, was manned by A.B.s, and is not the only vessel that I know of. I can also mention the " Stella," which, while coming out of Auckland outside the Bangitoto Beef, got into collision with the " Waitemata." 144. Had the " Stella " A.B.s on board?— Yes. 145. I will put the question in another way to you : Do you consider that the travelling public when on board the s.s. " Wellington," or when on any of these river-limit steamers, are as safe from accident under the present arrangement with regard to manning, and having only ordinary seamen on board, as they would be if they had A.B.s on board ?—Yes; quite as safe, otherwise we should have had an accident long ago.

E. STEPHENSON.]

95

1.—9.

146. Beference has been made to the Kaipara trade. You are aware that in the Kaipara trade there are a large number of men employed in rafting and towing, and that most of the young men employed in that trade are natives of the district, many of them being Maoris and half-castes: would it not be a cruel thing if by an alteration in our legislation the whole of those men were thrown out of employment? —Yes, it would be ; there would be nothing for them to do, and I have found them all to be smart men. In fact, it is a different mode of seamanship that they require there. It is not a simple thing to work on rafts and keep them secure. No ordinary A.B.s would attempt to do it—it is a business of its own. 147. Mr. Hutcheson.] You are master of the steamship " Wellington " ? —Yes. 148. What certificate have you got?—A home-trade certificate. 149. Have you any other service outside of the home trade ?—Yes ; I have had service outside. 150. Will you tell the Committee what experience you have outside the home trade ? —In running across to Australia. 151. Intercolonial ?—Yes. 152. And you told the Committee just now that men could be taught to be good and competent A.B.s on board a steamship in two years?— Yes, if they had to do the work that we do now. 153. Will you tell the Committee how you propose to insure that the men whose certificates would be confined to the particular trade that you allege they are of full use for would not overflow and fill the positions of A.B.s on sailing-craft to the danger of their own lives and those of their shipmates : can you tell us how to fix that ?—No. I think four years is too long for lads to serve as ordinary seamen on board a vessel. 154. It is not necessary ? —A man in the home trade has to serve three years and then twelve months in an intercolonial boat before he can get an A.B.s certificate. 155. Have you had any experience in sailing-craft in the intercolonial trade ?—Yes. 156. Do you seriously tell the Committee that a man .can be taught to knot, splice, use the lead, and steer under all conditions of wind and weather? —Yes ; I have had men as ordinary seamen smart and able to do that. 157. It is proposed to make these men A.B.s in two years. I am a practical seaman, and I say that a man just knocking about a steamer for two years is neither use nor ornament as a seaman ? —There are no seamen required now. It is becoming a thing of the past to have thorough seamen nowadays. It is very different to what it was twenty or thirty years ago. 158. Are you aware that full A.B. discharges have been granted to men after two years' service as brass-boys and ordinary seamen on a steamer, and that they have used those discharges to ship in sailing-craft ?—No. 159. If it is practicable would you indorse that ?—No. When we have any suspicion of anything wrong we generally go to the Shipping-master if a man is not efficient for the work ; we get his view of the matter before we ship him. 160. But suppose there is nothing to indicate to you that the man is sailing under false colours and you do engage him—not only in your vessel, but in any craft—then the certificate is being utilised for general craft, and I ask you now whether you agree with the continuance of that practice ?—No. 161. So that there is necessity for safeguarding the issue of A.B. discharges ?—Yes. 162. You are not compelled by law to carry A.B.s in your trade?— No. 163. Your trade is within the extended river limits?— Yes. 164. These river limits cover an area of a good many sea-miles ? —Yes. Sixty-eight miles. 165. Have you ever had the weather so bad in your experience as to compel you either to avoid going to sea or, having been at sea, to take shelter? —I have run there for twenty years, and I have only missed one trip in the whole of that time. 166. Have you experienced considerable heavy weather on your run ? —Not unusually so—no more than if going outside Barrett's Beef at Wellington. 167. But, in the event of any casualty on board, have you had such weather as might necessitate the presence and action of competent and experienced seamen ?—No. 168. As a matter of fact, you do carry A.B.s?—Yes, I carry some. 169. And could you not imagine a casualty in such weather as you have experienced there as to render it highly desirable to have men who could lash, seize, and handle ropes and blocks and perform other seamanlike duties ?—I have the men who could do it. 170. I want to elicit whether there is any necessity for such men at any time there?— There is no necessity for A.B.s when ordinary seamen can do the work. 171. I will put the question again : In such weather as you have experienced in your present trade could you imagine any accident occurring that would render it highly desirable to have the assistance of trained seamen ?—Yes; but we have skilled seamen able to do so. 172. Have you heard it suggested that the deep-water conditions should be made to apply to the towing and rafting in the Kaipara?—No. 173. We have had it suggested that where certificated and qualified seamen are not required under ordinary circumstances a special oral examination in practical knowledge should be provided for such men, not involving a written or educational test, but a purely practical test as to their knowledge of the rule of the road, and so on : would you raise any objection to that test being required ?—I would not object to that. 174. Mr. R. Thompson.] In the questions Mr. Hutcheson has been putting to you he evidently wished to create in the minds of the Committee the idea that the weather in the extended river limits is often of such a character that it would not be safe to go to sea with ordinary seamen: is it not a fact that in the service to Whangarei the usual custom is—for the comfort of the passengers when an easterly gale is blowing—not to put to sea; but that, out of consideration for the passengers, you either lie inside the heads at Whangarei or in Auckland Harbour until the gale is over?— Yes. '

I—9.

fj. F. KIRBY.

Friday, 22nd August, 1902. Examination of J. F. Kirby resumed. (No. 25.) 1. The Chairman.] You produce the various logs in connection with your company's steamers ? —Yes; a ship's official log, a mate's deck log, a chief engineer's log-book, and chief engineer's monthly abstract, the master's intercolonial abstract, and the master's home-trade monthly abstract. I wish to refer specially to the official log. There are several matters here referred to which are really obsolete, and I think, in going over them, the Marine Department should strike them out altogether. Some steamers are in and out several hundred times in the course of a year, and the space allotted in the form is not sufficient. There are sometimes two or three hundred changes in connection with the hands, and there is not sufficient space for all the entries, and, as you already get the information in the articles in which all the engagements and discharges are shown, that should be sufficient. I produce what is called the defaulters book, which is kept at the headquarters, and which shows the number of men dismissed from the Union Company's service up to date. I find in looking over it that there are only four such cases it connection with both the deck and engineering departments. One was a case in which a man gave us a lot of trouble through drunkenness. Ido not wish to give the names of these persons, as it might deprive the men of getting a living elsewhere. In another case a man was charged and found guilty of smuggling opium, and in such a case as that there is an agreement between the company and the Customs authorities that any person found guilty of same shall be dismissed from the service. In another case a man was discharged for drunkenness and for being absent without leave. That man gave us considerable trouble, for he was drunken, and on one occasion was found asleep when acting as night-watchman. Previous to that he had been discharged from the " Pukaki" for drunkenness, and had three chances given to him. In another case the man was drunk and was absent without leave. He detained the ship afterwards, and when requested to work assaulted the chief and second engineers. In another case one of the A.B.s cowardly assaulted another seaman, and was dismissed. This is the form of report which is sent to each manager at the different ports when a person is dismissed from the company's service. [Form handed in.] 2. There are five cases : you said there were four ? —Yes ; I made a mistake. There are five cases. These dismissals are all initialled by the marine superintendent; that shows that these matters have been brought under his notice. These cases cover a period of two years and four months. 3. Does that include the deck-hands?—The seamen and firemen. I also produce cards for eight- and ten-boat ships, and the other cards were produced when I last gave evidence. I also produce a small card which is given to the men when they join a ship, and which is hung up in their bunks. I produce the drill-card return, which shows the men's names and stations, &c. Each officer has one of these cards to fill in, and he has, amongst other things, to state the condition of the boat and its gear, also fire appliances. I hand in cards showing what has been done in the past and what is being done at the present. I also produce a book which I keep myself. I attend all surveys at Dunedin and Port Chalmers, and this book shows the time taken at each of the boat-drills. An Inspector of Machinery (who acts as Surveyor) was present when these times were taken. 4. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] Are these in connection with surprise visits or expected visits?— After it was found that the men were efficient in their work. 5. Mr. R. Thompson.] This refers to drills in harbour ?—Yes; but we have them at sea as well. I also produce a photograph of the " Mercedes," which shows the class of steamer we have to compete with, and also a photograph of the " Limebranch." I hand in these exhibits to show what class of steamer is likely to be used in future ; the class of seamen that will be required to man them will not require to know much about seamanship work. So far as my evidence-in-chief goes, I have to state that I have closed that now. 6. Have you done anything about the manning scale ?—I put in. my proposed manning scales. They are attached to my previous evidence. 7. Mr. Hutcheson.] Are you likely to hold any boat-drills in Wellington?—l should be very pleased indeed to be able to give the Committee an exhibition of a boat-drill in Wellington. 8. Would it be possible to give a fire and boat drill on a large passenger-boat ? —Yes; I should be glad to arrange for that. I will inform Mr. Kennedy, the company's branch manager, of your desire in that respect. 9. Mr. Laurenson.] You say that there were five men dismissed for insubordination, abusive language, assault, drunkenness, and smuggling from April, 1900, up to date?— Yes. 10. That is out of the whole deck and engine-room departments of the company?—l am referring to the firemen and seamen. 11. How many men are there in your company?— Somewhere about a thousand men altogether —that is, seamen and firemen in the deck and engine-room departments. 12. And these are the only men —five—who are not allowed to be engaged again ?—Yes. 13. With reference to what should qualify a man to be rated as an A.8., there has been a great deal of contradictory evidence about that: what is your experience ?—We find that the four years is not necessary; and another thing is that it would have a very serious effect in this way : that in busy seasons we find it difficult to get seamen to man our steamers, and if the time is extended to four years it will duplicate our difficulty. I say that four years is too long. The qualifications for a steamboat sailor are that he should be able to steer, know how to heave the lead, be able to put on a ratline, put an eye in the end of a rope, and splice a pair of slings. A steamboat sailor is principally connected with cargo, and it is an advantage if he has plenty of bone and muscle and a little brains. 14. You think that subclause (2) of section 51 should stand?— Yes; and I say that the same qualifications are not necessary for a steamboat sailor as for a sailing-ship seaman. The two

96

J. F. KIRBY.]

97

1.— 9.

photographs of modern cargo-steamers I have handed in clearly show that. Taking the Union Company's service as an example, I might say that all the sailorising-work is done on shore in the rigging-loft at Port Chalmers, and the only sailorising-work required on board my company's ships is the splicing of perhaps a piece of wire, and so on, occasionally, which is done by the boatswain or lamp-trimmer, and also the splicing of a pair of slings or a yard-arm fall. 15. Section 53, subsection (3), " Every person who gives a discharge as fireman," &c.: it has been suggested that the word " greaser " should be added to this clause : would there be any objection to that being inserted? —I do not think so. 16. Section 54, subsection (4) : " Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect ships other than sailing-ships plying within river limits or extended river limits." We have had a great deal of contradictory evidence on that ? —We have not touched on the river limits at all. We leave that to the Northern Steamship Company and the people of Auckland. We have had no experience of them. 17. Section 55, subsection (3), provides that in the case of a single seaman he may be discharged on board a vessel. Several masters here have suggested that they should have the right to discharge or engage a whole crew on board, as it would be more convenient: do you concur in that ?—Undoubtedly. 18. On the other hand, there has been some objection even to one seaman being engaged or discharged on board ?—That would have a very bad effect on the Union Company or any other shipowner. To quote a case, the ship might be going away and all on board be very busy, when the man or men would have to be taken down to the Shipping Office, which might be a considerable distance away. Firemen, as a rule, are very thirsty souls, and they might stay away some time from the ship, and in all probability the work would not go on very well when they returned on board the ship again. At the same time, if the master signed them on on board, and it was found that they had not the proper qualifications, he would get into a serious trouble with the Marine Department. 19. Could not the master sign a man on for a longer time than the man intended, or go on certain voyages which the man did not intend to ship for ?—That is not possible, because the Shipping-master would see that when he read the agreement over, and would refuse to ratify it. 20. It might be an agreement within the four corners of the Act, and yet bind the man to go a certain voyage, or extend the term of the engagement longer than the man intended. Is the practice not open to certain abuses when a man is called down into the cabin to .sign articles, which would not happen if the man was taken before a Superintendent or Shipping-master ? —I do not think it makes any difference. The articles have to be read over to the men. If a man refuses to sign the articles he must be allowed to go on shore. 21. You say that in all your experience there has not been a complaint made by the men about the system of singing articles on board a ship ?—Not by the men or the Shipping-masters. 22. Section 46—where it states that the master may give a foreign discharge in which he declines to state anything about a man'-s character and abilities. Some of the witnesses say that this clause should be struck out, and others that it should be left in ?—lt would have a very bad effect if you struck that out. If you took that power away from the master it would be ruinous to the discipline on board of a ship. I have seen at times when a man who had got a bad discharge tear it up before the Shipping-master, because he knew that all he had to do was to go to the Shipping-master at the next port and get a permit. I might say that I agree with the fee of ss. to be imposed for permits, as it will have a tendency to stop this in future. I should like to see the form of discharge as issued by the Board of Trade at the present time brought into vogue here. The Board of Trade gave the small discharge-form a good trial, and found it very much wanting. Men simply destroyed the single discharge-form when it did not suit them. This new book form of discharge shows the man's conduct and ability over a number of. years. The result is that they are getting a better class of men into the mercantile marine in the Old Country than they did in the past. 23.- Clause 131—where it defines desertion, or attempts to define it: have you defined it ?—Yes ; I defined it when I was before the Committee on the last occasion. I put a clause in to that effect in my evidence. 24. Section 134, subsection (b), " Penalty for disobedience " : Do you think it would interfere with discipline if that fine of £5 was reduced to £1 ? It is asserted, and with reason, that £5 is a big penalty for the offence if the ship was in harbour ? —So long as it is in a safe harbour it is all right. 25. It has been suggested that the penalty might with safety be reduced ? —I think the section should be retained as it reads. You have to consider that we have such ports as Oamaru, Timaru, Napier, and so on, and if it were reduced it might lead to a lot of trouble with unscrupulous characters. 26. Subsection (c) says that for continued disobedience the punishment shall not exceed three months' imprisonment, That is not when the ship is secured in a safe harbour. It has been suggested that the three months should be reduced to one month ?—lt would all depend on the nature of the case, whether it was a serious one or otherwise. I would suggest that the clause be retained. 27. If a man assaults a master or a mate of a ship he is liable to a penalty of £20?— These penalties look very big, but the maximum is rarely inflicted. Magistrates, as a rule, never go to that extent. 28. Section 149, " Seamen undergoing imprisonment may be returned on board " ?—I should ask that that clause be retained as it is. If you alter it a man might give considerable trouble, say, a week before a ship left. The master would have to engage a substitute and give him the rate of wages ruling in the country, which in most cases is twice as high. In chartering his ship he has 13—1. 9,

1.—9.

98

[j. F. KIBBY.

made up his charter-party on the lower rate, and the consequence would be a great loss to him if the suggestion is adopted. 29. With regard to the " Mercedes " and vessels which do not use sails, on your steamers do you ever set sail at all?: —I think there is only one ship, the " Ovalau," that carries square sails. The only sails that my company's steamers carry are fore-and-aft staysails. 30. The Chairman.] With regard to the rating of seamen—section 51—do you think two years on a steam-vessel sufficient for the rating of an A.B. ?—I do. 31. You do not think that two years would be sufficient to entitle a man to go as an A.B. on a sailing-ship?— Certainly not; the man would know nothing about the work on a sailing-ship if he only had steamboat training. 32. It has been given in evidence before the Committee that men are signed on and signed off before the master on board a ship, and not in the presence of the Shipping-master, and it is a very rare thing for these steamship A.B. discharges to be indorsed " For steamships only " ? —That is a very easy matter to overcome by simply putting in the discharge another column showing the indicated horse-power of the vessel; or you can put in the letters " 5.5.," which would show the vessel was a steamer. 33. It is quite clear that something will have to be done so as to differentiate between a steamship A.B. and a sailing-ship A.B. ?—I think my suggestion would settle the matter. 34. Beferring again to the dismissals, is it not a fact that, in addition to these absolute dismissals and prohibitions from future employment, men are frequently kept waiting because they have refused to go in a particular vessel? —Never, to my knowledge. A man might sometimes come to me and say, " I do not care about going in that ship," or he may say he does not care to go into a particular trade on account of his health; and my usual reply is, " Very well, we will give you the next ship, if we can." What we do when a man gets drunk or gives us trouble is to keep him on shore for a week or two. This is commonly called by the seamen a " perish." It is necessary to do that, for it is not a good or a wise thing for a man of that class to be sent back right away to a good ship. We have a large number of men to deal with—about a thousand seamen and firemen—and I assure you that they are not all saints. No officer in the Union Company's service can dismiss a seaman or fireman from the company's service except the marine superintendent. It must be done through him at headquarters, Dunedin. We have no trouble with the people themselves —any that occurs is caused through the interference of agitators outside of the service. William Belcher examined. (No. 26.) 35. The Chairman.] You are secretary of the Federated Seamen's Union ?—-Yes. The correct title is the Australasian Federated Seamen's Union (Dunedin Section). 36. You are prepared to give evidence on the Shipping and Seamen Bill ?—Yes. 37. We shall be glad to hear what you have to offer?— You desire me to make a statement? 38. Yes. It is usual for any one desiring to give evidence to bring forward any points he wishes to come under the special notice of the Committee, and then for members of the Committee to ask questions suggested by the evidence tendered ?—One of the first points I wish to refer to is with regard to the issue of licenses to persons to procure seamen (section 37). We believe that the issue of these licenses is altogether unnecessary; that those who have been connected with the business —at least, a great many of them—have looked more to their own interests and to their own pockets than to the interests of the seaman, and in a general sense we do not see the necessity for them at all. There is no other occupation that we know of where a person of this description is required, because the employees and employers generally come together and make their own terms. There is a proper officer of the Government now appointed to attend to the shipping and discharging of men, and provision is made, I believe, for notices being exhibited at the Shipping Offices when men are required, and we consider that is sufficient for all purposes. The evil of crimping has not up to the present time been a very serious one in New Zealand, but in other countries where such licenses are granted they have been subjected to the undesirable system of crimping. As a general principle we object to it. The employer has the Shipping Officer, in the first place, to make his wants known, and if he wants anything further he has the public Press open to him, the same as the general public, by which to make his wants known. It is a well-known fact that, so far as New Zealand is concerned, the desire and anxiety to forward their own interests has induced these persons to pick up men who are not fit or qualified for the position of seamen; and the master of a ship, perhaps in a hurry to get away, is quite ready to take any man that is sent along to him. There is another aspect of the question which might be termed a sentimental one, and that is that the intrusion of these licensed persons is suggestive of a seaman not having sufficient intelligence of his own to secure employment. There is no doubt that the inclusion of this clause in the New Zealand Act is a reproduction of what has been in the Acts of the Old Country for many years past. So far as lam aware, there has never been any very great scarcity of men. There is certainly on the part of some men a desire to avoid going into deep-water vessels if possible, and it is more in respect of those men that these licensed persons exercise their business. They rarely do it in connection with coasting-vessels. That is the general ground on which we object to this clause. Section 38, in regard to shipowners being allowed to employ agents for the purpose of engaging men: We also say this is entirely unnecessary, and the members of the organization I represent are of opinion that men who want employment should go either to the master or engineer of the vessel and secure work in that manner rather than be sent there by an agent. It has been urged in some quarters, I believe, that the agent has the best facilities for knowing what qualifications the men have that he intends to send on certain vessels, My own individual opinion in connection with the matter

