Other formats

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

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 81

Auckland Electric Tramways Dispute

page break

Auckland Electric Tramways Dispute.

Report of Proceedings taken before a Special Board of Conciliators, consisting of Dr. McArthur, S. M. (Chairman), and Messrs. P. M. Hansen, E. H. Morris, George Sherry and Henry Carter, held at The Arbitration Court, Supreme Court Buildings, Auckland, on Wednesday, 8th, July, 1908, and following days.

Clerk of Awards read application referring dispute to Special Board, particulars of dispute, and agreement made 22th May, 1908, between the parties.

Dr. McArthur said:

As this is the first occasion, I believe, in which a Board of this description has been set up, it will be well for me to say a few words on the Board itself, and on the purpose for which we have met together.

Before doing so, I would like to inform you the members of the Board have been properly sworn by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), so that formality has been gone through.

With reference to formalities, I wish it to be understood that no want of formality shall upset any procedure whatever.

With reference to the evidence, we are not bound by any fast or legal rules of any Court, even the Arbitration Court is, because it says we shall take such evidence as we think fit, and Section 54 gives us the same power; it is wider, it does not only bind us by equity and good conscience, but to take such evidence as we desire, and that we think necessary in the matter.

As you well know. Gentlemen, on both sides there has been differences. The first thing I would like to draw attention to is the Agreement entered into on May 25th, which was read over by the Clerk of Awards just now. I should like to draw attention to the first four lines: "We, the undersigned representatives of the Auckland Electric "Tramways Company, and the Auckland Electric Tramways Industrial "Union of Workers, do hereby agree to the following settlement of our "Trade Dispute of this date."

That, I take it, will have an important bearing on what has to be settled, on that date. We must have some indication of what that dispute is to be.

The next point is in Section 1, is that the Board is set up; that we admit; and in Section 2, it shall sit when duly appointed, and take the evidence brought forward by either side.

page 6

Now, in paragraph 3, which binds me more than anything else, it Hays: "There shall be no appeal made against the decision of the said "Board, but its recommendations shall be accepted as a final settlement."

Taking that, and the introductory clause, I take it that these two clauses refer to whatever has been the matter of dispute. I refer to Mr. Rosser's letter of May 2lst. (Letter read.) I take these words to be the binding words. "Unless the resolution," etc. (Read.)

I rely on the Agreement and also the letter of Mr. Rosser, in which he says these Resolutions form the demands of the Union, and I take it that these Resolutions embody the subject matter of the trade dispute as on May 25th.

Now, on looking at these Resolutions, of course we know that Clauses 7 and 8 of Particulars of Dispute are not included there.

With reference to Clause 8, I should like to read you a telegram which I, at the instigation of the Board, sent to the Secretary of Labour yesterday with reference to two points: First, as to the amended particulars, and, second, as to whether anything intended to be done by the Government with reference to an inquiry as to the efficiency of the brakes.

The Secretary, in reply, rather missed the point as to the amended particulars. The object of the telegram was to clear this, and as to any precedent for an amended application in producing fresh matter.

He tells us something. He says: (telegram read).

Now, you will see he has missed the point altogether, because we have something more than he talks about here. We have a finality to reach, and that finality must be on these points that were agreed to by the parties themselves, and I take it that is on the first six clauses.

With reference to Clauses 7 and 8, I take it we cannot come to a final decision, that is, a decision which this Board can bind both parties to, unless both parties agree. We can do this, as the Arbitration Court does; we can make a memorandum and make our recommendations there; but with reference to Clauses 7 and 8, that is all the length that I can see we can go at present.

With reference to Clause 8, the last part of this telegram relieves both sides, I think, considerably (reading). I shall corroborate that to-day by sending a wire to the Minister for Public Works, to get that direct from himself. I have no doubt whatever as to the correctness of Mr. Tregear's telegram, but in this connection I think we should have something definite from the Minister himself. We have accordingly agreed to wire him to-day and probably some time in the afternoon or to-morrow morning we shall have a definite answer as to that, and that may influence both sides as to what you wish to do with reference to the evidence on these questions. Also, there is one other word I have to say about these Clauses 7 and 8. I find they are virtually recommendations which were made by memorandum on June 7th in the Arbitration Court, which fixes the Award to begin on July 1st, 1907, and which expires on November 1st, 1908. Again. I think that is a subsidiary reason why this Board cannot give a final decision on that point. However. I only bring that as a secondary, or subsidiary, reason.

Now that I have mentioned that, evidence will be taken, reading of that telegram may simplify that evidence, hut when we get page 7 the corroborated one it will be more satisfactory. Whatever evidence is produced we shall take.

As to the method of taking evidence here, some of you are more conversant with the proceedings of the Arbitration Court than I am. This is what I purport to do. That the Union begins with the opening, by its representative, that the calls his evidence, and that his first witness will be a pattern to the others; he will examine in chief, getting from him the evidence he wishes to get; then the witness is then subject to a cross-examination by the other parties. In the cross-examination I want it to be clearly understood that this cross-examination is not confined to trying to break down the evidence of the witness, because it may be to the advantage of the person presenting that witness to only ask him certain questions. The cross-examination may ask fresh matter. Then the Examiner-in-Chief may re-examine the witness with reference to the fresh matter which has been brought in by the cross-examination. He is not to introduce fresh matter himself, but if he has omitted anything, and asks permission to further examine, he will decidedly get it. When the witness is done it is at the discretion of any member of the Board to ask any questions he may like on the matter, so as to make it clear to himself or to elucidate the matter in any way.

I trust and hope and believe that the parties will act in a friendly manner.

This is an inquiry that the public are concerned in, the public convenience must be looked to, also the convenience of the Company and the Motormen; therefore, we have decided not to hold long meetings, as we are to give each side a copy of the proceedings early the next morning and we shall sit from 10 to 12 and from 2 to 4 each day, and not on Saturdays at all. We think that will meet the convenience of the public, of the men. and of the Company.

Mr. A. Rosser:

I wish to ask first of all, whether the other side will admit that the case is properly before the Board, because, as you have rightly stated, this is the first case on record under the Arbitration Act in New Zealand. There have been other Boards of Conciliators appointed. Their duties have been to bring forward expert knowledge, and the special conditions under an Award, that should be binding on both parties. The Slaughtermen's is a case in point.

His Worship:

Should there be such a case, I shall waive it at once.

Mr. A. Rosser:

The Slaughtermen's case was the first under special clauses. This ease, however, is the first case on record in which a strike has been terminated peacefully by mutual agreement to refer the matters in dispute to a properly-constituted Board under Clauses 51 and 52. I am in this difficulty, that those clauses are to be taken in conjunction with other clauses of the "Industrial and Conciliation Arbitration Act, 1905," that where other matters not provided in these clauses are to be carried out it shall be carried out under the remaining clauses of the Act. For instance, the remaining clauses state that a special meeting must be held, of which adjourned notices shall be given to every member of the Union and that shall be further confirmed by a ballot, which Mr. Justice page 8 Chapman ruled should have a reasonable time allowed to elapse, so that every member should have an opportunity of confirming what done at that special meeting. Now, Mr. Cave, the Clerk of Awards, pointed this out to me, that there was nothing before the Board. I asked him if I should rely on the other clauses. It seemed to me it was a piece of supererogation to put the other clauses in where not intended. The matter was formally placed before the Board at this crowded meeting, at which two hundred members were present. There would therefore be no need to notify them and ask them to confirm it by ballot. Furthermore. I contend that is waived by the Agreement which was drawn up and signed on that memorable day (Empire Day), Monday. May 25th. I take it in order to start fair, the opposing sides, seeing they have agreed to this before going before the Board, shall state whether they shall consider the matter is properly before the Board, because there has been no Chairman's declaration filed. But the President is here, and he can depose on oath that these resolutions were passed and were in order.

Will the other side admit that the Union is properly registered, and also that the case is properly before the Board?

Mr. Walklate:

We are here, as I understand, before the Conciliation Board, who will endeavour to arrive at a satisfactory decision on the dispute we had on the 21st of May last. So far as that goes, we do not propose to raise any objection, but I must strongly object to Clauses 7 and 8, and we respectfully protest against any evidence being heard on those two points.

Mr. A. Rosser:

With regard to the formalities in the matter, that means the formalities have been complied with. I wired to Wellington, and received a reply that confirms what Your Worship has mentioned this morning, and in view of a public inquiry being held as to the brakes.

His Worship:

The point we want is, Will Mr. Walklate waive the formalities? We will take that first.

Mr. Walklate:

We will raise no objection to the formalities at all, with the exception of Clauses 7 and 8. We object to these being dealt with in any way. With regard to the dispute, we are prepared to go on with that, an raise no question as to procedure or anything else.

Mr. A. Rosser:

Now, with regard to Clauses 7 and 8, I would object, on behalf the Union, to the matter being considered in the light of the information that has come to hand yesterday and to-day, because the readily see that if the evidence is drawn out, and the Board find they have no power to make an Award binding, and can only make a recommendation, that recommendation would not he worth the paper it was printed on.

His Worship:

It would simply amount to an expression of opinion of the majority of the Board.

page 9

Mr. A. Rosser:

It would prejudice fresh proceedings before an inquiry. It would weaken our position.

His Worship:

Are you prepared, then, to drop all reference whatever to Clauses 7 and 8 in the evidence?

Mr. A. Rosser:

I am prepared not to go on with Clauses 7 and 8, but it must necessarily follow reference will be made to them, but the Heard need not make any Award on those two clauses; that will be the simplest way out of it. Clause 8 is a recommendation from the present Court. They have not obeyed it; it has never been carried out; and, to quote Scripture, "If they obey not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they believe, "though one rose from the dead." I want to point out this: If, as we contend, the recommendations of the highest Court in the land are not carried out then the recommendations even of this Board may not be binding upon them. That is the point. I think it would be of no use to put the Board to the trouble of hearing evidence that there would not be a chance of being carried into effect if placed in the form of a recommendation.

His Worship:

Then it will bring the matter down to these six clauses.

Mr. A. Rosser:

My friend may object to certain evidence coming forward, but the evidence is so interwoven with the other part. I will do my best to disintegrate the matter.

His Worship:

We cannot take evidence down as you can in a Court of Law. (Clause 54, Subsection A. read.) Now, it is inconceivable that each one of these separate sections should be so separated as the fingers on each hand; they must touch or overlap somehow; but I think with that explanation we may leave them out.

Mr. A. Rosser:

I ask permission to withdraw Clauses 7 and 8.

His Worship:

Clauses 7 and 8 are withdrawn accordingly.

Mr. A. Rosser:

That is without prejudice, of course. We withdraw our evidence and hold it over for another inquiry, if necessary.

I may say that, although there is rather a formidable list of witnesses handed into the Clerk of Awards, that it will be considerably lessened now by these clauses being withdrawn from the scope of this inquiry. I have subpænaed eight or ten witnesses for to-day, because, as you have rightly pointed out, there is the convenience of several to be studied in this inquiry. In the first place, the service has to be maintained, and men will be here this afternoon that will be off shift. It would be putting the Company to trouble and putting the men out also; therefore. I have summoned about ten witnesses for to-day, and page 10 we shall see how we get along with these, and perhaps modify it tomorrow as the case may require.

His Worship:

if at any time either party finds they have omitted anything in evidence, or they wish to recall evidence, that is always permissible.

Mr. A. Rosser:

In this case, gentlemen, I may say the Union appreciate the seriousness of the situation, and, although in opening cases before the Arbitration Court it has not been my practice to enlarge too much on the points, yet, seeing that the four members on the Board are thoroughly conversant with every phase of the question, perhaps I will explain the matter so that Your Worship may have a clearer idea as to what the meaning of this clause is. I desire to state that the Tramway Strike was not a strike against the Act. It has been represented that the Art has been set at defiance, but in this case it is not against the Act, neither is it against the provisions of the Award, that the Union took that step on May 21st, but it was against matters outside the scope of the Act, and not provided for in the Award. Had it been a question of wages, it would have been a deadly blow at the Award, but we have not struck for wages or as to working hours. It is against regulations that have been formulated and decisions that have been carried into effect by the Company itself. The Strike was a measure of self-preservation, and, as Your Worship has mentioned, we are to take into consideration, not only the actual particulars, as formulated on this 21st day of May, but on previous days, and this has not been a sudden outburst.

I would take the Board back to last November, when the first bit of irritation occurred in connection with the dismissal of Conductor Holden, and that is necessary, because we have stated that we had only struck after exhausting all constitutional means. I wish to place that before the Court; it is not a case of a spoilt child, who strikes off at a tangent and does something he regrets afterwards. But a case carefully thought out, and a well-advised action, so far as we are concerned. Conductor Holden was in the service of the Tramway Company. In October last there was a fatal accident in Ponsonby Road, a man run over and killed, Mr. Ben Paul. Mr. Gresham, the Coroner, conducted an inquiry that, and, hearing that Holden had expressed an opinion about the brakes, he was subpænaed by the Coroner to attend to give evident. Holden appeared, as he was bound to do and gave evidence, and the nature of his evidence was to the effect that he had known a case where the brakes refused to act. The verdict of that inquiry was that the deceased came to his death by being run over by a tram car, the verdict reflected on the efficiency of the brakes. That is the verdict, and a rider was added to the effect that there should be life-saving apparatus and cradle attached to the cars. It was also suggested that the Government should be asked to appoint an Inspector to examine rolling stock of the A.E.T. Co. Holden was told there was no run for him; at any rate, he was dismissed, no cause being given. Now, I propose call Holden as the first witness. Then came other events, such as the dismissal of James Brown, who is here this morning. The reason assigned was that he was unsuitable, and also that the Company were shortening the spare list. Cate was another case. I am him, as he is 75 miles from Wairoa, in the Hawke's Bay District.

page 11

Schwarz another man. I have his affidavit, taken before me as a J.P., never dreaming it would come up again. He is now in Brisbane. He was told he was unsuitable. Another man, Parlatto, was accused of going into an hotel while in uniform and on duty. The Rules properly provide against such a contingency as that. Hut the man had two witnesses that he was taken ill, and two passengers took him into the hotel for a port wine and brandy. He had asked to be relieved, but could not get leave. I don't say they were not justified in calling him to account for it and perhaps dismissing him, but the man had no opportunity of bringing forward evidence on his behalf.

Then follows a man named Veart, who for a bump—no damage being done—was disrated as a Motorman. That oar bad been reported on by seventeen Motormen as having defective brakes. We content that Veart should not suffer this disgrace, and he went out of the service. We now come to Holden, who was dismissed without reason being given at all—i.e., insufficient reason—and the Award states that "a week's "notice shall be given on either side, providing that this shall not prevent "the Company from discharging a man for good cause." If the cause is shown, we have nothing to say, but in his case that has never been done, and this matter has brought about discontent and irritation in the service. I want to point out that the case of Holden was referred to the Minister for Justice, and the reply I got was that the matter had been referred to the Minister for Labour, to see whether a broach of the Award had been committed, and there the matter hung fire for a while. (Letter from Mr. McGowan and Mr. Miller read.) Now, that went on until March this year: the first letters were in November, and it was found that inasmuch as I had, to use a colloquial term, "barracked" for a week's wages to be given to Holden, that that had put the Company outside of any prosecution for breach of Award. That is a matter for argument at a future time. The latter clause of that letter was written because I quoted that our Act with regard to protection of witnesses, was lamentably deficient in Now Zealand, and that the British Act is far ahead of ours. That provides that a witness can be protected, not only at the time he has given evidence, but afterwards. Our New Zealand Act only provides he shall be protected up to the time when he gives evidence. Steps are now being taken to put our Act on similar lines to the British Act. Therefore I think I have clearly shown to the Board that we tried every constitutional moans of bringing about some amelioration of the conditions of the men before we took the decisive step on the 2lst of May last. To come back now to Mr. Hordson, who was dismissed, he was not given a week's notice: he was a regular man, and entitled to notice, and we never asked for the week's wages in lieu thereof.

The Strike was one of self-preservation; that is inherent in brute beasts: but it is not surprising to find that it also exists in tram employees; it is only human nature to protect one's self as a last resource. That is the reason the Strike took place.

I may say with regard to the remarks made by Your Worship in the opening address, that the Agreement was drawn up in a stress of excitement. It was drawn up by Mr. Tregear and myself, and while it was being done the service was hung up: therefore it does not include everything that it should have included, because it was done in a hurry. It was sufficient for us to know the men had agreed to go back to work, and page 12 the service was to be resumed. That Agreement was signed by Mr. Walklate and myself.

With reference to other events, I am justified in showing that there were other matters which are contributing causes. For instance, if a person is sued for an offence, and it can be shown that he is guilty of contributory negligence, that affects the result and the verdict. I submit that, even including Clauses 7 and 8, that we were justified in bringing them in as contributory causes to the irritation existing amongst the employees of the Company.

His Worship:

If you show in the course of hearing contributory negligence by the other party, that throws the onus on the other side to show there was none.

Mr. A. Rosser:

We are not pursuing that point any further, but it would have rested with the Company to have shown that they had carried out the recommendations of the Court.

His Worship:

Take the case of an ordinary motor accident. The motor ran into a horse one early morning in the dark. The defence of the motor people was that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, inasmuch as he was on the wrong side of the road round the corner. That there the onus on him of showing that he was on the right side, or if on the wrong side, he could not get on the right side until he was round the corner.

Mr. A. Rosser:

It was notified in the Press that the Company had decided to appoint Mr. Hansen and Mr. Morris to seats on this Board, and it had not been formally carried out. I therefore sent this letter to the General Manager, on May 20th. (Letter read.) So that I realise that perhaps this is another precedent, in which the status even of a Judge may be temporarily asked to be set aside, because there are certain charges him. You will see the peculiar position I am placed in. I informed Mr. Walklate of it, and he sent me a reply, that he saw no reason to the appointments, and the names were sent in formally to the Awards. Now, evidence may be brought forward that will even one of the members of the Board. I mention that because I wish to give respect to the Board, and I do not wish to be accused of disrespect or keeping things back and bringing them up afterwards. I have that Conductor Herdson asked to be reinstated, or given a reason for his dismissal. The General Manager had given a guarantee that in future any employee who was dismissed given a valid reason for his dismissal. Now, Mr. Hansen agreed to on November 14th, that a man should be given a valid reason for his dismissal, and given a chance also to produce witnesses. That was one of the contributory causes in settling that first Strike that the Conductor should be reinstated, and given a That was Beaston. Then the other matter was that the men who went out on strike should not be prosecuted. That was kept by Mr. Hansen, and it is only due to Mr. Hansen to say that he kept his part of that Agreement faithfully. He was in a position as Manager for several page 13 months after that Strike was finished, until Mr. Walklate was appointed, and as a Motorman said at that time, it was like working; in Paradise. He did not, perhaps, know there were no electrical ears in Paradise. At any rate, it may he assumed there are none. However, the six months' work was carried out well by both parties, but as soon as Mr. Walklate was appointed we found that men were being dismissed without reason. Now. I feel it quite right to state that I believe Mr. Walklate to be a man of high character and rectitude. That is my personal opinion of him, but I think that he is unfortunate in bringing English experience to bear on Colonial workers. Perhaps when he has been here eight or ten years, or less, he will see that he cannot work Colonial workers on the English methods. The understanding was departed from, and it has culminated in a second upheaval, and we now think it right to bring the matter before the Board to prevent a future upheaval, as we wish to observe the Act.

