Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  


    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 70

Cross-Examination By Mr. Jellicoe

Cross-Examination By Mr. Jellicoe.

Do I understand you to say that there can be no sweating without starvation?—I say there could—that is an extreme case.

I suppose you condemn sweating?—I do, sir.

That is, you condemn a middleman making an unfair profit out of his employes?—What do you mean by unfair, that word is very elastic?

I want your definition of sweating, would you say it was sweating for a sub-contractor, or middleman, to under-pay his employes, or to pay less than the minimum wage?—Before I can answer I should like to know what the minimum wage is.

Would you consider it sweating for a middle man, or sub-contractor, to pay his employes less than the maximum rate paid in any particular trade?—I would not. There might be circum stances where that happened and there was no sweating at all.

Would you consider it sweating for a sub contractor, or middleman, to pay less than the minimum rate of wages paid in the same trade?—Not in every case.

Supposing the minimum rate of wages paid to compositors was £3 per week, would you consider it unfair for a middleman or sub-contractor to pay his employés in the same trade 45s per week?

Mr. Gully—How can a person pay above or below a maximum or minimum rate unless the rate is fixed? There is no such thing as a tariff fixed by an irresponsible body.

Mr. Jellicoe—Would you consider it unfair for a middleman or sub-contractor to pay his employed 45s per week when the minimum rate was £3 per week?—It would all depend upon the case. It might in some cases and might not in others. The question is too vague.

When you returned from Europe you say you found Evison had been engaged in the capacity of manager?—He was editor at that time, and they became editor and manager.

How long was he editor?—Not very long. I do not remember the date. Then Mr. Loughnar became editor, and later on an arrangement was made that Mr. Evison should become editor and manager.

Do I understand that at that time the arrangement with Cooper existed?—To the best of my recollection it did. I cannot swear it.

The arrangement with Cooper was that he should be paid £14 8s per week to produce the paper?—I paid the money to Evison and he made the arrangement.

You knew Cooper received £14 8s for the production of the paper?—Yes.

Did you know at that time how much he paid to the employés?—I did to some employes. I was told by Evison the details.

What information did Evison give you on you return from Europe as to the rate of wages paid by him to the employés?—I cannot remember the details. He told me at the time—it went in at one ear and out of the other.

Had you any idea that it was lees than other men were getting for the same class of work a town?—I was always led to believe that they were receiving good wages according to their capacity, and I consider that they were fairly well paid; also that they were perfectly satisfied.

That is what you understood?—Yes.

We have been told that there was no detailed account ever rendered to you of the various payments made by Cooper to the employés. That is so, I suppose?-I think so; although I know Cooper had a pay-sheet.

Did you ever inspect the pay-sheet?—I cannot say I did.

From that time up to the present what do you say was the average per man employed by Cooper—£2 5a per week?—I am not prepared to enter into these details. It is a matter of detail.

Have you been at any time posted with that detail?—Certainly, at different periods.

Do you know what the proportion of boys it men was?—A fair proportion. I do not know exactly. Besides the word "boys" is so very elastic.

His Honour—Of course. Mr. Jellicoe, many of your questions suggest that there is a charge of sweating made against Archbishop Redwood The Association has not made that, and it is not relevant. We are now considering whether the proprietor conducted it on the sweating system that is not in issue here.

Mr. Jellicoe—The witness in his examing tion-in-chief said he was perfectly acqusinted with the details.

A discussion ensued as to who was responsiable for the sweating, if it really existed. Mr. Jellicoe contended that the charge of sweating was really the only complaint made by the Association. If the sweating did not exist there was no foundation for writing the letter. If the sweating did exist, there was a foundation for the letter. The other side had contended that by innuendo Evison was accused of the sweating, which was denied by defendants.

His Honour said he was only anxious [unclear: to] save time. A good deal of the examination did not touch Evison at all, but the proprietor of the paper. Mr. Jellicoe bad been a long time at the page 15 bar, and he thought that he would respect his (the Judge's) ruling.

Cross-examination continued—I will refer to the letter of 28th September, The first paragraph runs as follows:—

"Your Grace,—We have the honour, on behalf of the Wellington Branch of the New Zealand Typographical Association, to make a final request that you will receive a deputation from this body in regard to the Catholic Times office, which, we are given to understand, is conducted on the sweating system, inasmuch as a certain sum of money is paid weekly to the manager or overseer, who is permitted to appropriate to his own use and benefit such amount as represents the difference between the sum received and that paid in wages to his subordi nates."

I understand you to say that a certain sum of money has been paid weekly to Cooper, and that Cooper appropriated the difference between the amount paid and the amount received?—I admit that, but deny that that is sweating.

I did not ask your opinion. Is that a fact?

His Honour—Of course that is so.

When they attribute the fact to wilful conceal ment, how can you say that that applies to Evison. The letter does not say that you were kept in wilful ignorance by Evison or by any body?—They say there that Evison has kept me in ignorance of that fact.

I ask you to show that to me. Why do you say Evison?—Because they knew very well that Evison refused to receive the deputation, and the whole of the context alludes to that.

Was it Evison who received the weekly sum?—It was Evison who received the weekly sum and handed it to Cooper. There is no distinction between the overseer and the manager.

It was your hand that paid the money to Evison, and then Evison paid it over to Cooper?

It was Cooper, in fact, who was paid the weekly sum referred to in the letter. Was that not so?—Yes, that was so; but I say the whole letter is against the overseer, and Evison is the overseer. The person who received the sum of money weekly is Evison, and he is charged with appropriating that money. The letter does not say Cooper but the manager or overseer, and therefore Evison, not Cooper, is charged. That is distinctly stated.

You say the person who retained the difference between £14 8s and the money paid to the subor dinates was Cooper?—That has nothing to do with the letter. It is Mr. Evison who is referred to.

