Thursday, February 4.

The first meeting of the Conciliation Board for the Industrial District of Otago and Southland was held in the Supreme Court on Thursday morning. All the members of the board were present-viz.: Mr ff. A. Sim (president), Mr G. P. Farquhar, Mr R. Ferguson, Mr J. A. Millar, M.H.R., and Mr G. L. gise. Mr G. A. King, clerk of awards, was also present.

The matter set down to be dealt with Mated to questions affecting the Union Steam Ship Company and Mr Keith Ramsay as a shipowner. The points in dispute were brought before the board by the following communication:—

The notice in regard to the dispute between the union and Mr Keith Ramsay was in similar terms, with the exception that the clauses numbered 5 and 6 in the claim with regard to the Union Steam Ship Company were omitted.

The President said he did not know that it would be convenient to take these matters together.

Mr W. Belcher, secretary of the Seaman's Union (who had handed in his authorisation to appear to represent the union), said he would suggest that the two matters should be taken separately.

Mr James Mills, representing the Union Steam Ship Company, said he would submit in the first place that his company had no dealings with the Seamen's Union, and had not had any since 1890. He did not know whether it was competent for the union to assume a dispute.

Mr Belcher said that if the president would look at the provisions of the act he would see that the union's position was legally assured. Only unions were recognised by law, and they were the only bodies that could bring matters before this board, and this they could do irrespective of whether they were recognised or not.

Mr Mills said that his company knew of no dispute with the union. They had had no dealings with the Seamen's Union.

The President: The union allege that there is a dispute, and it will be for the board to ascertain whether there is, and, if we find there is, to try to bring about conciliation. Mr Belcher says there is a dispute.

Mr Mills: Quite so. Well, we have no dealings with the union.

The President: The board understand you to say that there is no dispute?

Mr Mills: Just so.

Mr Ferguson: As a matter of fact, Mr Mills, your company have a considerable number of union men in their employment?

Mr Mills: Not that I am aware of. I have no knowledge that there is one.

Mr Millar asked Mr Belcher what the membership of the union was.

Mr Belcher replied that the number was 438 by the returns to the registrar made two days ago.

Mr Mills asked what the number was when the representation to the company was first made.

Mr Belcher answered that he could not say exactly from memory, but approximately it was 340.

Mr Millar: And the bulk of these are employed by the Union Company?

Mr Belcher said that such was the case. He added that the question of the number of members was not material to the bringing of this matter before the board. The act said that if seven men were banded together they constituted a union. The Seamen's Union had legal recognition.

Mr Mills said that another point he wished to raise was that, though seven questions were set down, the only possible one to come before the board was as to wages. The other matters had never been raised by the men. One of the points was referred to, certainly, but it was stated that there was no intention of making a claim. He referred to the question of overtime.

The President: The board think it is their duty to ascertain whether there is a dispute or not. The Seamen's Union allege that there is a dispute. If the board find there is a dispute it will be their duty to endeavour to settle it. So I call on Mr Belcher to proceed with the case.

Mr Belcher then proceeded to submit the case on behalf of the union, speaking at great length—his address not being concluded until half-past 3 o'clock. In the first place he desired to express his appreciation of the action of the Legislature in enacting legislation which provided for disputes between capital and labour being settled in an amicable manner. It was his firm conviction that but for this legislation there was a probability that a dispute or a strike similar to that of 1890 would have occurred in 1897. It was very gratifying to him to be able to come before the board and speak about these matters without any appearance of police or a fear of the Riot Act being read, and without the company of the gaudy swashbucklers who were generally about when disputes arose between capital and labour. Before proceeding with the case he would read the correspondence between the company and the union. Some time ago he received information from Wellington with reference to the peculiar tactics of the company in respect to withholding payment for overtime. That matter was considered by the union, and he was instructed to communicate with the company. On the 28th January, 1896, he wrote to the Union Company by direction of the Executive Committee of the union, with the view of ascertaining if the company would recognise the union as an organised body for the purpose of establishing and continuing amicable relations between employers and employed. In this letter he also drew attention to complaints made regarding the non-payment of overtime for work done on days which were specified in the company's rules as holidays, and he stated that, according to his information, every effort had been made by the crews affected to gain redress, but without result. He added that the men generally were very much dissatisfied with the existing indefinite arrangements, and he suggested the desirability of securing uniformity of action in accordance with the spirit of the company's regulations. To that letter he received a reply, dated 30th January, stating that the general manager would take an early opportunity of laying the letter before his directors, borne considerable time elapsed without a further reply from the company, and he was requested to remind them of the matter, which he did by note of the 3rd March, asking whether the matters referred to had been considered by the directors, and when a reply might be expected. On the 12th March Mr Whitson wrote: "Your favours of 28th January and 3rd inst. were duly laid before the directors, and I am instructed to inform you that they do not feel there is any call for them to consider the questions raised." It had taken the company from the 30th January to the 3rd March to find out that there was nothing to call for remark. Had the positions been reversed—had it been the union who were in a position to dictate terms to the company, and the company had said that they were paying too much and wanted reduction or anything of that sort, and the union had treated the company in the curt and contemptuous manner in which the union had been treated, the country would have rung from one end to the other with remarks about the arrogance of the union. Seeing from the reply received that it was useless to appeal to the company's better nature and sweet reasonableness the union let the mutter drop for a while, but on the 18th December he again wrote, by instructions of the union, to ask whether the company were pre. pared to grant an increase of £1 per month to tie men. He said the union were conscious of the fact that for the last two years there had been a very pronounced improvement in shipping business, which in the union's opinion warranted them in requesting that the rate of wages existing prior to 1893 be reinstated. He said that the union had no desire at present to interfere with the rates for overtime, notwithstanding the serious loss to the men, and he reminded the company that the employees had me the request for a reduction in 1893 in the best possible spirit To that he received a reply from Mr Mills, dated 23rd December:—"I regret that I cannot discuss with you the question of seamen's wages I may mention, however, that the matter has been brought before me by a deputation from the men themselves, and I will reply direct to the latter." The union did not deem that reply satisfactory, and he was again instructed to communicate with the company, which he did on the 31st December, 1896, pointing out that no request had been made to discuss with Mr Belcher personally the question of an increase of wages, but that he was acting as the representative of an organised body of men duly registered under the Conciliation Act, and who justly claimed that their grievances should be ventilated by the methods they thought best to adopt. The union took no cognisance of private deputations, and they again asked the company to treat with the union as a body through accredited representative, failing which an appeal would be made to the Arbitration Court. The answer to this by Mr Mills, dated 6th January, was: "The directors do not know of any grievance which the union have, unless it be the matter of wages, and as this has been already dealt with by direct communication with representatives of steamers' crews, the directors cannot see their way to reopen the question with you." The company had, however, a benefit society in existence, and at the last annual meeting of that society, he believed, a deputation of the company's employees approached the company with the view of getting an increase of wages. They page 5 were told that they would get an official reply, and Mr Mills had favoured him with a copy of tit reply sent, dated 24th December. It was addressed to Mr M. Cree, of the Flora. The directors said they regretted that they could not at present see their way to entertain the application. They pointed out that when the general reduction was made three years ago the wages in New Zealand were only reduced by £1 per mouth, while in Australia they were reduced £2 per mouth, and that, although subsequent to that date business became so unremunerative hat the company did not pay a dividend, they continued to pay the higher rate of wages. Should business in the colonies so improve that a higher scale was made possible the company's employees might depend upon the directors using their best efforts to urge its general adoption, that was the correspondence so far, and the board would notice in the company's replies a tone of contempt that did not augur well for the settlement of any dispute It was all very well for Mr Mills to try to ignore the fact that a dispute existed, but the fact that they were all then assembled went to prove the contrary, and he (Mr Belcher) would give the board facts which would go in the same direction. Mr Mills said that in the first later to the company the only matter referred to was the question of wages. That was perfectly correct. The union would have been perfectly satisfied if the company had at that stage increased the wages. But when they saw that the company were not inclined to listen to reason, and the union found that they would have to go before the board, they thought they might as well bring up their other grievances at the same time. As he (Mr Belcher) was not a trained legal man, and had had very little experience in natters of this port, he had prepared in writing some remarks on the various subjects to be dealt with, and presumed he would be allowed to read them. Mr Belcher then read and commented upon extensive notes which he had prepared in order to present the case for the Seamen's Union. He said it would be seen from the tone of the company's first reply that they treated the official correspondence of the union in a somewhat contemptuous manner, and attempted to ignore the existence of the union altogether, not with standing the fact that they had complied with all the conditions of the law for the purpose of settling in an amicable manner any differences which might arise. This was, however, characteristic of the U.S.S. Company, which always assumed a lofty and contemptuous tone towards those they had in their power; but this was in marked contrast to the utterances of their managing director, Mr James Mills, who subsequent to the strike of 1890 professed to regard unions with favour, provided they were conducted on lines which met with the company's approval. It was an open secret, however, that the Union Company for years past had strenuously endeavoured to annihilate the Seamen's Union, and in proof thereof it was only necessary to state that they insisted on the men inning a document renouncing the union prior to their resuming work after the strike. Several rules in connection with their benefit society showed unmistakably their antipathy to the union. And since they have relegated the employment of their hands to an agent, instead of allowing the officers to select their crews as formerly, the intimidation and coercion exercised over their men had assumed more the aspect of a private detective surveillance than anything else.