With reference to Clause 8 (Clause read), the Traffic Manager is Mr. Lysaght, and here I consider that, however good Mr. Walklate is, he cannot pursue the right path unless he has good advisers, and we will call evidence to show that Mr. Lysaght has always been a bone of discontent among the men. It is a serious thing to say, but I say it seriously and advisedly, and we shall have evidence to show that Mr. Lysaght, who has the greatest communication with the men has not acted rightly, as in many cases a man has not had a chance of seeing the report put in against him. In Beaston's dismissal the report made was added to, and I ask the Board to call for the production of that document. It was read by me. Mr. Hansen gave it to me on November 14th. 1906, and when the latter clause was read out the Motorman stood up and said, "It is a lie, I never made that report." That is one instance where reports are falsified.

Clause 4 read. We can practically dismiss that clause from our minds, because Mr. Walklate agreed to it at the time the meetings were being held. The Press reports have it clearly; he said, "1 can give you "my word for that; I have no time for anybody, and no time for a liar." Somebody said. "Why have you got time for Lysaght, then?" I take it, this will not take a great deal of discussion, because the Manager practically agreed to it.

The crux of the question is in Number 5. (Read.) With regard to this, I may say that we have evidence of questionable methods that have been pursued during the last eleven months, and also for many years past, and we propose to show by this evidence that Mr. Lysaght is at the root of the whole matter. We don't hold, like some people, that the men objected to having supervision. We realise that in a service like this the men must be supervised, to see that they are carrying out their duties, but we do say that a man detected in a fault should be told of it, and not told four or five days afterwards about it, and he to lose his run and his wages of 7 or 8 shillings, and perhaps, having gone down to the office, to find the matter is a trifling one. This is the root of a great deal of irritation. The rules and regulations of the Company are fearfully and wonderfully made. It is impossible for an Arch-angel to-work with this Company and not run foul of one or more of the regulations. Take, for instance, one, that the Conductor must remain on the back platform, so as to keep an eye on intending passengers at every stop. In a crowded car of 66 passengers he has to rush back to the page 14 platform whenever the ear stops. If that were carried out all the Conductors would be down for an offence for it. There are other things a Motorman has to observe, but don't, and they are not enforced. I am showing you how arbitrary it would be if these were enforced, and men told to go down to the office to answer an offence committed three or four days previously. It places them in the position of the Irishman who was asked if he was guilty, and said, "How can I tell until I hear the "evidence?" That is their position; they don't know what the charge is I submit in supervision like this the Inspector has a right to tell the men, and say, "I shall report you for smoking on duty." or. "being "uncivil to passengers," or whatever it may be, so that the man may know what he has to meet. It is the A.B.C. of the British Law that man should know what he has to meet when he goes before the Judge This is not done by the Company, and it certainly should be.

With regard to Clause 6. (Clause read.) That clause we consider is part and parcel of the settlement of the Strike; that is, the agreement to go to go back to work amicably and study the public convenience, and submit the matters to the Board. Your Worship mentioned that there was an amended form put in by the Union; the wrong form was attached to the citation, which left out Clause 6. I mention this to show that it was a clear omission. In the first Strike of 1906 there were 27 or 30 men who refused to leave their cars, and the men feared there possibility of a like number on this occasion. That has been a source of discontent, that some may be working with men who would not stand by their mates. On this occasion, however, there were only two men, one who refused to leave the car until he was dragged off, and ran the ear to the barn. Another man went to work in the barn while his mates were out on strike. There was a lot of feeling about this, as the men did not want to work with those who turned traitors to them and their interests. When, the week before last, through some misunderstanding, Mr. Walklate put one of those men on again, there was a danger that if that man had not been taken off last Friday week there would been another strike. I mention this so as to ask the Board to take it into their serious consideration as to whether the demands of the in this respect shall be carried out, and not to allow two men out of 250 to cause discontent amongst them. I think that brings the matter up to the last clause of the particulars have made it as clear as I possibly can to the Board, and have endeavoured to explain some matters which might otherwise be obscure.

His Worship:

That just brings us to the psychological moment—that is, 12 o'clock. We will meet again at two, and you will then call your first witness.

(Court adjourned until 2 p.m.)

(Court resumed at 2 p.m.)

Court ordered all Witnesses to retire.

Mr. A. Rosser:

There are two witnesses assisting me in the case. I presume they can remain.

Mr. Walklate:

I have no objection to that.

page 15

Alfred Nicholas Holden, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:

My name is Alfred Nicholas Holden. I am a carter, in the employ of A. B. Wright and Sons. I was formerly a Conductor in the employ of the A.E.T. Co. for over four years prior to my dismissal. I was dismissed about six months ago, November last, I think. I had a good record with the Company, and there was nothing standing against me prior to my dismissal. The merit and demerit system was in vogue then for over twelve months. There was a competition each quarter, and one pound was given to the man with the best record. There were so many points for any good act and so many taken off for any fault. I stood very near the top twice. I remember October 16th last, when Mr. Paul was killed in Ponsonby Road. An inquest was held. I was subpoænaed to appear as witness; it was signed by Mr. T. Gresham (Coroner), and I was commanded to give evidence as to the brakes. Mr. Lundon appeared for the relatives. I was duly sworn. My evidence did not approve of the brakes. I went next morning, the 6th, for my run. I was a regular Conductor, always on the one run, and had been so for some time. I saw Mr. Morris, who was officer in charge of the Ponsonby Depot, and was told I was to report myself to Mr. Lysaght at the Head Office. I went at 6.30 for my run, and was told to report at 10. I asked him the reason why I could not get my run, and he told me I was suspended until there was an inquiry, and I would have to see the Manager. They gave me no reasons. I waited about the office for over five hours. It was close on 6 when I went home, tired of waiting. I reported again next morning for the run and was refused. I then interviewed Mr. Rosser to see if he could make inquiries into the matter. I saw Mr. Lysaght again, and he told me my services were not further required. 1 asked if 1 could see the Manager, and was told he was engaged, Mr. Rosser and I then saw Mr. Lysaght in the outer office, and when Mr. Rosser asked why I was dismissed no answer was given. My wages had to be demanded from the Company, and the Award of the Arbitration Court was read out to him, and he said he would see the Manager. Eventually a week's wages were paid. I remember Mr. Walklate coming out to the flap of the counter. Mr. Rosser pointed out the seriousness of the situation, and told him that he would make the matter public through the Press. Mr. Walklate said "he did not care "what the public thought." I went to the "Herald" and gave my statement, but it was not published. (Extract from "Herald" read by Mr. Rosser.) 1 remember that appearing. I was out of work a fortnight. Mr. Walklate said he did not give references. I produced references when I went to the Company, and was accepted on those references. I applied to a big warehouse for work, and was asked for a reference from my last employer. I said I had none, but had just left the Tram service. I was not successful. I asked Mr. Kidd for a reference when I handed in my uniform and book. He is an officer of the Company. About a fortnight afterwards I went to work in Mr. Craig's stable, and got a job driving. I have been carting ever since. I consider it very hard to be dismissed without a reference. I thought there was nothing against me, except what I said at the inquest. I often thought I was harassed by the Inspectors, but I did my work to the best of my ability. I was reported once for talking to a Motorman, which is a broach of the regulations. It was in Symonds Street, near the Bridge. Mr. Morris was under the verandah opposite. I got an envelope, and was requested to send in an explanation. That is known as a "Please explain." I saw page 16 Mr. Morris, but did not connect that with him. I remember talking with the Motorman. A lady passenger wanted to know where Kingsland Avenue was, and the Motorman asked information of me, as I had ben some time on that run. I explained the matter to Mr. Lysaght, and I saw Mr. Walklate also, and gave him that explanation. He said if I were "at the office twelve times a day I would spin that yarn." I was reported by Inspector McElwain for a miss-fare. He reckoned I intimate with one of the lady passengers, familiar was the word, but I don't think it was meant in that sen.se. This lady got a penny ticket from Queen Street, and remained in the ear. Mr. McElwain checked the car at the Eden Vine, about 200 yards from the penny section. There are points there, and the car goes on at a slow rate, and I had to run after and catch the car. I thought it was a bit sharp. Another day Mr. McKlwain accused me of running the ear without a full complement of passengers. It was after the "Straphanging" question. I gave tfc Motorman three bells from Karangahape Road, which meant I had a full car. He declared there was a vacant seat, but I got evidence from the passengers, so that charge fell to the ground. I reckon the Inspector tried to get another one on to me.

By Mr. Carter:

The Inspector got on the ear at the penny section; the lady came from Queen Street. I went to the office and saw Mr. Lysaght and the report, and the lady's name was not in it. He told me what Inspector reported me for.

By Mr. Hansen:

Mr. Lysaght knew I was waiting outside the office during those hours. There was nobody else near the office but me during that time I was not a yard or so away from the door.

By Mr. Rosser:

I reported myself to Mr. Lysaght two or three times that day, but was told Mr. Walklate was not in. Mr. Lysaght passed me a dozen times. I was suspended. I was not to resume work unless I got orders to do so. The demerit system was not in force at that time.

James Mills, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:

My name is James Mills. I am a Switchman in the employ of the Company. I have been with them ever since the Company started over seventeen years altogether. I was a driver on the old horse-cars, and also at other occupations. I went on as a Motorman when the electric traction started, and previous to that I was stable foreman at Onehunga. I have been a Switchman about twelve months, and before Motorman on the Ponsonby route. Previous to the 1906 Strike Thomas Beaston was my Conductor. I applied for a change of Conductors Mr. Lysaght. I had no fault to find with the Conductor as to carrying out his duties, but a previous Conductor, who had been to Queensland, and had come back, was on the spare list, and was applying for a regular run, and I wanted him back again. Mr. Lysaght said I should have to state the reason, and I wrote out a second application. Mr. Beaston was inclined to be rather religious, and I am a bit hasty, and when I used a hasty expression he would check me. He was one of conductors I ever had. I did not get Spence, my old Conductor, back again. November 14th, 1906, was the day of the Strike; I was on the page 17 morning shift. I did not know the men had actually gone on strike, but as soon as I heard the ears were stopped I came down to the office, and found the men inside. The policeman at the door pushed me back, but let me in after I explained that I was one of the men. I found negotiations had been going on some time. When inside I was told that was a "crook report I made about Beaston." A report had been read purporting to come from me saying that Beaston was an agitator, and neglected his duties for Trade and Labour Council matters. I never wrote such a thing. I remember standing on the desk and demanding my application to be read. I challenged anyone to come forward and prove that I wrote such a statement. My statement had been added to. Beaston was one of the best Conductors. He never talked to me and caused me to neglect my time-table. I thought, however, it was not wise to press the matter, as all other matters were nearly settled. I felt sore ever since that my report was falsified, and I never forgave Mr. Lysaght for that yet. I never liked Mr. Lysaght, as I think he has a lack of principle, and has done one or two shady tricks. I remember a "round robin" affair about Mr. Steve Heaney, who was Foreman of the Ponsonby Stables. I believe Mr. Lysaght was the instigator of that "round robin." He came to me and asked if I would sign it, and I said, "No, certainly not." As a Switchman, I am in authority, to a certain extent, over the other men and if a Motorman or Conductor is insolent I should have to report it. I reported a Conductor for gross insolence: he used obscene language to me; but he was not dismissed. I saw Mr. Lysaght, who asked me if he had apologised. I saw the Conductor afterwards, who said that he had been ordered to apologise, that he was sorry, and there the matter ended. That was one case where an insult did not mean the dismissal of the offender.

Cross-examined by Mr. Walklate:

I was put on as Switchman because I applied for the position of Despatcher. I made no report against my Conductor Beaston; it was an application. I think the report was as follows: "I hereby ask for a "change of Conductors, on account of not being able to agree with "Thomas Beaston on personal matters." That was the second application. The first application was applying for W. R. Spence as a Conductor. There were two separate statements. (Report handed to witness.) That is mine. I think it was the first one I sent; it is dated 25th of October it may be the second one; I am not quite sure. This request that Conductor Spence be put on, and also a request for a change from Beaston. Mr. Jysaght said I must give a reason. I said the report was added to. (Report put in evidence.) There is no sign of any addition to that report. In 1906 I did not see Mr. Lysaght at the meeting, the place was so crowded. I have never forgiven him for making a false report and writing down words I never did say. Another instance was that on several occasions he kept me out late at night when driving horse-cars waiting on the Opera, and the man who should have been kept late was sent home. I never signed the "round robin." if I sign anything like that I would like my name on the top well as anywhere else. I think Mr. Lysaght was the instigator of that "round robin."

By Mr. Hansen:

When I was Foreman of the Onehunga Stables it was temporary promotion. Mr. Lysaght did not work against me in securing that.

page 18

By His Worship:

I am quite certain there were two applications; this may have been the second, but the first was never handed back to me.

Mr. Walklate:

We have no record of any other application.

Re-Examined by Mr. Rosser:

I am absolutely certain I sent two applications. I demurred to Mr. Lysaght asking; for a second, as I thought it unusual. I heard what you read out at the meeting, and I denied it. The report you read was not mine.

By Mr. Hansen:

The first report merely contained my application for Spence. I don't know why any report should have been altered. I understood the report read was one said to be written by me against Conductor Beaston. Although I asked for an explanation it was never given to me.

Thomas Beaston, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:

My name is Thomas Beaston. I am a shop assistant, and was formerly in the employ of the Company as a Conductor; I was also a member of the Union. I was appointed for a Delegate for the Trades and Labour Council to represent the Union about June, 1906. I attended every night I could get off, and took a keen interest in the matter. My name was mentioned in the Press. About that time I was harassed by Inspectors. My car was boarded by the Inspectors, and checked more than the average number of times. As a rule, they board the ear at the rear end, check the Conductor's waybill by looking at the numbers, then check the tickets from the back to the front of the car. On several occasions they commenced at the opposite end and reversed the proceedings. I took it they thought I was a rogue. In the usual order of things it gives the Conductor a chance of getting faros from passengers who had just got on the car but if the Inspector gets on at the front he is liable to get what is called a miss-fare, and the officials take it we are giving people free rides. James Mills was my Motorman; he was a very good Motorman. I never caused him to miss the time-table or argued with passengers. A Conductor has not got much time; he has all work to do with fares to collect switches to pull, and passengers to look after. My record was very good, and my merit marks doubled my demerit marks. I did not know that Mills applied for a change of Conductors. Mr. Lysaght put me on the Grey Lynn run. I about a week when the trouble occurred. The trouble was my dismissed without a hearing. I was accused of writing on glass windows in the barn, and was told to go to the Engineer's office. At the time I had never seen it but there was some obscene language put on the and I understand it was done with a match. I saw Mr. Afterwards Mr. Hansen, and was discharged. The Strike then took place, and one condition was that I should be put back or receive my the end of the month. I got the wages. They gave me a good and withdrew all charges against me. I really believe I from the Company for taking an interest in Labour matters. I did my well, and the marks proved that to be so.

page 19

By Mr. Carter:

At the time I supposed to write obscene expressions on the glass I was actively engaged in Christian work in tin's city.

By Mr. Hansen:

I state distinctly that I never discussed, whilst on duty. Trade and Labour questions with passengers.

By Mr. Morris:

The men took my case up they thought I had been treated unfairly and unjustly, and they thought it their duty to take it up. The Company refused to hear my case, and that was really the cause of the Strike. My dismissal was due to the official who had charge of the Conductors, or it may have been the officer in charge of the Ponsonby Depot. I was dismissed by Mr. Lysaght. He treated me well until the latter part of my time, when I applied for a holiday to go to Australia on private and important business. He said he could not give me leave, and I said I should have to leave. The officials of the Company were aware that I would be forced to leave, and in spite of that, they tried to take my character away, so as to be able to say they dismissed me. I think Mr. Lysaght should have seen that I had a fair hearing:

By His Worship:

I knew nothing of this writing at the time. I saw Mr. Lysaght and Mr. Carey both together, and the latter read the charge out to me from paper, as to using and writing obscene language. It was a report made by Mr. Kidd. I said it was the first I had heard of it and I am quite innocent. There was no evidence brought to support the charge. I reported myself to Mr. Hansen, who said I was to come down next morning. I then saw Mr. Lysaght, who said the Company would not require my services any longer, and they would give me wages in lieu of a week's notice. I ultimately got a reference from Mr. Hansen after the Strike; it was a condition of the Strike.

By Mr. Morris:

Mr. Lysaght never reported me that I know of.

By Mr. Rosser:

At the time of these negotiations the room was packed; there would be over 100 men there. I remember Mills asking for his report to be read. I think you read a report before that. Mills was excited about something being added. I remember that. You read the addition, too. Mills came in after and asked for it to be read again.

Peter McElwain, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:

My name is Peter McElwain I am an Inspector in the Tram Company's service. I have been in the service about ten years, as Inspector most of the time. I am the Senior Inspector by length of service, but there is no difference in my pay. I was on the horse-cars for about live years. I have been associated with Mr. Lysaght for about 11 years. I remember the "round robin;" I took it round; I got some signatures. I might have been turned off a verandah, but I don't remember who drew it up. Mr. Lysaght was my superior officer, and he asked me to take it round; it was my duty to do as I was told, He told me it came from the Company. Poor Heaney is dead now. He was not a loyal man to page 20 the Concern. I think Mills signed the "round robin," and I think Rogers signed it. There were a good many signed it but I cannot remember well after all this time. Mr. Lysaght gave it to me and told me Mr. Heaney was not suitable for the position.

Thomas Algar Johnstone duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:

My name is Thomas Algar Johnstone. I am an Inspector in the employ of the Company. I have been with the electric ears since they started, in November, 1902, and I was with the horse-cars before that. I was withdrawn and put on special duty. I was in uniform at that time, but had my overcoat on. I have been in an upstairs room in Newmarket, observing the conduct of the men on the cars, and have forwarded a report to Mr. Lysaght, the Traffic Manager. I was taking the time of arrival and departure of the ears. If a man were smoking I should have to report, but I don't remember any cases. I wrote my report at the time, but kept no record. I have also been at Onehunga, and put in a day there, checking the times of the cars. I sat in a second-class railway carriage at the terminus. I have an idea I reported some of the men for smoking on that occasion, but could not say who they were. Smoking is a breach of the Rules. The men did not know I was there, as far as I am aware. I had my overcoat on then. On another day I went to the Kingsland terminus. I remember a Conductor saw me there, and he informed the other men but I shifted my quarter to a verandah of a house at Kingsland. I was sent to Arch Hill too. I was close to the end of the terminus, in a paddock, sitting on a log, underneath the trees in the open. I was acting under instructions, It would not do to inform the men that I was there: they would pass the word along or give signals. I have been to the Three Lamps also. I in a butcher's shop, upstairs; I had permission from him. I have been to Herne Bay terminus that I remember. I receive my instructions from the Traffic Manager (Mr. Lysaght). He told me to go out and check the time-table, because he had complaints that it was not being maintained, and we have to find out the reason why the men stay longer than they really should. It was in my regular working hours.