W. BELCHER.]

99

I §

is this : that he has not the opportunity of knowing what the man's qualification is at all, or if he has he simply gets it second-hand from some one else. We think from past experience that allowing an agent to engage and discharge men has been the means of causing considerable hardship to a large number of men, and I wish it to be distinctly understood at this stage that in saying what I am about to remark lam not attacking individuals, but principles; and Igo this far, and say that no matter how fair and just a man may try to be in a matter of this sort there is always a chance of favouritism or prejudice creeping in, and that men who perhaps are thoroughly efficient in every respect, so far as their sea qualification is concerned, may perhaps be debarred from getting employment through prejudice on the part of the agents I have alluded to. We have known of instances where men have suffered through this system, and I may briefly refer—l will not mention any names—to the way in which it is done. For instance, one of the large shipping companies in New Zealand at the present time have a system of what they term " monthly reports." That is, the master or engineer of a vessel has to make periodical reports to the company of the conduct of the men under his charge. An instance has been known where a man had a trivial dispute with an officer, and that was sent in to the company in the shape of a report. The man is not aware that this sub rosd report has been made, but a black mark is placed against his name, and if there are other men available who have not a black mark against them the individual who has committed himself—in perhaps some small way—is prevented from getting employment for a month, and cases are not unknown where men have been kept in enforced idleness for two and three months from the same causes. This is the method by which punishment is meted out for what is called misconduct. There is this feature about it: that where these reports have been made the men have never, to my knowledge, had an opportunity of .defending themselves. The officer reports, there is no opportunity of defence, and the result is that which I have just mentioned. I think it must be obvious to any one who knows anything about seafaring matters that where the employment of the whole of the men for such a large concern, say, as the Union Company has to be done through and by one individual there are probabilities of abuses creeping in. The inauguration and perpetuation of such a system does away entirely with the esprit de corps which I think should prevail always between officers and crew. The officers, so far as I know, have no voice whatever as to whom they should employ, and they do not even come to the Shipping Offices to discharge or engage men; and the officers are also to a large extent prejudiced in this matter—that is to say, they have to take any person who is sent to them, whether he is suitable or otherwise, and I think that is placing the officers in an invidious position. My opinion is that the same system should prevail here as obtains in other countries—that is, that the master should engage his own men, and go to the Shipping Office to engage or discharge them. The next point is in regard to section 43, which raises the question whether it should be permissible for a man to sign the articles of one ship, and by so doing render himself liable to be shifted from one ship to another at the option of the employer. This clause we entirely disagree with. We maintain that his occupation and agreement should be confined to one ship alone, and that under no circumstances should he be summarily transferred from one ship to another without having some say in regard to the matter. It practically deprives a man of his freedom of action, and he would be entirely at the will and disposal of the employer to a much larger extent than he is now. It may, of course, be urged that, as the law makes provision for a man giving notice to be discharged at the port where the articles are drawn out, that is quite sufficient; but it is quite easy to conceive of any number of cases where a man might originally be engaged in a ship trading to where his home is situated, and shortly after he may be transferred to a vessel that is going into the island trade or to trade on the Australian coast, where he would never have an opportunity of getting home at all, and he would naturally, under these circumstances, be in the position of never reaching what is known as the final port, and consequently would not be able to give notice to terminate his agreement. Such a case is easily conceivable. In a general way we say that the-provision entirely deprives a man of his freedom of action, and that it should not be included in the Act at all. I note that this is something new altogether. It was not in the Act of 1877, or any amendment thereto. 39. It is copied from the Imperial Act, practically ?—The system was —and, if I remember rightly, I believe it is still —in existence in New South Wales. That is the only colony I know of where this system prevails, and I believe there are one or two small firms which own steam-colliers and work their vessels on this plan. It is bad enough in that instance ; but you will understand that these colliers simply run between Sydney and Newcastle, and never under any circumstances go any further, and if the men have their homes either in Sydney or Newcastle they are not being sent away from them summarily. That is where the difference comes in. Although the proposed system here is exactly the same, we do not think it right that it should be allowed to go into this Bill. There is another point in connection with this matter emphasizing what I say as depriving a man of his freedom of action. Seafaring men when shifted about from one vessel to another often come into contact with officers with whom they cannot agree, and if this system prevailed these men might be shifted from a ship where they were getting along very well, and transferred into a vessel where they would have no chance of remaining. Such men would have no option if this section became law. It would simply mean that if a man declined to be transferred from one ship to another he would lay himself open, I apprehend, to a charge of refusing duty, and thus would incur all the pains and penalties of the law. My next point is with regard to the qualifications of seamen — section 51. So far as I understand the Act, there are practically two classes of A.B.s—one which requires a qualification of two years' service for a steam-vessel, and another which requires four years' service for a sailing-ship. We strongly disagree with these differential qualifications, and think that the qualification necessary for all A.B.s should be four years' sea service. The peculiarities that are likely to arise under a dual system of this sort are

I.— 9,

100

t L W. BELCHER.

somewhat curious. There is nothing that lam aware of in the Act providing for the issue of what might be termed steamboat A.B. discharges and sailing-ship A.B. discharges, and, so far as I know, any person who has qualified himself by two years' service on a steamboat can get an A.B.s discharge, and that will entitle him, in my opinion, to sign on as an A.B. on any class of vessel. At any rate, we think two years' service is too little even for a steam-vessel. I frankly admit that the same class of work—and perhaps the same experience—is not required on a steam-vessel as for a sailing-ship ; but occasions arise when all the seafaring man's skill is required on a steamship, and he should therefore, in my opinion, have that qualification to enable him to meet any emergency or contingency that might arise. The conditions of apprenticeship with regard to sea service are, I believe, four years —that is, an apprentice has to be indentured for four years before he can become qualified as an A.8., and that entitles him to pass his examination as second mate also. We are also desirous that the qualification required by the Act —let it be what it may— should be extended to all the men employed in vessels trading within river or extended river limits. The Shipping Act of 1894 has not only laid down the standard of efficiency for seamen and firemen, but it has also made elaborate schedules showing the number of men that have to be carried in all sea-going vessels. As I have said, there are exemptions made in regard to river and extended river limit vessels, and the employer can engage any person who has had no seafaring experience whatever. Of course, a shipowner, in studying his own interests, will engage those who have had some seafaring experience if he can, but the matter is left open to him to engage any one he may feel disposed to. Why this difference should prevail is a thing Ido not understand. I will give you a case in point. I am referring to sections 51 and 52. The port we have reason to make most complaint about is Auckland. There is a very large number of vessels trading within river and extended river limits at Auckland, and the owners of these vessels are under no obligation to employ qualified men between Bream Head and Cape Colville. A line is drawn from those two points and constitutes the extended river limits, and includes the Port of Whangarei, and a steamer running to Whangarei can trade with incompetent men, but a steamer going a few miles further on would have to comply with the Shipping Act with regard to the efficiency and. manning clauses. Of course, I quite understand that the limit line had to be drawn somewhere, but we maintain that, as far as Whangarei is concerned, it is absurd to contend that it comes within an extended river limit. Instances have been known, and not long ago, where vessels trading there have had to run for shelter, which is conclusive evidence that the dangers to be encountered are equal to those of the open ocean. At any rate, the Legislature has considered it desirable that vessels should be manned efficiently, and have the proper number of men on board, and yet these vessels trading between the Auckland Harbour and the extended river limits are excluded from the operations of the Act, which practically nullifies the good the Legislature intended to do in this respect. It cannot be disputed that vessels trading within these river limits, even if they do not carry passengers, have to encounter dangers even in the narrow waters of Auckland Harbour, and there have been two or three serious accidents of late up there. All these vessels carry passengers, and sometimes a large number of them, and we think it is highly desirable, in the interests of the travelling public, that there should be some standard of efficiency for men employed in these vessels before they are allowed to ship as A.B.s. Another feature that I would refer to in connection with this matter is this: that men engaged without any previous experience or qualification in one of these river-vessels for perhaps three or six months can get an A.B.'s. discharge, and there is nothing indorsed on that discharge to show that the term of service is in river limits. The discharge is presented afterwards to the master probably of a sea-going vessel, and is accepted as a proper A.B.s discharge. The want of efficiency is not ascertained until a man goes to sea and is put to the ordinary routine work as an able seaman. This seems to me to be quite an anamoly, and if the river limits are not abolished altogether I think there will have to be a new grade established for these individuals, so that their service may be indorsed on their discharges when leaving such vessels. There is a strange inconsistency in connection with this matter—viz., that, while the efficiency and the number of the crew is a matter of pure indifference from the Shipping-Act point of view, the fact remains that these men have to be signed on articles and have to be discharged in exactly the same manner as qualified seamen. If it is shown that it is altogether unnecessary to have efficient men in this trade, where is the necessity of having them brought under the control of the Shipping Offices in any shape or form ? Also, if the owner is permitted to take any one who applies for employment—off the wharf or from the tail of the plough—why not let the thing be conducted in the same way as for shore employment, and dissociate him from the Shipping Office altogether? As it is, men have to go there and sign on articles and be discharged, and they are able to get a discharge after having been on these vessels for a short space of time. 40. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] You say it is not shown on their discharge what service they have been in?— That is so. I have never seen it on one. 41. Do you know that it is an instruction from the Department that the service shall be marked whether it is home trade or intercolonial ?—So far as the home trade or intercolonial trade are concerned, that has always been done. 42. And for river limits too ?—Even if that is so the column for the river-limits mark is so exceedly small that an ordinary individual looking at the discharge, and seeing the indorsement " A.B. "on it, would not stop to see from what particular trade the man had come. It has been found necessary, I believe, that some of the officers—-the engineer and master, I believe—must have qualifications of some description. They have to pass an examination before being put on these vessels, and if the efficiency qualification applies to them it is proof that those under their control should also be efficient; for, in the event of any of these vessels getting into collision while having a large number of passengers on board, if the men are not

1.—9.

W. BELCHER.]

101

efficient it would be impossible for the master and engineer to do all that would be required to save the lives of the passengers. There is another way in which the exclusion of the operations of the Shipping Act in this regard has interfered very considerably with the efforts which have been made by the Seamen's Union to try and improve the condition of its members. We have been practically threatened that where these river-limit vessels are concerned the owner will ship men who are only "ordinary seamen," and put them on "ordinary seamen's" wages, and if he has not a person on board his ship occupying the grade of A.B. the grave disadvantage under which these men and the travelling public will be labouring must be obvious. That is one of the difficulties we have experienced in connection with the Arbitration Court. That has not got anything to do with the Shipping Act, I admit, but I am pointing out the strong necessity there is for fixing a grade for these men who come under the extended-river-limit exemptions. In my opinion, the river limits of Auckland should be restricted within very reasonable points, to include all vessels that are trading to Whangarei, and also to Paeroa and down to the Thames, and I do not think it would be any hardship whatever to the owners of the vessels if they were compelled to carry men _of the same grade of efficiency as are carried elsewhere. The next matter I wish to refer to is with regard to the discharging of men before a Superintendent—section 55, subsection (3). Our opinion is that that clause does not go far enough. We contend that every man who joins a vessel should be both signed and discharged before the Superintendent of Mercantile Marine. Up to the passing of the Act of 1894 I believe it was only the crews of foreign-going ships that were required to be signed off and on before the Superintendent of Mercantile Marine. The Act of 1894 included the intercolonial vessels as well as foreign-going vessels, and the proposed new Act is intended to include home-trade vessels when signing new articles. I take it that in the home trade men signing on articles would require to go before the Superintendent, but during the currency of these articles, in the case of a single man leaving a ship, it is not necessary for him to go before the Superintendent. Our contention is that every person should be discharged before the Superintendent, whether in the case of a whole crew or a single individual. The law has laid down certain stipulations and imposed certain responsibilities on the owner where sickness or injury through accident has occurred, and instances have been known where, through this system being in existence—that is, in allowing men to be shipped and discharged on the vessel—men who have met with injury have been simply put ashore, perhaps in a place where they have had no one to appeal to or apply to for information as to whether they had been properly treated or not, and this has resulted in the liabilities of the shipowners being evaded. We do not think there will be the slightest trouble caused to any one if the men are shipped and discharged at the Shipping Office. It has to be done with regard to the intercolonial vessels, and Ido not see why it should not apply to a home-trade vessel. There are many little disputes arising on board a vessel, both with regard to the payment of_ wages and other emoluments, and I am under the impression that the appointment of Shipping-masters hroughout New Zealand was instituted for the purpose of seeing that justice was done as between the master and the men. But, as I say, the fact of the men being shuffled off a ship in an underhand kind of way is often the means of allowing a shipowner to evade his responsibilities. The matter of discharging men brings me to the matter of the class of discharges that are given in some cases. ■I refer now to that most peculiar method that the law apparently allows the master of a ship to give a man a bad discharge by indorsing it " Decline to report." That kind of discharge all over the world is recognised by the seafaring men as a bad discharge, although it does not specifically say so, and it is our firm conviction that the giving of a discharge of this nature should be done away with altogether, and that a man should be given either a good or a bad discharge. It is obvious, I think, that this " Decline to report" discharge is an astute piece of legal jugglery, giving to the master of a ship the option of damaging any one's character when he feels disposed to do it, and of depriving the injured person of any remedy for defamation of character. At least, that is what I take it to be from the report of a case that was tried in the Old Country not very long ago. I forget the exact circumstances, but I think it was the case of a stewardess which was tried in a lower Court and taken to the Court of Appeal, where it was ruled that a " Decline to report " discharge was not a bad discharge, so that the lady who was concerned in the matter had no remedy. I think it will clearly be seen that an alteration is required in this respect, and that if a man damages another man's character he should be compelled to do it in such a manner that the injured person should have the oppor tunity of suing the master, if he thinks it necessary, for defamation of character. A discharge as to a man's character is totally different from one concerning ability, for if a master gave a man a "Decline to report" discharge—which is practically a bad one —for ability, the man would have the opportunity of showing whether he is efficient or otherwise, and if he could prove to the satisfaction of the examiner that he was a duly qualified seaman—and his previous experience at sea is shown by his discharges —then I think that man could insist upon his bad discharge being altered; but, still, it would leave him in this position : that he would not be able to get any remedy for having been maligned. We therefore say that this provision should be abolished altogether, and that there should be only two classes of discharge to be given—that is, either a good or a bad discharge. 43. I suppose you allow "V.G." (very good)? Would you have it simply restricted to " Good" or "Bad" and make no other distinction?— Yes, make no distinction between the two. My next point is in respect of the matter of the accommodation of seamen, section 122. We did think that some attempts would have been made, in compiling a new Act of this description, to provide for a little more space for seamen. The amount allowed at the present time is, I believe, 72 cubic feet, which represents a place 6 ft. long, 2 ft. wide, and 6 ft. high. 44. The Chairman.] That is the minimum ?—Yes; but our opinion is that very often it becomes the maximum as well. 45. Mr. Mills tells us that all the new boats built for the Union Company have the maximum, 120 ft. ?—That may be so, but I can scarcely credit it.

1.—9.

102

[W. BELCHER;

46. Mr. Laurenson.] 120 ft. is not very much ? —lt is very little indeed. lam inclined to doubt Mr. Mills's statement, judging from the forecastles I have seen in some of the new vessels. I can understand that this is a very difficult matter to deal with, for the reason that most of the vessels in New Zealand are built in the Old Country under a certain set of rules provided by the Board of Trade there. But I think provision could be made in this Act that in all cases where vessels are built in New Zealand—and we have a good few of them built here now —the accommodation for the crew should be very much increased, even if it could not be arranged to make the crew's sleeping-place any larger than the 72 cubic feet. What I would suggest in connection with this matter is this : that in all cases and in all ships the men should have separate places for taking their meals, away from their sleeping-apartments altogether. Ido not think that would impose any very great hardship on the shipowner, and even if it did I think the health and the lives of seafaring men are of more consequence than any little inconvenience the shipowner might be put to in connection with the matter. There are no other men on board a ship—neither the passengers, officers, or any one else—who have to eat and sleep in the same quarters, as seamen have to do. The officers have a mess-room provided for them, and there should be no difficulty in providing a place—in the home trade or any other—about the ship where the men could have their food served to them in a decent and, what I might term, civilised manner. In many instances there is no table accommodation, the food-dishes are amongst the men's feet, and they eat their meals from plates resting on their knees, and this is often done while men are lying in their bunks asleep and amongst their dirty and wet clothes, with all the aroma arising from them. As compared with the space laid down for those employed in factories and workrooms, there is a vast deal of difference. I recognise, of course, that there is a deal of difference between ships and a factory ashore, where space can be made, but the disparity between the two is so great that, if it requires 200 ft. or 300 ft. of air-space to keep a person in a proper state of health when working in a factory, the wonder to me is that the small space on board a ship does not kill a man altogether; if it were not for the fact that the men have good constitutions they would practically knock under to the surroundings. I was only looking through some of the dairy regulations the other day when I saw that any person who stables a cow has to give it 500 cubic feet of space in the stables or byres. I understand, of course, that a cow requires a little, more air than a human being, but the disparity of space between that of the cow and that of the man is very great indeed. There are many vessels on the American coast where the men have a separate place for sleeping and also for taking their meals in; and they even go further tha.n this, for in some cases they employ a man specially to wait upon the men, to take their food into the forecastle or wherever it is, and to clean the utensils for the men; and it therefore would not be anything new or novel if some provision were made here so that the men should have some place in which to take their meals. Now with regard to the matter of seamen being sent back to their ships before the expiry of their sentences in connection with breaches of the law—section 149 : This is a matter which has been enacted under the old and what I term conservative laws of Great Britain many years ago, and which still continues in force. It has been incorporated in the New Zealand Act, and I think it is about time that New-Zealanders started out on lines of their own, as far as shipping laws are concerned, instead of slavishly following those laid down by the Imperial Parliament. In a general way I may say this :If a seaman has committed himself sufficiently to incur a month or three months' imprisonment he is as great an offender as a person who is charged and committed for an offence on shore ; and why it should be permitted that the seaman shall be hauled from gaol before his sentence has expired and sent on board his ship again is a thing I cannot possibly understand. 47. You are asking that he shall have the privilege of remaining in gaol ? —Decidedly, yes. It is only a matter of equity and justice that it should be so ; and, as a rule, when a man commits himself to the extent of incurring a penalty of that nature the relations between those who are over him and himself are of such a nature as to force the man into a position where he may be goaded to commit himself again even more grossly and incur a much greater penalty. 48. By sending him back to Hades? —That is so. There is no place in this world where opportunities for exercising petty tyranny can be better seen than on board ship. Leaving the sentimental aspect of the matter aside altogether, I do say this: that, so far as my opinion goes, some of the penalties laid down in the Shipping Act are brutal in the extreme. They are altogether out of proportion to the offences committed, and it is easy to be seen that the perpetuation of these laws is simply following what had to be enacted hundreds of years ago, when there was no rule or authority at other places than in England to bring these seamen to book for any offences they may have committed. It seems to me out of proportion that a man for deserting his vessel should get three months' imprisonment. 49. The Chairman.] It is reduced to one month only under the Act at present ? —Even that, in my opinion, is an extreme sentence for desertion. 50. This is not necessarily for desertion. You are talking about section 149. He might be sentenced to a month for any offence, and if the month is not expired when the vessel is ready for sea he can be returned to the ship ? —Quite so. I was referring to the excessive punishments meted out for what appear to be trivial offences. 51. You mean all through the Bill?— Yes. We consider a great many of them should be abolished altogether. 52. Mr. E. G. Allen.] In the event of a man getting a month's imprisonment through any disturbance among his comrades, and the man desiring to go back to his ship, would you not favour the insertion of a clause making it permissible ?—No ; I object to the principle altogether, if there is a principle attached to it. You mean, in the event of a man going on shore and, we will say, getting into a brawl, or getting into trouble through stealing something? 53. Yes ; but nothing to do with a ship?—l do not see why, if the law says that one month's imprisonment is a proper punishment for a certain offence, the man should not serve his sentence

103

1.—9.