Can you give me the slightest idea, from infor mation in your possession of the average number of boys employed by Cooper and paid out of this money?—As I have said already my memory does not furnish me with these details.

His Honour—There is only one question I wish to put. The evidence says that the money was paid to Evison. You are also aware that Cooper's hands distributed the money among: the men. Would not the word "overseer" suit Cooper?—He is not the overseer; he is a mere printer.

With regard to wilful ignorance, I understand you to say that must refer to Evison, and that he roust have kept back from you what was going on in the office. The other letter refers to a certain amount paid by the manager or overseer. You understand that that refers to Evison?—I look upon the words as synonymous. Evison was meant in both.

You say the term "overseer" applied to Evison?

Mr. Gully—It is quite consistent, because Evison was cognisant of the system.

His Honour—It would have been a different thing if the Association had published the letter in the newspapers.

Mr. Gully—You will understand that the letter was published to the Typographical Board. It is difficult to gauge the extent. It might have been published to a large class of people.

His Honour—The publication is admitted, I think.

Mr. Jellicoe—Only to the Archbishop.

His Honour—That would be less mischievous to Evison, than it would have been, had it been published in the newspapers of the colony.

Further cross-examined, witness said he did not know that the only person who employed compositors was Cooper. He knew now. He did not consider Cooper the overseer. Overseer and manager wore synonymous terms—Mr. Evi son was both. Never knew in detail what Cooper paid the men. Knew that he was making a low profit. Knew that Cooper was doing fairly well out of the jobbing, but was not making a good thing out of it at all. Did not know if any of the compositors were Roman Catholics—there might be some. The office was competing with other offices in jobbing. Considered it right for the office to undercut other offices in jobbing, providing the wages were fair; every business man tried to undercut his neighbour fairly and honestly. Could not see the inference that injury would be done to the whole trade, if other offices were brought down to the level of the Catholic Times office. Evison was appointed to advocate Home Rule and State aid to Catholic schools, not to have superintendence over the religious part of the paper. The sub-editor and himself looked after religious matter. An attack on Freethinkers would be a religious matter for him to see to. Mr. Ballance and Sir Robert Stout were criticised as politicians, not as Freethinkers. A pastoral was an official letter written by a Bishop to his flock. Thought he had seen copies of the Rationalist.

Mr. Gully—Are we going to have that matter dished up again?

Mr. Jellicoe—You may call it dishing up if you like.

Argument ensued as to the relevancy of ques tions relating to matters antecedent to Evison's employment on the Catholic Times, at the con clusion of which his Honour said he could rule against Mr. Jellicoe under the circumstances, but the matters connected with the Rationalist were for the moral sense of the jury.

Mr. Jellicoe (to witness)—Will you kindly look at the Rationalist of 6th June?

Witness—Am I obliged to look at this?

His Honour—I do not think you are. Surely, Mr. Jellicoe, you will not question that.

Mr. Jellicoe—Very well, your Honour. To witness—You heard some extracts read from the Rationalist yesterday. Did you hear the letter signed "Ivo" read?—I do not see what that has to do with the matter.

Assuming the writer of that letter to Bishop Luck and the writer of other matter from which extracts were read yesterday to be now editor of a religious paper, would you consider it a degra dation to be referred to him?—I cannot make an assumption of that kind. I am not entitled to assume that it is the same person.

You are entitled to assume that it is the same person when he says he is responsible for the letters signed "Ivo," to say nothing about the fact that he was conducting the paper. Would you consider it a degradation to be referred to the writer of the two letters to Bishop Luck?

Mr. Gully—Is it not necessary to take into consideration the circumstances under which they were written?

His Honour—Of course the question is too page 16 vague. No note is taken of the time which has elapsed and possible change of mind. It applies to a past stale of things, and you ought to let the witness know to what state of things you refer.

Mr. Jellicoe—My friend said that Evison's connection with the Catholic Times did not involve a change in his views.

Mr. Gully—I object to my friend putting words into my mouth I did not use.

His Honour—Mr. Evison said yesterday that he had changed his views with regard to the propaganda, but nothing as to his theological views.

After further argument, cross-examination pro ceeded.

Having regard to the decency exhibited in the publication of these matters, would you consider it an honour, in 1891, to be referred to the writer?—I should neither consider it an honour nor a dishonour. The position is all changed. He may have changed in five or six years. A man is not a humbug for having changed his views.

Evison told us yesterday that is was thought necessary to reply to the attack made upon Free thinkers by Bishop Luck. I ask you if the Bishop of Auckland referred to Freethinkers, including the conductors of the Rationalist, as the froth and scum of society, would you have reason to differ from him?—I would not take my opinion from the Bishop of Auckland; I should form my own opinion on it.

Supposing you were referred to a person whom Bishop Luck included among the froth and scum of Auckland, would you consider it a degradation?—I do not see that that is relevant. I would not like to endorse any statement without knowing the circumstances. Some Freethinkers are men of respectability from a worldly point of view. Otherwise our Premier and other colonial lights would be very small indeed.

There is a paragraph in the Rationalist I should like you to look at. Will you look at it?—Not unless I am obliged to do so.

Mr. Jellicoe (to His Honour)—I am asking him to look at a libellous part of the letter. I consider it grossly libellous, and I ask your Honour to allow the witness to give his opinion.

Witness—I am willing to give my opinion, but that is not fit reading. I will read it if your Honour obliges me.

His Honour—I do not think I can. I do not think the question is relevant. If the Arch bishop objects to reading such stuff, I do not think I can compel him.

Mr. Jellicoe—Very well, your Honour. (To witness)—Having had your attention called to some of the writings in the Rationalist edited by Evison, do you consider him a fit and proper person to edit the Catholic Times?

Mr. Gully—Now.

Mr. Jkllicoe—Now.

Mr. Gully—How can that be relevant?

Mr. Jellicoe—I ask his Honour to rule.