By Mr. Hansen:

I was instructed by Mr. Lysaght. I was not told to go behind logs, or anything of that kind. I used my own discretion in the matter that I would not be observed.

By Mr. Carter:

I know if I had to check the time-table that it would not do for the men to see me.

Mr. Walklate:

We don't dispute this at all; I take the responsibility of checking the time-tables; it is a necessity. There is only one method to find by some means what time is kept. It could not be done if the Inspector stood by.

By Mr. Rosser:

I have acted as Despatcher at times. It was then my duty to cheek the time at the Queen Street end; but there is no one to check them the far ends. If the men stay three or four minutes at the terminus longer than they should they have to drive the cars at a greater speed page 21 to make up the time-table, and the equipment suffers. When a man goes down to the office he is told what he is charged with. He gets word the next day or so, and the case is dealt with. I cannot bring to my mind who I reported for offences other than not running the time-table. It is over four years ago now; I have not done it since that time. There was a man employed as a Private Inspector for that work. I could find out from the Despatcher as to whether there had been any block or irregularities in the service, or whether the power had been off or not.

James Brown, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:

My name is James Brown. I was formerly a Conductor in Melbourne, and also in the employ of the Auckland Tram Co. I was three years in the Melbourne Tramway and Omnibus Co. Roth cable and horse traction. I left on my own accords and got a good reference. I have one here. (Reference produced and read.)

I produced that reference and another one when I made application to the Auckland Tram Co. I filled in and signed an application form. The form produced is similar to the one I filled in. I started for the Company at the end of September or the beginning of October. There were 23 on the spare list at that time, so far as Conductors were concerned. I reported twice a day at 6 a.m. and 2 p.m. I got nearly to the top of the list, but not into the position of the regular wage of two guineas a week. Just after the new year I was told by Mr. Morris to go and see Mr. Lysaght; it was the 4th or 6th of January; I was told my services were not further required. I went to see you, and we went down to the office and saw Mr. Walklate, who said I was unsuitable. I asked what was the moaning of that. I had to show the reference that I was a capable Conductor, and had had three years' experience in Melbourne. I reckon that a Conductor in Melbourne has a harder task than one in Auckland, I do not drink or smoke. I was surprised to hear that I was unsuitable. I did not use bad language to passengers. Mr. Walklate qualified his reason by saying they were shortening the spare list. I don't think they were, as far as I know. There were several who went on that list afterwards, and it showed they were doing just the opposite. I told him it was unfair a man should be dismissed directly after the Christmas holidays, and he said he had to study the Company's interests, not the men's. You then told him you would advertise the conditions under which employment was to be given to spare men, and he said he was very pleased you should take the matter in hand.

I think I should have a reference from the Tram Co. or have satisfaction. I did not get either. I went to the Grand Hotel at Rotorua as cook. I got a good reference, but I haven't got it with me.

By Mr. Walklate:

You told me the Company was shortening hands. I asked you what was meant by the word "unsuitable." You withdrew that remark and said you were shortening hands.

Mr. Walklate:

I never told you that.

Witness:

I was in your service about three months; I was still on the spare list: and as such the Company were under no obligations to give me any notice whatever.

page 22

Mr. Rosser:

The award says it does not apply to the spare list; I admit that.

Witness:

I am nothing at present.

(Court adjourned until 10 a.m. on Thursday, July 9th, 1908.)

(Court resumed Thursday, 9th July, at 10 a.m.)

His Worship:

Just before calling witnesses, I wish to say I have a telegram here addressed to me as follows: "In reply to your wire, Mr. Holmes and Mr. "Richardson are expecting to leave here on Tuesday morning for Auckland. Mr. Richardson, who is the Wellington City Tramways Engineer, "cannot leave before that date at earliest (Signed) William "Hall-Jones." Mr. Holmes, of course, is well known to most of you as the Government Engineer, and Mr. Richardson is the Wellington Tramway Engineer. These two gentlemen are engaged in passing trams before same are allowed to work there.

Witnesses ordered out of Court.

Horace Edward Veart, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:

My name is Horace Edward Veart. I was formerly in the employ of the Tram Co. as Conductor and Motorman. I was in the Company's employ two years and two months. I went on as Motorman in October last. I remember March 12th. this year. I was driving No. 73 car on the Ponsonby line. I had a slight bump with another car which standing at Pitt Street penny section. I was going from town. It was a Ponsonby car just ahead of me. I don't know of any rule, but it is usual to go gently round the curve, so as to allow any car to get away or stop a short distance from it. It was a very slight bump: the only damage was my buffer was dinted a bit; no harm was done to the other car. My buffer slipped over the top of the other one being higher. The brakes on No. 73 had not been working all right. I knew they were not working well. I got notice the next afternoon. Inspector Johnstone was standing there at the time, He got on my car and told me he going to report it. Inspector Morris told me on Friday night that I wanted on Saturday morning at 9 a.m. I was taken off a special ear, and did not finish the trip. I took the same car out with Mr. Lysaght, and Mr. Brennand; and Inspector Johnstone was on the outside. Mr. Brennand was Superintendent at the Ponsonby Barn. Inspector John stone was looking after the pole. It was done for the purpose of having a demonstration of the car at the scene of the bump. I drove down College Hill to Queen Street. When I loft the Lamps I put the brake hard down and wound up the ratchet brake. That is the thing to do. I proceeded cautiously, knowing the car was faulty was hard to stop at England Street curve. It was not the same I previously bumped with. The brakes at one end may be good and other bad. I went to Queen Street terminus, and started with the same end to the front as when I bumped the ear. I had no stops, except when slowing off going round the curves. When I arrived Pitt Street curve, Mr. Lysaght and Mr. Brennand cane out to the front of the car, which went a lot easier than on the Thursday night.

page 23

I then took the car to the barn. That morning was booked up on a car, but was not allowed to take it out, as I was told I was wanted at the Head office. I saw Mr. Lysaght there, and he told me he would put me back on the bag for two months, from Motorman to Conductor. I did not appreciate it; it was an Irishman's rise; it meant a loss of status and of pay, besides a stigma attached for being in fault. I do not consider I was in fault, as I did the best I could with the equipment under my control. Between Thursday and Saturday I looked in the book at the barn, and saw that the brakes had been adjusted. After the bump I reported. "Ratchet brake wants adjusting." Afterwards in that book in another column, I saw these words: "Brakes adjusted, W "Bartlett." I do not consider it was a fair trial to experiment with the same car when brakes had been adjusted in the meantime. I remember the result of investigations I made as to whether that car had a bad character. (Documents produced.) That is a faithful copy of what I discovered. I worked afterwards for about three weeks as Conductor, but not constantly, as I was suffering from a bad cold at the time. I was a bit sore about the matter, and finally decided to sever my connection with the Company.

By Mr. Walklate:

The car that I bumped was on the other side of the curve. It was the same place I had been warned about; not in the morning, but in the afternoon; about four hours before that. It was my first day out with that car. I had no chance of complaining to the Inspector about it hut I spoke to him and I no sooner did so than he went to the back of the car. I did not complain to him about the brakes. I worked for about three weeks as Conductor, and then left the service. I resigned; gave Mr. Lysaght notice on Saturday morning, and left the following week. It was the 18th May that I gave notice, and my discharge is dated the 25th. I was not compelled to give a week's notice, but I meant to resign there and then.

By Mr. Carter:

The time of the accident was about 7.27 p.m. on the 12th of March. The Trackman greased the curve at about the same time. I took a special car at 9 o'clock on Saturday morning. The Trackman generally greases the line about 0.30 a.m. It is a very hard thing to stop a car on the curve just after greasing. There is no rule about letting your buffer touch the other car. I have never heard of anyone else being "put back on the bag" before or since. It is quite a usual thing for cars to pull round exactly as I did. I have often heard of the brakes of cars jumping on going round the curve,

By Mr. Hansen:

My buffer slipped off the other car again, I went right on to Ponsonby.

By Mr. Morris:

The Trackman was greasing both rails on that night. You told me afterwards that I would not lose my place on the Motorman's list, but I was not told at the time.

By Mr. Rosser:

I did not understand that at the time. I was told the same afternoon. I don't think it was a fair thing that I should have been pun- page 24 ished for something my control. The conditions were not the same at the trial as on the day the bump occurred.

By Mr. Walklate:

The Trackman greased the outside curve, the curve I was using. I was almost on the straight when the ear bumped. I was told the reason for being put back was "bad judgment," going round the curve when another car was standing there.

By Mr. Hansen:

When I made that bump I had been on about half-shift about four hours. I found the brakes very heavy and stiff. I never got a chance to report it.

By Mr. Hansen:

You can report to the Despatcher.

Mr. Sherry: I know you cannot.

Witness:

I worked the shift out afterwards with those brakes, and finished about ten past eleven o'clock.

Mr. Hansen:

It was very dangerous for you to do that.

His Worship:

The conclusion must be drawn by the Court.

By Mr. Rosser:

I know it is wrong to slop on a curve; you must have a clear of rails round the curve.

Mr. Carter:

The grease is liberally supplied; it is squashing over the top skating rink.

Herbert Montague Herdson duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:

My name is Herbert Montague Herdson. I worked as Conductor for the Company until about a week before the Strike. I was a regular man for two weeks. I worked my way through the spare list. I went on regularly about the 1st May. No. 1. Herne Bay was my run Friday before the Strike I was told to go down at 10 o'clock on Saturday morning and see Mr. Lysaght. I saw him, and got rather a said, "Herdson you are dismissed; your services are no longer I asked for a reason. He said, "He had no reason to give me: he was" acting under Mr. Walklate's instructions." I then asked for an interview with Mr. Walklate, but was informed he "was too busy to I told him I was a member of the Union, and it would be a Union matter. I told him I thought it was a very unfair thing, as I could think no reason for my dismissal: he said he knew of no reason then went to the Secretary of the Union (Mr. Rosser), and he advised me that, inasmuch as Mr. Hansen had first helped me to get on with the Company, to whom I bad been introduced by my uncle, the Rev. Mr. Monckton. Chaplain to the Bishop of Auckland, I had better see Mr. Hansen about it. He said he would make investigations, and see if he page 25 could find out the reason. I again went to the Head Office, corner of Hobson and Custom Streets. I know I was entitled to an interview with Mr. Walklate under the Award. I saw him outside conversing with another gentleman, and after a little while I told him my name was Herdson, that I had boon dismissed that morning, and asked him for a reason. Mr. Walklate turned round and said to me, "You are dismissed, "and that is all about it." and then walked into the office. It is not the way I should speak to a dog, that Mr. Walklate spoke to mo. I then called on Mr. Rosser again, and said I could got no satisfaction whatever. On Monday morning Mr. Rosser and myself went to the Head Office about out n o'clock, Mr. Hansen at the same time coming in. Mr. Walklate said he could give no reason for it. Mr. Rosser then road out an extract as to promises being made that any man should got a satisfactory reason for his dismisal, or be allowed to road reports with regard to it. Mr. Walklate said he had given me a week's wages in lieu of notice. I have never received this. I afterwards heard that Mr. Walk-late gave out as the reason. "Insolence to superior officer." I think that was the second day of the Strike. Prior to that I had no notion whatever of the reason. The only incident I can recall was about May the13th. I was going towards Herne Bay, and near Cox's Bridge Road, when Inspector McElwain boarded the ear. It was the last stop before the terminus. He look my waybill and went to check the tickets. There were three gentlemen and two ladies. The gentlemen were standing, making preparations to got off. He checked their tickets, and then demanded tickets from the ladies. One lady opened her purse and said she had dropped her ticket. He called me, and asked me if I had issued tickets to the ladies. I said yes, and told him he had been in the service long enough to know better than to come and board a car dose to the terminus. It was casting reflections on my honesty, and on the lady's honesty also. One of the ladies said she would pay sixpence; that is, to pay over again. He followed me, and said, "HerdsoN. You are not to "dictate to me in any manner or form." I told him he had tried to humiliate me in front of the passengers, He was very officious. I told him also that if he treated me more like a gentleman I would treat him the same way. I considered myself as good as he was, though he was my superior officer. I was very indignant with him but at the same time I did not use any bad language. I never do use obscene language. I have been reported for broaches three or four times for trivial offences. I was never accused for any act of dishonesty. I am a bit above that. (Printed form produced.) My application to the Company was filled in on a form similar to that, When I spoke to Mr. McKlwain I had two witnesses who heard part of it. Mr. Buckley and Mr. Smith; the latter is President of the Union, and he was alongside the car. It is the first time I have ever had an Inspector board the car in this manner.

By Mr. Waiklate:

I don't remember Mr. Lysaght saying anything about the week's wages, but I could not be sure; I was so astounded at being dismissed; it was a big shock. Inspector McElwain got on the ear at Cox's Bridge Road. He had an argument with the ladies, who said they had dropped their tickets. He beckoned to me, and called out at the same time. The ladies were sitting in the front compartment: the car had stopped when he called me. I never lose my temper; I am very sweet tempered. This is my first experience in Tramway work. My only experience of what an page 26 Inspector should do is what I have seen here. I have never been out of Auckland Province; I am what they call in England "a white Maori." I had been in trouble about shortages, but not above the average. I have seen it posted at the barn; other men's shortages of £1 to £2; I had a shortage once of £1, but paid it up the next day. I was a bit surprised at the time. I remember I had taken several pounds' of silver into Hellaby's, and got it changed for sovereigns. I cannot conceive any other way that I lost that pound. I was not insolent to the Inspector, and I made no offensive remarks to him. I did not see Mr. Smith get on the ear; he was speaking to Motorman Buckley, and was on the platform with him. I think he was waiting at the terminus. I objected to the Inspector humiliating me. Passengers have generally dropped their tickets when so close to the end of the journey; they make a rule of it. There is a notice as to passengers retaining their tickets, but they don't do so. Perhaps it would be part of the duty of the Inspector to see this done. I am not at present working; not since I was dismissed. I was with Mr. Goldie immediately before. I left him of my own accord. I was a collector there, and handling sometimes £300 or £400 a day for him. I wanted to get into the service, and gave Mr. Harry Goldie four days' notice, but I put another man in my place, and Mr. Goldie was satisfied. I did not tell his Inspector McElwain that he "a dirty crawling liar" in front of the ladies. I have had some little disagreement with other Inspetcors, but mostly got on well with them. I remember an Inspector once getting on the car about a dozen times.

By Mr. Carter:

The Inspector should have rung the bell, not called me. The ladies offered to pay the fare again. They said, "Conductor, we don't like "reflections cast on our characters; we will pay you again." As a rule the Inspector takes the word of a passenger that they have dropped their tickets, He was the first that did not do so. There have been no suggestions as to any fault of a monetary character at all. It is the usual proceeding on my part to get change from shopkeepers. There are no objections as far as I know.

By Mr. Hansen:

When my wages were due I called for them. I thought the week's wages in lieu of notice would be given to me. I asked for my pay date.

By Mr. Sherry:

It was at the barn, and we got paid through a hole in the fence that occasion.

By Mr. Hansen:

Mr. Morris asked me to hand in my uniform. I did not consider myself cut off from the Company. I thought the wages would be paid first, and then I would have naturally handed the uniform in. I usually call for my money, but for this I did not do so.

By His Worship:

I did not get a request to hand in my uniform.

By Mr. Rosser:

you advised me to retain my uniform until I was missed. I am not clear of the Company until the uniform is handed in. page 27 One of the claims made by the Union was that I should be reinstated. When I went to the hole in the fence I was only paid one week's wages; that was on Friday, 22nd May. With reference to the shortage of £1. I must have lost it. The bag I had was not very safe; it was very old, and the stitches had given way. I had other shortages at times, but on a wet day one can five two or three tickets away off the blocks, instead of one. The fact of their being shortages is not a very heinous offence.

Walter Henry Haslam, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:

My name is Walter Henry Haslam. 1 am a Motorman in the employ of the Company and have been in that service close on five years. I came from Brisbane as a practical Motorman; I learnt there. I am Treasurer of the Union. I remember attending with a deputation some fourteen months ago, when Mr. Hansen was Manager. I laid a complaint that Inspector Morris had hidden at the Herne Bay terminus, to my knowledge, for over an hour, and on my nine o'clock trip I was sitting down on a box, and he came out and reported me. At the deputation I pointed this out. Mr. Hansen said he didn't order that son of thing, but when asked who did order it no answer was given. I never yet heard any solution about it. I could make no mistake about its being Mr. Morris; he had been there from the trip before. I have seen him at other times also. I do not consider it a right thing to do. I consider it right for an Inspector to report a man if in fault, but he should be told what it was for. A new Inspector could easily find means of reporting men under the present Rules and Regulations. I was reported for sitting down on the box in front of the car. It was a locker box. It would be four poles before we reached the terminus. The box was right in front of the controller. Since then Motormen's seats have been introduced. What was then an offence, when reported, now a regulation of the Court. I was not feeling too good that night, and I explained to Mr. Hansen at the time. I have seen lnspector Tickle on several occasions hiding himself. One of his places is in England Street: it is now a compulsory stopping-place: there a gable house right on the corner, and he has hidden in the doorway on dozens of occasions, and then would jump on the car. He wants to see if we are making a compulsory stop. He will make a pounce out on the car like a leopard on to his prey. Also in New Street, at the Suffolk Hotel on dozens of occasions I have seen him. I have not noticed other Inspectors doing it. He has a very bad name with the men and the travelling public; he is called "Sherlock Holmes." I heard a passenger make a remark once to him about shooting himself with a revolver he is supposed to carry.