W. BELCHER.]

the same as any one else. It simply means this : that a seaman who signs articles in the Old Country, if he incurs a penalty, can be sent to prison. He can be put in irons and sent on board the ship again, and if he goes to another port the same thing can occur again, and the whole of his wages be swallowed up in expenses and fines, so that he not only suffers imprisonment, but forfeits everything that is coming to him. Section 155 : This section, as far as I understand it, gives to engineers the right to keep an official log-book. Personally, I have no objection to the engineer keeping a log-book, official or otherwise, provided'it is not going to interfere with the power of the master to keep his official log-book. I notice what appears to be a qualifying clause, subsection (11), " Nothing in this section shall in any way affect or limit the duties or responsibilities imposed by this Act on the master in respect of his official log." But it is not altogether clear to myself and others who are associated with, me whether this will give the engineer the same power as the master has for logging men for misconduct and fining them—that is, so far as his own department is concerned. 54. Mr. Laurenson.] No ; it does not give him the power that the captain's log-book gives the master ? —lt is set out pretty fully what the engineer shall put in the log-book, but it may be construed into what I have just mentioned. 55. You want to protest against the engineer being empowered to fine a man, or make any reduction in his wages ?' —Yes. It seems to me that this is going rather far in the direction of making a clear line of demarcation on board a ship, and practically setting up two authorities. Our contention is that the master should be the supreme authority on board a vessel; and, as I said previously, I do not object to this provision, provided it is made very clear and distinct that the engineer shall not have the power to discharge a man or to log a man, or to do anything which in our opinion comes within the official duties of the master of the ship. 56. You think there should not be two official logs on one ship ?—I do not go that far; if it is considered essential that the engineer shall keep an official log and it is clearly stated what entries shall be made in that log, and if it is not going to conflict in any way with the duties and responsibilities of the master of the ship, it matters little whether there is one or a dozen official logs on board a vessel. 57. In clause 138 it is provided that an entry of any offence made in the official log-book shall be signed by the master and also by the mate or one of the crew? —Yes. There is just one other matter I wish to refer to—that is, with regard to the Sixth Schedule, in connection with the fees payable for shipping and discharging. 58. The Chairman.] You understand that these are the maximum fees that may be charged. Section 158 gives power to the Minister to fix any fees to be paid, and these are the maximum fees beyond which the Minister cannot go ? —ls. is the amount set forth here as a fee to be paid for shipping and discharging. 59. But that is the maximum. Section 158 gives power to the Minister by regulation to fix any lesser amount? —We think they should be fixed by statute, and not left to the discretion of the Minister at all. The fee charged up to November, 1895, was Is. for shipping and Is. for discharging, and then by representation made—l think it was to Sir Joseph Ward, who was then Minister of Marine—the amount was reduced to 6d. on each occasion. 60. There is no intention to raise the amount simply because the maximum amount is stated here. The original Act has the same schedule ?—Yes, that is so. That is all I have to say just now. 61. Mr. R. Thompson.] I would like to ask you whether in the remarks you made about the Auckland river limits you were speaking from personal knowledge or from representations made to you ?—Partly from both. 62. You have stated that men employed in that trade after three or six months' service can get a discharge as A.B.s : have you good grounds for making that statement ?—Yes. The grounds I have is the advice our officers in Auckland give me in connection with that matter. 63. But this discharge can only be given by the Marine Superintendent, I presume?— Not at all. Crews in these trades can be engaged and discharged on board without the intervention of the Shipping-master. 64. Who gives the discharge ?—The master of the ship. 65. Has the discharge not to be indorsed by the Marine Superintendent?— Not necessarily. 66. You have also stated that you consider the men employed in that service inefficient. Now, we have had it in evidence here, from masters in that trade, that they consider the men employed in the trade—although not holding certificates as A.B.—have as much, if not more, efficiency and are better men than the ordinary A.B. for that class of trade :do you concur in that ?—I certainly do not. 67. You have never been in that trade yourself, and have no personal knowledge of it ?—No. All I can say is that the individual, whether he is the master or engineer, who takes up that attitude is either speaking against his conscience or does not know what efficiency is. 68. I suppose you are aware that the full rates of wages are paid in that trade, as fixed by the Arbitration Court award? —Well, yes, they have been in nearly all instances, but there are some owners'who have not been paying them. 69. Do you know of any ? —There were a couple of small vessels when I was in Auckland that were not paying the proper rate of wages, for the reason that they were not compelled to carry men of a certain grade, and were engaging them as assistant firemen and as "ordinary seamen." They were doing the work of the vessel, which, in my opinion, should be paid for at the ordinary rates of A.B. and firemen, but they are being paid at a much lower rate than firemen and seamen should get. 70. That is contrary to the evidence we have had before the Committee, which is that they are getting the rates of wages awarded them by the Arbitration Court ?—I am speaking from my

1.—9.

104

[W. BELCHEB.

past experience. lam not speaking of the present time, and Ido not know whether it is being done now. 71. Do you not consider that the peculiar class of trade carried on within the Auckland river limits and extended river limits affords a very good training-ground for seamen —in fact, about the only good training-ground we have in the Colony of New Zealand?—l do not consider it is a good training-ground at all. My opinion is that the men should be trained before they go into it. 72. They must commence their training somewhere?— Quite so; but let them commence their training as everybody else does. Let them go to the ship as boys and work up. 73. Where are training-ships to be got now? —There are very few; but the sailing-vessels trading intercolonially offer the best opportunities for youths. 74. Take the rafting trade and the floating of logs down the harbour. These people are considered the best boatmen and rivermen that can be got. They are mostly native-born, and amongst them are many half-caste Natives, whilst others are the sons of settlers. We have had it in evidence that these men are superior in every way for that class of work—in fact, that the ordinary A.B. would have to be some considerable time in the trade before he would be of much use ?—What is your point ? 75. Supposing you were to abolish the present privileges in connection with extended river limits, do you mean that the whole of that class of men should be thrown out of employment ? You would have to replace them by A.B.s if you could get them ? —Not necessarily, because I assume any measure of this kind would not be retrospective. I presume provision would be made that those now employed would continue to go on as they are. 76. But the trade as a training-ground would cease ? —Well, I think you show sufficiently why it is not a good training-ground. You say the class of work done there is different from that of seamen who generally go to sea. Well, if these men are only trained at the one thing, rafting logs, &c, it is obvious that they are not efficient A.B.s. 77. They are efficient for this class of work?— But the point is this : they get A.B.s discharges and they are not efficient. The discharges enable them to ship as A.B.s in sea-going vessels. 78. I do not raise the point as to the nature of the discharge—whether it is necessary to give a different class of discharge or not. I have not the technical knowledge myself to discuss that point, but my object is to point out the necessity of meeting a peculiar class of trade or circumstances that exist in Auckland Harbour which does not exist in any other part of New Zealand, and I hold that in dealing with that trade it is absolutely necessary to make provision for its peculiar character, and it would not be fair to enact any legislation that would be the means of injuring or destroying that class of trade which is peculiar to that port ? —I do not see that there is the faintest prospect of the trade being injured in any shape or form. If there was any scarcity of seamen —which is not the case —then there might be some force in that argument. 79. We have had it stated here that the usual A.B. would not be of any use in that trade?— As far as Auckland Harbour is concerned, I say again that the man who made that statement was either talking against his conscience or he was not a seaman himself. I know that if I were a master and I had my choice of an individual, whether it was a fireman or practical seaman, I know I would take the practical seaman to do any class of work about Auckland Harbour. 80. You have already admitted that you have had no experience in that trade. We have had men of experience who have been twenty-eight years in the trade, and surely the Committee must attach more importance to experience of a man who has been in it twenty-eight years than to that of a man who has not been in it at all ? —You place what reliance you like on the evidence that is given. lam talking facts. 81. Mr. E. G. Allen.] Do you think it would be in the interest of your federation if reciprocal shipping laws were established betweeen New Zealand and Australia by which we could prevent vessels trading between places on the coast of either this colony or the Commonwealth unless the wages and manning scales were on the lines of the laws brought into force in these colonies ?—I do not quite understand your question. 82. You understand what the shipping laws are that are in force in Australia ? —I know that each State has enacted a separate law of its own. 83. The question is, do you think it would be in the interest of your federation if reciprocal shipping laws were established between New Zealand and Australia, so that the vessels should be prevented from trading between those places, or on the coast of either this colony or the Commonwealth, unless the wages and manning scales are brought into line with those in force: that would be arranged if reciprocal shipping laws were established ? —I say this without any hesitation at all: that if the Commonwealth could enact a shipping law such as we have in New Zealand, and let that be uniform, it would be a most desirable thing to accomplish. 84. And under the present regulations here : would it not be possible for the young men and ill-paid and foreign crews to greatly injure your federation ?—We are not the people affected by this matter. 85. But so far as you are concerned ?--I do not know that it would have any great effect. The chances are that the tramp, if it came this way and found it had to comply with these conditions, would find its way somewhere else. 86. I said " under our present regulations." They would naturally be able to carry cargo at a much lower rate? —I reconsider that question, and I say it would probably be beneficial both to the shipowner and to the seaman ; it would be the means of more men being employed, and would obviate the difficulty on the New Zealand coast of the tramp injuring and perhaps squeezing the local shipowner out altogether. 87. Have complaints been made to you about the bad liquor sold to sailors in different ports— not taking any particular one?—No, I have no knowledge of that whatever. I have not heard the matter mentioned.

W. BELCHER.]

105

1.—9

88. Mr. Laurenson.] In reference to the point you raised about the undesirability of companies having an agent to engage seamen and firemen for steamers, do you know whether there is any instance of a man doing a " perish " who of his own knowledge has not misconducted himself?—lf men's statements are to be believed, yes. I have had instances brought under my notice where men were under the impression that they were being excluded from work on account of some supposititious complaint, but I have had no opportunity of verifying it. 89. Have there been any complaints made on the part of officers with regard to employing men ?—Yes, but not openly. 90. Can an officer, if he gets an unsuitable man on board his ship, discharge him ?—He may. He makes representation in the proper quarter. 91. Have you known of any instances of any man having been discharged from a vessel against the wish of the officers ?—I have heard of instances, but I could not particularise them ; and, as a matter of fact, I do not remember the men's names. 92. We have had statements made that no man has been discharged for spite?—l believe that to be wrong. I have been told this : that a man has probably committed himself eighteen months ago, and has had to clear out, and no opportunity has been given him to again get work; he has come to New Zealand after the lapse of that time and has been seen at work on his vessel, and instructions have been given to the officers to discharge that man. That is what I have been given to understand, but I have no means of verifying it. 93. Section 122 : You object that the space for the accommodation of seamen is not sufficient —that is, the minimum of 72 cubic feet ?—I say that is not enough for any human being. 94. And you say that it is very desirable, in the interests of the men and in the interests of cleanliness and decency, that they should have a separate room in which to get their food ? —Yes. 95. Could that place be provided without putting the shipowners to very great expense?—l think so. 96. The Chairman.] We had it in evidence that during the last two years and four months there have only been five men actually dismissed and excluded from the service of the Union Steamship Company out of over a thousand men employed: does that conform with your knowledge ?—That may be all very well in so far as specific instances go, where they say, " You shall not have any more work " ; but there are dozens of instances which have occurred where the man knows very well that it is no use for him going to inquire. He is discharged from a ship, and goes to the person who has it in his hands to give or withhold employment; he goes week after week and sees that other men are getting employed. These men can see that they are not wanted, and simply pack up and get out of the place. There are dozens of that class of cases. 97. Have you ever been, to Whangarei ? —Yes ; on one or two occasions, but many years ago. 98. Is it your opinion that that passage is as dangerous as a good many other places on the New Zealand coast ?—I say it is more dangerous than many other places. It is a much more difficult passage than from Lyttelton to Wellington. That is a straight road, unimpeded by any danger whatever. 99. And your opinion is that the river limits should not, at any rate, extend to a place like Whangarei ?—Certainly ; and they should be restricted, in our opinion, very much more. 100. You would object to the Thames and Paeroa being within river limits ? —I think those vessels should be excluded from the river limits or extended river limits; or, to put it in another way, they should not be included in the river limits—either the Thames or the Paeroa.

Tuesday, 26th August, 1902. William Douglas Beid examined. (No. 27.) 1. The Chairman (Mr. Laurenson).] You are Superintendent of Marine at Auckland?— Yes. 2. The Committee will be glad if you will point out anything in connection with the proposed Shipping and Seamen Bill that you would like to discuss ? —As a preliminary, I think it would be well if the term " deserter" should be defined. 3. Can you define it?—The definition I would give is that "deserter" should mean any member of any crew who is not on board at time of sailing, provided such ship shall not have left before advertised time of sailing; provided also that the absentee shall not have been prevented from joining through accident, or illness, or other valid reason. At Auckland men are continually deserting from their ships—that is, through missing their passage—and if we enforce the manning scale it is only right that the men should comply with the law as well as the owners. 4. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] Are they local men or Australians who usually desert ?—Both; and lam sorry to say there are a good many of our local men who do so. I had three cases before me on Saturday last, just before I left. Section 14, subsection (g) : I would suggest the following addition to this subsection : " see that the ship is fully manned and the load-line marked." Section 21, subsection (&), " If the ship is of one hundred tons register or upwards," &c. : I would say, 80 tons register. The class of ship we are now building in the Port of Auckland generally runs to about 80 tons. If a certificated mate for vessels of 100 tons is required I should say they are building ships just under 100 tons to evade this Act. Some of the vessels run up to 90 and 97 tons. I would suggest the following : "(b) If the ship is a home-trade steamship of 80 tons or upwards she shall carry two certificated officers besides the master." 5. The Chairman.] You want that put in as a further section ?—Yes. I may say that they do so in Auckland, with about one exception. Section 34, " Apprentices " : Subsection (2), " Every indenture of apprenticeship shall be exempt from stamp duty"—l suggest that the following addition 14—1. 9.

106

W. D. EEIB.

1.—9.

be made to this clause : " The form of indenture to be approved of by the Minister and sold by the Department." We indenture more boys in Auckland than in any other place in the colony, and in each place the form of indenture is different. It is printed on common paper, and very often gets destroyed. Section 41, subsection (2) : The reference to load-line is not there, which is an important item. . . 6. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] Where would you put that in?— Wherever it is necessary. Section 54. subsection (4): This is misleading. 7. The Chairman.] You want to insert " other than sailing-ships " there ?—Yes. " Steamers, it should be. 8. Mr. Hutcheson.] It is the insertion of commas that is wanted ?—Yes. Section 75 : 1 take this section to relate chiefly to foreign ships plying on our coast. We have them in Auckland at present, and we simply can do nothing with them. I would suggest the addition of the following words to subsection (1), after the words " agent of any ship ": " registered or owned in the colony or elsewhere." If you turn back to section 54 you will see that it is better worded, " All ships engaged in the home or intercolonial trade, and whether registered in the colony or otherwise." I take it that this Act is intended to stop these foreign vessels from trading on our coasts._ 9. What do you suggest for that?—The words I have suggested. Again, in subsection (2) it says, " The Superintendent of the port at which a ship loads or discharges cargo carried coastwise shall notify the master of the ship of the provisions of this section." If this is put in you will know what ship he has to notify—" having regard to the trade the vessel is employed upon." In the sailing-vessels the wages at Auckland vary from £8 to £4 10s. out of Auckland, so that any one would have to take into account the class of trade the vessel was employed in. It says " the current rate of wages," but there is no current rate of wages for sailing-ships. Section 116— this is new —" In the case of ships trading or going from any port of New Zealand through the Suez Canal," &c. : There are no ships trading to the Suez Canal in New Zealand. 10. The Chairman.] What do you suggest should be inserted ?—" Proceeding on a voyage to the South Seas or round the Cape of Good Hope and round Cape Horn." No sailing-vesel can go through the Suez Canal. Section 119, subsection (3), "Where the ship from which any such seaman is left on shore is an intercolonial or home-trade ship": Now, it is repeatedly done in Auckland. The men are paid off when ill, though they do not know that they are going to be bad. They are sent to the hospital without any money, and the master wants to say that they are paid off out of the vessel. I should say that there should be a limit inserted in this Bill. 11. Are they paid off before you ?—No; in some cases they are paid off by the master. They may have typhoid fever which may have been contracted on board. There are two cases now in Auckland. " The men were going away for a week, but they were left behind, and they are now in Auckland at the cost of the taxpayers. We have no legal rights in the matter. Some time should be mentioned —say, seven or fourteen days should be inserted in that clause. Section 123, "If a seaman or apprentice while on board ship states to the master of the ship his desire to make a complaint to a Justice," &c. : They never complain to a Justice, and I would suggest the insertion of the words " Customs authorities" or " Marine authorities" to bring it up to date. The clause ■is from an old English Act. 12. Justices are not obsolete in New Zealand ?—But the men never complain to a Justice. Clause 124, subsection (1), " Where any case of death or accident happens on board a ship the Superintendent shall," &c. :An " accident " might be anything. A man might fall down, or it might be some trivial thing. , " 13. We have already had a suggestion with regard to that ?—Section 133, subsection (A), " Where a seaman or apprentice is brought before a Court on the ground of the offence of desertion, or of absence without leave, or of otherwise absenting himself without leave, the Court, if the master or owner or his agent so requires, may cause him to be conveyed on board his ship," &c.: We have lots of apprentices, and this means that, if any of these lads say "I do not want to go in that ship," he can go ashore if he likes. I think that ought to be deleted altogether. Simply because an apprentice has some little dispute with some one on board he can refuse to go on the 14. This is only to prevent him being carried on board by the police. It is understood that this means, if the apprentice after signing articles intends to absent himself he can give fortyeight hours' notice of such intention. If he is on board the ship he cannot give the notice ; but if he has just signed articles which require him to be on board, say, on a Monday he can wive forty-eight hours' notice of his intention to withdraw from his agreement ?—An apprentice the other day from one of the Home boats simply laughed at the captain and went into town. The captain 'informed the police, and when the boy was stopped he laughed and said he had given the forty-eight hours' notice required. 15. But the apprentice must be absent with the leave of the master before leaving the ship ?— This apprentice had served three years, and yet went to the master and gave him notice. 16. Mr. Millar.] With regard to section 132, subsection (1), do you not think it is enough to have recourse against a man, without having power to " collar " wages that may be earned by the man in a different ship?— Yes. But in this case it is the word " apprentice " I would ask you to delete. 17. You think it is quite enough to forfeit the man s wages earned in a ship, without mortgaging what he may earn in future?— Yes, I agree with that. Section 151, subsection (1), "An official log shall be kept in every ship in the appropriate form for that ship approved by the Minister ": The smaller vessels cannot keep these logs —that is, scows of under 80 tons. They really have not the accommodation. The men are in a great many cases illiterate, and not competent to keep logs ; and I think it would be a hardship if vessels of under 80 tons should be forced to keep logs.

107

1.—9.