Mr. Gully—The proper question is whether he thought at the time he was a fit and proper person. My friend may have persuaded the wit ness now by all this vilification.

His Honour—It comes in this way: The character of Evison is assailed by these officers. If he is not a fit person to edit the Catholic Times he is not a fit person to refer the Typographical Society to.

Mr. Gully—I do not object.

Mr. Jellicoe—I may ask the question?

His Honour—Yes.

Mr. Jellicoe (to witness)—Having regard to the extract a from the rationalist read yesterday, are you of opinion that the writer of some of these and the publisher of others is a fit and proper person to edit the Catholic Times?—If you asked me if that paper was a fit publication 1 should say no, but if you say the publisher after years when he had ceased the propaganda and had changed on certain points, I think he is.

Mr. Gully—You say he is. I wish you Honour to take the answer.

Re-examined by Mr. Gully—Apart from the insinuations contained in the second letter of September, have you ever heard a word agained Mr. Evison?—No; I have not.

Frederick Stephen Cooper, printer of the Catholic Times, examined, said:—Aftert the paper was taken from Messrs. Lyou and Blair, in 1888, an arrangement was made with him by the late Mr. Bunny to print and publish the paper for £14 a week. The sum had since been increased to £14 8s, on account of the wrappen being addressed, for which he had to employ a boy at 8s per week. Did not seek to lower the wages of the men when the change took place; £2 per week was paid to the men with the excep tion of one, M'Alister, who received £2 5s.

Mr. Jellicoe—Did you keep a pay-sheet?—No, I only got the money for about an hour, I received it on Saturday morning, and paid it [unclear: at] about half-past twelve. I do not see what [unclear: I] wanted a pay-sheet for.

By Mr. Gully—The wages were the same in 1890, except where casual hands were brought in. Did not reduce any of the hands so as [unclear: to] make an unholy profit. An increase was made in 1891 to M'Morin, Dungan, and Knewstub to [unclear: £1] 10s; Power, £1 10s; Halpin, £1 2s 6d; [unclear: Drisool]; 15s; Coogan, 10s; and two boys at 10s and 8s Was able to make an increase because the job bing increased. The £14 8s covered wages and salary. Made charges and was paid so much for jobbing work. There was very little jobbing at the start, but it gradually increased. Made about £1 per week from jobbing, bringing his own wages up to about £4. The men were not dissatisfied or they would not have stopped three years. If they had had cause for complaint they would have seen Mr. Evison. The men was about 22 years or so, single, and had been eight or ten years at the trade. Never had any comunication with Archbishop Redwood. Never shared any money with Evison, and he never applied for it. Evison knew how much witness was making out of the arrangement. Had been twenty years at the trade, and had taken Buperkt positions on three different occasions.

Cross-examined—I suppose you know waattii other offices pay as the minimum rate?—Wk office do you refer to? Ton address mo as toft New Zealand Times.

I shall ask you what I please "—I am not going to be bounced, Mr. Jellicoe.

His Honour—I will stop counsel if he goes too far.

Mr. Jellicoe—Do you know that last ear, at all events, every office in town was paying a minimum rate of £3 per week to journeying compositors?—No; I do not know.

Did you make any enquiry?—I must say Ufa The Evening Post paid £3 a week. Why should I make any enquiry? I never recognised the Typographical Association.

Further cross-examined, witness said he knew that Society offices paid 10s a day, but the Catholic Times office was never a Society office and was not, being a religious paper, considered a good paying concern. The office did not undercut because it had not got the plant to do it. Had employed a man named Finucane at 32s 6d per week in 1891. He was a journeyman, but had never received £3 a week before he worked for witness. Would not be surprised to learn that Finucane was being paid Society rates at the New Zealand Times.Had paid a composite named Castle, who was now getting 1s per page 17 thousand ens (Society rates), 30s a week, but he had finished his term of apprenticeship with wit ness. That was this year. Did not cease to employ him because he wanted Society rates, but because there was no more work for him. Would swear that. Did not know if he had taken anybody on in Castle's place; perhaps he had taken on Driscoll at a lower rate. Was a practical printer and fixed his own rate of charges. Did not know the scale of prices in other offices. Was not going to lose customers by a fixed tariff.

Re-examined—Would not allow a man to dictate to him in the matter of wages; if he was not satisfied would tell him to go. Castle got work on the New Zealand Times through witness, after qualifying himself at the Catholic Times office. Paid him 30s per week of 43 hours. Believed men in the Government Printing Office during the recess did not make more than £2 5s or £2 10s, and they were paid la Id per thousand. Witness described the system under which men and boys were paid in other offices in town, and was reminded by Mr. Jellicoe that a little while before he had stated that he knew nothing about the other offices, as it was no concern of his.

John Rutherford Blair, stationer and printer, examined by Mr. Gray as to the general meaning of the alleged libellous letters, said if he had had sach letters written to him about his manager, he should consider there was something very considerably wrong in his management cal culated to destroy his (witness') confidence in him as a servant. Had not seen the letters before. If the Society considered they could not communicate with a manager, he should think they would state that with a view to getting him removed from his office, because if he was unfit to be communicated with by the Society, he was I unfit to be communicated with by anybody else. If the Typographical Association made the alle gation that they were unable to communicate with the manager, it was a very serious position for anybody carrying on a printing business to be placed in. It would be difficult to say what the effect would be when there were so many trade society troubles. If his own manager were placed in that position, would feel the difficulty very much indeed, as it might lead to a breach with the Society, or to the discharge of his manager. Thought one or the other would be the result. Had had a great deal to do with the Catholic Times, and knew a great deal about it. Con sidered the references to manager or overseer meant Evison. The charge of sweating was a very serious charge to make. Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoode, at Home, had resented it very bitterly. Could scarcely say that the system in the Catholic Times was sweating, as he (witness) had had something to do with it. The late Mr. Bunny consulted witness about the best way to get the paper out, and he (witness) made sugges tions which might have led to the present arrange ment. Considered it was a desirable arrangement at the time, and thought so still. Could see nothing improper in the arrangement, and saw very good reasons for it. Considered that the reference to his Grace being kept in wilful ignorance of the system of alleged sweating meant that Evison concealed it from him, so that he might derive some advantage from it. Could not see any other reason for making the charge.