Mr Mills: This is conciliation, I presume?

Mr Belcher thought he must show conclusively that the Union Company had tried to annihilate the Seamen's Union, he would try to put it as mildly as possible, but it was necessary to show this.

Mr Sim: It is our duty to try and effect reconciliation between the parties, and I do not know that an attack upon the Union Company can help us.

Mr Belcher: It is not an attack, but merely a statement of facts.

Mr Sim: It is criticising the company very severely.

Mr Mills: I could bring up a great many facts about the strike in 1890.

Mr Sim: It is our duty to try and bring about reconciliation. If you think, Mr Belcher, it will help us to bring that about to go into these matters, very well.

Mr Belcher: I think it is necessary to show that the Union Company has taken up an adverse attitude towards the Seamen's Union.

Mr Mills: I think I may admit that to save time.

Mr Ramsay submitted that they should confine themselves to the matters contained in the documents before the board.

Mr Sim understood Mr Belcher was explaining the circumstances under which the dispute had arisen.

Mr Ramsay: Is that necessary? I respectfully submit that the whole case is within the four corners of these documents, and I think we might on all sides confine ourselves to them

Mr Sim: Mr Belcher is dealing with the dispute, and it is quite competent for him to go into the whole matter. All I suggest is that, our duty being to try to bring about reconciliation, it is better not to indulge in strong criticism.

Mr Mills: Personally I have no objection, except that I shall claim the right to go fully into the events and incidents of the strike in reply. It is all very well to speak of the arrogant and overbearing conduct of the Union Company, but I think the public records of the press will show that there was far more arrogance and more overbearing in the conduct of the Seamen's Union in 1890, and quite enough to justify the very strong objection on the part of the Union Company to getting into the power of the Seamen's Union at all.

Mr Sim: What we wish to do is to effect a reconciliation on the subjects in dispute.

Mr Millar: Does Mr Mills admit that there is a union?

Mr Mills: I admit there is one registered.

Mr Ferguson: I think Mr Whitson's letter recognises the union.

Mr Millar asked whether Mr Mills admitted that the union had officers and a paid secretary and so forth; and, if they had, did he suppose this was all for nothing?

Mr Mills: No doubt that is one of the most important duties of the union, I suppose.

Mr Belcher: There is such a thing as a managing director's salary, too, I suppose. I think Mr Whitson's letter recognised the union.

Mr Sim: Speaking for myself I say there is no doubt if it is clear that a large number of members of the union, or any members of the union, are in page 6 the employ of the Union Company then there is a dispute between the Seamen's union and the Union Steam Ship Company.

Mr Millar suggested, to save time, that if there were any points the Union Company were prepared to submit without taking evidence they should he mentioned.

Mr Mills: I do not know that there are any that I can admit without taking evidence. They are all very debatable points, and raise considerable issues. He hoped that the matter would proceed as expeditiously as practicable as time was valuable.

Mr Belcher said he did not know that anyone had any right to take exception to loss of time. They were there to endeavour to arrive at a settlement, and if it took a week he presumed the parties concerned would remain. He thought it necessary to point out that there had been coercion on the part of the employers.

Mr Mills would point out that it was Mr Belcher's duty to produce evidence in support of the claims.

Mr Sim thought that Mr Belcher was entitled to state his grievances.

Mr Belcher: If that is so I shall proceed I have done with the matter that does not seem to please the representative of the Union Company.

Mr Mills: I object to that I simply stated that I thought what Mr Belcher was saying was irrelevant. If all the occurrences about the strike of 1890 are gone into I should have to go into matters beyond what I think I should be called to go into.

Mr Belcher: We are not going into the strike. I must fix a date, and I fix it after that. However, I will go into the peculiar circumstances of a seaman's life, That, I presume, will not be objected to. Continuing to read from his manuscript and to comment thereon, Mr Belcher drew attention to the hardships of the seafaring life, and he proceeded to say that the £6 per month paid on the coast was equal to 3s 10d per day—(Mr Mills: "And found.")—and on this many of them had to support families and put up with spells of idleness. The consideration that their food was provided did not amount to very much of a reduction in the cost of maintaining a home. Whether the man was there or at sea the house had to be kept going. It must be admitted that they earned also a certain amount of overtime, but this was hardly-earned money. The ordinary hours averaged between 12 and 14 per day, and he believed that was an under estimate, and this time had to he worked before the men got a penny for overtime. They had to work cargo by day and take their watch at night, and when a man had the eight-hour watch at night—namely, from 8 p.m. to 12 and from 4 to 8 a.m., and the vessel arrived in port, as most of them did, between 5 and 9 a.m., that man had only four hours' sleep. Sailors could not expect an eight-hours day. But something could be done to reduce the number of hours these poor unfortunate men had to work. The argument of owners was always the argument of £ s. d., and the men were very little removed from a condition of slavery The Union Company's vessels were carrying full cargoes, and the passenger trade lately had been very heavy; and, according to the newspapers, the company were building three vessels, besides which they had added the Rakanoa to their fleet and were doing up others. These things did not betoken hard times. Them the expenditure had been materially reduced. He would give Mr Mills's own figures On this heading, however, he (Mr Belcher) would first say that the crews had been largely reduced in some ships. The Rotomahana, at one time carrying 14 able seamen, now had nine; the Mararoa, he believed, had been reduced—he did not assert this positively, but he believed she had—from 13 to nine seamen. This imposed a lot of extra work on the men who were left to work the vessels, and it also reduced the company's expenditure. Coming to Mr Mills's figures as to the reductions since 1893, Mr Mills said that in that year the company had 830 seamen and firemen in their employ. These men were reduced £1 per month; some, in Australia, were reduced by £2, but be (Mr Belcher) would not take that into account. The annual saving was thus £9060. Then 60 men were dispensed with. He was under-estimating the number, but would put it at 60. Their wages would average £6 a month. Sixty at a month meant £4320 per annum. At the same time the company reduced the overtime by 6d an hour—that was to say, a third. And Mr Mills said that they were paying over £7000 a year in overtime, so that, roughly speaking, the reduction meant £2300 per twelve month. Putting these things together, the saving in the three years since 1893 came to £49,740. Add to this the £13,000 paid into the benefit society, and it would be seen that the spending power of the employees had been reduced by £62,000 during the last three years. And this did not take into account the saving to the company in not having to provide food for the men who were dispensed with, nor did it take notice of the fact that some men were reduced by £2 per month. Moreover, the company had reduced the wages of the engineers by 10 per cent., by which he (Mr Belcher) estimated they had saved about £5000. These things ought to have put the company into a pretty fair position. The £70,000 should have enabled the company to pay a pretty fair dividend. But they were told that the company had been forced to encroach on some fund—an insurance fund or a reserve fund, he forgot which. This, be thought, was their own fault, and owing to the lavish expenditure incurred in trying to run Huddart-Parker off the coast. First they tried to run the Warrimoo and Miowera off, and later the Tasmania and Anglian He thought it was traceable to this endeavour that the Union Company had not been able to pay a dividend. Yet after this, they said it was only natural to ask the employees to take a reduction. He (Mr Belcher) maintained that if the shareholders chose to indulge in that sort of thing they were the ones who should pay for it. The shareholders went into the company as a speculation, and they should be the men to suffer, instead of throwing the burdens upon the seamen. Employers always said that they could not allow unions to interfere with their business Well, he had been in the company's employ, and never, so far as he knew, had the union wanted to interfere with the business as a business pure and simple—they had never interfered with such matters as the running of the boats; but when wages were going to be affected it brought another factor in, and that other factor was that labour had a perfect right to say how much it thought it was worth and to get as much as it page 7 could for the work. In 1894 the engineers' wages were reduced 10 per cent, and now after the bad times that the Union Steam Ship Company complained of they can see their way clear to give an increase in the engineers' wages equal to the amount that was reduced in 1894 He did not begrudge the increase, but he thought there was something wrong when the lowest paid engineer not £12 a month, which was double the amount that was paid to seamen.

Mr Mills: Will you bring evidence of this? What you are saying are misstatements. Mr Belcher said he brought the newspaper reports, and read a Press Association telegram from Wellington stating that the Union Company had agreed to the increase in engineers' wages to what they stood at prior to the reductions. Of course what the newspapers said was not always correct, but when such a statement as that was put forth and not officially contradicted they must accept it as correct.

Mr Mills: It has been contradicted.

The President: Are we to understand that you have contradicted that statement through the newspapers?

Mr Mills: No.