W. D. BEID.J

18. The Chairman.] You suggest that the clause shall not apply to vessels of under 80 tons ? —Yes. Subsection (10) of this section says, " This section does not apply to steamships plying within river or extended river limits," and I would add " under 80 tons." Section 153, subsection (2), " The master or owner of every home-trade ship shall, within twenty-one days of the thirtieth day of June and the 31st day of December in every year, transmit or deliver the official logbook for the preceding half-year to some Superintendent in the colony " : The articles may be taken out a day or two before that, as many of them are. A ship may be built, and have to go on second articles. 19. Do you want the present system to continue ? —Yes. Section 155 : This is not needed at all, in my opinion. The engineers already keep a log which contains all these entries. 20. You are opposed to this section ? —Yes, right throughout. The engineer already has a log, which is admitted in evidence just as readily as the mate's log, which has to be produced at all marine inquiries. Section 156, subsection (2): This provides for securing the presence on board of the Superintendent. He has no power or means of doing so, and the provision ought to be deleted altogether. Section 189, subsection (5), "The Minister shall furnish a copy of the collision regulations to any master or owner of a ship who applies for it" : That means that he shall apply first to the Minister. I would suggest the words "cause a supply of copies of these regulations to be placed in the Shipping Office and given to any master or owner who applies for them." Section 201, subsection (b), " With a proper supplyof lights inextinguishable in water, and fitted for attachment to lifebuoys": I have seen a communication from the officers of the Board of Trade and others, and I hear that they are altering this method at Home, and are bringing in an amendment in regard to lights inextinguishable in water, and fitted by mechanical means. 21. Mr. Hutcheson.] "Attached to lifebuoys" would be quite enough, for then you could attach them by any means —by rope, arms, or brackets ?—Section 205, subsection (2), " The centre of this disc shall be placed at such level as may be approved by the Minister below the deck-line marked under this Act and specified in the certificate given thereunder," &c. : I should say that the Board of Trade have altered them all there, and are using them in duplicate. I would suggest that after the word " thereunder " the following words should be added : "in duplicate and one frame, and placed in a conspicuous part of the ship." It is stated on the certificate that it should be done so, but there is no law to compel them to do it. This would make them do it. 22. That would be misleading. "Each certificate shall be given in duplicate," instead of " thereunder"?— Yes, that would be better. Section 220, subsection (2), "The term 'deck' in this section means the ordinary upper deck of a ship," &c.: Well, according to our regulations, that is wrong It should mean the main deck, instead of hurricane, poop deck, or bridge deck. 23. The Chairman.] Would not the words " other deck " cover all that ?—The term " deck " in a ship means the upper deck. 24. Mr. Millar.] The term " hurricane deck " has been used ?—Yes, in some cases. 25. That is to bar that ? —lt should be mentioned. The permit has to be issued, and they can ask for what it is required. I come now to the Third Schedule—the manning scale—" Under 30 tons register, not less than 1 certificated able seaman and 1 ordinary seaman, apprentice, or 'boy " : The ordinary seaman or apprentice or boy is not useful for vessels under 30 tons. 26. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] Do you mean that he is not required ?—He is not required. " Over 30 tons and under 100 tons register, not less than 2 certificated able seamen and 1 ordinary seaman, apprentice, or boy " : There is no vessel of just under 100 tons register that is handled by two able seamen. Vessels over 30 tons and under 60 tons should have two certificated able seamen, I should say. 27. What would be your next grade?— Over 60 tons and under 100 tons, three certificated seamen and one ordinary seaman, apprentice, or boy. There are very few vessels of under 30 tons out of Auckland, and these vessels are carrying logs all the time, and therefore boys are of no use. It is the same with steamers. Vessels under 30 tons, one able seaman ; over 30 tons and under 60 tons, two able seamen ; over 60 tons and under 100 tons, three able seamen and one ordinary seaman or apprentice. From my own experience of these vessels there is not one of them manned down to this scale for vessels under 30 tons, and there is not one under 60 tons that goes with less than three able seamen and the master, out of Auckland. 28. Mr. Hutcheson.] With regard to your definition of " deserter," on whom would you lay the onus of proof with regard to accident, illness, or valid reason ?—I should lay it on the deserter, as we call him, at the present time. 29. What is the meaning of the words " valid reason "?—There are many things that might happen, and when he came before the Shipping-master he would explain, and I would allow the Shipping-master to have that power, because reasons might arise to show why the man could not have joined the ship. For instance, he may have been locked up. 30. You do not suppose that the Marine Superintendent is going to be made the judge in a case of desertion ?—Well, would that not be better than it is now ? 31. But that is a usurpation of the civil jurisdiction ?—No; they would come to the Shipping Office. 32. The Shipping-master cannot award pains and penalties? —No one can say whether a man is a deserter at the present time. 33. We cannot constitute the Shipping-master a Court of Jurisdiction—he may advise a Magistrate ? —But he could deal with the forfeiture of pay. 34. But there are other pains and penalties for desertion. The pains and penalties are exceedingly ferocious; and I suppose, if a seaman had a favourite aunt who left him a sum of money, that could be forfeited under the law, and he is liable to imprisonment and forfeiture of all his effects?—l will cite one case which happened on Saturday last at Auckland. At 12 o'clock three men came ashore, and went by boat to Chelsea. They could not be found, and the officers

1.—9.

108

[W. D. EEID.

had to run round in cabs trying to obtain other men. On Monday morning these three men of the crew came to the office and said that they were not deserters. They wanted their clothes, and asked for a passage to be given to them for Newcastle. 35. The point is, do you think it would be desirable to vest the functions you suggest in the hands of the Marine Superintendent ?—I do, because the cases never come before the Magistrate. 36. The power of discretion would carry with it the functions of the Magistrate—you would be given the right to punish a man in a stipulated manner, but according to your discretion as to what you would fine him, and so on. Supposing a man did drink too much on shore, and without any vicious attempt or malicious desire to leave his ship, but simply through a human fault stopped behind, would he be as bad as the man who deliberately stayed away ?—That is a case where I think the Magistrate would have a discretionary power. 37. Then, that amounts to this : that the Marine Superintendent should be vested with the power of a Magistrate. Section 75 : With regard to the operation of these clauses compelling foreign vessels to comply with our wages and other conditions, how do you think the insertion of the words you suggested—" whether registered in the colony or otherwise " —would affect, let us say, a Scandinavian vessel, which I believe is the class of principal offenders trading on our coasts; and where the man had signed, let us say, in Norway for a round voyage, the period between the date of shipping and the date of discharge to be filled in in any way that seems good to the master—how do you suppose the insertion of the words you suggest would compel the master of such a ship to pay our colonial wages when he is not required to do so by the law of his own country, or by the agreement he has made with the crew to pay the amounts until they arrive at their final port of discharge in Norway ? —lt is presumed that he is trading on the coast for a portion of his voyage. During that time he would pay the coastal wages. 38. But the laws of his country and the agreement in the articles of the crew do not require him to pay any wages until they arrive at the final port of .discharge. Assuming such to be the case, do you think our laws would override the laws of his country and would vitiate his legal agreement with his crew ? —Section 54 seems to override it. 39. We had this suggestion made to us: that the Customs authorities should refuse to give him clearance until they are satisfied that for that portion of his time during which he was engaged in the coastal trade the men have been paid such wages in excess of those for which they signed. Is there anything to prevent that amount being deducted from the men's wages which were paid perhaps under protest in New Zealand ?—No, unless the Act is so framed that the wages should be paid to the men in excess of what they had already agreed to work for. 40. But, supposing in the meanwhile the legal agreement was set aside by the local laws of this country, he, immediately he got home, could deduct, as illegally paid, the amount in excess that he agreed to give to his men : do you imagine that the insertion of your words would stop that ?—ln a number of cases it would. We have a number of Norwegian ships at present trading out of Melbourne to Kaipara. 41. But where he brings a Norwegian crew from Norway under Norwegian articles it is different?—lt very rarely comes before me where there are these original crews. 42. Section 123: You suggested that in lieu of "Justice" there ought to be inserted " Collector of Customs or Superintendent of Mercantile Marine," and in justification of your suggestion you said that now the Customs officers or Superintendents had superseded Justices of the Peace. But did you notice that these facilities are provided for seamen and apprentices while they are on board ship ? In the Dutch Bast Indies, for instance, there are no Customs officers or Superintendents, and in such out-of-the-way places there is no protection for seamen. This clause, after all, is meant to protect our seamen in any part of the world?—lt is a very out-of-the-way part of the world where there is no Customs officer. 43. Section 133 is in accord with the Imperial Act—"if a seaman or apprentice intends to absent himself," &c. If an apprentice is on board his ship, then it is clearly his duty to be there, and he is barred from giving notice ; but if an apprentice, as is almost universally the case, is permitted to go home when the ship is at its headquarters, and if for any reason he is ordered to be on board on the 24th of the month, say, and his mother or father dies on the 23rd, and he is required to attend the funeral on the 25th, and he is in the country, he is able to send the necessary notice. It would be hard lines indeed if you in such a case sent the police after him and had him taken to durance vile. It is only reasonable, after he gives the forty-eight hours' notice that he cannot attend at that time, that he should be allowed to escape the indignity of being arrested by the police. You would not say that was unfair or a harsh thing to allow either an apprentice or a seaman to notify the captain that he would not be able to arrive ? The case you cited must have been possible only through the stupidity or ignorance of the police ?—Yes. The apprentice simply walked ashore and the police could do nothing with him. He was a threeyear apprentice, and gave the captain written notice that he intended to absent himself from duty. 44. He had no right to do that. He was on board the ship, and he could only do it because of the laxity of the police, or something of the kind on the part of the master. What certificate have you?—A foreign master's certificate. 45. Have you had any experience as a master? —Twice. 46. In what class of vessel ?—The smaller class of sailing-craft. . 47. And, of course, you are a competent judge of the qualifications of seamen, both in the special duties of seamen and in the mechanical work of seamen ?—Yes. 48. You are aware that we have a provision in the shipping law, which we propose to perpetuate, to enable men to acquire A.B. certificates for steamship service after two years' service on board a steamer: do you think a man so bred would be a competent man to turn loose as a fullblown seaman, and probably in the exercise of his discretion to go into a foreign-going sailing-ship? Do you think it would tend to the greater safety of navigation or peace of mind of those who were sailing with him ?—No,

W. D. EEID.]

109

1.—9.

49. If such men were in sufficient number, would it not be actually suicidal to send them to sea ?—Yes; it would be dangerous. 50. You are well competent to advise the Committee on this matter : Are the precautions taken for the restriction, of men trained under these circumstances by two years' service in a steamer sufficiently safeguarded with certainty to prevent them from going in sailing-ships as A.B.s?—No. 51. Can you suggest to the Committee a safe and sufficient method whereby you could unfailingly prevent these men going outside the trade for which they are trained—that is, the steamboat trade ? —I would suggest, in the first place, that for the coasting-man a coastal discharge should be issued marked " Coastal discharge " or " Home-trade discharge " ; but it would be better if marked " Coastal," and the insertion made of the horse-power of each boat on the discharge, so that we could distinguish whether the discharge was for a steamer or sailing-vessel. 52. In your judgment, is it not rather a question of sail or steam than a question of home trade and foreign trade ? —I should say it would be a question of sail or steam. 53. Then, not only would your special discharge have " Coastal trade " marked carefully on it, but also A.B. for steamships?— Yes. 54. Do you think it would do to have large red letters stamped right across the face of this discharge, " A.B. steamship only " ?—I would suggest that the discharge be printed on a pink form. I think the Queensland Government had what they called a coastal discharge printed on a yellow form. 55. It is more a question, as you said, as between sail and steam trade than home and foreign trade: do you not think large block letters "Steamship A.B. only" would do?—No; I think it would be simply " Steamship only." The man might be an ordinary seaman, and the form I suggest would embrace stewards, firemen, seamen, and engineers' discharges. 56. Do you think it is possible at the present time for men who have acquired certificates by two years' service in steamers, by any laxity or oversight or inefficiency in the preparation of the papers, to go and use them elsewhere than in steamers ? —Yes ; they can go over to Australia. Many of our ordinary seamen go over to Australia and come back with A.B. discharges. 57. What are the sentiments of a master or mate on board a ship where they find that a certain proportion of their crew are inefficient in A.B. duties?—He can only think his men are incompetent. 58. It does not give him the nerve to manoeuvre his ship so freely as when he has competent and reliable men on board—he has to be more careful in the navigation of his vessel ?—He would have to use more care by a long way. 59. Is it your opinion that it would be detrimental if these men were given any chance of acting as A.B.s without the necessary training?—l think it would certainly be detrimental. They should always have an A.B. discharge. 60. In the matter of the extended river limits, you of all men engaged in the service have had the experience of this trade. The extended river limits of Auckland extend from Cape Colville to Bream Head, and there is a very large area of open sea there : have you ever known the weather in that area to be so rough that it was considered advisable not to put to sea, or, having put to sea, to go back for shelter to any port ?—Oh, yes; I have known the weather there to be just as rough as I have known it in Wellington Harbour. 61. And I understand that vessels trading in those extended river limits are not required to carry certificated A.B.s ?—Not in those limits. 62. But, as a matter of practice, I believe they do ?—Since I have been there it has been a matter of practice. 63. But that is more with regard to their own self-interest than in regard to the law ?—Yes. 64. But formerly they could carry, so far as the law might prohibit them, farmers or agricultural labourers if they so desired? —I could hardly say. I have not seen any farmers or agricultural labourers in the vessels. 65. From your own experience at sea, if you got into a mess in bad weather, whether in rafting or anything else, would you not rather have men who could knot and splice, and so on, than men who had been agricultural labourers ?—lf I were rafting I would rather have the men around Auckland than all the trained men I could get. 66. I mean in the kind of craft that usually goes to sea ?—You are speaking of the restricted river limits ? 67. Yes?— Well, in that class of trade I would rather have the men we have than any A.B.s who have been trained in any ship in England. 68. I ask you to dissociate these men from your mind, and who might be very good men, but that is not the question. So far as the law is concerned, they can carry men who have not been trained as seamen : is that not so ?—That is so. 69. So far as I can learn, the men they carry are most competent —the self-interest of the owners secures that —but so far as the law is concerned it is not compulsory. Of course, there is a certain amount of alarm in certain quarters because it is thought a higher-grade certificate is meditated ; but I ask you in your official capacity, and as one whose duty it is to observe these things, whether some lower grade of practical examination—not necessarily involving much education— should not be applied in order to enable the authorities to discover and satisfy themselves that all the men in the restricted-river-limit trade should have a requisite amount of knowledge for that trade—that is, the masters and others engaged in that trade—some oral examination to satisfy yourself. For instance, if a man has a little competency he can purchase an interest in one of these vessels at present, and without an hour's examination, and without supervision of any kind, he can become the master of a vessel in these restricted river limits ?—Yes.

1.—9.

110

[W, D. REID.

70. It is necessary to know the rule of the road in some places more than in other places : do you not think it necessary that some knowledge of the rule of the road should be imposed upon such a man before he can even go as a master of a vessel trading within restricted river-limits ?— Any steamer plying within those limits must have a master. There is no limit to size. That applies to vessels from 5 tons upwards. 71. You hold the opinion that, no matter how unimportant the trade may be, there should be some supervision that would be adequate to the requirements of the trade ?—You are asking the question rather loosely. The men already have river certificates, and you say that if they run within the extended limits there should be a grade between the river master and the hometrade master ? 72. Yes, that is so?— Yes, I think so. 73. Vessels under the stipulated tonnage go to Queen Charlotte Sound and other places, and become a danger to themselves as well as to others: do you not think they should satisfy the authorities that they have a knowledge of the rule of the road, and of the lead and signals, and so on?—I do not think it is necesssary in a boat under 20 tons. In that case it is only boating. 74. We have had evidence of such vessels where the master asked that there should be some examination through the danger he had himself run on account of the inexperience of men in another vessel, which vessel he said was worse than a derelict ?—I can only speak from my own experience, and say that the men in that class of vessel are better than men in the Union Company's service for the class of trade I have been speaking about. 75. But should not the authorities see that these men are able to take charge of such vessels ? —I am not of that opinion in the case of fishing-boats of under 20 tons. 76. Mr. Millar.] Are you aware what the extended river limits are throughout the colony ?— I have a general knowledge of them. 77. Have you seen them marked on a chart ? —-Not through all the colony. 78. Have you been trading through Cook Strait ?—I have thirteen years' experience, off and on. 79. Would you consider a vessel trading to Opunake from New Plymouth, and from there to Mokau should be allowed to be exempt? —No. 80. The weather there is of such a class as to require a good practical man in that trade ?— Certainly. 81. Do you think Foveaux Strait, from Stewart Island to the Bluff, would be a safe part for such vessels to sail in ?—Yes ; it is sheltered there. 82. These are two places, and then there are your own extended river limits from Cape Colville to Bream Head ?—Yes. 83. Is there very much traffic in the Hauraki Gulf? —Yes. 84. Suppose you were signing on a scow, what men would the law compel you to carry as competent men ?—The master. 85. Then, so long as she had a certificated master she could go wherever she liked—so far as numbers or qualifications are concerned ? —Yes; but there are none that I know of. 86. I know there are practical men running these vessels, but we are now dealing with the Act as it is before us, and, so far as the Bill is concerned, a scow of 60 tons could go to sea with only one certificated man on board—that is, the master : do you think that is right ?—No, I do not think it is right. 87. You think there should be some restriction over these vessels in the interests of human life—that there ought to be a competent crew on board of them ? —Yes. 88. Well, how do you propose to get that supervision over these vessels while you keep this clause in, saying that these provisions shall not apply to extended river limits ?—lf you simply keep the word " steamship" in and allow the manning scale for scows, provision might be made. 89. So far as the sailing-vessels are concerned, you admit that it is not right to allow them to go to sea with incompetent men: do you admit the same with regard to steam ?—No. 90. The law says that you can take a steamer of any size within these river limits with a master and an engineer on Board. That is all, is it not ?—Yes. 91. In your opinion, would it be right to allow the " Wellington," which conveys a large number of passengers to Whangarei, to leave Auckland with only the master and engineer certificated ? —She cannot leave. 92. Why ? —She has a home-trade certificate. 93. Supposing she never went beyond Whangarei or any point out of the restricted river limits, would it be right for her to go with only the master and engineer? —No, I do not think it would. 94. Could you, in your capacity as Superintendent of Marine, prevent that being done ?—Not according to the law. 95. Then, as a practical man, you do not approve of that?—l do not approve of small steamers. 96. You do not approve of any steamers, because it must apply to one as well as the other: do you approve of any steamer going away that has a passenger certificate being outside the control of the law ? —No, I do not. 97. But so long as any steamer is trading within extended river limits she is outside the law, except so far as the master and engineer are concerned ?—That is what it amounts to. 98. Outside the owners of the vessels, or those trading in these vessels, is it right that the passengers of other vessels which are carrying thoroughly qualified men throughout should have to run the risk of collision through the acts of incompetent men ?—I should not say it was right that they should do so. 99. But such is the case at the present time so far as the law is concerned ?—Exactly.

W. D. REID.]

111

1.—9.