By Mr. Walklate:

I saw Mr. Morris hiding in the shadow of the Bayfield Church. I saw him on two occasions, and there was about an hour between them. I surmised he was there all the time, It was a few months before you were appointed Manager—'in Paradise time." It was on the second time when I saw him that he spoke to me about the seats. I knew he was there, but did not take a seat in despite of that, but I sat down because I was not feeling well. I did not apply for relief, because it was impossible to get it at 9 o'clock at night; there is nobody about. I felt ill, and sat down. I was travelling at the time. The seat was practically as high as the seat I use at the present time. The locker can be detached. The seats we now use stand up on a spindle, and I can shift page 28 it backwards or forwards as I want. The present seats are arranged so that I can bold my hands on the driving handle and still have for my feet. The box would do just as well; I would not necessarily have to loan right forward. There was ample room for my feet, and I had my hands on the handles. I have seen Inspector Tickle hiding dozens of times. I don't know whether that points to his hiding-places being poor or my eyesight being very good. I have seen him cramped up close to the door when the car passed him. I say he was hiding; I don't imagine it. No other Inspector carried on tactics like he did. If he was absolutely hidden of course I could not see him. I have sea him hiding in absolutely fine weather: he was not sheltering then. I have no reason to object to Inspectors boarding the car at any place or to him seeing me travel along the road. I object to this Inspector's tactics. I have not put on extra speed when he made mad rushes for the car.

By Mr. Carter:

When sitting on the locker, I had the reverse and the emergency brakes under my control. Before seats came in men would sit on fruit cases, something similar to the locker. Inspector Morris is the Chief Inspector at Ponsonby Depot, and manages the traffic. He acts as intermediate between the Traffic Manager and the men. He was at Bayfield Church for an hour, that is two trips; each car would pass twice. I don't like being subjected to the indignity.

By Mr. Sherry:

If the locker was cornerways there would be more room for the feet; that was the position I had it in.

By Mr. Hansen:

I knew I broke the regulations. I got no reply to my excuse, and heard nothing more about it. There are reports put in against and you hear nothing more of them. It is the espionage that I object to, not the fact of being reported at all.

Thomas Alexander Steen, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:

My name is Thomas Alexander Steen. I am a Conductor in the employ of the Tram Company on the Ponsonby route. On May 16th of the present year I was on the night shift somewhere between 7 and 8 at Cook Street, and saw Inspector Tickle standing there; his in to hide the buttons, and his cap was under his arm with the badge turned to the back. The cap has a largo badge with the word "Inspector" on it. It was at the junction of Cook and Hobson Streets where I saw him. I have no doubt it was him. I think my Motorman also saw him and a passenger sitting on the sand-box; it was an open car. I drew their attention to it. It is the only time I saw him do this, but I saw him do other things just as bad. I knew he was on the run that day, because I saw him on the back of the car ahead of us. My Motorman was W. Breen. I saw Inspector Tickle about two months prior to this at the Reservoir, behind the telegraph pole near the urinal. As we came round the corner he kept going round behind the pole saw him, though he didn't think I did. He then went into the urinal, keeping the pole between the car and myself.

page 29

By Mr. Morris:

I do know that there is a system of signalling between Motormen and Conductors from one ear to another as to the position of the Inspector on the road.

Walter Leslie Breen, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:

My name is Walter Leslie Breen. I am a Motorman in the employ of the Company. I am a spare man t was Conductor before that, and worked on a regular run. I was Steen's Motorman before the Strike. I don't remember the date, but I think it was Saturday night. The Conductor drew my attention to somebody at Cook Street, and when I looked I saw someone standing under the verandah, but I flashed by too quickly to notice who it was. He said it was Inspector Tickle. There were a couple of passengers on the front of the car.

By Mr. Walklate:

It was in the evening, and dark. I don't think there was anyone else about the corner. I saw someone standing against the verandah pole, but I don't know who it was.

By Mr. Carter:

The Inspector is not a popular man. There are some Inspectors not so popular as others. There are several reasons; the dirty way he does his work. I have seen him step out of a doorway in Freeman's Bay on several occasions. He is the only one I have noticed doing that.

By Mr. Morris:

When the Conductor drew my attention the front of the oar would be about half a car length on the Ponsonby side of Cook Street.

  • (Court adjourned until 2 p.m.)
  • (Court resumed at 2 p.m.)
  • Witnesses ordered out of Court.

Mr. Rosser asked if it was the intention of the other side to call Inspector Tickle; if not, he proposed to call him before terminating his ease.

Mr. Walklate said they would call him.

Thomas Glass, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser;

My name is Thomas Glass. I am working in a boot factory at present. I was formerly Conductor in the employ of the Tram Company. I was taken on about the last week in November, or beginning of December, 1907. I was a fortnight learning, and that time I pul in free. The last two days I was getting ready for the spare list. I started to work in the third week. I got my first pay a week later. It was only one day's pay, a matter of a few shillings. I went through the spare list. It was early in the month of April when I was put on a regular run. I was put on the Herne Bay line, and was there until discharged. I had been on regular shifts for fully three weeks. It was about the 30th of April when I was told by Mr. Morris I was wanted at the Head Office. I went down on Monday morning. I worked the fore- page 30 noon shift on Saturday. I asked if there was any special work, and was told no. I had not been getting much time on the spare and had to pay my way, and so looked out for special work. I did not any Sunday work. I was told it was a matter of option, and I had conscientious scruples about working on a Sunday. We get time and a-half on Sunday. I applied for a special, to try and make it up on week days, I went to see Mr. Lysaght at the Head Office, and he said I was dismissed, I was taken by surprise. I could not think of anything as the cause for being dismissed so suddenly. I had been reported previously for a miss-fare, or something like that. During the time I was with the Company hardly a Conductor I knew that was not reported for that, It was during the crush time. Mr. Lysaght told me to hand my things into Mr. Morris, and I would get my clearance. I asked him what was the trouble. He told me I was not satisfactory; there were no further explanations. He never gave me a week's notice. On Saturdays I could tell who was b00ked up for the next week. I only got what I asked for, no week's pay in lieu of notice. There was a shortage of threepence at the time I got my clearance. I never got a reference from them. I didn't get back all the references I gave them when applying for the situation. There was one from Mr. Page, of Kingsland, another from a Mr. Glaister, Solicitor, High Street, who had known me in Dunedin I have not got those back yet. There was also one from Mr. H. G. Hercus, Missionary for the Central Mission. I never got back those three. I signed that application, in which there are about 35 questions to and was accepted on that.

By Mr. Walklate:

There were three testimonials handed to the Company, and not returned to me. My other references were handed back to me in as envelope, and I took it for granted they were all there. After I dismissed I examined them, and found three missing. It was the day following my dismissal that I first looked in the envelope. I didn't trouble very much; I thought I could get others. I have my license at home; I think it was given to me about the latter end of November. I had been booked up for three weeks on the regular shift. I was top of the spare list before that. I am not aware that I was taking the run a regular man who was sick. I did not demand a week's notice, expected to be reported for something, and found I was dismissed; a big surprise. I looked for work elsewhere. There was previously trouble with a Motorman about religious convictions. Another Motorman made a complaint about my ringing the bell so close to the stopping place, but the car was going into the barn, and not running a time-table. He got excited over it and said he would report me. There was also another Motorman I had trouble with. There was a who struck me in the face while at the office at the barn, as he thought I was getting more work than he was. He began to throw-off at me personally. I said I didn't like that sort of thing, and he used some bad language. I did not strike him. I had to go to the office over that have men to testify I did not strike him. I don't know for certain, but was told that a Motorman refused to work with me.

By Mr. Carter:

I was working for Mr. Page, Grocer. Kingsland. He is a man you have to keep going for, or you are no use to him. When I left to join the Tram Company he wanted me to stay on. I have never been insolent page 31 to Inspectors, I have no idea why I should be dismissed. I did not work on the tram cars on Sundays.

By Mr. Hansen:

I left my previous employment to join tram Tram Company. I gave Mr. Page a week's notice.

By Mr. Rosser:

That Conductor is not in the service now. He left shortly after.

I had to pay for the license, and also a doctor's certificate. I have not seen that certificate since. That was an additional outlay during the first live weeks of my employment. Apart from those little scrimmages, I know of no reason why I should be dismissed believed I was a regular man at that time, as I was on that run for three weeks, and booked up with the regular men's shifts. I was not on one run all the time, but I was fully a fortnight on the Herne Bay line.

By Mr. Sherry:

Herdson was junior man to me at that lime.

William Rockland, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:

My name is William Rockland. I am a Motorman in the service of the Company. I have been so for about four years and six months. I had a good record under the merit and demerit system. Once I won the pound: another time I was second for it; and as a rule I have been seventh or eighth out of about 150 Motormen I prided myself on my good conduct in those days.. I am on the Herne Bay run. I have had experience with Inspectors where I thought they were acting beyond their duty. Two false reports were put in by Inspector McElwain. It was about two years ago, perhaps a little longer. I got two lots of ten demerit marks sent to me, and in those days you were punished before you were tried, and tried after. I appealed against it and won my appeal. At one lime they were metalling the roads at the barn, and the time-table was a little faster. I ran up to the metal, but not so fast over the metal. A man ran out to me with a shovel. I told him not to hold it up to me. He reported it to Mr. McElwain who reported it to the Company as if he had been present. I called him as a witness, and the demerits were taken off on that occasion. The other one happened on the same day when going to town, between Sentinel and Hamilton Roads; the metal was a bit high, and I thought the motor-case would catch. The men there didn't think so. I gave the handle a turn, hut had to back again. McElwain was there, and reported me for furious driving over new metal. It is an up-grade there, and I could not drive furiously. Then Inspector Menzies reported me. My car was defective, and another man had my regular car, No. 28. There was a smell of burning insulation, and I didn't know how long it would last. I asked a Motorman to give me back my car, but he refused. The car I was driving was defective. The Inspector told me we had been four minutes talking, and I was sent to the Head Office, but the report said three minutes, and nothing was said about the defective car which made it appear as if we had been yarning. I proved the Inspector was wrong by his own time. I left Horne Bay at 6.4. He boarded my car at 6.9 at Sentinel Road. If there had been delay I could not have got there in that time. I saw the Traffic Manager, and when I proved the Inspector was wrong he raked up something else. That Inspector has left the page 32 service; he left a day or two after the Strike. I had trouble with Inspector Morris on the Kingsland run. He said I was three-quarters of a minute late, and he handed my sheet to another man under my nose. I have known some men nearly five minutes, and spare men asking for the run and it has not been given them. It happened last week. I don't know how to get in with Mr. Morris. I have seen several Inspectors hiding, Mr. Morris hiding also. When that urinal was else to Cemetery Bridge he was hiding there when I was on the Kingsland run. I don't consider it fair they should rush out on yon like he did. I have seen one instance of danger to the Inspector in doing this this I have seen Inspector Tickle at England Street frequently, also at Exmouth Street, on the Kingsland run it is a compulsory stop in both places. Inspector Tickle tried to force on me more passengers than the car was licensed to carry, since the amended By-Iaw. I had eight or nine standing; we were supposed to carry eight, and we turned a lot people off. When we got to the top of Victoria Street, as we passed the people there I said there was no room. Inspector Tickle got on with two passengers. The Conductor told the Inspector to put them off, but only one got off; the other remained. The Motorman and Conductor are equally responsible for overcrowding, I ordered the other passenger off. The Inspector said. "He is going to stay, he was an employee of the "Company." Subsequently I found out he was a power-house employee going home. There was another car close behind which had room. I would not start the car until the man got off. The Inspector said I would hear more about it.

By Mr. Walklate:

I didn't object to the demerit system, I was at the deputation when Mr. Tegetmeier decided to take them off. These two lots of ten marks were both finally taken off. Car No. 28 was my car, but it the one the other man had on that day. It had to go into the barn, and as my car was defective I asked them to give me the car there and then, but he didn't do so. I was about a minute talking to him. I have a good idea of the length of a minute (Witness tested by watch.) (Stated minute gone; real time 34 seconds.) At that rate, then I only been talking to the other man for half a minute. I have seen Inspector Tickle hiding in England and Exmouth Streets. He was hidden to a car coming down. He was standing right in a doorway. It was no good reporting it to the Company: a man would have to employ a clerk to send in all the reports about it. I have seen times. The deputation brought it before the Management. At the time the Inspector allowed the two passengers to get on they did the car, but remained on the platform. I am quite sure the car contained its full number. I had three bells. I counted the people before I told the man to get off, and there were eight standing. I didn't count the number sitting, The Motorman is equally responsible Conductor and there was a notice to the barn to that effect, Motorman is asked to assist the Conductor to try and stop overcrowding I left the platform on the car. A man must leave his platform to change round at the terminus. It is necessary for the safety public to obey the By-laws. The notice referred to was put up before the amended By-laws came into force. The Company put up that the Conductors would have to pay their own fines, and man was equally responsible with the Conductor. That was a year ago.

page 33

By Mr. Carter:

The Inspectors are not officials over the Motormen; at least, I don't consider them so, as they don't know the Motormen's duties; they have not passed through the ranks of the Motormen. This partiality of giving: out runs when men are a few seconds late is done by Inspector Morris at the Ponsonby Barn. That shows there are favours. It is not an offence to leave the front platform. The condition is that both men shall not leave the car at the same time, and the Motorman must take the handle with him. If a pole-head carries away, I must leave the platform. I am supposed to assist the Conductor, and the rule book says so.

By Mr. Hansen:

I am not aware that the Motorman's responsibility refers only to the Motorman's platform; I was under the impression it referred to all the car. When a Motorman passes passengers on the road he can call out that the car is full, as he can see that by a glance aside. I am not aware of the fact that my responsibility ended with the Motorman's platform. It was never meant that way.

By Mr. Morris:

I say on oath that half of the Inspectors cannot drive a car. Anyone can drive a car a short distance, but cannot drive it the way it should be driven through traffic and keep the time-table.

By Mr. Rosser:

These are the rules we are working under. (Rule No. 112 read.) That implies that I have a right to leave the platform. It is a common thing for a man to leave the platform; I have never got into trouble about that. No one can start the car without the handle. (Document as to merit and demerit system handed to Court.) I leave the platform to examine brakes as a Motorman.

Roy Hodson, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:

My name is Roy Hodson. I am a Conductor in the employ of the Tram Company. I am a spare man. I have been in the service since the 27th of January, this year. I think no more joined for two or three weeks after me. I knew none who were on the spare list when I went to the Company. I have seen Inspectors keeping out of sight and boarding cars. I live in Ryle Street. Ponsonby. I have seen Inspector Tickle several times. I once met him going down Arthur Street, into Wood Street; there is no tram line there. He nodded to me, and I am certain it was him. I wondered what he was doing, and stopped round the corner of Arthur Street and watched him out of sight into Wood Street. I followed him as far as the corner of Rendell Street. He stopped close to the Suffolk Hotel, in College Hill. A car had just passed down before he got there. He watched there until another car came along. He must have been there fully ten minutes before the car arrived. I have a good idea how long a minute is. When the car started he ran after it. The Motorman could not see him once he had started the car. I went round Newton, as I considered my duty was done. I have seen him several times peeping out of doorways, but I cannot give any dates.

page 34

By Mr. Walklate:

I don't know that there is any reason why a Motorman should see the Inspector. I myself don't like being watched close like that; I would do my work better if they let me alone.

By Mr. Morris:

I have heard of a system of signals. I know of it; it tells as to whether the line is clear or whether an Inspector is about. If the Inspector had acted straightforwardly the men would not object.

James Harvey Mansell, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser.

My name is James Harvey Mansell. I am a Tram Conductor in the employ of the Company. I have been so for about three years and two months. I am on the Herne Hay run. I bad trouble with Inspector Johnstone about four or five months ago; I think after the new year. There had been a meeting of the Union two days before, and I was at that meeting He asked me what we were going to do in Holden's cast—whether we were going to insist on him coming back. I said. "That is "nothing to do with you." That was on my last trip going home the preceding night. I think he did ask me if I was at the Union meeting. He didn't say another word after that. The next day Inspector Johnstone kept on boarding my car. He told me there were eight passengers got on at Billington's corner, and I only sold seven tickets. I replied I never counted the passengers, but I was certain everyone had a ticket. There are some cases when a passenger will give you a return ticket. I am referring to a worker's ticket. It has to be taken out before 8 a.m. but it is available any trip after that. He showed me his cuff sleeve with eight marked on it. I wanted to see Mr. Walklate, and put my case before him hut was told I could not see him, as it was mail day. I sore over it. I reported it to Mr. Morris. I went to the barn, there and then, and reported it to him. He said I could not see Mr. Walklate until I had worked my shift out but I could see him next morning. I have had no trouble since. That is a copy the report. The passengers made a remark to me later on in the evening about it. Inspects Johnstone got my waybill, and I was told by some passengers he copied all the figures on his cuff sleeve, so I said sarcastically. "Have you got "them down right?" It is not a usual thing for an Inspector to do. I never heard any more about it. I have no idea why he should treat me in that way. I never had any trouble with any other Inspector, have not been to the office at all.

William Small Campbell, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:

My name is William Small Campbell. I was formerly Inspector in the employ of the Company from the 9th of December, 1904, to the 2nd July, 1907. I was Conductor first, inspector second. Motorman third I was twelve months as Conductor before being Inspector. Mr. was in charge of the Inspectors. I have been told to go on sentry duty. It was about three or four months after I was appointed Inspector I was instructed once to go to Onehunga terminus in plain clothes after dark on a Saturday night. I was to go out in the train. It was at my own expense, as the Company never paid my fare, though they said they would. I was acting in obedience to Mr. Lysaght's instructions. He told me men were in the habit of delaying cars at the terminus, and page 35 said they could be easily caught if I hid behind the trucks, convenient to the terminus. I was to remain in such a position that I would be unobserved by the men. I was pretty well conversant with the rule book. I was told to report any breaches of the rules to the Company. I was not instructed to tell the men of any breach. I told him I would carry out his instructions so far as reporting the men was concerned, but so far as hiding behind trucks was concerned I had never done such a thing, and would not do it on this occasion. He told me my services would not be satisfactory to the Company as an Inspector, and subsequently threatened me with dismissal. I thereupon left him and went and changed my clothes and went out in the train. I walked up the street at Onehunga; I did not hide behind the trucks. In the course of my duty I saw a Motorman smoking a cigarette while driving a car. The next morning Mr. Lysaght met me. I told him of the Motorman smoking, but didn't know his name, but had the number of the car. I was sent to the Despatcher to get the name. It was Alf Olney. I reported the matter., I understand the Motorman got 30 demerit marks for it. I have had instructions on several occasions about men who had given a week's notice or sent in their resignations. Mr. Lysaght gave me the instructions, and expressed the opinion to me that these men would be beating the Company during the last week of their service, and I was to pay particular attention to them and endeavour to catch them. Jack Griffin was one, also Conductor Harry Carter, and I think McPherson and Guilford were others. They bore good characters as far as I know, but during the last week I was instructed to give them special attention. I did so, but found nothing, Griffin was not on my shift. I saw an Inspector on his car several times that day. It was Inspector Ashe, and Griffin made complaints to me about the manner he was harassed that day. Mr. Lysaght expressed the opinion that "no man could be an "honest man and have charge of all that money on the car."

By His Worship:

I am sure of what I say.