Mr Belcher (continuing) said if the fourth engineers were not getting £12 per month they were receiving considerably over a "living" wage. Theirs was skilled labour, and they were entitled to the wages they got, but he thought if there was any attempt to increase wages of the employees the increase should start with those who were lowest paid, and whose wage was barely enough to live upon That was quite sufficient reason why an increase in wages should be asked. Seaman could not help seeing the amount of business that was being done by the company, and when it was taken into consideration that the Australasian casting sailor was about the hardest-worked labouring man on the face of the earth it must be admitted he was justly entitled to an increase to the rate from which the reduction was made in 1893. On the question of overtime, Mr Belcher said that the seamen had no option, for when they signed their agreement with the shipowner they signed an agreement to work overtime whenever required. At a terminal port the men were sometimes given the option of working overtime or not. The men were practically 24 hours every day at the service of their employers. When shoremen were engaged they got 2s or 2s 6d an hour overtime, but the seamen who had to Work with the shoremen and do exactly the same work got only 1s an hour. This was manifestly unfair, and the seamen were justly entitled to receive 1s 6d an hour for overtime. Coming now to the question of holidays, there were disputes in connection with these holidays whenever holidays occurred, and the Union Steam Ship Company's rules were by no means adhered to when it came to payment of overtime for holidays. There were five days which were regarded as holidays—namely. New Year's Day, Christmas Day, Good Friday, the Queen's Birthday, and the Eight Hours' Demonstration Day. The latter was & very ambiguous holiday. There was a Demonstration Day in most of the Australasian colonies and unfortunately it happened that it was held on a different day in each colon v. The Union Steam Ship Company held that no man having received a holiday on Labour Day in one colony was entitled to have another in another colony; but what the seamen wanted was, if possible, to fix the New Zealand day, which was now recognised as Labour Day, and was, he believed, proclaimed a public holiday. It would be seen from the order of reference that the seamen were also asking for two additional holidays namely, Boxing Day and Easter Monday. Their reason for asking for this concession was that these two days were universally recognised as holidays all over the Australasian colonies. He submitted also that the seamen should receive a full day's overtime for working any portion of time on any of the holidays referred to. Now, with regard to Sunday sailing, they expected the same thing to be observed in regard to Sunday sailing as in regard to holidays. It was only rea on able that when men were compelled to leave port on Sunday and do necessary work they should be adequately paid for doing it. The next point he would deal with was that men belonging to the union should have priority of employment. Mr Justice Williams, in giving his decision in connection with the bootmakers' dispute, had already ruled that it was only right and just that men who went to the trouble to form themselves into an organisation to fight the battle of labour should be entitled to any good that accrued from that battle. He thought himself that the Union Company, notwithstanding their opposition to the union, would be considering their own interests in conceding this point voluntarily with regard to men belonging to the union getting priority of employment. He ventured to say that the union was a necessity, and the company would have to recognise it sometime or other. The company had to recognise it now, notwithstanding all their opposition. But there was no necessity that the union should be hostile to the Union Company, or that they should unnecessary harass them. Men were generally reasonable. There was, indeed, more sweet reasonableness about them than there was about the employers; and there was no doubt that since the company had had their innings in 1890 they had lost no opportunity of retaliating for what they considered had been forced upon them when the union was in full swing. Differences would arise, and he said again if the Union Company had to deal with an organised body it would be far better for them, and for the men too. If the men were not organised into a union they might appeal again and again to have their grievances adjusted, and there would be absolutely no hope for them at all. This point with regard to recognition of a union had been decided by the Arbitration Court, as he had before stated, in the case of the bootmakers' dispute, and he fancied if it was not conceded in the case of the seamen it would be taken to the Arbitration Court to decide. He thought that the company could concede the point without in any way lowering their dignity at all. By employing union men the company had a certain guarantee that the men were capable, and he thought that was a most important point so far as the employers were concerned. He now came to the next point, which was that the membership in connection with the Union Steam Ship Company's Benefit Society should be optional. Since the inception of the company's benefit society in 1891 it had been compulsory for all those receiving employment from the company to become members of the same In other words, compulsory membership was a condition of employment. It page 8 had been, and would be again, stated that no necessity existed for this; but let him explain the indirect pressure cunningly exercised to effect this purpose. Men in search of work, relying on the assurance that holding membership in another society was sufficient to comply with the unreasonable exactions of the company, usually found that they were ignored, and they experienced the disappointment of seeing others who were members of the benefit society getting employment before them, the same men probably not having been so lone idle themselves. Indeed, several men had been bluntly told that members of the benefit society had to get a preference of employment. This naturally compelled men to join who were members of other societies, and, having once joined, fear of further reprisals deterred them from withdrawing. He knew men in the company's employ who were only earning £6 a month and were paying contributions to their benefit society on shore and paying contributions to the Union Company's society at the same time.

Mr Mills: How many?

Mr Belcher said he knew of several of his own knowledge. There could not be any possible doubt as to the compulsory nature of this society. It was a most unwarrantable restriction of the liberty of the subject. The rules unmistakably said that the men must be members of the benefit society, and they must not be members of other societies. The rules said that the men shall not belong to any other society of which the company did not approve.

Mr Mills: Will you read the rules, Mr Belcher? Read rule 8.

Mr Belcher said he would read the rules when he thought proper. Rule 5 said that no member of the society should be a member of any union of which the Union Company did not approve. What did that amount to? The Union Company did not approve of the Seamen's Union, therefore a member of the Seamen's Union could not be a member of the company's benefit society—ergo, a member of the Seamen's Union could not be an employee of the Union Steam Ship Company. It was an absolute condition that a man must sell himself body and soul to the Union Steam Ship Company. They must have him by the throat to do what they liked with. These rules were an absolute proof of that. Rule 7 said there was to be no compulsory membership, yet two-thirds of the employees of the company were members. If membership was not compulsory was it rational to suppose that there would be such a rush or men to become members of this society? Rule 8, which Mr Mills was so anxious about, said that any member of any other recognised benefit society shall not be required to join the society. That might appear to be a very fair thing indeed, but when one knew the amount of coercion, intimidation, and terrorism that the men in the Union Company's vessels were subjected to there was nothing left in the apparent fairness Rule 9 said that if a member of the society left the service of the company with the consent of the company he would have returned to him a portion of the money he had paid into the society. That was not fair, for if a man left without the consent of the company he forfeited all his payments.

Mr Mills: Are you aware that the rules that you have been reading are not in existence now?

Mr Belcher said the rules were in existence for five years, and it was not becoming on the part of Mr Mills to say now that the rules were altered at the last annual meeting of the society. Rule 12 made it necessary for the consent of the company being obtained before the society could do anything.

Mr Mills: They are all struck out.

Mr Belcher said it was all very well to say they were struck out. As a matter of fact he did not believe they were struck out yet. Certainly they were not struck out of his books. The company had power to outvote anything brought up at a meeting of the society. The personnel of the committee was far from satisfactory, and Mr Belcher referred to the rule which said that the vice president shall be the marine superintendent, and also that the trustees shall be the chairman and managing director of the company. It was most improper that the trustees should be relieved of all liability, as was the case under the rules, of making up any deficiency that might occur in the funds. It was no wonder that the society could not be registered. Mr Belcher proceeded to refer to a number of letters from different seamen with the object of proving his contention that employment was made dependent on men joining the benefit society. He also pointed out that the rules provided that a man could not become a member of the society after he was 40 years of age. It was, he contended, a most unjust and unfair attitude on the part of an employer of labour to say that a man should not be employed after the age of 40.

Mr Mills: I think Mr Belcher must know that he is misstating the case. Apparently no new men are taken on after 40; but Mr Belcher contends that men who have reached 40 years of age have to leave the service. That is not the case.