100. I want to show that no vessel going outside of harbour limits or inside these limits should be allowed to run with incompetent men on board, in the interests of the travelling public: how long is it since the collision took place between the "Taniwha "and the "Patiki"?—l do not know. I was not in Auckland at the time. 101. Did you read the report of the Magistrate in that case? —Yes. 102. Did he not say that the master was at the wheel, and there was not another man on board who could steer?— Yes; but he made a mistake, as quoted in the Wellington papers. There was an incompetent man at the wheel of the " Patiki." 103. Under any circumstances the collision was due to an incompetent man ? —I do not know. I only just read the evidence. I was in Barotonga at the time. 104. To your knowledge, does the Northern Steamship Company comply with the Shipping Act in almost all their boats ?—ln every way, so far as I know. 105. Therefore whilst trading within the restricted river limits they always comply with the Act as nearly as possible ? —To the best of my knowledge and belief. 106. Then, so far as the restricted river limits are concerned, the Northern Steamship Company would not be affected at all as to carrying more men or certificated men ? —No, I do not think so; they are overmanned. 107. So that this could not possibly affect them?—l could not say that. 108. How many of the small vessels would be affected by the manning scale provided the extended river limits were stopped?—l would say there would be about twenty affected. 109. Of what size ? —They would be all sizes. 110. What would be the average size?— From 20 to 40 tons. 111. Would you allow one of those vessels to go away with less than one able seaman?— No. 112. Then it would not affect them. According to your own suggestion, vessels from 30 to 60 tons ought to carry two A.B.s ?—Yes. 113. That is an increase on what we have here, because you think that a vessel of 60 tons should have two A.B.s, and vessels of over 60 tons and up to 100 tons should have three ?—Yes. 114. If they are doing that now, and you admit practically that they cannot do with less, where will it harm them ? —lt will harm them in this way: that all these men employed would have no chance. I have thirty-two steamers in the restricted river limits and twenty-one on an average in the extended river limits; I have twenty-nine sailers in the restricted river limits. Now, in all these vessels the men have been brought up in the place, and if you brought in these restricted limits they would not be able to go anywhere else. They do not go anywhere else. 115. Suppose this Bill dealt with these men this way : that every man who had been employed and is employed shall be entitled to his discharge as an A.B. That would protect all the men who are at present employed ?—But would that not allow them to go as incompetent men on other ships ? 116. So far as sailing-ships are concerned, there is not the slightest danger of them going away ?—I said "on their own ground." 117. If a man got a scow, could he not take that to Napier ? —No. He knows all the little nooks and places about Auckland, but he knows nothing about the coast down to Napier. 118. Then, what advantage is there in training a boy up to that trade ?—ln most of the places their fathers are interested in these vessels out of the Port of Auckland, and the lads seem to be following the same trade; and that is the advantage. They are a peculiar class. No A.B. would be of any use there at all. It is all rafting and tide-working, and the way they pay in Auckland is another factor. They sign not for wages, but for the trip. There is no sailorising work done on the ship. 119. Then, any young fellow going to that trade is not being trained as a seaman ? —Only for that class of work. 120. That is to say, if he puts in fifteen years in that trade, not one day of it counts for examination ?—Only for the restricted limits. 121. But, so far as following the profession of the sea, not one day counts for his examination enabling him to go up for an A.B. certificate?— No. 122. So that any lad going to sea within the restricted limits is simply laying himself out to remain in that trade as long as he lives, or is wasting his time, as he would have to go to sea afterwards to get sufficient time to qualify as an A.B. ?—Yes ; but you could not force them to go to sea. They make more money than the captain of a four-master from Home. 123. These boys ?—Yes; they average as master £16 a month. The lowest wages in a scow is £8 a month, with everything found. Mr. Niccoll gives £7 to £8 to his men. 124. You say that they make so much money in that trade that they can afford to give £16 a month?— They have to give it. The men will not work for less. 125. Then, the ships must be earning it? —Yes. 126. Then, there would be no danger of increasing freights if this Act came into force ?—They would have to raise the freights. 127. If the wages are so high, do you say that the margin between profit and loss is so small that they would have to increase the freights ? —They could not supply themselves with the class of men required. 128. Why ? —Because this class of men do not go to sea and qualify themselves. 129. Have you ever known of a scarcity of seamen in Auckland ?—Yes. 130. Often ?—Not very often. In that class of vessel there is a scarcity very often. 131. In the class of vessel in which the men can earn £16 a month ?—lt is essentially a trade by itself. 132. How long do you think an A.B. who has been knocking about timber ships and roughing it would take to become a competent man in these scows?— Never, unless he is peculiarly gifted.

1.—9.

112

[W. D. EEID.

It is not every man who can stand the heavy strain required in jacking timber. When the owners engage a man to go on board of these scows one man will not work with another, very often. They will not work with strangers on account of the danger. They have to be timber-hands, and used to bushwork, and so on, on account of the danger. 133. How many of these scows are there out of Auckland entirely confined to the restricted limits ? Are there twenty engaged in the timber trade ? —Yes, more than twenty. 134. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] You could send us down a list of them from Auckland? —Yes. 135. Mr. Millar.] And the places where they are trading to ?—They are not all trading within the restricted limits. 136. What I want to find out is the total number of scows trading within the river limits and extended river limits ?—Yes. Of course, you must understand that, although they are sailing outside the restricted limits, they are not properly competent A.B.s. But many of them have had A.B. or ordinary seamen's discharges. 137. Where do they get the A.B. discharges from ? —I do not know, but there are any number of them. 138. Then, so far as the law is concerned, they are competent A.B.s ?—Yes; and there are many of them in the extended river limits. 139. I think you said an official log should not be kept within the extended river limits ?—I said, for vessels under 80 tons. 140. A vessel of 80 tons is a fair-sized vessel, is she not ? Do you think she should trade all over New Zealand and not keep an official log? —No, I do not. 141. What evidence do you think should be adduced if a captain was putting a man in prison for refusing duty : would you allow him to put his log in ?—Yes. The 80-tons limit that I mentioned is for scows. In scows they have not the place to keep a log. 142. They have no log now ?—No. 143. In the event of any accident taking place what 'evidence is adduced ?—They put it in writing. . 144. Suppose a vessel goes away to these outlying places and anything happens: she does uot come back to Auckland for a week, say, and you have nothing except that writing to go upon ?— No. She reports it. 145. How much space would the official log take up ?—lt is not the space, it is the matter of keeping it dry. 146. Is a scow soaking wet all the time ?—Most of the time. 147. Mr. Hutcheson.] What is the tonnage of the " Ngaru " ?—About 70 tons. 148. Mr. Millar.] Do you believe in men getting licenses to procure seamen ?—Speaking from my own point of view, I do. 149. How many do you think should be licensed in a port ? —One. 150. In your own city would you think the master of a sailors' home would be the most competent man to license ? —Yes. ¥ . . 151. Do you think he ought to be licensed ?—Yes; I think it would be a benefit to the shipping community if he had a license in Auckland. 152. Do you think that would suit other ports of the colony ?—Auckland is so peculiarly situated in that there are so many out-ports. The same conditions may not be prevalent in Wellington. . 153. But there were so many complaints against the licensing of men that it has been practically abolished, I understand?— Yes. 154. Have you any complaints about men in this line who are not licensed? —Yes, I have. 155. You have never taken any action against them ?—I have not caught them. 156. I suppose if you did catch a man doing anything of that sort you would ?—I have instructions to prosecute. ~,.,. , 157. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] About these licensees : do you think it is necessary to have one in Auckland ?—Yes ; I have telegrams from masters at Onehunga, Kaipara, the Thames, Mercury Bay, and other different ports for seamen. In most cases the men leave at night, and there are early trains for them to catch in the morning. The licensed persons' duty would be to see that these men would go down to their ships. 158. Is it necessary for a man to go down with them ?—Yes. 159. Do they clear away sometimes ?—Yes ; and I cannot attend to it. 160. You mean that it entails a lot of work on you, and that you could not do it unless you had extra assistance ?—Yes. If the telegrams came direct to me, and I had a man who could see that these men went on board, it would be a good thing. 161. With regard to the extended river limits, I understand from what you said that these A.B.s in scows had a certificate before you took charge of the Auckland office?— Yes. 162. Had they any experience before of this class of vessel ?—I do not think so. 163. I suppose the skipper knows before he engages his men what service these men have been performing?— Yes. The certificate always shows what the tonnage is. 164. You say that the class of men employed within the restricted river limits are specially fitted for the trade ?—Yes. . 165. What have they been used to before taking up this class of trade ?—Boating, ratting, 166. 'it has been suggested by Mr. Hutcheson, I think, that some of these men have been taken from farms, and so on ? —I have no knowledge of that. 167. And you say that these men are specially qualified for the work they are doing ?—Yes. 168. In reference to what Mr. Hutcheson said, there are boats trading within the extended river limits, that are dealing with timber, while there are others that are dealing with ordinary cargo and passengers ?—Yes.

113

1.—9

W. D. REID.]

169. What class of men are employed : are there special steamers trading between Whangarei and Auckland ?—Between Auckland and the Wade, Waiwera, Waipu, and other places they are boats built specially for that trade. 170. And although the seamen have no qualifications as A.B.s they are specially qualified for that trade ?—Yes. 171. In what way are they specially qualified ?—They are used to the little bar harbours. 172. Do you think these boats are undermanned ?—No, in no case. 173. Have you known of any accident within these restricted river limits during your time? —No. The only accident I remember—outside the " Boyal Tar"—is where two scows collided, and both had home-trade certificates. 174. There was a report in the newspaper, and it was mentioned here, about a little boat called the "Wellington" getting into trouble, or being in danger ?—There was nothing in it. It was simply a skit in the paper. 175. You mentioned the ease with which ordinary seamen could go to Australia and get an A.B. discharge ?—Yes. The master can pay them off there, I believe. A great many Aucklanders have gone away in square-rigged sailing-ships on my advice in order to put their time in. 176. You think it is an advantage ?—Yes. I have told them that they might get a second mate's certificate, and I have noticed that they sometimes come back as A.B.s. In many cases they would rather ship these young men as A.B.s than deep-water seamen. 177. Do they get full wages?— Yes. 178. What are the wages in the extended river limits as compared with an ordinary seaman's pay ? —£7 a month and no overtime. 179. That is for seamen ?—Yes ; firemen get £8 a month and no overtime. 180. What is the usual pay ?—£6 10s. and overtime, and £7 a month without overtime. 181. What do you think of these scows as sea carriers? It is mentioned that they could not keep a log because they are so wet?— You have got no idea of this class of vessel. The men have only a small box to live in, and a good many of them cannot write at all. Wherever they ground it is always on the mud, and the circumstance is not reported. They cannot keep the articles now on board on account of the small box that they live in. 182. With regard to the engineer's log, you have had experience both in sailing and steam vessels : you would have more men in the engine-room than on deck on your boats ?—About the same. ~,... 183. Seeing that the ship's log does not comprise too much, do you not think that in the general interests of those on board there should be some official or statutory record of what takes place in the engine-room ? Take such a case as the " Perthshire " when she broke down : does it not seem important where there is a breakdown in the machinery ?—That can be done now. 184. But the entry can be erased. Under this provision the engineer would have to make the entry under a penalty ?—So far as the log is concerned, I consider it would be advisable, but it should not be of an official character. The official log is the master's log. 185. You fear that the functions of the captain might be interfered with by two logs being kept on board? —Yes. 186. That would be your only objection ?—Yes. 187. Apart from that, you think there should be a proper record kept? —Yes. 188. Have you many boys coming on in Auckland?— Yes. 189. I believe you have a large amount of work in connection with steam-vessels ? —Yes. 190. How many boys are being trained up to the life of a sailor ?—I had ninety-eight last year. 191. What do they ship as ?—They come on as boys, and then as ordinary seamen, generally. 192. What is their age then?— Fifteen or sixteen years. • 193. Would they be ordinary seamen in restricted limits or outside?— That would be for outside as well. ' ... . . ~ 194. Do you think it would be a wise thing if there were some qualification laid down tor ordinary seamen?— Yes, it would be perhaps advisable ; one year at sea, say. 195. Do you think it would be advisable to clearly distinguish between steamship discharges and sailing-ship discharges for A.B.s?—Yes. 196. Is there anything to distinguish them now ? —Nothing at all in the coastal service. 197. Mr. Millar.] The reason you gave for licensing men to procure seamen in Auckland was that you had not the time to do that sort of thing ?—I have not. 198. Who is in your office when you go out ?—A clerk in the Customs generally comes m. 199. You have not a cadet or boy ?—No. 200. The Chairman.] Who defines deserters now, or who decides the case when the vessel goes away without them ? —No one. 201. What remedy has a man if a vessel goes away and takes his clothes with it?—The Act only says they shall be treated as deserters by the master, and the masters do not know what constitutes a deserter themselves. They come to us and ask us to define what a deserter is, and what we would call a particular man, and we do not know. 202. Then, if a man has been detained by causes outside, perhaps, his own control, and the vessel goes away, taking his clothes and effects with it, he has no remedy ?—Yes; we generally telegraph to the vessel to have the clothes sent back. 203. And is that optional ?—No; the master has to send them back, but we generally telegraph if it is a deserving case, and we get the man's wages back in the case of the Union Company very often. 15—1. 9.

1.—9.

114

fj. A. H. MARCIEL.

Wednesday, 27th August, 1902. James Alfred Henry Marciel examined. (No. 28.) 1. The Chairman (Mr. Laurenson).] You are Superintendent of Marine at Lyttelton?—lam. 2. We shall be glad to hear any comments you have to make on the Bill, or suggestions you would like to offer with the view of improving it ?—Yes. I would like first to refer to one or two matters that Ido not find provided for in the Bill. The first thing I would draw your attention to is the want of a naturalisation clause for certificated officers. 3. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] You mean that the officers should be naturalised British subjects before a certificate is issued to them?— Quite so. I would point out that in the regulations relating to the examination of masters and mates clause 12 states, " Foreigners must prove to the satisfaction of the Examiners that they can speak and write the English language sufficiently well to perform the duties required of them on board a British vessel." Clause 100 goes a little further than that. It states, "Foreign officers who wish to apply for a British certificate of competency must in all cases have performed their qualifying officer's service with the requisite British certificate. The service may have been performed in foreign vessels," &c. That means that a foreigner may join the service and become acquainted with all the technicalities of it, and then go back to his own (foreign) Government and give it the advantage of all the knowledge he has picked up, which may be a very serious thing in time of war; and after he has done that he can come back and compete with our own officers who have put in their full time in our ships. 4. You think the time he is away should not be allowed to count ? —I think a foreigner who wishes to qualify in a British ship should take the oath of allegiance to the King. Clause 105 provides for the evidence that may be required by the Minister as to the authority to whom the candidate first of all submits his application to be examined, and that does not act in the direction of what I advocate. It only shows you that all the regulations go to safeguard the interests of those in power. Clauses 12, 100, and 105 deal with foreigners, and I bring these regulations under your notice so that you shall have the necessary data to go upon. So far as foreigners as officers are concerned, that is all I would respectfully submit. I would suggest that all foreigners—that is to say, foreign seamen who come here and compete with our breadwinners, such as seamen, firemen, greasers, and various grades—should be naturalised also. Of course, I would not say that no foreign seamen should serve on ships registered and owned in New Zealand—they would have to be qualfied, of course—but I say they should not be permitted to compete with our certificated seamen until we know what they are. They might serve as ordinary seamen or boys, and, having put in the necessary time to qualify themselves, they could earn good living-wages, and often much more than they could earn in their own ships. They would then be in a position to leave the British ships or come in and compete with our breadwinners as liege subjects of His Majesty. And arising out of that comes the question of foreign ships and the load-line. If you refer to section 211 of this Act, which follows the conditions commenced in section 210 of the regulations as to marks of the load-line on British ships, you will find that section 211 is very ambiguous; and I cannot see how it can apply, because if you turn to the preamble of this Act, section 2, you will see that, '' This Act shall come into operation as soon as His Majesty's assent thereto is notified in the manner provided by the Constitution Act, and shall apply to all British ships registered at, trading with, or being at any place within the jurisdiction of New Zealand, and to the owners, masters, and crews thereof, except as hereinafter provided." That makes this, as I take it, a British Act pure and simple. Then we turn to clause 211, and we see, "Where the Minister certifies that the laws and regulations for the time being in force in any foreign State with respect to overloading and improper loading are equally effective with the provisions of this Act relating thereto, the Governor, by Order in Council, may direct that on proof of a ship of that State having complied with those laws and regulations she shall not, when in a port of the colony, be liable to detention for non-compliance with the said provisions of this Act, nor shall there arise any liability to any penalty which would otherwise arise for non-compliance with these provisions." It seems to me that that is quite inoperative. I may be wrong, and hope I am wrong, but at present a foreign ship chartered by a British merchant can come with a crew manned on a foreign scale and directly compete with a British shipowner. That is to say, he can take cargo in, and you have no loadline, as fixed by statute, to see whether more cargo is being taken in than would be allowed to a British ship ; and I claim that the least that can be done is to see that foreigners who compete with British shipowners should be brought into line and put on all-fours with the British shipowners. You do not know where foreigners are in time of war; but you can shoot them if they are " rats " after having taken the oath of allegiance. That brings me to the interpretation clause of this Act. I find in section 41, subsection (b), " The number and description of the crew, specifying how many are engaged as sailors." This refers to what has to be put in the form of agreement. I should like to be informed what " sailor " means. The interpretation clause defines " seaman," but not " sailor." 5. You would substitute "seamen" for "sailors": "seaman" includes everybody, but " sailor " is only a deck-hand? —On the agreement will appear nothing about firemen and greasers, and so forth; but it seems to me that subsection (b) should tell you what the men are who are in the ship. If you call them " seamen " you see what it means at a glance, but if you say " sailors " it means nothing by the interpretation of this Act. If you will refer to section 75, paragraph (b), you will see that the words " final port of discharge " are used. I should like an interpretation of that. At first sight it appears to be a very simple thing, but it is not. These words are used in section 75, section 151, subsection (8); and in section 43, subsection (4), and in section 42, subsection (7), the words "final port of destination" are used. This is important as affecting the agreements of seamen.

115

1.-9.