Cross-examined—Was manager of his own busi ness, but had two other managers. The man in charge of his composing room was called the foreman. Did not know that he ever called him the overseer. Overseer and foreman were con vertible terms. Always addressed the man in charge of his composing room as foreman, in docu ments and otherwise. Had printed the Catholic Tiimes for Archbishop Redwood at one time, and sold him the plant for printing it elsewhere. Cooper went from witness' office with the paper. Believed he recommended Mr. Bunny to make the arrangement with Cooper. Did not think it was because they wanted the paper to pay, so much as to overcome a difficulty about the adjust ment of accounts between Mr. Bunny and the Archbishop. Witness was interested in the plant. He saw good reasons for the arrangement, because the Archbishop was not in trade, and was frequently from home, and it was desirable that he should know his limit of expenses. Knew some newspapers to be as good a sink for money as one could find. Thought the Catholic Times had a very good chance of paying. Would cer tainly not consider the system of sub-contracting, where a man employed whom he liked, and at what rates he liked, a good one for his (witness') business, because he was on the spot. Did not J see that the Archbishop could do otherwise. I Would not approve of sub-letting a newspaper to an individual under the conditions on which he (witness) carried on his business. If he were in the position of Archbishop Redwood he would probably like to make a similar arrangement as that existing with the Catholic Times, to rid himself of the trouble and worry. Understood that the letters conveyed a direct charge of sweating. Had not given the letters a careful perusal, but was giving his opinion to the best of his ability under the circumstances. There were degrees of sweating, but the general opinion formed by the public on reading the letters would be that a charge of sweating was conveyed. The degree was not distinguished. If he were asked if he believed in sweating he would say distinctly that he did not. Did not consider the system in the Catholic Times office conducive to the welfare of the men altogether. His own establishment was carried on under Society rules, and he paid Society rates. The minimum for journeymen compositors was £3. It would depend very much on the work he was engaged on whether a man was underpaid at £2 or £2 10s a week. Of course it would be a less wage than the minimum, but the work on the Catholic Times was plain, straightforward work, not skilled work. Skilled work would be thrown away on the Catholic Times.Did not think that office could do the same class of job printing as his establishment, as it had not the plant. The work done there was not of any consequence. He knew all about it. He knew that they could afford to turn out work at less than his office, but he could afford to let them. They did not interfere with the trade of the town. They had a special trade of their own, which he probably would not get if he did it for nothing. Their paying less for their labour had not the slightest influence. As to their lower charges resulting in other offices having to reduce the cost of labour down to the level of the Catholic Times, so far as his experience went he did not think the influence went one way or the other. Did not think that it followed that he agreed with underpaying men. He had said that the office was paying below the minimum rate.

Mr. Gully (to Mr. Jellicoe)—Are you not going to ask the question whether the witness considers the Catholic Times is underpaying the men?

Mr. Jellicoe—I am conducting my own cross-examination, Mr. Gully.

Further cross-examined, Witness said he had not strained the natural meaning when he gave his opinion about the inference to be drawn from the Society refusing to communicate with Evison. The serious charge came in where the Union refused to hold further communication with Evison. If the Secretary wrote the letter, it was in accordance with instructions from the Society.

His Honour thought there was a difference page 18 between making a serious charge against a person and saying one would not hold communication with him. It was very serious for a person in an official position for others to say "We will not have anything to do with you." That was an announcement of their will and pleasure. It was a serious injury to him, but it was not a charge against him. It might be a wanton injury, but a Society had a right to say it would not communicate with any person. It might be very despotic, but it was not a charge. The classics told them that Aristides was banished because he was too virtuous, too good for those he lived amongst.

Witness considered it a very serious business for the Typographical Association to refuse to hold communication with Evison, as it might have resulted in him losing his employment, and if he lost his position he perhaps would not get another in N.Z. Witness never knew Evison as "Ivo." Had been brought into connection with him as editor and manager of the Catholic Times, and that was all he knew about him. His opinion of the last paragraph of the letter was based upon knowing nothing about him. Had heard the plaintiff's evidence the day before only partly.

A long argument ensued as to whether witness should be asked questions concerning evidence previously given concerning Mr. Evison's ante cedents, with a view to elicit an opinion as to the justification of the officers of the Typographical Association in writing the last paragraph. His Honour thought it was one of those points on which the jury would form their own opinion. Finally the questions were allowed.

Mr. Jellicoe—Well, supposing the manager of the Catholic Times to be "Ivo," and the writer of some of the matter you heard read yesterday, would you consider it to be degrading a person to ask him to deal with him or to have any busi ness connection with him?—If "Ivo" had written these letters in January and had changed to the Catholic Times in February, I would think it a disgraceful proceeding—I mean as these things are looked upon. With regard to the Rationalist and other religious papers, there is generally very little to choose between them.

His Honour—You sold both, I suppose?—No, I sold neither of them.

Mr. Jellicoe—But that is not an answer to my question, Mr. Blair; it is only a way of getting out of it?—I have not known anything of Evison. I know nothing as to his change of opinions I think the circumstances disgraceful, but they occurred five or six years ago, and I do not think they have anything to do with him now.

I have asked you whether you would consider it to be degrading to be referred to "Ivo," as the writer of some of the matter you heard read yesterday?—Some of the matter I heard read yesterday was stupid, silly, and that sort of thing.

Indecent?—Some of it was indecent.