Mr Belcher said he would give documentary evidence to show that that was largely the case, and proceeded to read a number of letters from seamen bearing on the subject. Another important matter, he said, was the manner in which the Union Steam Ship Company evaded their obligations. The institution of the benefit society meant that the company were relieved of their responsibility to provide for those who fell sick, subject to certain limitations, and to those who were injured while in the employment of the company. The men were also supposed to pass a medical examination, but this examination was performed very perfunctorily. Then the company's rules had not yet been registered, because the Registrar-general declined to register them, Therefore the men belonging to the society had no legal status on this account, and there was no legal power to compel fulfilment by the company of their responsibilities to the men. That was an injustice to the men. But it was not the function of an employer to start benefit societies, as there were dozens of bona fide benefit societies in existence. It was surprising the amount of solicitude that employers showed for their employees at particular times, and it was a peculiar thing that almost immediately after a reduction of wages had taken place the employers expressed themselves as being very strongly concerned is watching over the interests of the men in their employment, and in order to do that they brought forward some benefit society scheme which they compelled the men to join. If the employers wanted so much to benefit their employees it would surely be a simple matter to give them an increase of wages to the extent say of 10s a month, and allow them to spend that as they page 9 deemed best. The Union Company's benefit society had not even the merit of originality. It its chimed that it had been adopted from the London and North-Western Railway Company's Society, which society had been referred to as eminently successful. A leading London daily piper, referring to that Railway Company, said: "The London and North-Western Railway Company is well known for its organising ability, for its pretensions, and for the peculiar loftiness with which it treats its customers. It is famous also for its professions of philanthropy towards its own people—a philanthropy of perhaps a somewhat mixed kind They stand to-day as the autocrat at whose nod its armies are expected to tremble. A man who enters the ranks of this organisation has, it seems, not only to swear away his rights under the law, but to take an oath of undying fidelity to the company. To join a trade union is to be guilty of an act of mutiny. To be discontented if the hours are too long, the pay too low, and the system too hard is treason against this Sultanate. Even to think to yourself, or confess in confidence to your mates that the London and North-western Railway Company is other than a matchless and Heavensent employer is a grievous breach of discipline to be visited by condign punishment . . . That this odious tyranny will break the men's spirit or throw back the trade union movement we do not for a moment believe. The company's uniform may fit tight, but the employees are citizens of a free country, and are hardly likely to sell their souls into slavery at the bidding of the London and North-western Railway Company." This extract from the leading columns of the London Daily Chronicle fitted the Onion Company beautifully. The pledge extorted from the men showed that right through the piece the Union Steam Ship Company had done the best they could to try and crash unionism out of existence, and to get their employees to go exactly in the direction they wanted them. The next point was the engagement of hands by an agent. Prior to the strike of 1880 it had been the custom for men to get their employment on their merits from the officers Up to the time of the strike that system worked very satisfactorily. The Union Company since then had employed an agent to engage all their labour for them; one man did the whole thing so far as Dunedin was concerned, and before a man got employment in the other centres he had to pass muster with the agent of the company in the place This system had been brought into existence simply to work in conjunction with the benefit society to see that that was kept going properly, and also to keep a keen eye on the individuals the company employed. The company had a most reprehensible system of reports. There had been instructions given to the officers to lend down reports as to the men's characters periodically. This, in his (Mr Belcher's) opinion, was a piece of espionage that was characteristic more of a man-of war than of a merchant service and there was this bad feature about it, that, as officers were not infallibly if a man gave an officer a back answer, or offended his dignity, or had the temerity to look the officer in the face, he did so at the risk of being reported to Dunedin, and he was punished without any chance of self-defence. The result of such reports was that the man was kept out of employment, and was compelled to do what the men called a "perish." The system was wrong and injurious to the interests of the men, because it made a trifling fault a subject of report and punishment, and no opportunity was given of defence. Then, he supposed the Union Company did not care about the matter, but as a fact, he believed the system to be distasteful to the officers. He thought it only right, since the officers were responsible for the safety of a vessel, that they should themselves select the men. He had been told, further, that the agent who was employed for this selection of the men had spoken in very disparaging terms about past and present officers of the Seamen's Union, and had endeavoured to bring them into contempt among the men. In conversation with some of the men, this same individual had asserted that they had Mr Millar to thank for their having to pay shipping fees, when as a matter of fact he must have known that it was through Mr Millar's instrumentality that the shipping fees had been reduced. He also asserted that from what this same official had Raid to men here, it was clear that a very keen eye was kept upon them, for one of them had been asked, immediately on his arrival here how it was that a certain matter of dispute respecting shipping fees had been published in the papers. In Wellington, Mr Belcher stated, the man who was employed there to engage the men had threatened one man that if he did not take the engagement offered him, whether he liked it or not, he would know what the consequences would be. The fact was, the men had to pass through what was nothing more nor less than a labour bureau somewhat similar to that instituted by employers in other colonies. Another point he desired to mention was that he was prevented visiting the Union Company's vessels and seeing members of the union on board them. He could not say that instructions had been given that he should not be allowed to go on board these vessels, but that appeared to be the case. He had been ordered from one of the vessels and very rudely; in fact he had been hounded off it, and it seemed as though the officer who had spoken to him was desirous of inciting a quarrel, though he was personally a stranger to him. It seemed to him that in this matter, the officer must have been acting under instructions not to allow him to board the vessel, and he wished to point out that the union: was recognised by law, and that legal duties were put upon him, to discharge which it was necessary he should have means of communicating with the members of the union. He would say it did not follow that because an officer of the union went on a boat he did so for the purpose of stirring up strife. The union had been going ahead for the last five years, and would still continue to go ahead, and he did not think the Union Company could point to any bad effects as having arisen from allowing an individual to go on board its boats to see members of the union when he wanted to. He had omitted to mention the fact that out of the very meagre wages the seamen received they were compelled to buy the company's uniform, and this was an additional tax upon them, and practically meant a reduction of wages, which should be taken into consideration. As to the contention that the wages in New Zealand and Australia should be the same, he would point out that men could live considerably cheaper in Australia than they could in New Zealand, and therefore he did not think that the contention that the wages should not page 10 be higher here than in Australia was valid. The weather on the New Zealand coast was worse than in other parts, and owing to the climate considerably more had to be paid for an outfit than was the case with men employed in the other colonies. He might also mention that he had received official intimation from Wellington to the effect that the two companies in Wellington were conceding what the Seamen's Union asked for, and if those companies could make sufficient profit out of their ventures to pay the increased wages, surely the Union Company, with its large ramifications, could succeed in doing the same.

Mr Mills asked what those companies were.

Mr Belcher said one was the Wellington Steam Packet Company and the other was the owner of the Wairoa.

Mr Mills: How many men do they employ?

Mr Belcher: That is immaterial. That is not the point at all.

Mr Sim: What was the number of members of the union according to your last return?

Mr Belcher: 438.

Mr Ramsay: Is that throughout the colony?

Mr Belcher: No. That is in Dunedin. It does not take into account Wellington, but includes seamen and firemen

Mr Millar asked if Mr Belcher had authentic information as to the wages paid by the ban Francisco boat running the man service in conjunction with the Monowai.

Mr Belcher said he could not say exactly what the wages were, but he believed that the other boat paid £2 a month in excess of what the Union Company was paying.

Mr Ferguson asked how many hours firemen and trimmers worked out of the 24.

Mr Belcher replied that they worked eight hours out of the 24; but in some cases, and in small boats, they worked six-hour shifts instead of two four-hour shifts, in which case they worked 12 hours a day.

Mr Ramsay: And they get extra pay for it.

Mr Belcher: Yes; some of them do.

Mr Sim: Do you wish to ask Mr Belcher any questions, Mr Mills?

Mr Mills: No; I think not.

Mr Belcher then intimated that he had submitted his case to the board.