J. A. H. MABCIEL.]

6. The Chairman.] It is pretty well understood what " final port of discharge " is, but yoh would like it defined ?■—Yes. One would at first sight say that if a ship comes to Lyttelton, and puts out all her cargo, that would be the final port of discharge ; but if she goes round to other ports in continuation of her voyage it would be more difficult to define it. In practice I make the masters declare a final port, otherwise I do not know what the final port of discharge is, or the final port of destination, and, not seeing any reference to it here, I thought I would bring the matter forward, as I have experienced some little difficulty in administering the Act. I have also found difficulty sometimes in dealing with the terms "deserter" and "absent without leave." If you turn to section 141 of this Bill you will see that proof of desertion is required, and it says, " Where a question arises whether the wages of any seaman or apprentice are forfeited for desertion from a ship, it shall be sufficient for the person insisting on the forfeiture to show that the seaman or apprentice was duly engaged in or belonged to the ship, and either that he left the ship before the completion of the voyage or engagement, or, if the voyage was to terminate in the colony and the ship has not returned, that he is absent from her, and that an entry of his desertion was duly made in the official log-book." On close study it seems to me that the only possible interpretation of that section is that the master is judge and sole arbiter as to the enormity of the offence that constitutes desertion. That is, if a man leaves his ship the master can call him a deserter, or say that he is absent without leave, and in the latter case he would have to leave the man's wages with the Superintendent. I think desertion should be defined clearly, and also absence without leave. I would even submit a definition of "desertion" myself: that if a man leaves his ship without leave, and fails to return on board before his ship leaves the port, that would constitute desertion ; and if he leaves the ship without permission, and returns to the ship before it leaves port, that would constitute absence without leave. 7. If the man should fail to be on board ? —No. A man who absented himself without permission from the master or other authority on board, and did not return to the ship before the ship sailed. You can see the force of that, because the master of a ship is often placed in a very difficult position. He has either to proceed to sea short-handed or get other men. I find that under the English Act, in the higher Courts, they say that the man must have the intention to desert before the offence of desertion can be brought home to him. That is in the Act under which we have this Bill constituted, under the ambiguous term of " proof of desertion." If there was a clear definition which men and masters could equally read, then there would be no ambiguity, and the men or masters would have no excuse for non-complance. If a man could give an explanation it would be rather hard on him, but under a better definition he would only have to report himself to the Superintendent or Agent, then it would be all right in cases where it was impossible for him to have rejoined his ship. Section 11 : I have heard some complaints amongst masters with regard to the price of the forms referred to in this section. I do not consider it an important matter, but as I heard these complaints I thought it was my duty to let you know. 8. Have you had many complaints about it ?—I have heard the men frequently protest against the price they have to pay for these forms and discharges, and say that they could get the forms at half the price. 9. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] How many forms does an ordinary ship require ? —Accounts of wages are required every time a ship pays a man off, and every time a man is discharged they either want a long certificate of service or a short one, which is the sixpenny form for long discharge form or the threepenny form for short discharge form. 10. How many entries are there in the sixpenny form ?—There are a great number of entries. 11. But the forms are ruled, and so on?— Yes. It maybe an absolutely reasonable charge, but as I have heard masters grumble about it I thought I would bring the matter under your notice. Section 18, " Marine Inspectors " : " The Minister may from time to time, as and when he thinks fit, appoint any person as Inspector to report to him, —(1.) Upon the nature and causes of any accident or damage which any ship has sustained or caused." It is my practice to make inquiry into all cases of accident to seamen, and it seems to me that the words " or any person " might be added there after the word " ship." 12. We provide for that further on ?—I have heard dissatisfaction expressed occasionally with regard to section 19, which provides that a Marine Inspector may go on board any ship and inspect the same or any part thereof, or any of the machinery, boats, equipment, or articles on board. Some people hold that boats, equipments, and so on, of a nautical nature should be inspected by a seaman. Part 11., section 21, " Certain officers to hold certificates " : For the similarity of this section with the old section, if you refer to section 92 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894 you will there see that, although we have the manning scale brought up to date affecting the engineers, firemen, and deck-hands, although these schedules are complete in this Act, we maintain in its integrity the old Merchant Shipping Act provisions as regards the number of deck officers which must be carried in ships sailing out of this colony, and it seems to me the peculiarity of it may be brought home to your minds when you realise that under this section a ship like the " Gothic " may legally go to sea with a master and only mate if she pleases. "If the ship is of 100 tons register or upwards, then with at least one officer besides the master, such officer holding a certificate not lower than that of only mate in the case of a foreign-going ship, or of mate in the case of a hometrade ship, (c.) If the ship is a foreign-going ship and carries more than one mate, then with at least the first and second mate duly certificated." That is, the owners can run their ship with a master and only mate legally—that is the proper statutory quantity for the ship to carry. That seems to me to be a little extraordinary, and I would respectfully suggest that the schedule cannot be considered complete unless certificated officers are dealt with on a reasonable schedule basis. I do not see why these ships should not be compelled to have a certificated second mate. 13. You suggest that there should be a schedule for certificated officers the same as for the men? —I suggest that the same thought be given to the case of officers as has undoubtedly been

f q X* U 4

116

[j. A. H. MAECIEL.

given to other seamen. And out of that arises this :In subsection (d) it says, "If the ship is authorised to ply within river limits or extended river limits only, then with a master holding a certificate as master of a river-steamer." Of course, when you are considering the construction of a schedule with regard to the officers, this is a most important point. It could not be dealt with off-hand, and is worthy of very careful consideration, because you issue river certificates, and a man need only be twenty-one years of age and have been one year at sea to qualify for a river certificate. If you extend these limits and bring the extended limits, say, into home-trade waters, as it were, then you would require a more highly certificated man. And this would be perhaps the proper time to bring up the matter of restricted limits. I said that a river certificate was a very elementary one as regards the examination and qualification. It is not only that, but this class of ship is exempt from the load-line. 14. That is a vessel trading within the extended river limits ?—Yes, if a river certificate is held. My contention is that the river limits should be very carefully fixed indeed, because the man in charge of the steamer possesses, according to the law, a very elementary knowledge, and the ship is exempt from having a load-line. That leaves a great deal to his judgment as to what is a proper load for a ship. And, also, the river restricted-limits ship need carry no A.B.s. Section 52, subsections (1), (2), and (3): I have quoted these sections to you as showing that if the river master trenches on the home-trade work he has greater responsibility thrown upon him by reason of the fact that he need not have the load-line marked, and need carry no A.B.s; so that if ever there was a case where a man should be qualified that is the case—that is, supposing the river limits trench on the home-trade limits. Subsection (1), (a), of section 21 would apply to the home-trade when passengers are carried, up to 100 tons. Of course, a home-trade master might get along very well if the distance between the two ports was not very great, but a man cannot be on deck night and day, and consequently the deck must be left at times in charge of an uncertificated man, which the statutes very properly consider an incompetent person; and his want of knowledge and experience might also endanger a ship that had properly qualified men on board, as well as his own ship. At line 41 of the same section (21) it says, " Provided that the master of a steamship or of a ship propelled by any mechanical power, plying within river or extended river limits, and which does not hold a certificate of survey authorising the carriage of passengers, need not possess a certificate, and it shall be lawful for the Minister from time to time in writing to exempt any steamship, although carrying passengers on any navigable lake or inland navigable water, from carrying a certificated master." That may be all right, but it seems to me that if the Minister can exempt the ship from carrying a certificated master, why may he not exempt it from carrying a certificated engineer ? I submit that point for your consideration. Section 34, (1), " In the case of every indenture of apprenticeship to the sea service made in New Zealand the indenture shall be executed in duplicate by the boy and the person to whom he is bound in the presence of and shall be attested by a Magistrate or two Justices, or (if the boy is apprenticed by his parent) by a Superintendent, who shall ascertain that the boy has consented to be bound, and has attained the age of fourteen years, and is of sufficient health and strength ": I would suggest that the Superintendent should see that the apprentice has been medically certified to as of sufficient health and strength. That would make the operation simpler. And this apprenticeship to sea service brings to my mind that in this Act no provision has been made for trainingships. Ido not see any immediate probability of there being a training-ship established for New Zealand. It may be a difficult question, but I think the Act should give some power to establish such ships should the time ever be considered opportune by the Government of the day. Personally, I have done what I can to get boys to go to sea, because I believe in it, and from the boy you get the man. If a boy can knot and splice, and sail-make, and heave the lead, and have a knowledge of boating, and, above all, have had a little experience, say, in vessels like the " Tutanekai," "Hinemoa," and " Countess of Banfurly," to enable him to get over sea-sickness, he would be a marketable article, and the masters of ships would apply for such boys. 15. You believe that the owners would take boys if they had a little sea experience?— That is my impression. If you give anybody —a business man or any one else —a marketable article he will take it, and there would be no difficulty in finding employment for these boys; but if you take boys fresh from their homes the masters have to break them in, and when the lads suffer from sea-sickness they get discontented and go home from the first port they reach to their mothers again. Section 41, "An agreement with the crew shall be in a form approved by the Minister, and shall be dated at the time of the first signature thereof, and shall be signed by the master before a seaman signs the same. (2.) The agreement with the crew shall contain as terms thereof the following particulars " : These particulars are specified under paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (c), and (/), and I have already pointed out to you the difference between the terms " sailor" and " seaman." I would now draw your attention to the fact that it does not provide for everything. This section provides by statute for certain things to be shown on the agreement. [Form of agreement produced.] A steamer is required to show the nominal horse-power of her engines. If you turn to the third schedule you will find that a part of that schedule is based on the indicated horsepower. I would suggest that the indicated horse-power should be recorded on agreement, instead of the nominal horse-power, as at present; and the Act does not specify that the name or official number of the ship shall be on the agreement, which, of course, is vital. The agreement always shows it, but the point is they are not compelled to show it by law, so far as I can read the Act. If you will turn to section 207 in this connection you will find that the clear side, as it is called, has to be shown on the agreement, and the distance in feet and inches is shown; but there is a conflict of terms between '' freeboard " and " clear side. 16. But both have the samei meaning ? —Quite. 17. Mr. Hutcheson.] The term " freeboard "is much more distinctive?— Yes. In section 42, (7), you will find another instance in which it is necessary to define the final port, which I have

L—9.

3. A. H. MAECIEL.

117

suggested before should be defined. It is spoken of here as " final port of destination," in paragraph 7, line 17. And then this section speaks of " agreement " —we find " agreements may be made for a voyage" in subsection (6), and "running agreements" in subsection (1), while in section 63, line 7, you will find the expression is " time agreement." In the " provisions as to discipline," subsection (2) of section 133, it states, " If a seaman or apprentice intends to absent himself from his ship or his duty, he may give notice of his intention, either to the owner or to the master of the ship, not less than forty-eight hours before the time at which he ought to be on board his ship." 18. We have had a great deal of evidence on that. It has been suggested that it should be " if a seaman or apprentice before the time at which he ought to be on board his ship," gives fortyeight hours' notice. The inference is that it is after he has signed the agreement, and before the time he has to assume his position on board the ship. He can give forty-eight hours' notice if he regrets what he has done, and then he is not treated as a deserter ? —I suggest that the whole subsection be struck out. In the first place, it has been my experience that a seaman extremely rarely signs on forty-eight hours before he goes on board. The section is very obscure, and it is exceedingly important that it should be without ambiguity. If it is an important clause, and defines some principle or other, let it remain after you have explained it; but if the seaman or apprentice has to sign on —which is an extremely rare occurrence—forty-eight hours before, he may go ashore on giving notice to the master. If that is deemed necessary, then I would respectfully suggest that it be made as plain as possible. This clause has never, so far as my experience goes, been brought up before the Court, and it is highly necessary in the interests of everybody that we should know clearly what it may mean. Subsection (8), section 42, "On every return to a port in New Zealand before the final termination of a running agreement, the master shall make on the agreement an indorsement as to the engagement or discharge of seamen, either that no engagements or discharges have been made or are intended to be made before the ship leaves port, or that all those made have been made as required by law ; and if a master wilfully makes a false statement in any such indorsement he shall for each offence be liable to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds." But I would draw your attention to the fact that there is no penalty at all enacted for not making an indorsement, while if he makes a false indorsement there is a penalty for it. I submit that it is never done in practice. The articles themselves and the official log, where one is carried, are the history of what transpires. Sections 142, subsections (4j and (7), show you that the master has to give an official-log return of all that happens to his crew. 19. You say that subsections (7) and (8) are not necessary ?—I say that it is not done in practice. The articles themselves show you what has transpired, and the official log bears them out if you have any doubt, so that I do not know what reason there is for that subsection (8). In section 43, dealing with the provisions relating to the engagement on home-trade ships, the first thing I draw your attention to is that the present method, so far as my experience goes, works exceedingly well. This is something different from the present- method, and really requires reading somewhat carefully. Subsection (2), line 1, "Crews or single seamen shall be engaged before a Superintendent in the same manner as they are required to be engaged for foreign-going ships " : The present system is that the power of the Shipping-master is delegated to the master pro tern —■ for which strict provision is made to safeguard home-trade ships—and allows him to engage and discharge men on board if he subsequently notifies the Superintendent and ratifies the m«n's certificates. This Bill restricts that power very considerably. 20. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] It makes them all sign on before the Superintendent in the case of a whole crew ?—Yes. 21. The Chairman.] What do you suggest ?—A little further consideration to it. Then, it says that in cases of urgency single seamen may be engaged on board. The term " urgency "is a little indefinite; and it goes on to say, " and such engagement shall be reported to the Superintendent in the first place at which the ship arrives after the engagement, and there ratified by the Superintendent, who, upon being satisfied that the seaman so shipped is qualified, shall see that the agreement is read and explained to the seaman." You see, the man has to be brought up before a Superintendent, and that has to be done. In this connection I draw your attention to subsection (11) of section 42, and there you will see it is provided by Act that "In determining the fees payable upon the engagement and discharge of seamen belonging to ships having running agreements, the crew shall be deemed to be engaged when the agreement is first signed, and to be discharged when the agreement finally terminates ; and all intermediate engagements and discharges shall be deemed to be engagements and discharges of single seamen." Ido not find anything to give me authority to collect fees (for that is what subsection (11), section 42, means) in connection with home-trade ships, unless ratification carries with it the collection of fees. I suggest that subsection (11), section 42, should be re-enacted in section 43. In subsection (3) of the same section (section 43) it says, " An agreement for services in two or more ships belonging to the same owner may be made by the owner instead of by the master; and the provisions of this Act with respect to the making of the agreement shall apply accordingly." If it may be done by the owner for two or more ships I do not see why it should not be done by the owner for one ship. Subsection (4), line 40, will give you another illustration of the use of the words " final port of destination," which I alluded to in the interpretation of the Act. That brings me to section 51, subsection (1). This enacts, briefly, that a seaman shall not be entitled to the rating of A.B. for a sailing-ship until he has served at sea for four years, and I would point out here that as it only requires four years to qualify for a second officer it seems a little long. Subsection (2) says, " Any person is entitled to be rated as an A.B. for the purpose only of serving on a steamship engaged in the home or foreign trade who has served for two years on such a steamship or on a square-rigged sailing-ship, or on a registered fishing-vessel or decked cutter; and the nature of his rating shall be so entered in his discharge." That says that it takes only two years to make an A.B. for a

I—9.

118

[j. A. H. MARCIEL.

steamship. The pay is a great deal higher in steamers than in sailing-ships, and yet you practically penalise the more highly qualified man. Section 52 says, " Every seaman on signing articles shall produce a discharge in respect of the capacity in which he wishes to engage, or shall furnish proof that he has served in such other capacities as would, under the provisions of this Act, entitle him to ship in respect of such capacity ; but if the seaman makes a statutory declaration that he is entitled to ship the Superintendent may, upon being satisfied that he is so entitled and on payment of a fee of five shillings, grant him a permit to sign articles. Every seaman who makes a false declaration under this subsection is liable to imprisonment for not exceeding three months." I hold that the sum of ss. is little enough, and I point out to you that this section requires extreme attention, because it very nearly affects the discipline of ships'. If a man by his misconduct in one ship gets a bad discharge, all he has to do is to tear it up quietly or destroy it, and he can then make a statutory declaration that he is fit to ship, and although he may be perfectly good, and that sort of thing, the master knows nothing about his previous conduct. I think there should be a penalty, and the fee of ss. might make the man a little more careful in future. But power should be given to the Superintendent to remit the penalty in cases where he may deem it necessary so to do. There may be cases where a man might be wrecked, or lose his luggage, or have it stolen from him, and I think some reasonable discretion in such cases might be given to the Superintendent. In subsection (3) it says, " Subsections one and two hereof shall not apply to steamships plying within restricted limits." If they carry passengers within restricted limits you want as highly qualified seamen as you can get. In subsection (4) it states that, " Every person who gives a discharge as A.B. to any person who has not duly served in the capacity and trade for which the discharge is given is liable to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds." That gives no option at all. If lin the heat of business made a clerical error I might be penalised, and so might anybody else, up to £50. I suggest that it should be " any person who wilfully or knowingly gives a discharge." 22. Mr. R. Thompson.] The Magistrate might make it a shilling if he likes? —You do not think there is anything in this contention ? 23. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] No?—I am glad to hear that. By the Act an ordinary seaman equals two boys. Section 54, line 23, states, " Provided that for the purposes of this section two first-year apprentices, or one second-year apprentice, shall be deemed to be equivalent to one ordinary seaman"; so that an ordinary seaman equals two boys, and yet he is not defined in this Bill. 24. Could you suggest any definition of " ordinary seaman " ?—lt depends upon the definition of the Legislature as to what is an A.B. There are two classes of A.B.s. If you are going to have a time limit, then it seems to me that half the time that qualifies for an A.B. should qualify an ordinary seaman. Line 26 of section 54 says, " Provided also that the Superintendent may exempt sailing-ships from the operation of this provision so far as regards apprentices or boys to be carried." I look upon carrying a boy as so necessary that even that should be safeguarded in some way. I would suggest that it should read that " if the master shows to his satisfaction that he has made all reasonable efforts to get boys and has failed." 25. Mr. R. Thompson.] You consider it absolutely necessary that they should carry boys ?—I say that you have to look to the boys for your men in the next generation. Discharge of seamen, section 55, subsection (3), " A seaman of a home-trade ship shall be discharged in the same manner as seamen discharged from a foreign-going ship; but in the case of a single seaman he may be discharged on board, and the discharge shall be reported to the Superintendent at the first port at which the ship arrives after such discharge and ratified by him." If you refer to the engagement of seamen in section 43 you will find that a difference is made between engagement and discharge. Subsection (2) of section 43 says that if it is very urgent a man may be engaged by the master on board. He has to prove to the Superintendent that it is very urgent, but by section 55 he is allowed to discharge a seaman if he chooses. I strongly adhere to the old system, and there seems to be an inconsistency here. In one case you allow the master to discharge a man whenever he pleases, and in the other he may only engage a man in cases of urgency. Section 63, " In the case of home-trade ships and intercolonial trading-ships, and in ships where the crew are engaged on time agreement, all wages earned shall be paid monthly." "On time agreement ": In section 42 I said that "time agreement" was not defined, while "running agreement" and " voyage agreement " were defined. The point is this :In the case of home-trade and intercolonial trading-ships, and in ships engaged on time agreement: now, all the ships coming here are on time agreement, and are they, or are they not, to comply with this ? Foreign-going ships are all on time agreement, and in all these ships they have to be paid monthly. Now, is that desirable ? 26. The Chairman.] What do you suggest ?—One is very diffident in suggesting anything in the wording of an Act, but I would suggest that it be made quite plain to whom it has to apply. I think it should be made to apply to ships owned and registered in New Zealand, but according to this it will apply to ships of the Shaw-Savill and New Zealand Shipping Companies, and other foreign-going ships. That brings me to section 75, subsection (1), "Where the master, owner, or agent of any ship (a) engages seamen in the colony, or (b) having engaged them abroad employs them in the colony, those seamen, while so employed, shall be paid, and may recover, the current rate of wages for the time being ruling in the colony, and in the former case the engagement may be determined in the colony at any time after the ship's arrival at her final port of discharge in the colony, consequent on the completion of a round voyage, by twenty-four hours' previous notice on either side." This is a subsection which makes it show very clearly why one should have the final port of discharge clearly and unambiguously interpreted, because the twenty-four-hours clause only applies to a ship that has completed a round voyage and arrives at her final port of discharge. Now, what is a final port of discharge ? The Custom Compendium of 1891, page 55, defines "final port of discharge" as given under another section of the old Act, No. 355 (1876). The

J. A. H. MABCIEL;]

119

1.— 9.