Would you consider it disgraceful to be referred to the writer?—Not particularly.

Do you think it likely that some people would take another view of it?—Certainly.

Re-examined—You can conceive other people taking an extreme view on the subject?—Yes.

You have been asked about the sweating system and said it was not a desirable one. You have heard of the system in the Catholic Times.Do you say that that was an undesirable thing?—I do not think that was the case. As far as I know I do not think there was any attempt at sweating.

Nor still?—No.

Mr. Gully—That is the case, your Honour. The whole of the letters which have been read are put in.

Mr. Jellicoe formally applied for a nonsuit, on the ground, first, that the words charged in the claim as defamatory were not capable in lav of the meaning imputed to them in the innuendo. If the words were not capable of the alleged defamatory meaning there was nothing to go to the jury.

After argument, his Honour decided to let the case go to the jury, taking a note of the applica tion for a nonsuit on the grounds stated.

Addressing the jury, Mr. Jellicoe said that he agreed with his learned friend that workmen had no right to abuse the power which combina tion gave them, but he thought they would find from the facts of this case that instead of the Typographioal Association misusing the power vested in them by reason of combination, they had acted in a manner commendable in every sense of the word. The masters, as was known, had combined in connection with what was termed the Master Printers' Association, and the employes had combined in connection with what was called the Typographical Association, and from what was known of the history of the two Associations a great deal of good had been done by their operation. The Typographical Association, in the year 1890, became aware that what they conceived was an improper system had been adopted in the Catholic Times office—a system which struck at the very root, not only of the rate of wages current in the town, but at the rate of remuneration for work done by the employers. They became aware that under the very nose of the Evening Post, which was a Union office run on Union lines, was an office where the wages wen reduced, at all events, to the extent of 15s a week, and possibly they came to the conclusion thai here was a newspaper run in the interests off particular branch of the community which, it it paid a proper remuneration to its employe's, could not live a single day, with the result that this office competed with every other office in Wel lington for jobbing work and otherwise, and in that competition was able to under-cut all with regard to the tariff. They knew that other employers could not continue to pay the current rate of wages long under such circumstances, and that the result would be that the minimum rats would be brought down to the level of lb Catholic Times, which could not exist an hour if it paid the proper wages. The Court had been told by Mr. Blair that a newspaper was a capita] sink to put money into. Well, the proprietors were anxious to steer clear of that sink as far as possible. They were desirous that the paper should pay its way, and they had endeavoured to make it pay its way by underpaying their employe's. The result was that the workmen in other offices were likely to suffer because these people desired to run a journal of their own. They had heard what took place in 1890, when a deputation waited upon Mr. Evison. He (counsel) did not know what the jury thought abort that interview, but he imagined they would set between the lines that the deputation was not likely to be deceived by what was said by Evison. He (counsel) asked them to look at the very first of the shorthand writer's notes. Evison the day before would have had the jury believe the: nothing had been said about "farming," but he (counsel) would direct their attention to what occurred when the President asked Evison to explain the system on which the office was worked. Evison replied, that "they had not come to cross-examine him. He made no admission," &c. That would indicate how the deputation had been received. They (the jury) would see by that report what kind of a mac was in communication with the Typographical Association. Having found out what they hi at that interview, the deputation knew that if an arrangement could not be effected, wages might page 19 be brought down and a strike caused in the print ing trade. Could it be said that the Association were acting unfairly when they conceived that the arrangement between Cooper and the pro prietor, Archbishop Redwood, was what was called one step in that system which had been denounced by every civilized country in the world as "sweating?" Said the Archbishop, in his interpretation of "sweating," "it is the middle man who has been struck at in every country of the world." It was the middleman or sub-con tractor who should be wiped off the face of the earth. Well, here was a middleman or sub-con tractor who was producing a weekly paper for a sum of £14 8s, and was at liberty to employ what labour he pleased, at what rates he chose, and to exercise his own discretion as to whether he employed men or boys. The way in which he exercised his discretion was shown by what Cooper himself said. He said a man named Castle was serving out his time, and on the ex piration of his time was entitled to £3 per week. At the time he left he was in receipt of 30s a week, and, said Cooper, when he went away to work as a journeyman compositor on the New Zealand Times I put up Driscoll, and advanced his wages to 15s a week. The jury could see the grave evil likely to result from such a system. If a middleman received £14 8s a week they might be quite certain that he would endeavour to make as much as he could for himself out of it. Leaving the employment of men to such a man might lead to great abuse if he was an unfair man. He (counsel) did not suggest that Cooper was an un fair man. He made no suggestion, but still the charge was open to any man unfair, and the Typographical Association, representing a portion of the printing trade, came to the conclusion that to place such discretion in Cooper's hands was unfair, in proper, and prejudicial to the interests both of compositors and employers. What did they do? The jury had heard the result of the interview the previous day from the shorthand writer's notes. Did Evison give them any reason for refusing to join the Association? Did he give give them any information about the system on which the journal was printed and published? The shorthand writer's notes gave no information upon which the Association could act. The notes showed conclusively that he did not refuse to join the Association, or to pay his men the same rates as those paid by other employers in town. He said, "I will put this matter before my pro prietor. It may be necessary that we should see you again and perhaps we may come to terms." They would hear that Evison sent round a copy of the Catholic Times and marked what he desired an estimate for, and they (the jury) would hear afterwards that Evison in no way received the deputation with the decency and respect which members of a body like the Typographical Asso ciation were entitled to receive. Finally, on the 1st September, Evison replied that they had determined not to join the Association, that existing arrangements would not allow them, but that they would consider the whole position early in the following year. Here the matter ended until the strike which occurred shortly after, and which, the jury would be aware, the Typographical Association deprecated and did their best to bring to a close, when the editor of the Catholic Times, who was so thin-skinned as to complain of these two letters, made a very un fair, certainly a vindictive and bitter attack, upon one of the deputation who previously waited upon him. They had heard the article read, and they had seen the manner in which Evison hit out against anyoue who stood in