Mr James Mills, in replying said: It is rather difficult for me to reply offhand to the long address given by Mr Belcher, as I have not the same aptitude that he has shown. I must compliment him on the vigorous manner in which he has handled the subject. I do not suppose I am expected to reply to everything he has said, because he has roamed over a great deal of ground which is not at all pertinent to the present inquiry. I shall confine myself as far as possible to the demands which are now before the boar as subjects for conciliation. It must be readily observed that a great deal Mr Belcher has put forward has been largely mere assumption. There are not many charges regarding which he has produced actual instances in support of his statement, although he should have no difficulty in doing so, seeing, we understand from him, that the bulk of the men in our employ are members of his union, and who appeared in some cases to be only too ready to come forward and bring their small grievances before him. It is not to be supposed, therefore, that they did not bring everything before him. Mr Belcher has also gone to some extent into the management of our business, into the policy of running off an opposition, and that sort of thing. I do not think it necessary to follow him there. I will say that, with him, I am very glad this tribunal has been provided by the State for the settlement of grievances rather than we should have to resort to the much more brutal method adopted in 1890. Although I raised the point in the first instance that we had no dispute with the Seamen's Union, and therefore I did not think we could be brought before the board—and I still maintain that point,—yet it is no doubt purely a technical one, and I am not disposed to press it, but should be glad to waive it and to allow the inquiry to go on before you on its merits. Before replying to the various points seriatim, I will lay before the board the printed regulations dealing with the hours of labour and the conditions of labour on board the steamers, which are of vital importance in considering the various questions now before you. If you will allow me will refer to these. They seem to me to be of importance in the present inquiry, and I desire to put them on record. The regulations have been in force practically since 1890, and the copy I hare before me is the revised edition, and is dated February 1895, some little time after the reduction of wages. These provide that the folio wing rates of wages should be paid:-A.B.'s, £6 per month; trimmers, £6; firemen. £8; greasers, £8; donkeymen, £9: lamptrimmers, £6; lamp trimmers and A.B.'s, £7; boatswains, £7; first, class ordinary seamen, £4; second-class ordinary seamen, £3; first-class boys, £2; second-class boys, £1 10s. Wages are due on completion of articles, but payments are made to the end of each month, at the first convenient port of arrival thereafter. The hours of labour are as follow:-On deck, watch-and-watch of four hours each; in stokehold, watches of four hours on and eight hours off, except on small steamers running short trips. On these watch-and-watch shall be kept. Between the hours of 5 a.m. and 5 p.m. on intercolonial steamers, and between 6 a.m. and 5 p.m. on coastal steamars, seamen on watch will perform, any work required of them. Any work performed outside these hours shall be paid for as overtime, with the following exceptions:-Work necessary for the navigation or safety of the ship; clearing decks, stowing cargo, gear, &c., after leaving port When the watch below is required to do any work otherwise than what is necessary for the navigation or safety of the ship, they shall be paid overtime. The hours of labour for seamen in all ports, bays, and roadsteads shall be eight—viz, from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m, with two hours allowed for meals. During these hours the seamen shall work cargo, &c., as required. It shall be optional with married members of the crew to work overtime at their home port or go ashore, so long as not less than one-half of the crew remains on board; the selection, when necessary, to be made by the officer in charge. When a ship arrives at Port Chalmers on Sunday or stated holiday, and has to wait for the tide before proceeding to Dunedin, no overtime shall be paid for mooring or unmooring ship. Overtime in port shall be from 5 p.m. to 7 a m. and shall be paid for at the following rates—viz.; A.B.'s, Firemen, &c., is per hour; ordinary sea-men, 9d; A.B.'s when engaged in trimming coal at loading ports, 1s 3d; A.B's when engaged in boating cargo in roadsteads, 1s 3d; A.B.'s when carrying or stowing grain bags in cargo steamers only, 1s 3d. Boys are not to be worked overtime, page 11 Overtime on Sundays and holidays:—(a) When a ship arrives in port after 5 p.m on the day preceding Sunday or a holiday, two hours shall be allowed, from 6 to 8 a.m., for washing decks and decorating ship without payment of overtime. (b) When a snip arrives in port on Sunday or a boliday, or after 5 p.m. on other days, the crew shall land mails, luggage, or live stock without payment of overtime, (c) For any work necessary for the safety of the ship, no overtime shall be paid. (d) When vessels leave port on a Sunday or a holiday, only those of the crew actually employed in loading mails, luggage, or cargo shall be allowed overtime at schedule rates for the time so employed. (e) Firemen getting up steam before ship leaves port shall also be allowed overtime for the time so employed. (f) When a vessel is employed on an excursion on a Sunday or stated holiday, overtime shall be paid for the time so employed, not exceeding in all 8s, and not less than 4s per man. (g) When a vessel arrives in port on a Sunday or holiday, and sails again same day, overtime shall be paid for the time the crew is actually engaged, not exceeding 8s. (h) Only one holiday shall be allowed for Demonstration Day. Any crew having had one such holiday shall not be entiled to a second, or to overtime on any other Demonstration Day at any other port. Do skeymen's overtime shall commence from the time steam is ordered to be ready, public holidays in port:—These comprise Christmas Day, New Year's Day, Good Friday, Eight Hours' Demonstration Day, and Queen's Birthday, or any other day declared by law in place thereof.

These are the most important rules connected with the matters with which we are dealing now.

Mr Belcher: I hardly think they are adhered to Mr Mills, are they?

Mr Mills: I believe they are. Possibly there may be some instances in which they may not have been, but I do not know of any. With regard to the demands of the Seamen's Union, I will refer to them seriatim.

(1) £1 per month advance to seamen, firemen, trimmers greasers, and lamptrimmers: We have about 700 men of this class in our employ, so that the amount involved is about £8400 per annum. The increase is not justified, as our wages are the same as paid in all the coastal companies in Australia, and much higher than in English-owned vessels trading in the colonies and to the colonies. The proposal advance of £1 per month all round is inequitable, being 12 ½ per cent, on the wages of firemen and greasers, 16 ½ per cent, on trimmers and A.B's, and 25 per cent, on ordinary seamen. There cannot be any justification for such a disproportionate scale of advances. Taking the month at 30 days—a sailor's month—the wages now paid are: 5s 4d per day, or 37s 4d per week, to firemen and greasers, and 4s per day, or 28s per week, to seamen and trimmers. This daily wage is paid on Sundays as well as other days, although, as a matter of fact, there are many cases where the men get nearly every Sunday to themselves ashore. In addition to these wages the men are paid overtime as per the regulations, and are, of course, found on a most liberal scale (copy of Crews Victualling Bill is attached). These rates of pay are out of all proportion to those paid for shore labour other than highly skilled. The current rates of wages in employments where the men are found are as follows:—Station hands, 12s 6d per week; ploughmen, 15s: grooms, 12s 6d to 15s; cooks, 15s to 17s 6d; gardeners, 20s. It must also be remembered that in occupations such as are mentioned above no overtime is paid. The men have simply to work as required, irrespective of hours. Ploughmen, for instance, at certain times of the year, are at work from daylight in the morning until late at night. The present rate of wages for good labouring men is 6s per day for six days, even if constantly employed, and find themselves. Seamen's labour cannot be classed with highly, skilled labour, where a long apprenticeship is required, as the qualification for an A.B. in a steamer is only two years' service, and that of a fireman three months' service as a trimmer, while any untrained robust lad can be employed as trimmer, for which he is paid 4s per day and his keep. The hours of labour for firemen and trimmers are eight hours out of each 24 in port and at sea, while for seamen they are eight hours in port and 12 hours at sea. At sea the work, as a rule, is light, as, except for the man at the wheel and the lookout, they are idle when not engaged in keeping the ship clean. The wages paid in steamers trading from abroad to Australia are as follow:—Seamen, £3 10s to £4 5s per month; lamptrimmers, £3 10s: trimmers, £3 10s; firemen, £4 10s; greasers, £4 10s; doneymen, £5.

Mr Belcher mentioned as an argument in support of his contentions that increased wages should be given, that times had very much improved, that a large number of passengers travel, and that we carry a good deal of cargo. As I admitted in one of my letters, times have improved, but it is only within the last year. I do not know if it is necessary to submit any figures in support of my contention that the time has not arrived for an increase, but if we take the average for the last five years the return for the capital employed has been entirely inadequate. I have looked into the matter, and I find that the average interest on the capital employed in our steamers during the last five years has only been 2 ½ per cent, per annum. That, of course, can be verified. I took pains with the figures before making such a statement; so that it cannot be contended that the capital employed is receiving any adequate return. I have no doubt that the time will come when that view will have to receive some consideration. I hope it will come, and that the seamen will share in the continuance of good times. Mr Belcher also mentioned that three years ago, when the wages were reduced we gave as a reason for not exacting the full reduction of £2 a month from the men, as was done in Australia, that our men had to support the benefit society, which meant a reduction. That was a reason we gave not only to the men but to our co-shipowners in the colonies for not reducing the wages to the full extent to which they were reduced in Australia, and no doubt the men might have found it hard to pay the fees if the full reduction had been made. As to the time worked, it is quite possible that the men in the coastal boats have a larger average than the others, but it is quite out of the question to say that they average twelve or fourteen hours per day for the month round, or that their employment is but a little removed from slavery Then Mr Belcher brought forward the argument that we are netting new and larger boats, as showing the prosperity of the company. The reason we are getting a larger class of boats is that we find that the older boats are not well adapted to carry page 12 cargo at the present rates, and the company have had at some sacrifice to make up their minds to get other boats to replace them. The rates received for passengers and cargo are about one-half what were received six or seven years ago. We have to put up with that, and we find that some of the older boats of smaller capacity are not remunerative at the rates for passage and freight at present ruling. That is why we have had to go in for larger carriers: it is to meet the altered circumstances Mr Belcher also makes the point that he believes two Wellington companies have conceded the extra wages, and he says if these two small companies can do it, how much more can this larger one. On investigation it turns out that the one company owns one boat employing four men, and the other three or four boats employing twelve men. If they have made the concession I do not think much can be argued from that. Then the fact that the wages here are now the same as those ruling in Australia supplies no good ground for asking for an increase. The conditions are very little different, and, in so far as they are different, I contend they are in favour of the New Zealand labourer. Mr Belcher uses the argument that living is less costly on the other side. I confess I should like to have some evidence of that; as I would, of some, indeed of many, of the other statments he has made. I have before me a schedule of the prices of some of the food supplies we get for the company, and I think they may be taken as some criterion of the cost of living to individuals. I find that we pay for beef in Sydney 2d a pound, and in Melbourne 2 ¼d, while in Wellington and Lyttelton we pay 2d, so that in beef, New Zealand is evidently cheaper. Mutton is much about the same, but somewhat cheaper in New Zealand parts. Then take vegetables; common vegetables are about half the price in New Zealand that they are in Australia. We know that clothes are as "heap, if anything cheaper here, and I believe also that house rent is no dearer; but" altogether I think there is nothing in the contention that the cost of living is-dearer in New Zealand than in Australia; in fact, I feel confident it is quite the reverse.

With regard to the question of overtime, they claim that overtime should be increased to 1s 6d per hour.