words "final port of discharge," used in the 145 th section of "The Shipping and Seamen's Act, 1877," and in the 281 st section of " The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854," apply to the port at which the last of the cargo is discharged." It seems to me that the definition of "final port of discharge" should be agreed upon. That is what I have done in my practice. 27. Will you give us an instance ?—Supposing you were the master of a home-trade ship with your men before me. I would say, " Which port do you want as your final port of discharge," and you should say, "Lyttelton." I would then say to the men, "Do you wish Lyttelton to be your final port of discharge ? " If they agree, I say, '" The final port of discharge shall be Lyttelton." I would like to draw attention to section 105, " The master of a British ship shall not discharge a seaman or apprentice abroad, or leave him behind abroad, ashore, or at sea, unless he previously obtains, indorsed on the agreement with the crew, the sanction, or in the case of leaving behind, the certificate, — (a) At any place in His Majesty's dominions, of a Superintendent, or, in the absence of any such Superintendent, then of the chief officer of Customs at or near the place." Then I draw attention to the penalty—" (4.) A master who commits any breach of this section is guilty of a crime, and in any legal proceeding for the offence it shall lie on the master to prove that the sanction or certificate was obtained, or could not be obtained." Let us take the case of a master of an intercolonial ship who comes under that section, trading, let us say, between Newcastle and New Zealand. At the last moment he gets his clearance at the Customs, but may have to wait for the tide. Some of his men, we will say, run away. He hurries round and ships substitutes and then goes away, and afterwards comes back to New Zealand. Under this section one ought to prosecute that master, for he is guilty of a crime. I submit that is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. 28. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] That is to apply more to foreign ships. It has been suggested that it should not apply to New Zealand? —I am only drawing attention to the wording of the section. 29. Mr. Hutcheson.] The master can save himself by at once making the man a deserter?— The master cannot make him a deserter. The only person who can do that is the Superintendent or other person who is situated "at or near the place." 30. He " shall not discharge a seaman or apprentice abroad." In the case you mention the man goes away clearly against the master's will ?—" Or leave him behind abroad, ashore, or at sea, unless he previously obtains, indorsed on the agreement with the crew, the sanction, or in the case of leaving behind, the certificate," &c. I submit that is an impossibility, and the master should not be asked to do an impossibility, especially if he is penalised and commits a crime. 31. Mr. R. Thompson.] How is the present law on that point ?—Precisely the same. 32. And has it worked out in the way you suggest? —It has been more honoured in the breach than in the observance. But it seems to me to be wrong to have anything in the statute-book that is not carried out in its integrity. 33. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] Have you not had a prosecution under this section ?—No. 34. Was there not a case in connection with the " Bimutaka " ?—ln that case the Law Officer adv.ised that the men could not be discharged in New Zealand. 35. But the skipper was fined, I believe ?—I do not remember. 36. Mr. Hutcheson.] You must give the sailor some safeguard as well as the master ?— Certainly, lam quite agreeable to that. But take a case where the seamen are in the wrong and the master is a good, patient man. The men go away and he cannot get them back before he leaves, and they have to be written off the articles. When he comes back you say he has committed a crime. Section 114 :It says here " The Governor may from time to time appoint for one or more ports, or generally for all ports, such Medical Inspectors of Seamen as he thinks fit, and may fix the remuneration of such Inspector." Section 115, (1), says, "A Medical Inspector of Seamen shall, on application by the owner or master of any ship, examine any seaman applying for employment in that ship, and give to the Superintendent a report under his hand stating whether the seaman is in a fit state for duty at sea, and a copy of the report shall be given to the master or owner." Now, the power to appoint a Medical Inspector is a capital one, it seems to me, but I would like to see who are to be appointed on behalf of the seamen. Ido not know of any one being appointed. I should like to see it made mandatory that one man shall be appointed at each port. A man may come to me and say that he is very ill, and I may want him to go and get a certificate from an unbiassed person. At the present time the medical man has to look to his fee from the master of the ship, and I think that is not a good practice, seeing that power is given to the Governor to appoint a Medical Inspector. 37. Hon.Mr.Hall-Jones.] You approve of clauses 114 and 115 in the Bill?— Yes, with some slight alteration. 38. What is the alteration ?—That the Governor " shall " from time to time appoint, instead of " may." Section 119, subsection (2): This provides that certain things shall be done " where a seaman is left on shore at any place in New Zealand in any manner authorised by law, by reason of illness or accident in the service of the ship incapacitating him from performing his duties, he shall be deemed to be discharged from his ship." This does not make a foreign ship liable, in my reading of the section. As I pointed out, in the preamble this Act is intended to apply to British ships and not to foreign ships. 39. Mr. Hutcheson.] The following paragraph, (b), gives you the power: " A clearance shall not be granted to any such ship until this provision has been complied with " ?—My point is that, according to the preamble, this does not apply to foreign ships. 40. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] We can make it apply to foreign ships when they are in the colony?— That is not my point. If you make this Act apply to British ships only in the preliminary section, then it cannot be made to apply to foreign ships at all.

[j. A. H. MARCIEL.

120

1.—9.

41 Mr Hutcheson.] We can say we will not give the ship a clearance. The Undesirable Immigrants Act would apply there, and would enable this power to be enforced. We can decline to render the ships services. If the words " any British or foreign ship are inserted m place ot " the ship "in line 41, it would make it plain and easy to administer. Subsection (6) ot section 119 " A clearance shall not be granted to any such ship until this provision has been complied with " • The clearance is in the hands of the Customs, and if it said « until the Superintendent has notified the Collector that the law has been complied with "it would make it clearer still, lhe whole of subsection (3) of this section deals with intercolonial or home-trade ships, and the whole of the administration of that subsection depends upon paragraph (j)—" The il ness which shall entitle a seaman to the benefits provided for in this section shall be such as wholly to incapacitate him from the performance of his'duty, and shall be, or appear to be, of such a nature as to require, or be likely to require, medical treatment for a period of not less than one month, and shall, so tar as can be ascertained, have been contracted on board or in the service of the ship from which such seaman is so left on shore, or of its owners." Is not a month rather a long time? The kind ot month is not specified, but in the general interpretation of an Ac I believe " month means » calendar month." Say that in a case of sickness I call for a doctor s certificate. If the doctor tells me the man is going to be laid up twenty-five days the man gets absolutely no redress while if he is ill for a month or over a month he gets very generous treatment indeed. 1 submit that tor your consideration, and would also ask you to say what kind of a month it should be A shipowner after one has administered this Act, might do all that is considered necessary and afterwards be made liable under some other Act, or be indicted by an unscrupulous person for the same illness or accident under another Act, and I would suggest that there should be a bar to that. 42 Hon Mr Hall-Jones.] What Act could he come under?— Say, the Workers Compensation Act This section 119 is mandatory, and if the seaman has applied under this Act and been generously treated he should not be allowed to come under another Act. iS Mr B Thompson.] Is this section 119 wanted? We have had some evidence to the effect that it is not wanted ?—One is very diffident in saying what is or is not required in an Act of this kind. Section 124, " Deaths and accidents occurring at sea : When I brought up the question of notification of accidents a little earlier, I think it was said that it was provided for a little further on ; and is that so? This section does not apply It says, "Where any case of death or accident happens on board a ship, the Superintendent shall, on the arrival of such ship at a port in the colony, inquire into the cause of such death or accident, and shall make in the official lo» an entry to the effect either that the statement of the cause of death or accident therein contained is, in his opinion, true," and so on. My contention is that I am instructed to inquire into every case of serious accident that happens in the port. Well, I cannot know that by intuition. There ought to be some means of reporting the case to the Superintendent when that occurs in a port. This section only refers to accidents at sea. . „ • 44 The Chairman.] You suggest that "deaths or accidents at sea or in port should be inserted ?—Yes. Section 133, subsection (2), " If a seaman or apprentice intends to absent himself from his'ship or his duty, he may give notice of his intention" : That is the point we have dealt w°th previously. I do not think I need trouble you further with that. There is just one little point in section 134, (o), " If, while on the high seas, he is guilty of continued wilful disobedience to lawful commands, or continued wilful neglect of duty, he shall be hable to a penalty no exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment not exceeding twelve weeks, and also, at the discretion ot the Court to forfeit, for every twenty-four hours' continuance of such disobedience or neglect any expenses properly incurred in hiring a substitute": This is something that happens on the high seas, andhow can he get a substitute on the high se as to act for him I woulalike to draw attention also, under the same section, to subsections (c) and (/). We will take (/) first .he wilfully damages his ship, or embezzles or wilfully damages any of her stores or cargo, he shall be liable to forfeit out of his wages a sum equal to the loss thereby sustained, and also at the discretion of the Court, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding twelve months. Now, if you look at subsection (c) you will see that it says, " If, while on the high seas, he assaults the master or any mate or certificated engineer of the ship, he shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months. So that it is much cheaper to damage the master, mate, or engineer than it is to damage the ship. That comes from the old property laws of Great Britain at a time when it was held that property was more valuable * an 4s. e jtfr. Hutcheson.] And what happens to the master when he hammers an A.B.s head into iellv ?—He would have a very bad time now. 46 But you have got to prove that, because the only witness is the man with the head I— Section 142 subsection (2), " For the purpose of such reimbursement, the master or the owner or his agent may, if the wages are earned subsequently to the desertion recover them in the same manner as the deserter could have recovered them if not forfeited; and the Court in any legal proceeding relating to such wages may order them to be paid accordingly. I should like to know exactly what that means. Can wages be earned subsequent to desertion, or does it mean subseauent to desertion in another ship ? 47 Hon Mr Hall-Jones.] That means, earned in another ship, or ashore. He cannot earn them on the ship," because he has left the ship?-Well, there is another point arising out of that: Does it not seem, in one way, a little hard that if a man deserts hie ship he practically forfeits all his clothes, all his wages, and, if he goes into another ship they still have hen on his wages? He has really been punished by the forfeiture of his wages and the loss of his clothes for one act and he is punished again in this manner, The law should punish for offences, but it should not be vindictive.

J. A. H. MABCIEL.j

121

1.— 9.

48. The Chairman.] That matter has been pointed out already by other witnesses, and I am glad you also have referred to it?—He may be pursued after he is punished for the first offence. Section 143, " Where wages are forfeited under the foregoing provisions of this Act in any case other than for desertion, the forfeiture shall, in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, be for the benefit of the master or owner by whom the wages are payable." It does not seem to me to be proper that a profit shall be made out of a man's misdeeds. It seems to me that if money is forfeited or a fine is imposed, after all proper disbursements are met in connection with the case, the money should be paid into the Consolidated Fund. 49. The captain should not have a monetary interest in driving a man to desert ?—No. All fines go to the Consolidated Fund, but here the law says, with great ambiguity, that any wages forfeited other than for desertion shall go to the master or owner ; and it is very difficult to show what is a forfeiture and what is a fine. 50. Mr. R. Thompson.] If a master or owner is allowed to benefit by forfeitures, then it is a temptation to them to bring about forfeitures ?—Yes. 51. Where do you think the fines should go ?—To the Consolidated Fund. If a man fines another man for a misdeed, then the money belongs to the State in the same way as in a Magistrate's Court. 52. And you think forfeitures should be handed over in the same way ? —Quite so. Section 151, dealing with the official logs, " An official log shall be kept in every ship in the appropriate form for that ship, approved by the Minister " : It says here that this is to be " kept in every ship." If you turn to section 40, under the head of " Engagement of Seamen," you will see " Except in the case of ships of less than twenty tons registered tonnage exclusively employed in trading between different ports on the coasts of New Zealand, the master of every ship shall enter into an agreement," but section 151 says that an official log shall be kept in every ship; so you have the extraordinary position that men in vessels of under twenty tons-must keep a log. 53. The Chairman.] It has been pointed out that the Minister may approve of official logs for different classes of vessels, and the entries to be made, so that, as Mr. Hutcheson suggests, a notched stick might do for one class of vessel ? —Under the present law it is optional for a hometrade master to keep an official log—it is not compulsory; but under this section it is compulsory. The reason for the official log is this : it is something to keep the authorities informed of what happens when the ship is away some little time from the jurisdiction of the port. That is not necessary when you have the ship constantly in port, and are able to make inquiries in a statutory manner. That is very much better than having to depend on anything in an official log. I fancy that many people that I know will have very great difficulty in keeping these official logs. 54. You may suggest a limit to the tonnage?— These men are under very severe penalties. If they do not put the entries referred to in the official log they are liable to a fine of £5. Under the 1898 Begulations for the Examination of Masters and Mates you will find, on page 16, section 36, (c) —that is, the vivd voce navigation part of his examination—a foreign-going master is the only class of master examined in the entries to be made in an official log, so as to qualify the master by examination to keep an official log ; and if you enact penalties against worthy men who are perhaps illiterate only, it may place them in an unfair position, it seems to me. 55. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] Do you think it is necessary for the home trade?—l think it should be optional for home-trade ships, as at present. I have not the advantage of having heard both sides of the question, but I submit there is a point, and a very important point, in it. You should not penalise a man, unless you give him a fair chance of complying with the law; and I submit that, if you do not examine a home-trade master in a subject, and do not give him the opportunity of carrying it into practice, there is no object in penalising him. These discipline clauses cannot be enacted on board ship unless the ship carries an official log; but, as these masters are always in touch with the Magistrates and can bring a man up before them, the necessity for the official log does not appear to me to exist in the same way. But, on the other hand, if you have a class of home-trade vessels in which it is deemed necessary that the master should keep an official log, then he should be allowed to keep it. In subsection (8) of section 151 you will see another reference to the final port of discharge, and it would be worth considering that when you come to decide upon the definition of it. Section 152, subsections (1) to (11) : There are certain matters here that are compulsory in the official log where it is carried, and you will see that collisions are mentioned, among other things ; but, strange to say, stranding is not mentioned, and I suggest that it should be. In section 193, (1), the words " material damage " occur. " When any ship has sustained or caused any accident" : Can a ship itself cause an accident? It seems to me that a person on board would do that. 56. Mr. Hutcheson.] Suppose she was a derelict ?—Well, it is a little difficult to bring people under that section, because of its wording. Section 199, "Adjustment of compasses": With regard to the section itself I have nothing to say; but I have heard a great many complaints at my port from men who have to pay the fee for having to adjust their own compasses. They have to pay 10s., and they contend that this payment will not make them adjust their compasses any better. 57. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] Their ships are registered outside the colony?— Yes. I referred some time ago to "freeboard," and subsection (5) of section 203 is a sort of interpretation of it, but the words used are " clear side." 58. The Chairman.] Mr. Hutcheson has said that "clear side" means right up to the top of the rail?—The term "clear side" has been rejected by the Commission at Home, and the word "freeboard" used instead. I noticed that and thought I would mention it to the Committee. Section 204 I have brought before you. It says here, " Every British ship, except ships under 40 tons register employed solely in the home trade, ships employed solely in fishing, pleasure yachts,.and ships plying within restricted limits," and so forth, must have their load-lines marked; 16—1. 9.

1.—9.

122

r .T. A. H. MARGIEL.

but foreign vessels under this section are clearly excluded. There is such a real hardship inflicted on our shipowners by this that I think the clause should be reconsidered. 59. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] You might have international complications?— But here you say that the Minister has power to enact this load-line. It says distinctly it has application to foreign ships. 60. That means that a foreign ship has complied with the laws and regulations which are equally effective with our own ?—But you ought to decide it if they are equal, and then it gives you power to stop it; but the Act says " every British ship." If under section 211 you have the power clearly to enforce it, why not under section 204 ? Why should you limit it to British ships ? Section 304 deals with the administration of the ship. 61. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] We cannot alter that. It is in the Imperial Act, and applies to the whole of the British Empire ? —lt seems to me that if I register an iron ship—you go on the ship's register and you find certain things that are laid down by statute to be there, which gives you certain information with respect to the ship. That should be as complete as possible for the safety of the ship. It seems to me that in the ease of an iron ship the correct magnetic direction of the ship's head while building is important. 62. The Chairman.] Does that affect them ? —Yes. Some men are well up in compass work, but some are not; but if you have the correct magnetic direction of the ship's head when the vessel is built that will be a great help to you. The direction of her head when building determines the magnetic history of the ship. Then, also, as regards the load-line as redefined: The calculation depends, in the first instance, on the length, breadth, and depth, as given in the register, to get the coefficient of fineness. You will find that the moulded depth is somewhat different from the depth given in register, and is needed to take the freeboard from the tables. I suggest that the moulded depth should be shown on the register, and if a man has to verify a load-line out here he may have only to do it once in ten years. It is a very difficult- matter to get the moulded depth when the ship is full of cargo. Third Schedule: I see here that steamers are exempt from carrying boys. I really do not agree with that. I think steamers ought to carry boys in some fair proportion. I find in my experience there is no difficulty in getting boys. 63. Mr. Hutcheson.] How do they exclude them?— They do not altogether exclude them, but they do not have a due proportion of boys right up to 2,000 tons. A 2,000-ton steamer need only train for the good of the profession one ordinary seaman—who is by statute not a boy—or an apprentice or boy. That does not seem to me to be a proper proportion. I would like to again refer to the official log in section 155. I submit that if by statute you deem it necessary for an engineer to keep some record you should call it a " log-book." It seems to me that you cannot have two official logs on a ship, and you are striking new ground altogether. It seems that all the magnificent steamers that are now running out of the Old Country are subject to nothing of this kind. I know that this Act is something new and in advance of what has gone before, but vessels in the Old Country which are miles ahead of us do not consider this necessary. 64. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] They do not have a manning scale?— Well, if it can be shown to be an improvement to have this log, lam with you; but, certainly, if the term " official" is retained Ido not think it will be an improvement. If you add to subsection (11) certain words I think the sting can be taken out of the word: " Nothing in this section shall in any way affect or limit the duties and liabilities imposed by this Act on the master in respect of his official log," nor shall it deal with the discipline of the ship in any way. I propose that the last words be added. 65. Suppose you call it "engineer's official log," or "engine-room log"?—I should call it " a log." I have not a bit of feeling in the matter. Engineers are very nice men to work with, and if there was a breach of discipline on board the engineer would, if necessary, report it through the master. If you refer to the " Journal of the Department of Labour," page 759, you will see a reference, not to the official log, but to the absolute necessity for keeping the paramountcy of the ship intact. This is in Judge Cooper's arbitration award in the Auckland seamen's dispute, section 39 : " All notices to be given or received by the master of the ship only." That emphasizes the paramountcy of the authority of the master. 66. Mr. R. Thompson.] What bearing has that on the official log ? —lt does not seem to me that you can do that while you retain the word " official " in the log. I submit that you cannot be too careful in doing anything which may affect the paramountcy of the master in the matter of discipline. I suggest the addition to subsection (11) of the words " nor shall it deal with the discipline of the ship in any way." It will then be unambiguous and satisfactory. There is just another point I would refer to : Section 38, subsection (2), line 1, "A person shall not " do certain things. Subsection (1) says, " A person shall not (a) engage or supply a seaman or apprentice to be entered on board any ship in New Zealand, or (b) employ any other person for the purpose of engaging or supplying a seaman or apprentice to be entered on board any ship in New Zealand, unless such person (or such other person, as the case may be) either holds a license from the Minister for the purpose, or is the owner, or master, mate, or engineer of the ship, or is bond fide the servant and in the constant employment of the owner, or is a Superintendent." It seems to me, in view of that decision of Mr. Justice Cooper's—" that all notices should be given or received from the master of the ship only," which makes it mandatory there on discharge, while it was more honoured in the breach than in the observance before, because sometimes the owner or some head of a department gave the notice—that he has laid it down that the master must be cognisant of it. I should suggest that you add the words " and is directed by the master to do so " after'the word " Superintendent"—that is, that any person must have the direct authority of the master for engaging as well as dismissing him. 67. Mr.'Hutcheson.] There is a great difference between dismissal and discharge?—l submit that the master has always the power of having everything sanctioned. It says in the Arbitration

I:— 9:

123

J. A. H. MARCIEL.j

Court award that " twenty-four hours' notice on either side shall be the law of discharge " in the port where the ship has drawn out her articles, and that might help you in defining the " final port of discharge." 68. The Chairman.] There is a provision that a man can give twenty-four hours' notice?— Yes. 69. Do you know at Lyttelton there is a great deal of complaint as to men giving notice on Friday, and that on Saturday a ship cannot get away and is sometimes neaped when she arrives at the port of destination. A number of the masters and owners think that forty-eight hours' notice should be given ?—I really could not express an opinion on that. 70. Do you think that forty-eight hours' notice would be a more reasonable notice for the men to be compelled to give?—l should not like to say that without going more carefully into the pros and cons of the matter. One wants to be judicial in these things. I have heard grumbling on both sides, and I would like to go very carefully into the matter before I altered anything. If there is a point to be considered I like to inquire into it and come to a reasonable decision. lam afraid the men drink a great deal, and that that is the cause of the trouble in these ports. They get their wages and drink a little more than is good for them ; and I could not trace the trouble exactly to the twenty-four hours' notice. 71. Mr. Hutcheson.] About the interchange of discharge—the misuse of the steamship discharge : It has been alleged before this Committee that some of the men when they get a steamship discharge make use of it for general purposes, that they go into sailing-ships with it ?—Yes ? 72. And it was also alleged that there was not sufficient distinction to enable a shipmaster to distinguish at once that they were steamship discharges ?—Yes ? 73. I see nothing in the discharges produced to distinguish them, and I think the A.B. steamship discharges ought to be of a different colour, or something of that sort. What is your opinion as to the possibility of a man going on a sailing-vessel after having been only two years in a steamship ?—The master has power to disrate him if he does not know his work. • r;!5.;074. But supposing the master is complacent? I want you to tell us whether it is possible, and whether you think some other form of discharge for the steamship-service A.B. should not be provided more distinctive in character ? —Yes, I think so; but that is really a departmental matter. Ido not think there is a very large number of steamship-men about, so far as my experience goes. I have not often met them. 75. We have heard from steamship representatives of the men that such is the ease ?—I have no doubt they can give you chapter and verse for it, but in my experience I cannot say I have seen much of it. 76. And, in your opinion, it is desirable that there should be some distinction in the discharges ? —lf there was some distinction there would be no confusion.