his way, whom he disagreed with, or thought he had a right to criticise. The new year came, and Evison said the Association never communicated with him, and he determined in his own mind to tell them to go to Halifax if they liked. But it had to be borne in mind that the Association, like other bodies in the town, was governed by a Council and Board of Management, and it was changed from time to time in its individuality. That was to say, the members of the Board of 1891 were not necessarily the same members as those of the previous year. Nothing had been said about the possibility of the new Board taking a different view of Evison's management of the paper. In May, the Archbishop was approached by the new Board, and his Grace was very fair and honour able in his reply, to the effect that he should be obliged by their giving definite information, and then he hoped to comply with their request. That was the attitude the Archbishop took up on the 19th May. It might fairly be assumed from this that the Archbishop considered the request a reasonable one, and was prepared to meet it in a fair spirit. But the gentleman who had refused to be examined in the previous year came upon the scene. Said Evison—" I wrote the day fol lowing [notwithstanding that the Archbishop hoped to comply with the request] to Henrichs, the Secretary, that I was instructed by his Grace to state that the management of the Catholic times was entirely entrusted to the Manager, and his Grace sees no reason to interfere." The jury might wonder why the Archbishop had changed his front in sO short a time, but the answer was supplied by Evison, who said he found the Association had communicated with the Archbishop, and he did not like them going behind bisback. The jury could easily infer the rest. He probably persuaded the Archbishop, or the Archbishop was, perhaps, prepared to yield, that the best thing to do was to say that the Catholic Times was left to the management of Evison, that he (the Archbishop) refused to have anything to do with the Association, and that they had better go direct to Evison on that occasion. Later on, the Association again attempted to induce his Grace to grant them an interview, and said that they then made a final request. Then followed the letters which the jury were asked to say constituted the libel, and here they might consider the circumstances under which Evison brought the action. At the first blush of the thing he came to the conclusion that the only answer that could be sent to the Typographical Association must be sent through his solicitors. The Association were entitled in all courtesy to receive an answer from His Grace, and it must strike one as curious that it was con sidered that the only anwer must be sent through Evison's solicitors. They had in this connection to remember how Evison had behaved when he said that he refused to be cross-examined by the deputation. He (counsel) suggested that Evison saw in these letters damages. He went to a lawyer and action was taken. It was for the jury and his Honour to determine whether Evison was to go forth to the world with a character—for that was what it amounted to—which they might not think he was entitled to, and £600 in damages. Coming to the first letter, for which £300 was asked, the jury would have to distinguish it from the second in their findings and say whether it was libellous, and if so, what damages plaintiff was entitled to recover in respect of it. The Association might have thought that if they could not get the Archbishop to come to reason they were entitled to appeal to the bar of public opinion, and all knew that sometimes public opinion was a tribunal which adjusted very serious grievances and wrongs. However, no appeal was made, and the jury need not trouble themselves about that. What was relied upon by the other aide was the statement by the Secre- page 20 tary—"I have also to inform your Grace that the members of the Board decline under any circum stances to communicate with or recognise in any way the present manager of the Catholic Times." The jury had to bear in mind that the £300 could only be claimed against Henrichs for this letter, not against the Association. Supposing that they (the jury) had been members of the Board, Would they not consider themselves quite justified in saying that they declined to enter into communication with Evison, or anybody else? Was it to be said that because they declined to communicate with him (counsel) or his learned friend, either were entitled to bring an action claiming £300 damages, and because they so declined that therefore they assumed that he or his learned friend was not fit for his position or employment? How many of them were not in the habit of taking likes and dislikes and preferring to communicate with one man in preference to another? Take a case. Suppose one of their number was referred to him (counsel). Might he not say, "I do not like Jellicoe; refer me to some one else." Because he said that was it to be suggested that he (counsel) would be entitled to say, "Here's £300 sticking out of this. I will bring an action and ask the jury to decide." It was said by Mr. Blair that the letter meant that if a man was not a fit person to communicate with the Typographical Association, he was not a fit person for the proprietor of the Catholic Times to have anything to do with. From their experience of the world, the jury would know that when they wanted to transact business with employers of labour, they tried to get to the fountain head, and if they had a com plaint to make they were treated with courtesy. If they went lower down to the manager they got scantness, and if they were referred to a subor dinate they were sometimes told to go to—he (coun sel) would not say where. That was the kind of thing which had to be considered when people sought to have grievances redressed, and he considered the Board had a right to say that they would com municate with whom they pleased. He then came to the second letter. That was the other £300. "We have the honour, on behalf of the Wellington Branch of the Typographical Association"—therefore the jury might assume that the Secretary and President were acting as the mouthpieces of the Board, not on their own responsibility,—" to make a final request that you will receive a deputation from this body in regard to the Catholic Times office, which, we are given to understand, is conducted on the sweating system." There was no charge of sweating. There were various degrees of sweating, and there must be so until the system of employing middlemen or sub-con tractors was altogether abolished. It was the system to which they called attention, and they said that they were "given to understand" the Catholic Times was conducted on that system. Then they sought to justify the statement—"Inasmuch as a certain sum of money is paid weekly to the manager or overseer, who is per mitted to appropriate to his own use and benefit such amount as represents the difference between the sum received and that paid in wages to his subordinates." They might have been right or they might have been wrong in assuming that the Catholic Times was conducted on the sweating system, but they left no doubt about the meaning they conveyed to the Archbishop as to the system of which they complained. They said, "You pay a certain sum weekly to your manager or over seer. He receives the money and pays what he pleases, and any difference over and above what he pays he puts into his pocket." When the jury read the second paragraph they found their mean ing made perfectly clear. "Tour Grace will doubtless recognise the serious evils of such a system when we point out that as a consequence the maximum wage paid to a journeyman oompositor in that office is £2 5s per week, as against the mini mum of £3 paid by other employers, and that an excessive number of boys is employed to the detriment of capable men who have families to support, and who are resident in the city." Then they raised a question