(2) Overtime to be increased to 1s 6d per hour: We now pay ordinarily per hour to A B's, and firemen, and 9d to ordinary seamen, and a special rate of 1s 31 for a certain class of work. The increase demanded is therefore 50 per cent, to A.B's. and 100 per cent, to ordinary seamen, and we contend that the present rate is adequate and proper when it is considered that the men are not casually employed, as is the case with ordinary labour, but are in regular employment and receiving their keep. The overtime paid by the company to the crews for the last three years, while the present rates of overtime have been paid, amounts to £17,510, or an average of about £5840 per annum. In the case of the donkey men and the deck hands engaged in cargo operations this yielded an average of 30s per man per month throughout, so that the pay received by deck hands averaged £7 10s per month. In the case of several ships the average was over £2 per month per man, while in some cases it did not exceed 21s. The increase now asked for therefore may be stated at £3000 per annum on that score.

(3) With regard to the demand re holidays: Prior to 1890, when we had dealings with the Seamen's Union, the recognised holidays were Christmas Day, New Year's Day, Queen's Birthday, Good Friday, and Labour Day, and we still recognise these holidays, paying overtime for any work done on them. The union now demand two additional days—Boxing Day and Easter Monday,—and also that for any work done on holidays and Sundays, if only for an hour, the sum of 12s shall be paid per man. It will readily be seen that this means simply a further increase of pay, as it is impossible that in all cases work can be avoided on these days—especially Christmas time, when there are two holidays proposed immediately in succession. Steamers cannot be stopped en route without great inconvenience to the travelling public, as their dates are fixed from port to port in advance, so that not only those at the port where the steamer is stopped would be inconvenienced, but this would be the case all along the line for possibly a week later. Especially is this the case with passenger steamers parsing through minor ports, such as Gisborne, Napier, Picton, Nelson, Plymouth, or Westport, where there is generally very little cargo to work. At these ports it is not any advantage to the men to have a holiday, but they now seek to exact a further 12s each.

Mr Sim: There is a demand for extra holidays, and in the question of holidays the matter of overtime is involved.

Mr Mill: I object to the extra holidays and to the demand for 12s for holidays. Under our rules we pay for holidays for the work done on them. If excursions are run we pay from 4s to 8s They ask for Boxing Day as well as Christmas Day. Of course that is out of the question. There are fifty steamers in the fleet, and they could not lie in port three days indeed four—because they might arrive the day before Christmas. The amount involved for seven holidays at 12s each for, say 700 men is about £3000, not including Sundays, presuming them all to be working on each holiday, but to take a moderate estimate and reduce it by one half, the demand will probably involve an extra charge to us above what we now pay of £1500. It will thus be seen that these three items demanded by the Seamen's Union—increased pay, increased overtime, and payment for holidays-together are estimated to amount to about £13,000 per annum.

Mr Belcher: There is a strange coincidence—that in refunding that it would be the amount they pay into the Benefit Society.

Mr Mills: Mr Belcher estimated that the company saved £60,000 a year, but he also included the sum paid by the men to the benefit society-£13,000—and calls that a saving to the company. Of course that is absolutely misleading.

Mr Belcher: Mr Mills is misrepresenting me a little bit. If I did say so I did not intend to refer to that as a saving to the company, but to say that they had reduced the spending power of the employees.

Mr Mills: You mentioned £62,000

Mr Belcher: That is not the question. Their spending power has been reduced to that extent. I did not say it was any advantage to the company

Mr Mills: It is their contribution to their own benefit society. The implication you made was that we were getting the money. But even if you put it as reducing the spending power of the page 13 men that is not correct, because the men draw an equivalent in sick allowance, and get medicine and medical attendance, as l will explain directly. I think what I have said will show that the coastal sailor is not—as Mr Belcher says—the hardest driven man on earth, although while the boats are trading on the coast they have certainly a few long days calling at the most important ports; but for the great portion of the voyage they are not hard pressed with cargo work, and especially when they go to sea they have very little to do when going to and from Australia; and a great many of the cargo steamers make a much longer voyage than the four and a-half days from Australia, and the men then have comparative, in fact almost total, leisure. As to the men being obliged to work overtime, and having no option but to work when they are required; that is not entirely so. I think there is a rule dealing with that; it says: "It shall be rational for the married men to work overtime at their own port, or to go ashore, so long as half the men remain on board. The selection to be made by the officer." I think that is reasonable.

Mr Belcher: The legal agreement is not that, but that the men must work overtime when required.

Mr J. Mills: I think we are dealing with the conditions under which the men work and the custom on board our vessels. The next demand before the court is (4) That preference of employment shall be given to union men. This demand we do not recognise, as we are not, we say, dealing with the union, but with our men individually. However, I think I may give some reasons why we should not do so. Previous to the strike of 1890, when the union was in full force, they took control of our labour, and this proved to be unworkable and intolerable. The Seamen's Union limited the number of their members and would not take new members unless it was evident there was a scarcity of men, and even then the entrance fee was raised to an exorbitant limit It was almost impossible for a respectable man, whether a seaman from other parts or a beginner, to get admission to the union except by favour of those who controlled its affairs, and these latter were largely composed of the idle men ashore, who, for various reasons, were not in regular employment a d therefore not in sympathy with their employers. When vacancies occurred we were, therefore, obliged to accent those who were put forward by the Seamen's Union although in many cases they were men who had been dismissed from the company's service for misconduct, or incompetency. These men recognised their power and defied their officers, often disputing the latter's orders on the ground that they were not in accordance with the rules of the union. Drunkenness among the men in the stokehold was a common occurrence, and at times from this cause engineers have been obliged to go into the stokehold and work the fires themselves in order to get up steam for a start, and the condition of things became so intolerable that the management, and the officers and engineers of the ships began to recognise that the management of the ships, so far a the internal arrangements were concerned, was taken out of their hands. Since 1890 every-thing has been quite different, and the officers and engineers testify that compared with the state of affairs on board their ships in the days of the union the present is as the difference between Purgatory and Paradise, while the men have enjoyed to a large extent the same privileges which they had previous to 1890. There has been a healthier feeling among them, and, speaking as a whole, their work has been done willingly and well. A careful record is kept, and objection able and intemperate characters are weeded out from time to time Mr Belcher made a point of the officers being allowed to engage their own men rather than that they should be engaged through a labour agent, and submitted that if it were done under the supervision of the union that would ensure our having competent men. Well, I dispute that. During the last six years we have had an exceedingly competent lot of men in our ships, both on the deck and in the stokehole. We have had the men under proper control, and have been able to dispense with inferior, incompetent, and drunken men. (5) Benefit society—Membership of the U S.S. Company's Benefit Society to be optional, non-members to have equal right to employment as members: We consider that we have a perfect right to make it a condition of our employment that members of the company's crews should be members of a benefit society. In 1891 we formed the U.S S Company's Mutual Benefit Society, believing that its establishment would be beneficial both to the employees and the company, and that it would have the effect of each taking an increased interest in the welfare of the other. The company subsidised the society, thus enabling it to confer benefits on its members at lower rates, in proportion to the benefits given, than could other societies which had no such support. The society has been a boon to those who have had to avail themselves of its benefits, and who, but for its establishment, would have had to go without assistance during times of sickness, as until its formation it was the exception for seamen to belong to any society of the kind. During the five years of its existence over £5750 have been expended in sick pay, funeral benefits, surrender values, &c., and £3600 in payment for medical attendance and medicine, while towards the total receipts of £15,000 the company have contributed £2600.

Mr Belcher says the society is under the control of myself as president, and the marine superintendent as vice-president, with a committee of twelve, of whom six are elected by the men and six appointed by the company. As a matter of fact the management of the society is almost entirely in the bands of the men elected by the members, and, if th re are any little irregularities in the management of the concern, the company cannot be held responsible But I think the conduct of it by the committee, which, as I say, is largely controlled by the elected members, is deserving of very great praise. Mr Belcher quoted extensively from a number of rules, which were framed for the purpose of preserving the indirect control of the society more largely in the hands of the company. Well, they have that appearance, and it was done designedly. In 1890, alter the strike, when there was a great deal of bitterness amongst the men, it was not known how the thing would be managed if we did not preserve some control. It was said when the society started that it was to be run on those conditions for five years. Those five years have elapsed; it has been found that the society has been well managed, and all those rules which he has quoted, and to which he takes exception, have been deleted.

Mr Sim: Have you a copy of the rules as amended?

Mr Mills: I have a copy of the alterations, and the new rules are in type. I will put in a corrected copy. As regards any personal control or interference with the society I may say I have not been to a committee meeting I think since it was formed. I preside at the annual meeting largely out of compliment to the members, but beyond that I have no power, and I have no knowledge of what goes on except general—what almost any man in the street might know. However, as I have said, we consider we have a perfect right to make it a condition of employment that members of the company's crews should be members of a benefit society. It is misleading to state that the company save that £13,000. However, Mr Belcher has explained that he did not quite mean that. The benefits which the society confers include medical attendance and supply of medicine to members and their families at all main ports in New Zealand, as well as at Melbourne and Sydney, and in Tasmania; while those who leave the employ after two years' service have the privilege of remaining members of the society if they desire to do so. Of 860 members of the society on September 30 last, 150 are under the age of 25, 208 are between the ages of 25 and 30, 219 are between the ages of 30 and 35, 144 are between the ages of 35 and 40, 139 are over the age of 40 years. This destroys the contention of Mr Belcher that men over 40 were dismissed the company's service. It is the case that neither respecting men ashore or afloat do we take on elderly men. It would be absurd to do so. Men grow old in our employment soon enough, and we have responsibility for them, and it would be absurd for any large institution to burden itself with elderly men joining the service.