APPENDIX.

No. 29. At the request of the Committee the following suggestions were supplied by Captain Fleming, Superintendent of Mercantile Marine, Dunedin : — " The Shipping and Seamen Act, 1902." Interpretation. Section 4. Before definition of term " seaman " insert " sailor" : to mean any seaman engaged as A.B. (able seaman) or O.S. (ordinary seaman), and does not include the mates. This, I think, is very necessary, as some owners and masters are inclined to count the mates as A.B.s, which, of course, is wrong: by defining the word " sailor "as above this difficulty would be removed. Engagement of seamen. Section 41, subsection (b). After word " specifying " add " the minimum number engaged as sailors (able and ordinary seaman)." As the articles of agreement insist that the number must be specified, I think it is only right that the minimum number should be shown. Agreement in the case of foreign-going ships. Section 42. After "foreign-going" (third line) add "or intercolonial ships," &c. As "foreign" and "intercolonial" are both separately interpreted in section 4,1 think it would in this case make the section clearer by inserting the word "intercolonial." Agreement in the case of home-trade ships. Section 43, subsection (2), I think is unnecessary, as the present system works well. When a crew is engaged on board (under present Act) the master, on producing the articles of agreement for ratification, must also produce the discharge for each seaman engaged to the Superintendent, who will see that everything is in order before he ratifies the agreement: this system works well and gives general satisfaction. Seamen to produce discharge. Section 52, subsection (1). Alter, " Every seaman before signing articles shall produce his discharge from his last ship, in respect of the capacity he wishes to engage," &c. This, I think, is

1.—9

124

very necessary under present Act. The seaman shall produce a discharge in respect of the capacity he wishes to engage. After he has signed articles—subsection (2) —he shall hand his discharge from his last ship to the Superintendent, &c. What is to be done if he has not got one ? These two sections appear to me to contradict each other. By compelling seamen to produce their last discharge before, signing the articles will, I think, assist in reducing desertions from foreign-going vessels and will entail no hardship on our own seamen, as they can always get a " Statement of Service " (if required) from their last vessel. Discharge whole crew, home-trade ships. Section 55. Subsection (3) I think is unnecessary, as present system works well and is convenient for all concerned. I have never yet had any trouble through the masters of home-trade vessels discharging their crews on board, as I satisfy myself that all the requirements of the law are fulfilled before I sanction the ratification of the discharge of whole crews in home-trade vessels. Statement of wages to be given. Section 59, subsection (1). Would alter this to read as follows: "The master of every foreign-going or intercolonial ship shall, before paying off or discharging a seaman, deliver in a reasonable time a full and true account, in a form approved by the Minister, of the seamen's wages and of all deductions to be made therefrom on any account whatever." I think an account of wages in a home-trade vessel is unnecessary, as the seamen seldom get an advance, nor have they the chance of purchasing, &c. Subsection (2). Not workable in the case of an intercolonial vessel, where twenty-four hours' notice can be given on either side at the final port. The master would be unable to give the account of wages in the time laid down in subsection (2), and would be always liable to the penalty for not doing so in subsection (3). Deductions. Section 60, subsection (2). After the word " deduction" (third line) add "initialled or signed by the seaman," &c. This would save disputes. I have had several cases come before me where the master has had an account with a seaman, but which he repudiated, and, as it was not signed or initialled by the seaman, I, of course, could not allow the claim. If the master is compelled to have all advances in his book of deductions signed or initialled by the seaman receiving same it would protect the master, as well as save the seaman from perhaps being unlawfully charged for what he did not receive. Payment of wages. Section 63. After the word " the " (last word, third line) add " calendar month." This would at once settle the question that the wages must be paid on the first day of the month, and not from date to date, as some masters and owners at present consider. I will quote a case : Say a seaman signs articles on the 15th August, I hold by present Act he is entitled to be paid on the Ist September ; now, some masters and owners assert he is not entitled to be paid until the 15th September (date to date). This, I consider, is wrong and an injustice to the seaman. By adding the word " calendar," as above suggested, this point would be made clear. Advance and allotment of wages. Section 68, subsection (4). Cut out (line 4) "not exceeding one-half," and insert "agreed on." I do not think it would be fair to the seaman's family to limit the amount of his allotment : this point I consider should be left to be settled by mutual understanding or agreement between the employer and employee. Eights of seamen in respect of wages. Section 75, subsection (b). After word " colony" (fourth line), would add "on completion of the day's work on the date of the ship's arrival at her final port of discharge in the colony," &c. By the present wording of the Act a seaman may give twenty-four hours' notice that he will leave on arrival: the vessel may arrive at 10 a.m., when the seaman would leave. This Ido not consider is fair to the master or owner, as they would have to pay him his full day's pay, although I have always ruled that the seaman should finish his day's work. By adding the words I have suggested it would be fair to both sides, and would not affect those vessels not twenty-four hours in their final port, as I consider the seaman would have completed his day's work when the vessel was ready for sailing. Seamen not to be left abroad, &c. Section 105. After word " dominions," add " other than New Zealand" (see section 91, " Shipping and Seaman's Act, 1877," where this proviso is made, and is, I think, necessary). For instance, vessels often leave our ports late at night, and find after they have left that a seaman is absent. They report him at the next port, and produce an entry to that effect in the official log to the Superintendent, and if not a case of desertion leave with him the wages and effects due to the seaman. The Superintendent at that port will advise the Superintendent at the port where the man is that his money and effects have been left for him. By the proposed Act this could not be done, and might often prove unjust to the seaman. Illness, or hurt, or injury. Section 117. After " hurt or injury" (second line), add "or by reason of illness," &c. This, I think, would make this section more in unison with section 119. I note there is no provision made for the case of an intercolonial vessel who has brought back to the colony a sick or injured seaman who was shipped in the colony and likely to be incapacitated from his work for a period of less than one month. Clearly he cannot be treated by section 119, subsection (J), as he will not be ill for one month, and according to section 117, having brought the sick or injured seaman back to some port in the colony, the ship's responsibility ceases. This case requires some particular

125

1.—9

provision to be made for it. In the case of a home-trade vessel where a seaman is sick for less than one month we could treat him under section 117, as he has never been away from the colony, and consequently could not be said to have been brought back. Deaths or accidents occurring at sea. Section 124, subsection (1). After "accident" (first line), add "incapacitating the seaman from work," &c. I think this is necessary, as there are many trivial accidents occurring on board ship not worth reporting or inquiring into, but when a seaman is incapacitated from his work through accident then this Act would meet the case. ' Official logs. Section 151, subsection (1). After "■ every ship," add " and in the case of home-trade ships of more than 20 tons register." By adding the above it would make the section more in unison with section 40, subsection (1). Logs to be delivered to Superintendents. Section 153, subsection (2). Would alter this to read as follows: " The master or owner of every home-trade ship shall, within twenty-one days after the termination of every agreement with the crew, deliver or transmit the official log-book to some Superintendent in the colony." By having the official log-book handed in with the agreement (as at present) insures the records being kept together of the various voyages made during the terms of agreement. Chief engineer to keep official log. Section 155,1 think, is unnecessary, as the engineer's ordinary log should meet all his requirements. I note there is no provision made in this section for the engineer's official log to be delivered to Superintendent at the termination of agreement; neither is there any authority given to the engineer to retain his official log for the benefit of the ship. Duties of Superintendent of Mercantile Marine. Section 156, subsection (2). "To provide means for securing the presence on board at the proper times of the seamen who are so engaged." This, I think, should be cut out, as it would prove very inconvenient to Superintendents to have to do this duty. I would suggest that this duty should fall on the master or owner engaging the seamen. The above suggestions and amendments to the Bill under consideration are respectfully submitted in accordance with a request from the Secretary of Marine and the Chairman of the Committee. Charles Fleming, Superintendent of Mercantile Marine, Dunedin.

Sir, — Marine Department, Wellington, 13th August, 1902. I have the honour, by direction of the Minister of Marine, to forward herewith copy of a letter which has been received from the Secretary to the Dunedin Chamber of Commerce, on the subject of claims on shipping companies for cargo short-landed and for pillages. The Committee may see its way to consider the letter in connection with section 297 of the Shipping and Seamen Bill now before it. I have, &c, George Allport, The Clerk, Shipping and Seamen Bill Committee, For Secretary. House of Bepresentatives, Wellington.

Sib, — Dunedin Chamber of Commerce, Dunedin, sth August, 1902. I have the honour, by direction of my committee, to address you with reference to the matter of claims on shipping companies for cargo short-landed and for pillages. You are no doubt, aware that this subject has occasioned a great amount of correspondence between'the Chambers of Commerce, shipping companies, and importers for some time past. At the last meeting of my committee the matter was further considered, and a letter was received from a gentleman having some expert experience, containing suggestions to the following effect, viz. : That clauses might be added to the Shipping and Seamen Bill now before Parliament providing that the agents for all vessels not registered in the colony should be made the legal representatives of the master and owners of such vessels after the vessel has sailed from the port at which she has discharged, for the purpose of receiving and paying claims for short deliveries or pillages, and that such claims must be lodged within fourteen days after the vessel has sailed. That the agents should have the right to produce the vessel's receipts, and, if required, to get the persops signing such receipts to make statutory declarations that they are genuine and correct. That it should be made compulsory for any person who gives a receipt also to make the required declaration when called upon to do so, or to give oral evidence in Court. That if any agents are unable to make satisfactory arrangements with the captain or owners of the vessel to cover this responsibility, they might be allowed to give written notice to the Collector of Customs, who should refuse the vessel's clearance until the agents withdraw their notice in writing. It was further suggested that it might be provided that the Chamber of Commerce should have the power at any port to appoint a master

I —9

126

mariner or master stevedore to have the right during working-hours to go on board any vessel while she is loading or discharging to inspect the cargo and stowage on behalf of the consignees and shippers. My committee recognises the grievance which has occasioned the letter referred to, and umerous complaints from merchants, and, while not feeling competent to dictate as to what course should be adopted, pass on the suggestions made for your consideration. It was also suggested at the meeting that if the Collector of Customs is at any time not satisfied that the agents of vessels are responsible people, or, if there should be no legal agents, the captain or owners should be required to lodge a deposit or bond with the Customs Department, to be held for a stipulated time after the vessel has left, and to be used in meeting properly established claims. I may add that merchants here find no difficulty in getting reasonable claims recognised by the principal lines having established agents; but their difficulty is with the vessels making occasional visits here and not so represented. It is to meet such cases that my committee trusts you will make some provisions in the legislation of the present session. 1 have &c, Peter Barr, Secretary. The Hon. W. Hall-Jones, Minister of Marine, Wellington.

Sm, Marine Department, Wellington, 11th August, 1902. I have the honour, by direction of the Minister of Marine, to forward herewith for the Committee on the Shipping and Seamen Bill copy of a letter which has been received from Mr. James Park, of Hokitika, on the subject of an oil-engine scow which is being built for trade on the west coast of the South Island. I have, &c, George Allport, The Clerk, Shipping and Seamen Bill Committee, For Secretary. House of Bepresentatives, Wellington.

Sir,— Hamilton Street, Hokitika, N.Z., 18th July, 1902. A company has built a scow here for the river work between Westport and Jackson's Bay. As a sailing-boat the scow does not need to carry a master, because it is under 20 tons (in reality about 16 tons) register. We find that if we put oil-engines into the scow we will not only have to carry an oil-engine engineer, but also a master. Now, it is an anomaly that if we put the oil-engines into the scow, and thus make it far safer and more easily worked, we are compelled by law to carry a master, and if we do not put the oil-engines in we do not need to. The scow will be of immense benefit to the settlers on the river, as we will be able to supply them with carriage at one-sixth of the present dray cost. In addition to that it will lighten the cost of road-maintenance to a very great degree. I have therefore to ask that you 'will be good enough to amend section 7 of " The Shipping and Seamen's Act Amendment Act, 1896," so as only to apply to oil-vessels of over 20 tons net register ; or gazette the district from Westport to Jackson's Bay as within restricted limits. The small boat built especially for plying into our southern rivers, where no boat ever enters, will not pay to carry a master. Plenty of good seamen who know our coast, and are well up in river work, are to be found who would work the scow and develop a good trade. I may say that the scow is to be used a great deal for fishing. I am addressing this letter to you, as down here we look to you as in the place of our member, who is away at present. Trusting to receive a favourable reply, I am, &c, James Park. The Hon. Sir J. G. Ward, Acting-Premier, Wellington.

Statement showing the Number and Net Tonnage of Sailing and Steam Vessels on the Register in the United Kingdom, for the Years 1897 to 1901 inclusive.

George Allport, Marine Department, Wellington, 9th September, 1902. For Secretary.

Sail ling-vessels. Steam-vessels. Year. Vessels. Net Tonnage. Vessels. Net Tonnage. 1897 1998 1899 1900 1901 11,669 11,341 10,945 10,573 10,382 2,566,392 2,366,539 2,225,532 2,077,655 1,970,927 8,559 8,806 8,997 9,178 9,452 6,358,147 6,608,561 6,912,417 7,202,509 7,612,507

1.—9.

Statement showing the Number and Net Tonnage of Sailing and Steam Vessels on the Register in New Zealand, for the Years 1897 to 1901 inclusive.

George Allport, Marine Department, Wellington, 9th September, 1902. For Secretary.

Copy of Telegram from the Superintendent of Mercantile Marine at Auckland to Secretary Marine, Wellington, 11th September, 1902, re Wages in Auckland Bestricted Limits. Approximate rate of wages : Steam—per month, mates, £14 to £7; second mate, £11 to £8 ; A.B.s, £7 to £5; 0.5., £4 10s. to £2 ; engineers, £20 to £12; firemen, £9 10s. to £6; stewards, £5 to £1 10s. : Sail—A.B.s, £7 to £5; 0.5., £4 10s. to £2 per month : Ferry service (all weekly wages)—engineers, £3 14s. Bd. ; firemen, £2 10s. ; A.B.s, £2 10s. ; where paid by trip, average £8 to £5 per month for A.B.s.

Number of Vessels on Articles in Auckland Bestricted Limits. Sail, 34 ; steam, 16.

Sir, — Marine Department, Wellington, 23rd August, 1902. I have the honour, by direction of the Minister of Marine, to forward herewith, for the consideration of the Committee now sitting on the Shipping and Seamen Bill, a copy of a letter which has been received from Mr. J. Kirby, on the subject of seamen deserters. I have, &c, George Allport, for Secretary. The Clerk, Shipping and Seamen Bill Committee, House of Bepresentatives, Wellington.

Sir,— 160, Willis Street, 11th Aagust, 1902. Pardon me for drawing your attention to the present Seamen's Act which is in vogue here. (1.) The Act should be altered so as to save business-men from being robbed by seamen who desert from their ships, and are allowed to remain ashore here. They become a tax on the country, and we should be protected by an Act of Parliament, i.e., if a seaman is left ashore the captain should pay him half wages due. (2.) There are a class of seamen who travel about New Zealand taking advance notes, and they get cash to pay their board, and afterwards will not go on the ship; and the business-man can simply do nothing with those men. The Act wants altering so as to protect men of business who are good enough to assist the men. It is purely false pretences, but the police are powerless. It wants stamping out, and I hope you will assist the people of New Zealand and get it done. Yours, &c, The Acting Premier. J. Kirby.

[Telegram.] Geo. Fowlds, Wellington. Auckland, 27th August, 1902. At a large and representative meeting of all local shipowners and others interested, held here last night to consider the Shipping and Seamen Bill, the following resolution was unanimously passed: " That in the opinion of this meeting there should be no alteration in the law as it now exists and has existed for the past eight years." See report in to-day's Herald, and we ask your assistance in opposing any proposed alterations injurious to the Auckland coasting trade. M. G. McGregor, For the Shipowners.

[Telegram.] Chairman, Shipping and Seamen's Bill Committee, Wellington. Auckland, 28th August, 1902. That the Auckland Trades and Labour Council, after hearing the opinion of expert seamen on the question of extended river limits, is of the opinion that existing exemptions should be excised from the Shipping and Seamen Consolidated Act. At present, vessels which trade in virtually open ocean—that is, between Bream Head and Gape Golville—are allowed to do so with unqualified seamen, thus endangering their own and the lives of passengers. Irwin, Secretary, Trades and Labour Council.

127

Sailing-vessels. Steam-vessels. I Year. Vessels. , Net Tonnage. Vessels. Net Tonnage. 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 318 317 310 301 303 39,743 38,719 40,753 4.2,197 43,108 188 201 212 219 217 47,806 52,216 52,770 56,498 59,218

1.—9.

[Telegram.] Mr. Fowlds, M.H.8., Wellington. Auckland, 3rd September, 1902. As an old sailor permit me to state that extended limits should be from Sandspit to Tiri. C. Philpot.

Resolution of the Committee of the Auckland Provincial Agricultural Association. That, in the opinion of this meeting, there should be no alteration in the law as it now exists, whereby steamers trading within extended river limits are exempted from the provisions as to the number of firemen and A B.s to be carried on all ships. And that the extended river limits as now defined remain unaltered, as any alteration would seriously affect the successful working of scows and other sailing coastal vessels trading out of the Port of Auckland.

Sir, — s.s. " Pertone," Greymouth, 3rd September, 1902. Your notice of the 22nd ultimo only to hand. I very much regret losing the opportunity of accepting your invitation to give evidence on the Bill, but hereby inform you that section 155 of the Bill—viz., engineer's official log—has my strong approval and support, and, in my opinion, should become law. It is a step in the right direction, and nothing but good will result. It will recognise the person who is responsible for seventy-five per cent, on a steamship. The log referred to in the Act is already kept in its entirety by all chief engineers, so why not make it legal ? It will in no way interfere, and by making it a legal document will greatly assist discipline in the engine department, thereby insuring greater efficiency, safety, and economy ; and I can assure the Committee that in the event of it becoming law it will be hailed with sincere gratification by all marine engineers. As I am president of the Wellington Institute of Marine Engineers, I can safely say that I voice their opinions and wishes in this matter. Yours, &c, N. D. Hood, President, Wellington Institute Marine Engineers. Chairman, Committee on Shipping and Seamen Bill. Approximate Cost of Paper.— Preparation, not given; printing (1,375 copies), £12 4b.

By Authority: John Mackay, Government Printer, Wellington.-—1902. Price 2s. 3d.}

128

EXTREME "RESTRICTED LIMITS" OF THE AUCKLAND HARBOUR