which involved the other employers in town, the question of charges and wages paid to other compositors in the different offices in town. They struck, no doubt, at one of the evils of which they complained. He (counsel) would ask the jury to bear in mind who was the person who received the £ 14 8s—the person to whom the deputation were referring in the inter view of the previous year—Mr. Cooper. The; might call him what they liked, printer or overseer, but he was the person who employed the labour of the men whose wages the Archbishop was asked to reconsider, and whether the Associ ation called him manager or overseer, he was the person referred to, and no one else. For the purposes of this action, they were asked to be lieve that it was Evison who was referred to, but it was the middleman or sub-contractor who was alluded to, and whose system the Archbishop was asked to reconsider. Then they went on to say: "This condition of things is so utterly opposed to the precepts laid down in the recent Encyclical of his Holiness the Pope, as also to the utterances of Cardinal Moran on the Labour question, that we are tempted to attribute "—they made no charge, they say they are tempted to attribute" your previous refusals to receive a deputation to the fact that you have been wilfully kept [unclear: in] ignorance of the above." Where is the sugges tion that his Grace the Archbishop had been wil fully kept in ignorance of a condition of things which the Archbishop swore that he knew existed? They were entitled to assume it. If the Catholic Times was carried on under a system which was practically condemned by his Holiness the Pope, and practically condemned by the utterances of Cardinal Moran, then anybody of men would naturally assume that the Archbishop of Wellington, who was the representative of the Pope, and was to some extent bound by the utterances of Cardinal Moran, must be ignorant of such a condition of things if such a condition of things existed. The other side construed the meaning of this to be that Thornton and Henrichs accused Evison of refusing to disclose to the Arcibishop the state of things referred to. Where was the evidence of this, that he refused to disclose anything to the Archbishop? Evison had said if he thought anything wrong was going on, he would have communicated with the Archbishop. Mr. Cooper was master of his own affairs; therefore, it was ridiculous to say that Evison was the person aimed at. It was the printing of the paper, and that only, which was complained of—what went on in the compos ing room alone. Another interpretation sough to be put upon it was this: If the jury could not say that the words meant that Evison had distinctly concealed from his employer information connected with the business, then they ought to say that they meant that Evison had wilfally deceived his employer in matters connected with the business, and that he was guilty of concealment with the object of improperly and dig honestly making a profit out of the funds sup plied to him for the purpose of carrying on the business. Where was the evidence to support that, that Evison had wilfully deceived his em ployer and that he was making a profit out of the funds supplied to him for carrying on the busi ness? Why, the money was never paid to him for his own use. He received the money for Cooper, the middleman or sub-contractor, and Cooper alone had to deal with the profits and employ page 21 whom he thought fit. He (counsel) thought he would be insulting the common sense of the jury if he suggested that there was anything in either the letters or the innuendo leading them to give damages. He then came to the concluding words of the paragraph—" We humbly beg to assure you that in making this request we are actuated by no other motive than a desire to obtain a fair day's wage for a fair day's work, and that our request is preferred entirely in a conciliatory spirit." The jury would be able to judge of the conduct of the Archbishop—and he (counsel) would say that in his Grace's presence—in not deigning to send a personal reply. The honour of a personal reply, that was all the Typographical Association asked. "We trust your Grace will favourably consider our request and honour us with a personal reply, as hitherto our communications have been referred to the manager of the Catholic Times(an individual who at different times has conducted a Freethought journal, lectured upon a Freethought platform, and ultimately accepted the manage ment of a religious paper) a degradation which we humbly submit we have done nothing to deserve." All true! Facts not only true in themselves, but known by the Archbishop to be true at the time that he referred the Typographical Association, for the third or fourth time, to Evison, from whom no reasonable explanation had been received. That being so, the Association said, We have been referred to the manager over and over again. He is an individual such as we describe—describe truthfully; it is a degradation to be referred to him—a degradation which, we humbly submit, we have done nothing to deserve. What had they done to deserve the treatment they received at the hands of the Arch bishop? They were referred to an individual who, counsel suggested, to put it mildly, was a humbug, who had been connected with a number of people in Auckland—Freethinkers unworthy the name—who had banded themselves together for the purpose of publishing the scurrilous rubbish read the previous day, men whom a Bishop of the Church of Home referred to as the froth and scum of society. He (counsel) said that when the Typographical Association were referred to a man like that, when they were refused a personal interview, and were referred to a man whom the Bishop of Auckland included among the froth and scum of society, they were entitled to say it was a degradation which they did not deserve. Well, it was this individual, this man "Ivo," who was referred to in the last paragraph of the letter—a man who, only a few years ago, could only write in the language of the paragraphs which the jury had looked at the previous day. When an important section of the community who respected sacred things, and bad a perfect right to respect sacred things, were referred to such an individual, they might con sider, and fairly consider, that such a reference was degrading to them. There were other people—as be had observed to his Honour in arguing the question of law—who might not consider it de grading from a business point of view to have anything to say to such a person; but when that person was found expressing his opinions in the manner which his Honour had described as in decent and dreadful, and reviling in the most sourrilous language not only the Church he now upheld in the publication of which he was manager and editor; when they found him attacking in the vilest language ever used on earth the Chris tian religion and everything that was beautiful in that religion, and referring to the priests of the Roman Catholic Church as sensual and vile; when they found him attacking State aid to schools which he now supported, and referring to the children as hoodlums; when they found him dealing with such matters, whether he referred to the Roman Catholic Church or to the Church of Bishop Hadfield, in the most abominable lan guage-language for which they would be jus tified in trying him for blasphemy—he (counsel) said if they tolerated such ft state of things they would bring a curse upon themselves and upon the colony. So long as they disregarded sacred things and encouraged people to revile them, they could not be surprised if crime followed. The jury had been told that the plaintiff was not an Atheist, but he (counsel) asked them to look at one of the paragraphs of the papers produced. His Honour had said yesterday, and the jury would say he was right, that the editor of this paper, "Ivo," must be held responsible for the matter which he allowed to appear in it. He referred the jury to the paragraph relating to Bishop Hadfield.