Mr Ferguson: I see the sickness benefit is 20s a week for the first, six months, and 10s a week for the second. Does the reduced sick pay extend beyond the six months?

Mr Mills: No; the benefit extends only over 12 months.

Mr Ferguson: With ordinary benefit societies the 10s weekly extends throughout all sickness.

Mr Mills: Some make it 5s.

Mr Ferguson: Yes, the Forresters do.

Mr Mills: We think, therefore, that we are following the proper course in giving a preference to men who are members of the company's society when there are vacancies to fill up. Members of other societies are only handicapped to that extent. That they are not excluded or interfered with is shown by the fact that there are at present 92 members of other societies in the company's steamers, and of these 29 were in the boats when the society was established, while the others have joined at various dates ranging from then until the present time, During last year 26 members of other societies joined the service, so that there is no restriction unless where there is a choice of men. If we have one of our society men ashore he naturally gets the preference, which is only right and proper. Then the fact that when our society was formed there were only some 60 members of other societies out of our whole crews of 800 to 900 men is evidence that seafaring men have not previously gone in for that sort of thing.

The next demand is (6)—That the union wants our labour agent to be done away with, and that officers should select their own crews. This we cannot submit to—it would simply mean a return to the state of affairs existing previous to 1890, when officers had practically to take whomsoever was offered to them, and had no means of knowing whether the men had been discharged for mi-conduct from any other ship, or, perhaps, knowing full well that the men offered had been already dismissed from other ships for misconduct. Our labour agent at headquarters keeps a record of all men engaged or discharged, and also selects the men when requited at headquarters. Changes are less frequent away from home, and these the officers attend to them, selves, our labour agent knows whether a man is a good man or not; he knows his record. A man gets three chances, and for misconducting himself a third time is debarred the service. I believe that rule is carried out in its enormity, and I contend that it is fair treatment to give the men. They are not dismissed for one piece of misconduct, unless, of course, it is of some very gross character. The total number of the company's employees afloat is 1616, distributed as follows Officers and engineers, 317; petty officers, deck, and stoke-hold hands, 756; boys, 38; victualling department, 505. It may be of interest to give here from our books a record of the nationalities of the seamen, firemen, and trimmers composing our crews at 31st December last. Of those engaged in the above departments there were approximately 200 colonial. 400 British, 100 foreign, making up 700 These are exclusive of boys and employees in the victualling department, who are mainly colonial born.

With regard to the next demand—(7) Permission for Seamen's Union representative to visit members on board ship—we have the same objection that we have to giving the preference entirely to union men, or to the abolition of our labour agent, that it will be injurious Past experience has shown us the evil of permitting free entry on board our shins to officers of the Seamen's Union. The liberty previously enjoyed in this respect was taken advantage of to the company's detriment and to the men's loss. Discontent was fomented amongst the men, and trifling grievances were magnified, with the result that a spirit of unrest was introduced amongst the crews which contributed materially to the disasters of 1890. The company's regulations make ample provision for the settlement of any questions arising between the company and its employees without going outside the ship, and we are not prepared to grant permission to any representative of the Seamen's Union to visit the crew on union business. The demand for such liberty is an attempted interference with the management of our own business, which we cannot allow I would point out that we have a clause in our regulations in reference to this, which reads as follows:—It is the desire of the company that a good feeling should be created throughout the service, and that all departments should feel that it is to their interest to work together harmoniously for the general welfare. Officers are therefore expected to see that, while exacting from every man his fair work, every man also gets proper treatment. To facilitate settlement of questions arising under these rules, the crew shall appoint one of their number from each department—that is, one from the deck and one from the stoke hold—to be spokesmen, and it will be their place to bring any matter requiring adjustment before the captain, or chief engineer, or, when at headquarters, before the marine superintendent or superintending engineer. The spokesmen to be chosen by ballot of the crew, and to hold the page 15 position for one month only, so that each member of the crew may fill it in turn. These will be the only persons whom the company will recognise as entitled to make representations on behalf of the crew." It is the case now that the crew, when they have a grievance, appoint one of their lumber to represent it to the proper authority. Provision was made that the men should hold the position only for a month in turn so that no man should feel that if he was made to act as spokes-man he was a "marked" man for that. As they are to take it month about, it would be ridiculous to think of "marking" any particular man for acting as spokesman. I almost feel inclined to nay that if any other argument was wanted to show how inadvisable it is that we should be entirely in the hands of the seamens' union again, it would be found in the animus shown by Mr Belcher today in dealing with this subject, and especially at the outset.

Mr Belcher: Not conscious animus.

Mr Mills: Well, I thought it boded very ill for the possibility of harmonious feeling being restored between us, and I cannot help thinking that on all these little matters that so much has been made of there has been a good deal of unnecessary feeling displayed, and an unnecessary colour given to a great many statements; and data great many charges which it should have been a very simple matter to have established by evidence, have been left to mere assertion. For example, take one that occurs to my mind, the statement that the existence of the benefit society was designed for the purpose of relieving the company of their legal liability for sickness or injury to the men. Surely after an experience of five years, and having the bulk of the men, as he says in his society, ready to inform him of any point where the company may trip—surely he should have been able to bring forward some instance where a man had had an accident, or where a man has been sick and had claims on the company, and has got nothing from the company? It may be there is such a case. I cannot say. I should hope not; but I can my there is not the slightest intention on the part of the company to evade its legal liability, even if it has been done by acquiescence on the part of the men. I am inclined to think nothing of the sort has occurred. As a matter of fact we know that when a man falls sick or has an accident he draws from the benefit society as well as anything he is entitled to from the company. Then, for any ailment for which the company is not responsible, any ordinary ailment, he gets £1 a week, or whatever it may be, from the society, and medical attendance; while married men get medical attendance for wives and children within the limits recognised by benefit societies. There is also one thing I may point out in our benefit society which presents an enormous advantage over other benefit societies for sea-faring men. If a nun belongs to the Odd fellows or Druids in Dunedin he only gets medical attendance when in Dunedin. Now our society has a medical man in every port of importance—there are eight or nine of them—one in every port where the families of the men reside, so that the men can get medical advice anywhere almost, which is an immense advantage. Mr Belcher has referred to the arrogance and overbearing conduct of the employers, but I do not think much of that has been shown, and I could retort by pointing to the arrogant and overbearing conduct that was shown against employers some six years ago. However, it is not worth while stirring up feeling on those questions. He says our letters from the Union Company indicate a tone of contempt. As a matter of fact, there was no intention to show any contempt. The letters bear evidence of our in mention, which was simply to make it clear that we were not prepared to recognise the union. We had a bitter experience of the union six years before, and it was quite-comprehensible that we could wish to manage our own business in our own way, since we had: done so very successfully for the last six years, and, I contend, satisfactorily to our employees. He presumed that the objection to the benefit society was merely one of principle and not a question of management in detail. The company did not see their way to concede the demand for higher wages, because the present rate of wages was what was paid all over Australia. With regard to over time, it came to 30s per month on the average. Then the overtime on most of the boats was only occasional. In a few boats it was possible that the overtime was more continuous than on the larger boats going long voyages, but it was not what Mr Belcher termed it—slavery. With regard to the benefit society and the various demands that the union men should have the preference over non union men, and that there should be permission for the union officers to visit the ships, the company were not prepared to agree to them.

Mr Sim said it came to this: that Mr Mills's company was not prepared to meet the union in any way.

Mr Millar pointed out that the court were bound to give a decision in any case.

Mr Sim said before making any recommendation the court would try to get the two parties together if they could.

After some consultation between the parties,

Mr Sim said the court would take the dispute between the Seamen's Union and Mr Ramsay.