By Mr. Rosser:

He told me the Conductors were rogues. I got instructions in Beaston's case, Mr. Lysaght told me to report any breach of the rules committed by Beaston, however trifling they might be, as he was of no use to the Company, being too much of a labour agitator, and he wanted to dismiss him. That is the purport of what he said. (Reference handed to Court.) That reference says it was from 2nd January. 1906, to the 20th February, 1907—about thirteen months. Things worked smoothly while I was inspecting, until the time he instructed me over the Onehunga business. I joined the Union while I was Inspector. I was dismissed after that. He never gave me any reason; he said my services were no longer required. I didn't get a reference until September. I signed an application to join the Company. (Application produced.) That application is not signed. The questions are fairly fully answered. It had to be signed in the presence of a witness. I took it down to Mr. Duncan, and asked him if he would witness it. He said no, I had better get an outsider. He was the late Assistant Superintendent, and told me that form was no good, because I had not filled in for the ten years' previous occupation. This was when I applied for Motorman, and I said the first application contained that; but he said, page 36 "It will have to be filled up again," so I filled another similar form to that produced. I put in references. I got no reference from the Company but I got a statement from them giving the time I was employed there. After being dismissed, I went to Mr. Hansen and asked him what it meant, and he said he couldn't guarantee to keep any man in employment if unsatisfactory. I asked if he had anything against me. He said No I had acted like a gentleman before the passengers, or words having a similar import. He said I was not suitable. I looked for other work, but about a week afterwards I came back to Mr. Hansen and asked him to let me go on as Motorman. He said lie would consider it for a week, and I was to call again. At the end of that time he sent me to Mr. Duncan, and I got on. I had responsibilities on my shoulders as a married man, and I had taken a house close to the depot. Mr. Lysaght had always a set on me, and any trifling thing was looked upon as a great sin. A mail is very liable to break the regulations. (Instructions read.) I don't remember ever having that impressed upon me. If I had a fault to find I would take a man to the back of the platform and explain things as quietly as possible. That was before my time, in 1903, and I don't remember seeing it. I consider it is a proper way to treat a Conductor. I never went beyond my duties.

By Mr. Walklate:

I reported Motorman Olney for smoking, and my report is on the file. It was 1906, I fancy. The time was set out in the report; it was between 9 and 10 at night, as far as I remember. I did not swear positively it was Saturday night. Mr. Lysaght instructed me to report any breaches of the rules, and to take the time of the cars. I cannot conscientiously swear whether it was morning or afternoon. He gave me instructions sometimes in the street, and sometimes in the office, but on my solemn oath he gave me those instructions. He threatened me with dismissal unless I dressed in plain clothes. I was told the Motoman got demerit marks, and for a while afterwards he would not speak to me. I was told to watch the men who had put in their resignations—Griffin, Carter, MacPherosn and Guilford. I cannot say whether they gave notice or got a week's notice to leave, but they were working notice during the time I was working as Inspector. I watched them particularly. There were others as well. So far as I know, they all bore good characters. Mr. Lysaght said the men could not be honest with all the money they had in charge, it is best known to himself why he did it. I am sure he told me. As to the statement as to all Conductors being rogues, I cannot swear as to when or where he to me that, but he most certainly told me that. It was shortly after I joined the Union that he told me that I was dismissed; but I cannot swear to the date from memory. I produced references when I put in an application, and had them back again. A fortnight may have elapsed from the time I was dismissed to the time Mr. Hansen told me he would take me on again. I was not working during that interval. Mr. Lysaght had a set on me from the time he had spoken about the Onehunga business, as he wanted it done—that is, the hiding behind the trucks. When I was Motorman one morning the motor burnt out; one of the controllers. 1 was cutting out the motor; she was short circuited and a flame came out and burnt my coat. I went to the late Engineer (Mr. Wilkes), and showed it to him but he referred it to the Traffic Manager. I went to Mr. Lysaght, and produced my coat to him, told page 37 him how it happened, and told him I expected to get a little compensation for it. He said he would see Mr. Walklate, and I left the coat, and called back next morning. He said he could not see his way to give me anything but afterwards he offered me 5s. for the damage done. I told him I could not see my way to accept that. I went to Mr. Rosser, and he wrote to the Company a letter, and there was a lot of trouble, but I never got compensation for the coat until dismissed from the service altogether. I got a pound then. In the meantime I was going without a coat whilst a Motorman. I never gave Mr. Lysaght a chance; I knew what he was. He had a set against me whilst I was Conductor too.

By Mr. Carter:

My appointment as Inspector was before I was tutored in the art of driving a motor. My duty was to supervise the Motormen when Inspector. I had no experience as Motorman at that time. As Inspector I got a week's pay in lieu of notice, but I didn't get it until two months afterwards. The men I was told off to watch were excellent Conductors, and strictly honest as far as I knew. While I supervised them in a very keen manner I did not see any case of dishonesty. It was my duty to open the motor-case when 1 got my coat burnt. Althought I got one pound, it was nothing like the value.

By Mr. Sherry:

I had worked through the spare list with these men. and knew them. I was on the list eight months, I knew what I was speaking about when I said they were good men.

By: Mr. Hansen:

When I was dismissed as Inspector I got no reason, but you said I was unsuitable. I was not smoking on that day, and you never mentioned that to me then. I was once before you for drinking whilst on duty as a Motorman. I said twice I may have taken tea from the Motormen but I had no recollection of drinking the tea that night.

Mr. Hansen:

I wanted to prove merely that this Inspector was very familiar with the men.

Witness:

It was out of a billycan; they don l carry bottles.

By Mr. Rosser:

I admit I was drinking tea; it was nothing else.

By Mr. Sherry:

It is ridiculous that I cannot take a drink of tea with a Motorman.

By Mr. Rosser:

I am now employed at the "Herald" Office, and have been there ever since I left the Company. They know I am giving evidence here. I have had no complaints about drinking with reporters. I have their entire confidence.

By Mr. Morris:

I qualified as Motorman after I left as Inspector. I began to qualify about three months before I was dismissed; but I am speaking page 38 from memory. I was instructed Mr. Lysaght to look after these men, but I don't know why they were picked out.

By His Worship:

When I was an Inspector I got those instructions to go to Onehunga; it was three or four months, possibly longer, when I was dismissed. I was off for about two weeks, and then acted as Motorman for about two mouths. In neither case did I get a reason. I had a Conductor with me on the Newton and Ponsonby line one Saturday night, which is a very busy night, He was giving me very erratic bells; he came to the front, and was giving me insolence in front of the passengers. I ran the car into the barn and asked them to give me another Conductor or another run, or I would not be responsible for any accident. I was dismissed for running the car into the barn; but Rule 47 says that the Conductors and Motormen must use their own discretion on any matters not referred to in the Rules. I did so on this occasion.

(Adjourned until Friday morning at 10 a.m.)

(Court resumed Friday, 10th July, at 10 a.m.)

Clarence W. Smith, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:

My name is Clarence W. Smith. I am President of the Union. I have been President since the beginning of the year. I have been in the service about four years and nine months. I was about eighteen months as Conductor, and the remainder of the time as Motorman. I am on the regular list on the Kingsland line. I know something of the working conditions; for the past four years they have been unsatisfactory. There has been discontent because of certain officials. I have a good record. If the office of an Inspector falls vacant, promotion is usually made from the ranks. About two years ago I was asked by Mr. Hankinson, officer in charge of Ponsonby Depot, if I would care to become Inspector, He said he was going to recommend me if I would accept, and I told him I would let him know later. I had a conversation Inspector Griffiths, and he advised me not to. Me was Ticket Inspector at that time; he is not in the service now. He said I had a good in Mr. Duncan, and I would be changing for a bad one. I took it that meant his boss, Mr. Lysaght. He also said my life would not be worth living if I took the position of Inspector. The Inspectors were not in the Union then. It was proposed to me again later on. Mr. Morris asked me not very long ago, about three or four months. It was about the time Inspector Tickle was appointed. I told Mr. Morris I didn't care about the position; the wages were not high enough, and the too long. With regard to what is termed "Blacklegs," I remember morning, about 7.30, when I had just arrived in Queen first trip to town, there were four Epsom men waiting for me who me Mr. Reuss had been put back on his run that morning, and should they leave their cars or continue to work. I advised them to continue until I rang up the Secretary, for him to see Mr. Walklate some system of signalling does exist. It was only Epsom men who me that morning. They are against them, and the general feeling at Ponsonby is also the same. I attend all meetings. I consider it is against the interests of peace and harmony that these men (Reuss and Spry) should be allowed to go back; there will be trouble if they do. page 39 These two men are Motormen, and they require a Conductor to work with each. I have not known the Conductors to refuse to do this, but it was reported that one man refused at Epsom. I have heard the men use the expression. "One out, all out." With reference to the espionage by Inspectors, I have noticed it on two occasions by Inspector Tickle. He was behind the telegraph pole at the Junction Hotel one day. I was coming to town, and he was playing hide-and-seek with me; he worked his way round the pole. I almost stopped the ear and looked at him. My attention was drawn to it first. The idea came into my head that he was childish. I did not consider it a proper place for an Inspector. In Jervois Road he reported me for having: a passenger on my front platform and talking to a Conductor. The man was partly intoxicated, and I rang up the Conductor and asked him to get him inside. Inspector Tickle was behind a telegraph pole then. I got a "Please explain," and that was the report I gave in answer to it. The Motorman cannot protect himself from people asking questions; that was done on the small cars; since the accident on the Herne Bay line, when a Motorman was hit with a brake.

By Mr. Walklate:

The working conditions during the last four years were not satisfactory. The previous nine months I never took much notice of, as I had no intentions of staying with the Company that lime. I do not know what Mr. Hankinson's duty was in appointing an Inspector at that time. I have nothing personally against any official of the Company or Mr. Lysaght. If Reuss and Spry go back to work there will be trouble; there will undoubtedly be another Strike. That does not necessarily mean that the men are not prepared to abide by the Agreement before the Court. It is my opinion that if these men are sent back to work the men generally will strike. It is only an opinion. The men will not work with them. It does not mean that the men are not prepared to act up to the Agreement as signed.

By His Worship:

The men intend to stick by their Agreement but they will fee! sore at their having to go back and work with the "Blacklegs."

By Mr. Walklate:

I cannot give you the date when Inspector Tickle acted as stated. I was running a special car to Epsom to Alexandra Park, one Show Day; it is since January this year; between January and February, and my Conductor's name was Belmont. The second occurrence will be found on the report I put in on the same day.

By Mr. Hansen:

I said that during the four years the working conditions were not satisfactory. There were other matters that kept me in the service.

By His Worship:

I said the men would feel very sore if Reuss and Spry were put to work. I was referring mostly to the occasion when they were put back, and the dissatisfaction of the Epsom men.

By Mr. Rosser:

I know of nothing whereby the men or the Union have stated anything other than that they will obey the Award of the Board; nothing page 40 at all. I have heard men speaking about it in the course of conversation and they said they would have to obey the Award.

Patrick Coady Buckley, duIy sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:

My name is Patrick Coady Buckley. I am a Motorman in the employ of the Company. I have been in the service four years this, or last, month. I was a Gripman employed in the Melbourne Tramways and Omnibus Co. prior to that. As far as I know. I have a good record with this Company. I was president of the Union for two years previous to Mr. Smith being appointed. I have not been reported a great number of times. If an Inspector wants to report a man they can catch him almost every trip. I have seen Inspector Tickle behind the posts repeatedly. One day coming down College Hill I got three bells, indicating the car was full up. There was a lady standing at Wood Street I found out after I passed that Inspector Tickle had been standing behind a telegraph pole, obscured from my view. The pole was large enough to hide him. He made a dart out afterwards, but missed the car, as he had given me nearly fifty yards' start. I have seen him repeatedly at England Street, but you cannot see him until you abreast of the pole; it is a very wide one, and he has ample room to hide himself there. Behind that pole there is a recess for doorways in front of two houses. I have often seen him step out of that place at night time. Also at Curran Street he has very good cover; and at Sentinel Road and Victoria, Street, in Queen Street, outside the Union Bank; also the Victoria Arcade, corner of Shortland Street. I saw him watching when I was off duty. The Strike trouble was general: I never saw a body of men so unanimous on a question in my life. I should say 1,500 to 1,600 men are employed in the Melbourne Co., so I have had experience with other bodies of men. There seems to be a good deal of competition between the Inspectors. I remember Inspector Campbell telling me he expected dismissal at any time. Inspector Griffiths told me he was very much dissatisfied with the work he had to do, and intended to leave. He is now in Melbourne. I can swear positively that Mr. Lysaght did of these goings on, as I told him myself. It was about three months ago; one night when he was on the box alongside of me and I was driving. I said in the first place that Inspector Tickle was irritating the men, and he had a very irritating way with him. He said he had heard it before. I said he had a habit of rushing out from behind telegraph poles; and Mr. Lysaght said, "He should do his work in a straightforward manner, and he doesn't do it." I was not on the last deputation, but I know that strong comment was made, but no satisfaction got the Company. Mr. Walklate received it well, but nothing came of it did not come much in contact with Inspector Tickle. I was told by one man he was not to be trusted, and to beware of him. The man me he picked up a 4d. ticket, and asked him for the last check, wanted him to sell it over again. I was not present at the deputation, and didn't know that that was brought forward at that time. I not take an Inspector's billet at five pounds per week under the present conditions. I would not resort to the dirty tricks; I would sooner a pick on the road. I think a Strike was a foregone conclusion if and Spry had been kept on. I was a delegate, and went with you and Walter Haslam to see Mr. Walklate, also Mr. Smith, as President. Walklate said these men have been off a considerable time, and he saw no reason to keep them off any longer. You, as Secretary, advised him page 41 to consider the temper of the men. Had one of these men been a Motorman and the other a Conductor, the difficulty might have been got over; but you thought some of the men would not work with them. He finally decided not to put them back to work, and said, "This is a very great "concession on my part. I did not intend to do this." I understood the concession was to remain, pending the settlement by this Board. I didn't expect that Reuss would be put on again about a fortnight ago. I didn't think Mr. Walklate would run that risk. The feeling was general amongst the men.

By Mr. Walklate:

I can give you no dates, as, unfortunately, I did not keep a diary. It was this year, as I have only been on the Herne Bay run this year. As soon as the oar passed Wood Street the Inspector came out hurriedly. He did not report me for it. I saw' him after I got past, but he was obscured from my view until after the oar was abreast of Wood Street. Referring to the Melbourne Tram Co., there was no trouble there at the time I loft. I was employed for five months after that. I left that Company of my own accord. I didn't give a week's notice: a day's notice is sufficient. You are supposed to give a week, but if you request to get off sooner a day is sufficient. I received a five years' reference from them I have been treated by Mr. Lysaght satisfactorily, as far as I know, and my treatment by the Company has boon satisfactory; but I was under the impression that Inspector Tickle was harassing me or attempting to do so. He has reported me on several occasions. I have never received punishment, beyond going to the office on one occasion, and his report was not altogether a true one then. When President of the Union I was treated fairly well; I had nothing to complain of If it has boon suggested that anyone in the service of the Company taking a prominent part in Labour matters does not get proper treatment, that does not apply to myself.

By Mr. Carter:

I remember one incident of a man taking an active part, and being dismissed. The working conditions are not satisfactory, or there would not have been a Strike, I have heard lately of complaints at Ponsonby Depot about runs being given away. I know of some men of good reputation in the Company who have been offered the office of Inspector, and have refused to take it on the ground of the work they have to do. I knew of a man taken off the spare list of Conductors and put on as an Inspector. It seems to me that the Inspector who gets in the most reports gets the host promotion.

By Mr. Hansen:

I understand that Inspector Morris has boon promoted from Inspector to Depot Manager: there has been another case at Epsom.

By Mr. Rosser;

It was Inspector Menzies. He was on the spare list, and he was not on very long to my knowledge. It was his second term with the Company. He is not now in the employ of the Company His career didn't last long.

By Mr. Morris;

I have often heard arguments at the Ponsonby Depot as to runs being given away. It may be six or eight weeks ago. There were simi- page 42 lar complaints over twelve months ago. I have never had an argument about it.

Joseph Patrick Hugonnet, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:

My name is Joseph Patrick Hugonnet. I am Conductor in the service of the Company and have been there a little over two years. Mr. My run is on the Arch Mill line. I have seen Inspector Tickle at Princeps Street. I have seen the car going full speed, and he rushed out from behind a big house there to catch the car. One night he got left by A. P. Haslam. I don't know whether he saw him or not. I have seen him hiding at the top of Grey Street, and one of the Motormen also sir him, with his hat turned had; to front. My Motorman was William Kerr. I am positive of it, as the Inspector got on my car at that particular time. I don't like being spied on. About three or four weeks I had a conversation with Inspector Tickle. It was my first trip out that morning, and there was a fireman on my car. They test fire-alarms each morning. He said he was going to the Lamps, and gave me a half-penny, and went inside: but when we reached Hamilton Road he said be had forgotten something, and got off the car when moving. Inspector Tickle jumped on at Hamilton Road, and before getting on to the step he said. "There is a halfpenny lost to the Company." I said, "Give me "a chance: what do you mean? You should make sure before you say "that." I showed him my waybill and block, and he said. "Oh yes; I "made a mistake." I said, "if you make a mistake, there is nothing "more about it; but if I do I have to go to the Head Onice." I have been down twice. I think, and you have to go in your own time. I have heard of a man losing his run to go down there. I am an Australian a native of Sydney. I know a good deal about the Sydney service as I travelled on the trams every morning I went to work. I also have a brother-in-law in the service. I was over there for my holidays about twelve or thirteen months ago. Such tactics as Inspectors employ here are not employed in the Sydney service. They have 700 cars, and there are about six inspectors, you travel all day, and may not see one. I never heard of such a thing as hiding behind poles there. Inspector Tickle also reported me falsely, and I have been feeling it ever since. He reckoned I carried a ladder on the platform of the car and refused to charge the man for it. I didn't charge him for it: hut it was on the step of the car, outside the chain, the man holding it there. If he had said that I had not charged for it the Inspector would have been right, but he said that I refused to charge the man. The man was sitting on the sand-box.

By Mr. Walklate:

I cannot tell the date when Inspector Tickle got on at Princeps Street, but he has done it several times. It was this year, about a fortnight ago the last night shift I was on, I think, and I am on night shift now but I would not swear that it was a fortnight. Over the incident of the fireman the Inspector admitted he made a mistake. He had no right to accuse me before he got on the car. When I came to the office it was in my off time. As to the incident of carrying the ladder on the step, I told Mr. Lysaght after the matter was investigated I was satisfied. I have nothing against the Traffic Manager, as am personally concerned.

page 43

By Mr. Carter:

Mr. Tickle's report was read out to me. I distinctly heard the word "refused." I should like to see the reports, and I think it right a man should do so.

By Mr. Sherry:

In the incident of the fireman, it was lucky it was Hamilton Road, instead of further along the road.