Mr. Gully objected. "Ivo" had not accepted responsibility except inferentially.

Mr. Jellicoe said plaintiff had accepted responsibility for the matter under the head "Mixed Spice," although he said the matter was supplied,

Mr. Gully said it had not been proved that "Ivo" wrote this article, and he asked his Honour to rule whether it could be treated as it was now.

Mr. Jellicoe said the paper was edited and conducted by "Ivo." The whole of the para graphs had not been read to the jury, but they had been put in as evidence. He submitted that he could have put the whole of the papers in without asking a single question. He could simply have asked him about the lot.

His Honour—I do not know whether I can rule against it. Whether it is fair or not is another question.

Mr. Jellicoe—That is so, your Honour.

His Honour—I cannot say that editorial responsibility is destroyed. As I said yesterday, if he continued to edit a paper written up by a syndicate, whatever discred it attaches to the paper attaches to him.

Continuing, Mr. Jellicoe referred to the paragraph concerning Bishop Hadfield, which contained the words:—" We do not deny God so long as the word God represents nothing to us." If they found a man controlling a paper like that, if they found a man writing such scurrilous letters to the Bishop of Auckland in 1885, and after wards found him conducting a paper in this town, whether on behalf of the Wesleyans, the Plymouth Brethren, the Roman Catholics, or any other denomination, would they not come to the con clusion that he was a humbug? And if a man was a humbug, although he might otherwise be of estimable character, would they not think it of the utmost importance to them whether they should bo referred to such a man? That was all the Typographical Association had done. Evison had brought the Association into Court; he bad challenged them to say what his character was, and the jury were asked to give him damages—damages to a man who, a few years ago, himself was guilty of the most blasphemous libels—to give him damages forsooth because someone had said they would rather not have any communication with him! He (counsel) did not propose to say any more at that stage, because he would have to call before them witnesses who would explain the reasons for the existence of the Typo graphical Association and its objects, and the reasons for the signing of the two letters by the President and Secretary respectively, addressed to Archbishop Redwood; and he thought the jury would agree with him when the evidence was before them that everything that could be done was done by the Association, who were to be commended for the action they had taken throughout their negotiations with the Catholic page 22 Times. He would only add this, that if Mr. Evison, by bringing himself into Court, had disclosed himself as "Ivo," the responsibility for that must rest entirely upon himself.

William Peter McGirr, printer, em ployed at the Government Printing Office, examined by Mr. Jellicoe, said at one time he was employed at Messrs. Lyou and Blair's. Mr. Tepper was in charge of the composing room then, and was called the overseer. In the trade an overseer was the man who took on and dis charged hands. Sometimes the manager also had that power. In the Government Printing Office the overseers could not discharge hands, hut in private offices that duty was generally left to the overseer. Was a member of the Typographical Association in 1890, and had always been since he was a journeyman. The Board of Management of the Wellington Branch was constituted by the President, Vice-President, two Trustees, the Sec retary, three members from the Association, and representatives from each office. The Association was a voluntary one, and was not incorporated by law. Was President of the Branch in 1890, when the Secretary was instructed to write to the Catholic Times office requesting an interview, with the object of getting the office made a Society office. Was one of three (Henrichs, D P. Fisher, and himself) who waited on Evison in July, 1890. Had no idea that a shorthand writer was present taking notes. Saw a young man present and asked who he was, and was told by Evison that he was merely doing his work. Spoke under the impression that no notes were being taken. The notes as read were pretty well accurate. Evison seemed amicable, and the result of the interview was that Evison said he would go into the matter. There was another interview afterwards, and during the interval an estimate for producing the paper was sent to Evison. Believed the amount was £16, or£2 more per week than it was then costing. Evison said the difference was neither here nor there, and that he had no objection to working the office on Society lines if that was all the difference. He then said he would consult with his employer and give an answer later on. Before the deputation left they spoke about Cooper and his employes, and said they could be admitted to the Society if they had served their apprenticeships. If any had wilfully betrayed their fellowmen, for their own benefit, they would have to be dealt with by the Board. The office would be allowed to keep its bound apprentices. Said that they had no intention of asking him to discharge Cooper, as he had sole control of the printing department. Evison said he would con sult Cooper. Believed Evison gave some informa tion about the number of men and boys employed, but was not sure, also that Cooper received £14 odd with which to pay the hands. Evison pro mised to give an answer some time the next week, The disastrous strike took place shortly after, and the Union did not trouble further about the matter until early the following year. The second interview took place somewhere about October. Fisher was a member of the Typograpical Association then, but resigned when appointed Secretary to the Trades and Labour Council. Had not seen the criticism on Fisher in the Catholic Times until it was referred to yesterday. The next step taken was an instruction by the Board of 1890 to the incoming Board of 1891 not to lose sight of the business connected with getting the Catholic Times into the Union, as the Master Printers' Association wished the Typographical Association to do something, as the Catholic Times people were undercutting and competing unfairly. Wit ness was not on the new Board, and had had nothing to do with it since the middle of June. They were anxious about getting the Catholic Times worked on Society lines, because they heard that Evison had betrayed the Master Printers' Association. Heard that from the [unclear: mas] in the street. Understood sweating to mean subcontracting where a man contracted to do won on which he employed men at less than recognised rates. That was called "farming" or sweating in the printing trade.