Mr Belcher said that what had been stated by him with reference to the Union Company's employees, so far as the long hours and the arduous nature of their employment were concerned, applied, he thought, with almost equal force to Mr Keith Ramsay's employees. Heagain reiterated that the coasting sailor was the hardest driven in the Australian colonies. The Invercargill and the Napier worked similar hours to what he had mentioned the Union Company's boats did, and, if any thine, the work on them was more arduous than on the Union Company's vessels. There was, however, no necessity to go very lengthily into the matter of the hours, but he again repeated that the men on these two vessels averaged from 10 to 14 hours per day. With reference to holidays, the seamen thought the same argument that had been applied in the case of the Union Company applied with equal force to Mr Ramsay's vessels. He believed Mr Ramsay had a different system of dealing with the men from the Union Company, and did not allow them any overtime payment for holidays. He might say Mr Ramsay's vessels were favourites for bay excursions, and he reaped a considerable amount of benefit therefrom. But instead of paying the men overtime for working on holidays, he believed it was a custom to allow a couple of men to go ashore. They were supposed to get a day to themselves, but they went down in the morning to get the vessel ready for the excursion. Those who were not required page 16 after that could go away for the day. But the men had to be down again at 6 or 7 in the evening, so as to go away to see that night. The day was broken into to a large extent, and he thought it was only right there should be some monetary compensation for those men who were compelled to lose their holidays through no fault of their own. They were ministering to the pleasure of other people, and at the same time the owner of the vessel was reaping a pretty fair advantage from the transaction, it might look a lot to make him pay 12s for a day's work, but it might not occur probably once in 12 months. Mr Ramsey's vessels were carrying cargo from Dunedin every trip, and bringing back timber. He did not reduce his wages at the same time as the Union Company did, but continued paying £7 a month to seamen till 1894, and increased the rate to £10 a month to his firemen, and he (Mr Belcher) might state that he had a little conversation with Mr Ramsay at the time he reduced his wages. Mr Ramsay then pointed out certain anomalies in connection with railway freights from Invercargill. He did his best to get that matter rectified, but unfortunately did not succeed, and that was the reason Mr Ramsay advanced to him for reducing the men's wages. There was no dispute with reference to any benefit society. He believed Mr Ramsay was just as satisfied to employ a union man as any other man that came along, and it was only in the matter of wages, overtime, and holidays that the seamen had any dispute with him. The seamen contended £7 a month and 1s 6d an hour overtime was only sufficient to give a man enough to live on decently and respectably and to keep himself in anything like a comfortable manner.

Mr Ramsay: I shall not occupy much of your time. It is my intention to confine my reply to the subject matter of the correspondence that has taken place between Mr belcher and my elf, and to the order of reference which you as a court are called upon to consider. Before making that reply, it seems necessary I should just note one or two of the remarks made by Mr Belcher. I may say I hardly admit that the men on board my steamers work harder than they do on the Union Company's steamers. They do their work very well; that is all I can say of them, and I say it quite heartily. But it is a mistake, I think, on the part of Mr Belcher to say that the men average 12 or 14 hours a day all the year round. I think that is an extraordinary statement, and not justified by the facts of the case. With regard to running excursions, I only run one steamer, and I may inform the court that the arrangement between the captain and the men with regard to holidays works to their mutual satisfaction, and it seems to me hardly necessary to disturb it. I have no complaint on either side. The system answers the purpose, and I believe it would be a mistake to disturb the existing state of affairs. Mr Belcher also refers to the fact that the steamers were laid up a good deal. The Napier has been laid up, but not recently, and practically the Invercargill is never laid up. I may say, however, that the disadvantage of having a steamer laid up is a very much more serious matter to me than it can be to the men in my employ. In reply to the demand made by Mr Belcher I will just say this: In Mr Belcher's letter of 18th December last he bases claim on the pronounced improvement of a shipping business during the past two years. In my reply to him I affirm that the improvement has not come my way, and I have also pointed out that the unfair competition of the Government railways makes it quite impossible for me to benefit by it so far as my chief business is concerned, which is trading between Dunedin and the southern ports. Some 18 months ago I petitioned Parliament and prepared a statement in connection with this matter and I take the liberty of placing copies of both documents before this court for the purpose of showing how much I am handicapped by the unfair action of the Railway department The first demand is £1 per month increase for firemen, seamen, trimmers, greasers, lamp trimmers, and ordinary seamen. In my business I have only to do with firemen, seamen, and ordinary seamen. I do not know on what principle the demand is made. In the case of able seamen the increase asked for is 16? per cent., and for ordinary seamen 25 per cent., in that of firemen 111.9 per cent. Perhaps our friends will give some explanation of this happy-go-lucky proposal! It certainly wants it. Referring to the relative wages of seamen and firemen, I never could understand why the latters' wages should be 50 per cent, higher than the former. Would not this difficulty be met by an adjustment of wages in these cases? On the question generally I would say, as Mr Mills pointed out, that the earnings of seamen and firemen are much higher than those of shore labour, except highly skilled labour. As to the question of overtime and holidays, I would suggest that when vessels are detained, as they often are, for days on the West Coast—and in my own case, at Fortrose, Catlins River, and even Waikawa,—some allowance off the wages should be made, but at present none is made; but if a man, no matter how long he and the vessel may have been idle, has to work extra time to get a vessel away, he has to be paid overtime A vessel may be detained for days at any of these harbours, and the first opportunity to get out may be a Sunday or other holiday, in which case the unfortunate owners would have to pay overtime for a full day in addition to the wages, no matter now short a time the men have to work. It must be obvious to everybody that this is an entirely one-sided arrangement and should not be allowed to come about. It is proposed to intensify this evil by adding to the number of holidays and by increasing the rate of overtime by 50 per cent. As a matter of fact it is practically impossible to work a bar harbour in one tide, and in winter time this always means a day's detention. Supposing a steamer arrived at a place on Saturday, is she not to be allowed to leave again till Monday without the payment of overtime for a whole day? It has always been my custom in Dunedin when possible to give the men Sunday to themselves, but if this overtime business is to be enforced, I will have no option but despatch on Saturday. The union rules do not include Boxing Day or Easter Monday as holidays, and the addition of these would seriously injure all shipping business. The proposed increase of 50 per cent, on the rate paid for overtime is quite unreasonable. The amount now paid to seamen is double the rate they receive as wages, and they now want three times as much, in addition to their ordinary wages, and if they are asked to work on a Sunday or holiday their proposal, if given effect to, would mean that a seaman now receiving 4s per day and found would get 16s per day and page 17 found, whether he worked the whole of the day or only part of it, however short that part might be. With regard to the demand that members of Federated Seamen's Union should have pre-emptive right of employment when available, I have personally no objection to giving union sea-men and firemen the preference so long as the union in open to all competent persons who may wish to join it. As to granting permission for Seamen's Union representative to visit members on board ship, I do not think that, under any circumstances, this should be allowed between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., or at any time when the work of the vessel is being carried on. I go so far as to say that it should be entirely in the option of the owner whether these visits should be made at all. It seems to me to be the duty of the union to provide facilities for meeting with their members ashore. It can hardly be urged that the interest of the owners is the object of their visit, and it seems unreasonable that their property should be used for any other purpose. Some years ago a wonderful production known as the Seamen's and Shipping Bill made its appearance in the House of Representatives, coder the auspices of the Seamen's Union. That little bill provided for the payment by myself of an extra £640 per annum on my steamers Invercargill and Napier when the expenditure of as many extra pence was altogether unnecessary. I asked a warm friend of this measure who is possessed of a great amount of common sense how on earth he could support such a bill His reply was to the effect that it was better to ask for a great deal more than they expected to get. My friend's mantle seems to have fallen on the shoulders of the representatives of the Federated Seamen's Union, who have gone in for quite a feast of fat things, in the hope that sufficient may be granted as may possibly in some measure justify this present agitation.

Mr Belcher, in reply, would like to point out that a great deal had been made of the difference in percentage of the increases proposed, but that question had never been raised when the reductions were made, which effected changes which were much more disproportionate in their incidence. It appeared to him that while now possibly the only view taken of the question by the capitalist was the pounds, shillings, and pence question, other and moral considerations in connection with these matters must be regarded. He was sorry to see that there was no probability of a settlement being effected.

Mr Sim: We are not without hope yet, Mr Belcher.

Mr Belcher replied that there did not appear to be a great deal of chance of anything being done. Notwithstanding what Mr Ramsay had said, speaking as a man who had had 18 years' experience at sea and 10 years' experience on the New Zealand coast, and as one who, without being egotistical, thought he could say he had always given his employer the best of his intelligence and muscle, he (Mr Belcher) could say that a seaman's life on the Australasian coasts was a dog's life. Almost every man who could see any possible chance of getting away from that life was getting out of it as speedily as possible, and, as a matter of fact, a new class of men altogether were being drafted into the boats.

Mr Ramsay said a tremendous lot of people tried every week to get on board his boats.

Mr Belcher said that might be so, but he would venture to say that after a little experience they would be only too glad to get out of them.

Mr Ramsay said he had some men with him who had been on them for six or seven years.

Mr Belcher said no doubt that was so, but looking at the subject generally, he said without hesitation that the bulk of the men who had been employed by the Australasian shipowners in the past were gradually drifting out into other employments, because they really could not put up with the conditions on board. The money might seem a great deal to the man who was paying the wages away, but some little consideration would have to be given to the men who did the work. The shipowners' capital could bring in no return without the labour of the men, and consequently the thing that ought to be considered before capital was labour. So far as labour organisations were concerned, they did not war against capital. Capital was inert; it could not possibly do harm, and the members of those organisations recognised how essential capital was. What they warred against was rather the exceptional privileges that the capitalists got—that was the privileges to the men who monopolised the capital. Those who were making the profits for the capitalists would have to receive consideration before dead, inert capital. That was all he had to say.

The board then adjourned until 3 o'clock next afternoon.