By Mr. Rosser:

I cannot give dates, because these incidents are of daily occurrence, especially on the night shifts; it is quite a common thing. I was one of the deputation that waited on Mr. Walklate about the harassing of inspectors. Three men drew his attention to it. That affair about a fourpenny ticket being sold again was also mentioned to Mr. Walklate. Mr. Walklate said something about if the Inspector was a bad Motorman he was a good Inspector.

James Benjamin Cox, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:

My name is James Benjamin Cox. I was formerly in the employ of the Company as Conductor and Inspector, and was about four years in its service. I left about March, 1907. I was dismissed. There was absolutely no reason given, and I have not been able to get any reason for it since, but I have an idea. I was three and a-half years as Inspector. Mr. Lysaght was my superior officer, and I received instructions from him. I had instructions about the merit and demerit system on a printed form, and I also got typewritten instructions. (Document handed to witness.) That is from Mr. Carey. It reads as follows: "We "cannot impress too strongly upon you the necessity of showing as much "good feeling as possible, but still firmness to the men under your "charge, as you must remember that by abusing a man, or talking "harshly to him, is the reverse of discipline. If you have occasion to "correct an employee under your charge, by all means let your words be "brief and stern, and not in the hearing of passengers". "I don't think it fair for an Inspector to speak to a man in front of the public: it would cause a row in the car: it would belittle the Conductor in the eyes of the passenger, probably. I followed that instruction out I received instructions as to sentry duty, and watching the men at times. I got them from Mr. Lysaght. I was given a note to go to the Three Lamps, to be there at 6.30 a.m., to place myself in a position where I was not seen, and report all irregularities or breaches of the By-laws. I went there in my uniform. I was told to go in private clothes. I stopped there until a-quarter to nine a.m. Mr. Lysaght came by, and asked what I was doing there, and I told him I was acting under his instructions. He told me to get back on the car. I was no good at checking, I "might as well have had a Union Jack to fly over my head." as they could all see me in my uniform. He would put another man there who understood the work. I went out to Onehunga lots of times. it was suggested I should go out at night time and place myself in a position where I could not be seen. Mr. Lysaght gave those instructions; I don't believe anyone else would do so. I was to put on old clothes, so that I should not be known. He suggested going in my own time, when off duty. It was to catch the men napping. I never went once at night time, and I defy any Conductor to prove that I did. I have known of page 44 other inspectors having done that. Inspector Bonner complained to me that he could not get his train money out of the Company. Inspectors used to go out regularly. He went out in the Mt. Eden 'bus, and used to walk out in the evening to Onehunga. I believe inspector Morris did so. He got a book from Bonner to fill in his reports, as his own were full. Bonner and I were very intimate; we told each other everything. I am of opinion that an Inspector should report any breach of duties by the men, providing they were not trivial. He should speak to the man first, and if he persisted, he should be reported. I have every reason to believe that Mr. McKay's sister-in-law was a female detective, a Miss Daniels. I have been approached by Mr. Lysaght many times, and suggested that I should got my young lady, or any of my sisters, assist him to set traps for the Conductors. I know of one man who fell in such a trap. It was done by a female detective; at least, I have reason to believe it was. My duties started at 6.30 a.m., then I would get off at 1; on again at 2, and off again at 3; at 4.40 I got three quarters of an hour off, and then finished at 9.30 p.m. That was in the morning shift. In the afternoon shift we started at I during the winter, with three-quarters of an hour for tea, and finished at midnight. I started at £2 5s., and finished at £2 15s., for six days' work. I have had no reason to regret leaving this remunerative service. I get every Saturday afternoon off now.

By Mr. Walklate:

I cannot tell the date when I was sent to the Three Lamps by Mr. Lysaght. I kept every paper given or sent to me until I finished my service with the Company, and then I destroyed it. I had it in writing, to go in private clothes. Mr. Morris will remember the night; he in Chapel Street with false whiskers on. I was not personally instructed. Mr. Lysaght would say, "I would like you to do this" or that. He was continually telling me he had anonymous letters about picking up tickets, and when I had had the experience he had I would know that there was not an honest man in the service. They were as plentiful as sheep, according to Mr. Lysaght. General instruction might be sent by Mr. Carey or by Mr. Hansen; that is, as to the merit or demerit system. My direct instructions were from Mr. Lysaght had a copy of those instructions signed by Mr. Carey.

By Mr. Carter:

I am positively sure he said there was not an honest among them. When appointed as Inspector I was a Conductor off qualified as Motorman afterwards. I have known Inspectors come off the spare list. I think Inspector Campbell did so. Mr. Morris was only a fortnight on the spare list, as far as I know. He conducted a car on Sunday, and started Inspecting on Monday. He were whiskers when he was looking for a witness for a case. He was not in uniform at the time. I received a week's pay, and was robbed of a week's McElwain and I were instructed by Mr. Lysaght to leave our in abeyance until the traffic was fixed up, and then they refused to give it us. I knew the Inspectors well. There are men who do their work faithfully, I have known an Inspector catch a good man and it to another Inspector. It is a usual thing.

By Mr. Rosser:

I am employed in the Railway Goods Shed at the present time, and have no reason to regret the change.

page 45

Henry Carter, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:

My name is Henry Carter. I am a Motorman in the employ of the Company. I have been in the service since the inauguration of the electric traction here, I remember the first Strike, in November, 1906. I know the circumstances that led up to that Strike. I was appointed by the men to act with the Secretary. They met in an empty auction mart in Queen Street, and appointed Mr. Rosser and myself interview Mr. Hansen. Mr. Hansen introduced the editor of "Saturday Night" to me as I understood to be Mr. Reid, of the "Star" Office, but I may have been mistaken. I found out afterwards that it was Mr. Regan. We consented to his remaining. Mr. Rosser and I made statements as to men being anxious as to going back to work, Mr. Hansen expressed his surprise and disapproval of the men's actions, after all he had done. We had reports read that were written against Beaston by both Mr. Kidd and Mr. Mills. One report asked for a change of Conductor. The report produced to this Court is not the right one. I am certain of that. I remember quite well some of the things that were in that report. It stated that Beaston had delayed the Motorman in his duties, so that he could not maintain the time-table, while Beaston was arguing Trade and Labour Council matters with passengers. That was signed by Mills. That was read to me as Mills' application at that time, and I drew your attention to the fact. Mr. Hansen. I said that Beaston was incapable of using the words "B Mr. Lysaght," as I was working with him in Christian work in the city. It was suggested that it might have been "Bother Mr. Lysaght," and Mr. Hansen said there was not much difference. When the men were brought from the auction mart. Mr. Hansen said. "Don't break the furniture." There was a large number of men crowded in there. I was doorkeeper for a while, and Mr. Lysaght stood near me. When Mills came in. I remember distinctly that he was very indignant. The report you read was the same as you had read at the office; it is not the one now produced. I am absolutely certain of that. (Extract from "Herald" of November 15th read.) I remember that well; it briefly puts the situation. Mr. Kidd's report was a very striking one for the Manager of a Depot to send in, but that report must have been added to. In the meantime Mr. Lysaght had disappeared. I did not read the report myself; it was handed to you by Mr. Hansen, Mr. Kidd's report asked that Mr. Beaston be severely dealt with, because of writing obscene words with a wax match on a window. That was what made me strike.

By Mr. Walklate:

I saw the report myself, but did not examine it minutely. It was Mills' report and his signature, it was on ordinary report forms. The first interview was with Mr. Rosser and myself in the inside office with Mr. Hansen. The report was read by Mr. Hansen, and then passed to Mr. Rosser. On the second occasion Mr. Rosser read the report.

Mr. Walklate:

It will be better to call Mr. Hansen with our other witnesses later on.

(Court adjourned until 2 p.m.)

page 46

(Court resumed, Friday, 10th July, at 2 p.m.)

William George Bassett, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:

My name is William George Bassett. I am a Manufacturers' and Commission Agent, at Palmerston Buildings, Auckland. I was formerly in the service of the Tram Compan for about three years. It was 1902 when I first joined. I forget the month. I was there until the end of 1905; it was the last pay-day in December. There were two reasons for my leaving; my health was not too good for some time previously, and my manhood would not allow me to stay in the same office as Mr. Lysaght. He ranked as my superior officer. I threatened for over six months to resign. I told my people at home I was getting very disgusted with it. I am not usre whether I told Mr. Hansen. I didn't approve of the way Mr. Lysaght dealt with the men, and drew Mr. Hansen's attention to it on more than one occasion. When first engaged I was a Private Inspector, to go round the runs, and, having no uniform, was not known to the men. I had to pick out defects that a man in uniform might not see. I was afterwards made known to the men, and had an Inspector's uniform, and had to report on straight forward defects, of course. I had also inquiry work with regard to accidents, and had to set out details of evidence where required. The men got to know me thoroughly. When first I came on we had a good lot of men, but there were a few pretty crooked ones amongst them, but they were weeded out. It was referred to in the papers then that we had as fine a body of men as you could find in the world. Mr. Lysaght's opinion was always the opposite. That is one thing I didn't agree with him for. He expressed it on many a time, especially as to Conductors; "they were "all thieves; there was not an honest Conductor amongst them." He said it in the street, and in the hearing of other people. I was always against it, and brought it before Mr. Hansen. I maintain a man has no right to make a sweeping assertion of that sort. It is his duty to deal with other people in the same way as he would like to be done to in a like capacity. I expostulated with him over this assertion more than once. It was at the Despatcher's pole, at the bottom of Queen Street. I laid it before Mr. Hansen in black and white, and he remarked that it was unfortunate, but there were some men who were not quite straight. He said, "Some men." I quite agreed with that "some," but not "all." Mr. Lysaght dealt with the Conductors under the Inspectors' reports, and Mr. Duncan with the Motormen. It seemed to me there was no system. If he liked the men, they would get off; if not, they would get 30 demerit marks, or dismissal. I was there during the merit and demerit system. In my opinion it worked fairly well. It was the administration of the system, not the system itself, that was bad. I have known men reported for certain things, and the reports have been stretched. My own reports were stretched, and men have said they considered they were not treated fairly. Things have been mentioned in the reports made by me that were never put in by me at all. I suggested to Mr. Hansen in writing that the reports should be treated in the same way as Post and Telegraph Office work; that is, every man should have a copy sent with the "Please explain." He would thus see what was to be met, and give it explanation. The man would see that he had received so many demerit marks under charge for so-and-so. Mr. Hansen said it would be a large order to send all reports to the men, but issued instructions that the men should have the right to see reports page 47 made against them, provided they came into the office within forty-eight hours. It worked better after that. That was continued while I was in the service, but I hear it is not so now. My relative is the young man sitting next to you; he is as close as an oyster. The men had to give a week's notice of their intention to leave the service. That was the rule. Special attention was given to the men who had given notice. I am aware of that. The better the man, the worse treatment he got in that case. It is a fact, nevertheless. Mr. Lysaght said, "Why should we go "to the trouble of training the men, then they clear out, and the last "week they make as much as they can." He has put two or three Inspectors on to dog the one man. Inspector Kempster was one Inspector sent for by Mr. Lysaght to dog Frank Lones, and make a special thing of it. I was told he was making money and must he caught. Kempster was dismissed afterwards. He was not up to that sort of work. Mr. Lysaght preferred the men to leave without reference at all; I don't know why. He thought after they were broken in by the Company other people got the benefit of them. He said that. I remember it distinctly. All the men were worried by lnspectors then. I remember one time, in the old Engineer's office, Mr. Lysaght said to one Inspector that he had had no reports from him for the last few days. He said, "You must get something to report." It was that sort of tiling that made some of the Inspectors bide, and so on. It caused them to put in trivial reports and hound the men. Mr. Hansen got any amount of anonymous letters. One was about Inspector Griffiths and myself. Orders had been issued a few days before, saying that Inspectors were not to converse while on duty. Mr. Hansen himself said he did not refer to me. Mr. Lysaght came to me at the pole and said Mr. Hansen wished him to convey a severe reprimand to me for talking to Griffiths by the firebell in Grey Lynn on the previous Saturday night. I said I would not do any more work until I had seen Mr. Hansen. I saw him, and he said that he never sent any such message to me. He said he received an anonymous letter that we had been seen talking, and gave it to Mr. Lysaght to hand to me and try and find out who had sent it. He talked to Mr. Lysaght pretty straight over the matter, and the letter could not be found. I have only heard about Inspectors being planted so they could not be seen. Mr. Lysaght asked me to get my friends to make reports, and the other Inspectors also. He said his friends could not be brought into the matter. There was a boy or a little girl, brother or sister-in-law to Inspector Mackay, sent out to try and trip Conductor Watson on the Herne Hay line. They purchased a ticket and marked it. Watson was afterwards brought before the Court but the ease was dismissed. I consider that a rotten state of affairs. If you have to employ anyone to do that, then pay them for it; not get your friends and do it for nothing. Mr. Lysaght used to come to the inquests occasionally. There were always questions as to the brakes, etc. It was the Engineer's business to get evidence as to that. I never heard Mr. Lysaght give evidence any time, and he did not fossick out evidence to my knowledge. I heard him tell the men that if they said the brakes were all right the Company would stick to them; but if they said otherwise they would get the sack. There never has been peace and harmony under Mr. Lysaght's managership of the traffic; and yet there could be, if Mr. Lysaght would alter his tactics; but I doubt if he could do so. (Clause 5 read.) I think, in the Company's own interests, he should be removed from contact with the men; I don't say put out of his billet. I have no feeling page 48 against the man, but against his methods, and think I better he should be removed from contact with the men. That is my honest opinion, and always has been. You cannot handle men like sheep. You want to try and raise them, and they will appreciate you if you do. They have an Appeal Board in Wellington, I understand. I think an Appeal Board, constituted of two representatives by the men and two by the Company, to hear any dispute like this, would be best in the public interests, in the interests of the men, and the interests of the Company. It works well in the Telegraph Department, also in the Railway Department, and the men have a feeling of security, and in all circumstances have the chance of bringing forward reasons or proofs. If a man were discharged he could not appeal against a Board constituted in that way. As Private Inspector, my position was not regarded favourably by the men. I was blamed because I was too familiar with the men, but I failed to see it. There is a vast difference between familiarity and friendship. I took the Secretaryship of the Union, to put it straight for the boys, I was elected at a regular election against one of the most popular men in the service. I was rather proud of it. My position had not been too rosy on the runs, but I endeavoured to act fairly. I was your predecessor in the Union. I left to take up a position in Christchurch. While I was there I had a lively time. One cause was because I was from Auckland. They were very jealous there. There were two men there; officers; had also come from Auckland; one had to clear out for debts, and the other because of some trouble with a girl. After a good deal of trouble I told the Board I would resign unless they were dismissed, for they had been telling lies all along. I resigned. I was given a nice little sum of money by the Board, and asked to go back They sent to my private house for me, and the Traffic Manager said he was sorry for the action taken in the matter. Since then I have been in business in Auckland.

By Mr. Walklate:

There was a mention in the newspapers about the fine body of men more than once. I have a clipping in my office now. There were often letters against the Tramway men, but this was someone writing in their favour. Mr. Lysaght not only told me, but he has made public assertions in public streets, "that all the Conductors were thieve." In my old reports I mentioned this to Mr. Hansen: they could be referred to I put most things in black and white. I cannot give you any date; it was done so often. It was during the last eighteen months I was in the service. Reports were stretched and added to I won't say written additions. I know Mr. Lysaght brought men down on the report I had made; perhaps for smoking or some small affair; but he would add more but he would than was on the report, so as to shut the men up and get them out of the office. I have seen him take up my own report while I was in the same room, and add something that was not true; it was that sort of thing that made me dislike him. If be had other information, why should he say it was my report? I object to a man in it is uniform hiding; British, and not manly. I think there is a very great difference when he is a Private Inspector. I objected to those in uniform being told after their ordinary work to go out in plain clothes. In my case, it was my profession, and I never had occasion to hide under ditches or turn the coat to hide buttons, or so on. I saw a man crouching down lately near St. Matthew's Church with a uniform on, less than a month page 49 ago. I was only Secretary of the Union for two or three months. As a Special Inspector, I was not under Mr. Lysaght; I was only under him for a few months. All reports went direct to Mr. Hansen, and I was under his orders. I might assist Mr. Lysaght and his men at times. The last month or two I was solely under Mr. Lysaght, and that is why I left. I was in Christchurch two or three months. I came back in June, I think.

By Mr. Carter:

I should say the Inspectors were not taken from the best men in the ranks. Two or three Inspectors were real good men but as a rule they were not suitable for the position.

By Mr. Sherry:

I was not connected with the Union when with the Company. I left the Company. I had always been against the Union. There was very little trouble on the Motormen's side: they were under the control of Mr. Duncan. I began to see the only chance the Conductors had was to form themselves into a body and stick together pretty close, otherwise I they would be treated as dogs. I was a "Blackleg" before that, and didn't believe in Unions.

By Mr. Hansen:

I don't think I have ever spoken to Mr. Lysaght since I have left the service. I don't care to be seen in his company. The result of my labour us Private Inspector was satisfactory to the Company, so I understood. Private inspection is a good thing decidedly, if done in a straightforward way; no man objects to being looked after, but he objects to being jumped on: that is the difference.

By Mr. Morris:

When Inspector I don't remember asking the Conductors what they thought of Mr. Lysaght. I had my own opinion, and that was sufficient for me.

By Mr. Rosser:

I say I saw an Inspector, within the last month, in uniform in Hobson Street, at St. Matthew's Church, watching down Wellesley Street. It was behind a timber fence going round the church. It was Inspector Tickle. I travel a good bit by the cars continuously. I only get a pass when I pay.

Spencer Frank Brown, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:

My name is Spencer Frank Brown. I am a regular Conductor on the Ponsonby run, No. 2. I remember May 11th of this year, the week before the Strike eventuated. I was on the morning shift, when Inspector Tickle boarded my car at three minutes to twelve from town, and occupied a seat inside the combination car. The car was full. The Rules say, "No official shall occupy a seat when required by a paying "passenger." He took the seat, and remained in it. He was practically in private clothes. I had a full car, and had to turn away two ladies. At the top of Wellesley Street I turned away two men. I asked him to give up the seat. He admitted he should have given it up, but for some reason he refrained from doing so. I sent in a report the same day but I have heard nothing more about it. There was no acknowledgment page 50 whatever. If I had been reported I should have to go to the Head Office next day. That is where the dissatisfaction lies; men waste a lot of time to the office about small reports. I have never lost time myself, but I know of others who have. I complain that my report was suppressed.

Mr. Rosser said he could call plenty more witnesses, hut it would only prolong the inquiry, and it would be corroborative evidence. He proposed to go in the box himself, so as to depose as to that report and also as to letters written by him to the Company, so as to show the Company had been cognisant of this all through.

Mr. Rosser, duly sworn:

My name is Arthur Rosser. I am Secretary of the "Auckland "Electric Tramways Industrial Union of Workers." I remember November 14th, 1906. It was on that day the first Tramway Strike occurred. I was appointed by a meeting of 115 Motormen and Conductors, held in an empty room in Queen Street, and Mr. Carters was appointed also, to act as mediators to approach Mr. Hansen with a view to an amicable settlement of the dispute. We went to Mr. Hansen's office. It was near 5 o'clock, as near as I remember, and I corroborate Mr. Carter's evidence as to that interview with Mr. Hansen representative of the "Saturday Night" paper was also in the room, Mr. Hansen produced a report that purported to be signed and sent in by James Mills, and it was read to us. After a good deal of argument it was decided to send for the men from the auction mart. I waited with Mr. Hansen, and I think Mr. Carter went up to inform the men they would be received at the office. The men came, and they were admitted None but employees of the Company were supposed to be admitted There were over a hundred in the office, and the Rev. Mr. Gillam also present, and acted Ultimately as a third mediator, along with Mr. Carter and myself. Eventually the report of Mr. Mills re Conductor Beaston was called for and read. I noticed that there was an addition made to the report. It seemed to me to be in a different handwriting although I was not familiar with Mr. Lysaght's writing. After time was consumed in persuading the men to listen to a proposed settlement and discussing the terms of that settlement, in which Conductor Beaston also had a say, a commotion was created by Motorman who had just arrived and been admitted. Mills jumped on the polished counter, and said that "I demand that that report of mine be read "again; I have not heard it." Mr. Hansen again handed me the report and I read it. I noticed again that the addition was made in a different handwriting. I swear that the report presented here by the first day of this inquiry is not the report or application read by me on that day, purporting to be Mills' application for a change of Conductors. Subsequent to that, when matters had been reduced to a working order, and application was made to Mr. Hansen to consider that report, that was said to be added to by Mr. Lysaght. Mr. Hansen's reply was that as matters had been reduced to working order it was not wise to re-open the matter. I think that was the answer to us.

I accompanied Holden when he was before Mr. Lysaght and Mr. Walklate, and I corroborate his evidence bearing on his dismissal.

I also accompanied James Brown, C. F. Cate, and Herdson in their interviews with Mr. Walklate. I corroborate the evidence that has been page 51 given by those subpænaed here rcspectiveiy—that is. Brown and Herdson. Cate is in the Hawke's Bay district, and could not be got.

I also wish to state that letters have been sent to Mr. Walklate notifying him of certain matters.

I will depose to the page of the letter-book I have here, and will send copies into the Board, accompanied by the letter-book, to compare. The first letter is on October the 9th, 1907, page 145, addressed to Mr. Walklate. (Letter read.) The next letter is dated March 14th, 1908, page 175, also addressed to Mr. Walklate, (Letter read.) There is another letter of 6th April, 1908, page 204. (Letter read.) I wish to say that that deputation met Mr. Walklate on Monday, April 27th, and it was from men who considered that they had been harassed by these Inspectors, and I addressed it to Mr. Walklate, asking him to have these two Inspectors in attendance. The letter is on the 24th April, 1908, page 211. (Letter read.) With reference to that, Your Worship, I received a reply from Mr. Walklate to say that previous to receiving my letter he had made arrangements for the two Inspectors concerned to be there. They were there when the deputation was present. I merely wish to place it on record that the Company have received due notification of certain matters now in dispute.

Mr. Walklate:

I have the originals of these letters, and will hand them in to the Board, instead of Mr. Rosser handing in his book. About the letters. I don't want to ask any questions of Mr. Rosser. The only thing is about the incident of the report, and I almost think I had better leave that to Mr. Hansen, as he was there at the time.

Witness:

I have read the report. The addition to it is in a different handwriting to the body. Mr. Lysaght was the officer who had charge of the report, and he is supposed to have made the addition. There is no proof, but the Company is responsible for what was read out. I am sure about the letter being read; it was not a typewritten one.

Mr. Rosser:

That is all the evidence for the Union.

His Worship:

Will you leave those letters now, Mr. Walklate?

Mr. Walklate:

Yes.

His Worship:

In accordance with the understanding come to between the parties, we will now adjourn until Tuesday morning, the 14th instant, at 10 a.m.

(Court resumed on Tuesday, 14th July, 1908, at 10 a.m.)

Mr. Rosser requested leave to call another witness.

Leave granted.

page 52

Walter Rogers, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:

My name is Walter Rogers. I am Motorman in the employ of the Company have been in the service for over twelve years; during horse traction and also electric traction. I did not sign the "round "robin," previously referred to; I am perfectly sure of that. I was asked three times that afternoon to sign it. Inspector McElwain, when he got on my car, said. "You are the last one on the road to sign it," and I said, "I will not sign it." It was intended to get Mr. Steve Heaney, the foreman in the stable, the sack. I was groom for over twelve months and he was over me in the stable. I was never found fault with because I did not look after the Company's interests. Mr. Lysaght came to me on different occasions, and said that the 'bus had beaten me, and what was I doing to allow it. I said it will be seen whether I have done my duty when you refer to the money-bag at night. Mr. Heaney was a good man to work under: he always looked after the interests of the Company; he knew a good horse, and could put a team of horses together. (Mr. Heaney's discharge read.) I agree with what that discharge says.

Mr. Walklate said he proposed to proceed to call evidence, and would reserve any remarks until the evidence had been closed.

William Dennis Lysaght, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Walklate:

My name is William Dennis Lysaght. I have been connected with the Auckland Tramway Co. for the past nineteen years. I commenced in the office, when the old horse cars were running. I was relieving conductor for a while, then I was Chief Inspector, and now Traffic Manager. The first intimation I had of Mills wanting a change of Conductors was when I received a telephone message from Mr. Hankinson, then in charge of the Ponsonby Depot; that was on the 22nd of October, 1906. I was on Mills' car the following day, when he complained plained to me with regard to his Conductor, and I told him to make application in writing and state his reasons. I received one application from him only. I reported the matter to Mr. Hansen. At the in the office, when all the men were present, I was only there for a minutes, and I was not there when this report was read.

It is about nine or ten years ago when I was concerned in the "round "robin affair was then Chief Inspector on the horse cars. The document was handed to me. I was told it was a "round robin." I didn't know then what a "round robin" meant; I asked what it meant, and it was explained to me. My instructions were that I was to pass it on to Mr. McElwain to take it round to the men to be nothing else to do with it. It was suggested to me that I should sign it, and I did so. The "round robin" related to a man named Heaney. Shortly afterwards he resigned from the service. He occupied a position that did not bring him into contact with me. Later on I was instrumental in getting him a position as Motorman. I recommended him to Mr. Carey. I also engaged his son as Conductor, and he is still in the employ of the Tram Co. In this affair I was simply carrying out instructions received. Personally. I had nothing whatever against Heaney.

Inspector Campbell did not receive instructions from me to proceed Onehunga, to remain unobserved, checking the time-tables and to report breaches of rules. As a matter of fact, he was Temporary Inspector, engaged only on special occasions or busy days; and I would never page 53 dream of sending a "green" Inspector to Onehunga. He was not appointed until the 1st January, 1906. The report written against Olney was sent direct to Mr. Duncan, who was then Assistant Superintendent of the Motormen. I did not control the Motormen, and I did not see the report until this inquiry commenced. Mr. Duncan controlled the Motormen in those days, and actually dealt with the demerit marks that were awarded at that time.

I did not tell Inspector Campbell to pay special attention to certain men. The men whom he mentioned were particularly good men, and I was very sorry to lose them. One man named Henry Carter left the service some months after Campbell did. With reference to Griffin, he was a real good Conductor, and I was very sorry to lose him. I reinstated him afterwards, when he applied to be taken back again.

As to Campbell's statement that I told him "all the Conductors were "thieves," and "no man could be honest with all the money in their "charge on the cars," that statement is false. It would be absurd for me to make a remark like that. I did not consider Campbell was a satisfactory Inspector. I frequently had to warn him about carelessness in his work. He was finally dismissed. As an Inspector he was discharged, and was given one week's money in lieu of notice. He was subsequently reinstated as Motorman, and dismissed for quarrelling with his Conductor, taking his car out of service, and running it into the depot.

With reference to Inspector Cox, I instructed him to check the time-tables. To enable a man to check the time-tables, he must keep out of sight; there is no other method of doing it. I never instructed him to make reports of other branches. No notice was taken of reports on breaches of the regulations when Inspectors were checking the timetables.

Inspector Cox said that I told him "he might as well carry the "Union Jack with him." I have no recollection of that; it is absolutely absurd. I did not make the statement. As to asking him to get the assistance of females, that is absolutely false. Inspector Cox was on for about two years as Inspector. He was a very smart man until the last six months, then he became careless.

Although Inspector Bassett while in the service frequently had matters to do with me, still he did not come under my supervision until the last two months of his service, and then he objected strongly. His statement that I said the Conductors were a lot of thieves is not true, and the statement that I could not see any reason why the Conductor should be allowed to leave the service with a good character is absurd. I was not in the habit of discussing my duties with him at all, particularly as he occupied a somewhat peculiar position of being inspector over me if he chose. I never suggested to him that he should employ Female Inspectors.

As to cheeking time-tables. I had been instructed by you to get them checked, and commonsense tells me that a man doing this must not be observed. The reason I received these instructions from you was because we had several complaints from Road Boards and passengers of the irregularity of the runs from the various termini. The cars did not complete their journeys, but turned back at the last loops in some instances. The result justifies the means. We find there are irregularities that would not otherwise get reported except through the public or page 54 through the Inspectors, and as a matter of fact, it was the only method of checking the time-tables. The Bundy Clock would overcome the difficulty. The men reported by Inspectors are only called clown to the office in case of serious complaints. Any trivial breaches are dealt with on the "Please explain" system. The paper says, "Please explain the "following," and the man writes his reply thereon. Arrangements are made by which the man coming into the office does not lose his shift. I generally read the reports to the men, and if they ask to see them I let them do so. I don't recollect an instance where I have not allowed them to see the reports. In serious oases I have always asked them if they had any witnesses. Generally I do my best to give each man a fair hearing, and give them the benefit of any doubt that may exist.

With regard to Conductor Herdson, when I told him that he discharged I said he could have a week's money in lieu of notice. There is absolutely no doubt about that. The reason of his being discharged was we had no further use for him. It is not a fact that I would not give him a reason.

As to Motorman Veart, he was blocking the crossing, which is a matter we have received a number of complaints about from the Local Authorities. He was warned earlier in the same day by Inspector John stone about that same matter. I went round in the car the next day in order to locate the position of the car.

By Mr. Rosser:

I started first of all in the office. I was not a stable boy, mixing the feed at one time. I am quite sure of that.

With reference to Mr. Mills, I am certain that there was only one application sent applying for change of Conductors. I do not know of anyone else receiving an application, and I have not seen any other in the office. I have only seen one report, not two reports. I will swear there were not two applications sent to me by Mills.

I heard of two applications at this Court, but I did not hear of it prior to that. As far as I know, he did not send in two reports Reports should be sent first to Mr. Hankinson and then to me. I did not make any comments in writing on Mr. Mills' report In my report to Mr. Hansen I stilted what Mills had said verbally. He told me on his car that day he could not stand his Conductor any longer, and certainly would not work with him during the approaching holidays. He also said he was in the habit of arguing Trade and Labour Council questions with the passengers, and consequently his car was delayed far as I remember that was the gist of it I embodied that in a report sent to Mr. Hansen. I am perfectly certain he said that. If Mills says he did not say that it is incorrect. My report to Mr. Hansen is in the possession of the Company.

Now, with reference to the "round robin," l say the document was handed to me and explained to me by the late Mr. J. S. Kidd. I told him I did not know what a "round robin" was. He told me what it was but did not go into details as to the reason of it I thought it a singular method at the time, but I was an Inspector, and had to do what I was told. Mr. Kidd was Manager, and Mr. Heaney was Stable Foreman. I thought it curious at that time that the Manager should ask the men to sign the "round robin" to get a subordinate displaced. I cannot recollect what reasons he gave; it was such a long time ago. Mr. Kidd gave page 55 me the instructions but I don't know who drew it up. I did not ask Mr. Martelli to draw it up: he was not a clerk of the Company at that time. He was in the employ of the Company later. I did not know Martelli at that time. I gave it to Inspector McElwain with the instructions I received from the Manager. He took it round and got the men to sign it. As far as I knew, Mr. Heaney was a capable officer, and worked in the interests of the Company. I heard of nothing as to his capabilities, or probity. He shortly afterwards resigned, in December. When I recommended him as Motorman he was driving a team of horses for Bryant. He approached me about the position. I went to Mr. Carey, told him he was a very good man, and thought he would make a very good Motorman. As a matter of fact. I didn't approve of the "round robin." I was requested by the Manager to sign it and I did what I was requested then.

I am absolutely certain I did not give Inspector Campbell instructions to go to Onehunga. I have never given any instructions to pay special attention to the men during the last week of their service; I am certain of that.

I am absolutely certain I never told any Inspector to watch a man when he had resigned. If he (Inspector Griffiths) said I did, it is incorrect. Inspector Cox was a smart Inspector at the beginning, and I have frequently given him instructions to check time-tables. I have no recollection of any special case as to telling him to go to Onehunga. As to the Union Jack statement, I most decidedly did not say that; he is mistaken in that fact. I instructed Inspector Johnstone to check the time-tables, but did not tell him where to go, or to make arrangements where he would not be seen. The Union Jack incident is not correct in any part. Inspector Cox was careless during the last six months, but I am not quite sure of the reason. If Inspector Bassett states that I said "all Conductors were rogues," he is incorrect. I have never instructed Inspector Etheridge to employ females. Chief Inspector Mackay told me that Conductor Spence was suspected of dishonesty; there were strong suspicions, and he told me he intended to get a passenger going to Onehunga to mark a ticket. That was done, and "the end justified the "means." He was suspected of dishonesty, and he was convicted of it. We had evidence of his dishonesty, and I considered we were quite justified in proving it. I don't know who the passenger was that was employed, but I absolutely never came in contact with her. I didn't tell Inspector Mackay that lie was not to do it. In the case of Watson there was not a female detective employed in that case. I cannot say whether it was the same person as was connected with Spence's case. As far as I recollect, it was owing to the defective numbering of tickets that the case against Watson was dismissed. As far as I recollect, we never engaged a female to act as Inspector. I would not approve of a female detective. If they were introduced I would do my best to discountenance it.

With reference to the reports. I am quite certain that men are only called down to the office for serious offences. I don't remember Straker's case. I don't remember his being sent to the office, and missing his run for a trivial offence. Straker was not dismissed; he resigned. I don't remember his case coming before me. Mon have asked for reports against them to be read, and I have always done so. I don't let the reports go out of my hands unless they ask for them. Then I lot them see it. I give the men the benefit of any doubt. Holden's case did not page 56 come directly before me. He was dismissed because I had no further use for him. I don't know whether he gave any evidence about the non-reliability of brakes. I was at the inquest, but I was not present when he gave that evidence, but I read something in the paper about it It was not reported to me by the officers of the Company as to his giving evidence. I don't know the reason why he was discharged. Mr. Walklate, or anyone else, did not tell me why he should be discharged.

I am quite sure that I told Herdson a week's wages would be give to him on the day of his being discharged, Saturday.

With reference to Veart's case, I say the Local Authorities complained about the men pulling the cars up behind each other and blocking the crossing. The first car should pull right round the curve, and leave sufficient room for another. Veart was not discharged; we put him "back on the bag" for two months. His seniority as Motorman was not to be impaired by that; I am absolutely certain about it. I remember Donald Brown, the Motorman when he was President of the Union. He was the reverse of unobtrusive. I did not tell Inspector Ferguson to hide in Hobson Street, and catch Brown tripping on his car. I remember Conductor Menzies. I never supplied him with Onehunga tickets to ride on the cars to watch his mates. He was never appointed Permanent Inspector; he was on trial; they all start that way. I promoted him from Conductor. He was not on the spare list at the time: he had a regular run. He was in the service the first time about three years, and the second time about nine months. I promoted him above the heads of other men, as I thought he might make a good Inspector. I realised that there are special qualities required for an Inspector, and I considered he possessed those, I have no recollection of a report from Inspector Bassett about a Conductor named Boulton. I remember a man named Crawford; he was on the Grey Lynn decker. He resigned, if I remember rightly. He was not dismissed, I am sure about that. I don't remember Inspector Griffiths reporting that he committed an indecent acton top of this decker. I say if you brought a dozen men forward to swear to that "Union Jack" incident it would still be absolutely false. I do not remember boarding a Domain car after dark with a young lady. I have never been in a place known as No. 79, Symonds Street, Mrs. Don Mr. Hankinson telephoned to me and that was the first intimation I had about Mills desiring change of Conductor. (Report produced and read.) That is the report made by me. I instructed Mills to make application in writing, and the one produced in evidence last week is the one received. I am certain there was no other presented by Mills. (First report read.)

Since Mr. Walklate arrived I have had Motormen under my charge too, I know the theory of electric traction. I am competent to be Motormen of any breaches. I have also been to college, and electricity in relation to tram cars. Cars turning back on the loop are not sent back in accordance with instructions from the Despatcher. In the event of a block the Despatcher may give orders for the car to turn back at a certain loop. It is a usual thing for the car to turn as to keep up the time-table. It is not a slow service, but about the same average speed as Wellington. I have compared it with vices; it is as fast as any other service: but the Onehunga line is shower than some of the Wellington speeds. I think the Island Bay one of the fastest. Motormen only receive instructions from the des- page 57 patcher to turn back from the loop in case of an accident or a break-down If there is loitering at a terminus, the men have to make up the time afterwards, and the equipment suffers. The instructions to the Motormen are that they must complete their journey, unless otherwise instructed. I do not know of any instructions given otherwise.

By Mr. Carter:

I am an experienced Motorman. I learnt in Auckland. The first driver I practised under was a man named George Nichols, when the cars first started. I can handle any equipment in the service at the present time. I hold a license. When I went through my term there were no blue papers to sign. I qualified under Mr. Carey. I took Mr. Morris off the spare list, and made him an Inspector, as I was acting under instructions. I put him in charge of Ponsonby Depot over Inspector McElwain because I considered be was best fitted for the position. I did not instruct him to wear a false beard. If Inspectors take the train to Onehunga the Company pays the fare. On looking up the report I found that Mr. Duncan gave Olney 30 demerit marks for smoking. Inspector Campbell reported it. He was apparently on duty on that line. Mr. Hansen did not call me in and reprimand me as stated by Mr. Bassett. At the Despatcher's pole I drew his attention to a rule: I did not severely reprimand him I don't know what became of the letter that was missing. As to men coming to the Head Office, I say the report would be given them if asked for. Reports first of all come to the Chief Inspectors, who forward them to me. I see every report issued against the men, and I investigate all reports. Each man comes before me if it is a serious offence. If the complaint is for smoking, the man gets a "Please explain." If satisfactory explanation, the incident close. The original report does not leave the office. I defy any man to say that I have not given him fair play in regard to a report. As to the suggestion made by Mr. Bassett, we send a copy of the original report to the men, and they can see the original at the office. We state the facts in the "Please explain." Veart was informed a few minutes prior to the incident at Pitt Street. I have acted in a similar way with Motorman Penny. Mills was a good Motorman but occasionally late. After getting rid of Beaston, I don't remember if he made any improvement. Despatcher Hogan made verbal complaints as to his time-table before that. I know Beaston and was surprised to hear he was supposed to have used obscene language. I was surprised also at the report received from Mr. Kidd as to the three words written on the window. I am not quite sure what he was discharged for. I don't remember standing beside you during the meeting at the office at the first Strike, but I remember the drunken man coming in, and I was asked to put him out. With regard to Menzies, I say he was on the regular run when appointed Inspector. The reason of my appointing him was I thought he was fit for the position. He was not long on trial; he resigned. I did not receive any complaints about him from the Motormen or Conductors. I knew he was at the office to answer a charge against him. He did not tell tales of his mates to me when on the Kingsiand service. I am absolutely certain I never gave him tickets. Inspector Cox was careless during the latter part of his term: he was constantly sitting down, smoking, and yarning; it was not because of his reports diminishing during that time: as far as I remember they came in just the same. (Rule read.) That rule is not always carried out. It may be a case page 58 that a bad Motorman will make a good Inspector. The Inspectors have charge of the Motormen.

By Mr. Sherry:

As to turning back from the loops, it is a fact that there has been a bad run in the power lately. The Inspectors have also power to tell the Motormen to turn back, as the Inspector is the Inspector of Traffic on that particular run. The Motorman would not complete his journey if he got instructions to the contrary. I do not remember the case of Conductor Penfold. It is a fact that he is very gentlemanly in his manner. I have no recollection of a report about his standing on a lady's toe. I consider that was a frivilous charge to be made by the lady, but I don't remember the incident.

By Mr. Walklate;

I did think it a peculiar procedure as to the "round robin." At that time I was seven years younger, and I had less knowledge of those matters. At the present time I should think it a very curious thing. I was Chief Inspector in those days. I was not experienced in the management of men. I have heard of putting new. Motormen back on the Conducting. It is quite a common thing in Sydney. We find we have a difficulty in obtaining satisfactory Inspectors. Most of Mr. Bassett's reports never came to me at all. I have no recollection of having received a report from Mr. Bassett. I get quite a few reports, and in the nineteen years they mount up, so that it is quite impossible to remember every individual one; but when they have been talked about I put my mind to work upon them. With regard to cars turning back, unfortunately a great many are turned back, and we have reasons from the Despatcher and from the Inspectors, but there are others where we have no explanation at all. That is why the Company check the time-table. It is a fact sometimes that a man may turn back without instructions, so as to enable him to get to the barn in time to finish.

His Worship:

That would be when a Motorman and Conductor have been in league together.

Mr. Walklate:

That is so, Your Worship.

  • (Court adjourned to 2 p.m.)
  • (Court resumed at 2 p.m.)

William George Bassett (re-called) examined by Mr. Rosser:

(Part previous evidence read.)

I reaffirm that that evidence is correct as to anonymous letters received by Mr. Hansen. I have no idea as to the author of the letter, but to my own satisfaction I think I proved Mr. Lysaght to be the author, and I am of that opinion still. There had been an accident to a woman out at Epsom, who made a claim for damages. A certain doctor was backing this woman up in her claim. I investigated the case, and found I could prove that it was all absolute lies, and the injury was given to her by her own husband. Mr. Lysaght asked me about the matter, and I told him that the doctor would be sorry if it ever went to page 59 the Court. Prior to Mr. Hansen receiving; my report and copies of the evidence, this doctor called on me and said lie had been informed I was trying to do him an injury. I asked him if he would mind talking me along to the party who told him this. He said he received it in the form of an anonymous letter, which he agreed to show to me. It was on paper similar to some paper used in the office by Mr. Lysaght for scribbling on. It had a rod marginal line about an inch from the left edge and this had been cut off; but little spots of red left here and there; therefore I came to the conclusion that Mr. Lysaght sent the letter, and that he was the author of these anonymous letters. Further, Mr. Carey told me he received anonymous letters about every officer in the Company except Mr. Lysaght. I thought it rather strange he should be left out. The paper was common foolscap paper. There was only one package, and it was in a small room at the Head Office; it was paper that your pen would be constantly catching in. I never saw it used by anyone else.

By Mr. Walklate:

The paper was not in general use but he or I would take it to scribble notes on. It was the only package I saw in the office: it was in the small room which leads to the stationery cupboard, in the telephone room. Mr. Lysaght could go there the same as I could, as the cupboard was open to anyone.

Frederick James Etheridge, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Walklate:

My name is Frederick James Etheridge. I was Traffic Inspector in the employ of the Company. I was about four years as Inspector and twelve months as Conductor. I was always told to caution a man before reporting him and to tutor him in every respect with regard to the service. I always treated a man fairly, and tried to coach him as much as possible. I never received instructions to hide myself from the men, and I never did it and never would. I am Manager of the Ti Ti Estate, in the Waikato, at the present lime. There is a system of signals between the Motormen and Conductors as regards the whereabouts of an Inspector on the line. They indicate his movements, wherever he may be. I have spoken to a man and also reported a man, but I have done more of the former than of the latter. I have checked time-tables at the termini. I would not stand in the middle of the road in all cases, but I have never hidden or planted myself; but I have never gone and stood at the terminus to do it. As a Conductor I never had trouble with the Inspectors; in my time I got on very well. I have never been told by the Traffic Manager that the Conductors were all dishonest. I have always been dealt with fair and square by the Traffic Manager. I had my own faults, which have had to be rectified occasionally.

By Mr. Rosser:

I was always told to caution a man before reporting him. I remember the case of Spence. I am the Inspector who got Spence brought up on the charge on which he got two months' imprisonment last November. I don't exactly know whether I warned him or not but I suspected him. I reported it to my superior officer, to the Chief Inspector at Epsom Depot (Mr. Mackay), and I expect he reported it to the Traffic Manager. Mr. Mackay told me to make arrangements with a passenger to catch him. It was not Mr. Lysaght who told me that. I page 60 met a passenger, a female, and asked her if she would mark a ticket I can't remember the name. I think it was Miss Daniels, now you mention the name. I don't know exactly what relationship she bore to Mr. Mackay. When I met her she was getting in the car at Khyber Pass, at the Brewery, and I told her to mark the ticket; but you know the circumstances as well as I do.

His Worship mentioned that the manner of giving evidence weighed very heavily with the Court.

By Mr. Rosser:

I had no previous knowledge of this passenger before getting on this car, but I may have passed the time of day with her. She was told to be there. Chief Inspector Mackay told her, and I received knowledge that she would he there. I told her to mark a ticket and get out at the Royal Oak. The result was someone else was found with this ticket. I did not tell her where to place the ticket. Spence was convicted, and got two months' imprisonment. That is the only time I have had any collusion with female detectives. I have never been asked to work with them since, as I never had occasion. I have had instructions to check the time-tables from the Traffic Manager. I don't stand out on the fool-path. I never went behind the fence or inside a room behind the curtain; it was always out in the open I stood. I received no instructions as to how it was to be done, I would also report any breaches. I have on my own responsibility given instructions to Conductors as to working their cars, Conductor Sherry had a car, and his regular run was on the Onehunga line. I told him once no passengers were allowed to stand at the back. That was before instructions were issued that passengers were allowed to stand at the rear. I don't know that Mr. Sherry got into trouble for ordering a passenger inside. I have never had any complaint to report as to Mr. Lysaght. Three years ago there was a meeting of Inspectors in Karangahape Road, hut I hardly remember what was decided at that meeting. I remember Mr. Bassett and Mr. Griffiths and other Inspectors were there, but I don't remember it clearly. If a man were a better man, I think they would be justified in promoting him over my head. I was perfectly satisfied with what the Company did. I got a rise myself, as I was fit for a certain class of work. It was three years ago when I attended that meeting. I have been reported for drinking with the men in uniform. I was not in uniform when a friend of mine asked me to have a drink, and there was another employee with me at that time. I remember the time when I was seen in the cellar of the Captain Cook Brewery in uniform. I was having my When men have been sick I have told them to get a glass of brandy and port wine, and stood by the car while it was done. I don't remember reporting a man for drinking in uniform. I remember the case of Mr. Ballin and the gloves that were missing. The gloves were dropped by a lady in the ear. I picked up the gloves, and ran outside after a passenger, thinking they were hers. The car proceeded on its way: they did not belong to that lady, and I enclosed them in an envelope and sent them to the depot, I did not receive a letter from Mr. Ballin about them. (Photo produced.) That is my photo., taken on my in uniform. It is on my own verandah, and in place of it being' a bottle of beer, it was a bottle of tea. I never heard of Inspector Johnstone reporting me for being intoxicated at the Show.

page 61

By Mr. Carter:

I was one year as Conductor and four years as Inspector. I had no previous tramway experience. I did not drive a car before being made 'inspector. I went into the barn for a fortnight; but I was Inspector before that. I was Relieving Inspector for some considerable time before being made a Permanent inspector. I was in the barn three years ago, and again this year. Mr. Hansen appointed me as Inspector. I have never done any inspecting in private clothes. I am pretty well acquainted with the signalling. I don't think it is right, when a man is getting fair and just treatment; it looks bad. Some of the public are quite conversant with it. One gentleman told me he had caught the mode of signals. When cheeking the time-tables I may have stood this or the other side of the terminus, I would be on the road: never hidden behind places. I never stood behind telegraph posts at Kingsland. Mr. McElwain was Chief Inspector, and was my superior officer. In some things he was a good and capable man. He could have been more efficient in some respects, in the clerical part of the work, but his education was not very good. He never asked me to do anything crooked for him. I never did any private clothes' duty. I have no complaint to make as to a man being appointed Inspector. I think the men that hold the positions at the present day are equal to it. I think an Inspector should be up to everything. If a bad Motorman may make a good Inspector, the same applies to the Conductors.

By Mr. Sherry:

It is hard to explain why the signalling originated. I expect the men like to have a code of signals. I had a very good class of men on the Onehunga line. I had not many men who did that signalling there; but I have seen it on other lines. I reported you at Greenwood's Corner, justly. It was by word of mouth; it was just about that time when the signalling came in. Your case was the first one to be reported, and although I said I did not like reporting it, you said you preferred to have it done.

By Mr. Carter:

It was a standing rule to caution the men before reporting them. I have seen men go to refreshment shops and have a bottle of hop beer during the hot weather and go straight back to the car. We always use our own discretion. I have seen men leave their cars for a minute or two and did not report them; but if a man left the car for an unnecessary reason the case would be dealt with. I made it a rule to tell the man before reporting. It depends on the circumstances of the case. An old Motorman like yourself would know the rules as well as I. I may have reported a man without telling him at the time of the offence.

By His Worship:

We cautioned a man first, but that caution would not be followed by a report at all; but if it happened again I should feel it incumbent on me to report it. If a serious breach of the rules, I should certainly report him after cautioning him; but if merely a technical breach I might warn him again.

By Mr. Carter:

I was not supposed to notify a man before reporting him.

page 62

By Mr. Rosser;

After the Spence affair I was on the Onehunga line. It is a fact I earned a revolver after that; it was to protect myself. I did my duty conscientiously, but there is always a class of men who have a better feeding towards you, and I was aware of this feeling; not actually the employees, but some of the travelling public as well, amongst a certain class. I believe there was a subscription got up to help Spence at Onehunga. The revolver was not loaded, except in some cases.

By Mr. Walklate:

If I saw a man smoking I would caution him. If I saw him again next day I would report him. I would not caution him again.

Frederick Reuss, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Walklate:

My name is Frederick Reuss. I am a motorman in the employ of the Tram Company. I have been employed four years next November. I remember the day of the Strike. I took my car out at 7.13 a.m. brought it in about 10 o'clock. I was due on again at 9 past 2 p.m. I turned up at Epsom to take the car out, and found they were not running. I was told there was a Strike. Inspector Mackay asked me to see whether the handles were on the cars, and I did so. I left about a o'clock. I think. I came up next day to see if anything was doing. There were no cars running, and I cleaned his office out, and while I doing so I heard there was grumbling about my working. I went to the Inspector about it; the men said they did not object to my working. I have been employed as Motorman the whole of the four years. I was satisfied with the treatment I had from the Inspectors and from the officials of the Company. I have had no cause to complain.

By Mr. Rosser:

I remember the first Strike in 1906. I kept a car miming on that day, and there were others kept the cars running. I did my duty to my employers. I saw no reason for the Strike, although there were over a 100 went out on Strike. I think the Strike took place at 5 o'clock. The first I heard about it was about 4.30, or somewhere about that I not leave my car. I thought I was justified in sticking to the Company. I don't see that I went back on my mates at all. That is a matter of opinion; it is my opinion against the majority. I went seeking for work after I knew there was a Strike. I am not going out on Strike if I don't think I am justified; and I did not think so on this occasion, I could not take my car out, as I was told not to, and there would be ears running. If there had been cars I would have run mine out finished up about 5. My shift ended at 8. I got paid for the shift turned up next morning at 7.15. I live at Beattie's Corner, Onehunga, about a mile from it. That would be about three miles from Epsom Barn. I was anxious to see if any work was going for me. That was the first work I was put on, to sweep out the office. I did not go to help in the barn. I was paid for that day. I have been paid full since. Well, yes, I suppose I have a great deal to thank the Company for I consider they stood to me in giving me employment. Prior to working for the Company I was working for the Asphalt Company. For private reasons I refuse to say where I was working prior to that, but I was some years in one employment.

page 63

By Mr. Walklate:

I worked on the cars for one day about a fortnight ago.

By Mr. Carter:

After the 1906 Strike there were back-handed sneers and slurs by the Strikers. They said something, showing they were not pleased.

By Mr. Rosser:

I am not a member of the Union, but I have been. I ran into arrears, and you issued a summons against me; I paid up, and since then I have not been a member of the Union.

Richard Spry, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Walklate:

My name is Richard Spry. I am a Motorman in the service of the Company. I have been in their employ for five and a-half years, and about five years driving. I remember the day of the Strike. It was about 12.15 on the 21st of May last. I was a Motorman driving on the Mount Eden line. When I arrived in Queen Street I saw a number of cars there deserted by the Motormen and Conductors. Mr. Rosser and a number of others came up and asked me to join the Strike. I told them I didn't belong to the Union, and didn't choose to strike. They went away, and I took my car, with another attached, round to the Epsom barn. I had received no notice from Mr. Rosser, verbally or in writing, that the Strike was to take place. I saw no reason for the Strike myself. When I got to the barn I got signed off by one of the clerks, and went home. Next morning I went to take out a car as usual, but was informed that the cars were not running. I was set on at the barn to clean carriages, and afterwards told by the Foreman to go home. I have not worked since. I have been paid. During the time I have been employed I have had no reason to complain of the treatment by the Inspectors or officers. I could not be treated better.

By Mr. Rosser:

On the day of the Strike I saw a number of cars deserted, and you asked me to join the Strike. That was the first I heard about it. I don't remember Motorman Carter speaking to me outside H.M. Theatre; in fact, I never knew his name. I have been paid since then the full Motorman's wages, or thereabouts. I had had previous experience in Tramway matters in Melbourne. I remember the Cable Strike there in 1888. I did not join the Strike then. I thought there was no cause for the Strike, not the slightest. It was simply to cause the Company to compel all employees to become Unionists. I think the men should please themselves. I did not have any experience of Tram matters in Sydney. I never joined a Union in my life. I remember the 1906 Strike here. I was a Motorman, and I kept at work during the afternoon. I didn't join the Strike. I saw no reason for it, as I had no complaints to make. I never worked for a better Company, and I never received better treatment. I mean quite apart from the fact that I am getting paid for doing nothing. I had not the slightest idea that the Strike was going to take place. I never see the papers; they may have been full of it. It takes me all my time to attend to my work, and when home my time is taken up teaching the children their lessons for the next day's school. My family are mostly grown up now; the youngest is about 12, and there are two going to school. You asked me to come up to the hall and page 64 attend the meetings. You said at Swanson Street. I do not refer to the papers to teach the children; you cannot always rely on what they say. I took two cars round to the barn, and five as far as Stanley Street. I got to the barn a little after one. I went straight away to dinner, and did not come back that afternoon. Next morning I turned up at 6.30 for my car, which left at 6.58. I was informed the cars were not running. I went out and washed down the side of two or three carriages in the Epsom barn. I was there about two hours. That should be the work of the barn hands. Some of them were working there at the time. They did not make any remonstrance at my being there. I do not know young Morris. A young fellow gave me some rags to clean the windows with. Mr. Scherf was in charge, and put me on. He went to town, and returned about two hours later. The men were working when he returned, and seemed to be pleased at getting help. They did not sit down and refuse to work.

By Mr. Carter:

I am satisfied with the wages. I think they are fair and just. I remember giving evidence at the Arbitration Court. I said that a shilling an hour was a fair thing. I did not say 5s. 6d. a day. I did not know you by name, but I know you by sight very well. I had spoken to you, but I didn't know who Mr. Carter was. I remember the time we were together in the Instruction Room. I don't believe you spoke to me up Queen Street as to the Strike. I don't think there is one man now, after due reflection, would dislike my returning to the service.

By Mr. Sherry:

I don't remember you being with Mr. Rosser. It was enough to excite anyone to see the crowd there. You never spoke to me on that morning to my knowledge.

By Mr. Walklate:

If I had thought it necessary to go out on Strike I should not have thought it the proper thing to leave my car in the public street, because the larrikins might interfere with the brakes. I had a job to keep then off my car. I certainly think it the proper thing to take the car off the public street. They should not be left there.

Ralph Turner, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Walklate:

My name is Ralph Turner. I am a Tramway Inspector, and have been in the service about four years. I have acted as Conductor, and during the last twelve months as Inspector. I have been instructed to take steps to check time-tables at Remuera, and also Kingsland. I stood on the main road on the tram lines, and took the times of the arrival and departure. There is a system of signals amongst the Motormen and Conductors. The Conductors are watching for the Inspectors like a cat watching a mouse, and trying to get the signal as to where the Inspector is. I have never received special instructions to watch a man leaving the service. I have occasionally inspected a car when nearing the terminus. I occasionally find people have dropped their tickets; it is not a regular thing as a rule. If a passenger had not got a ticket I asked them where they got on, to see whether they have ridden over two sections or only just got on. It would be unfair to take the matter up with the Conductor in the latter case. I have always been treated fairly by the Traffic Manager.

page 65

By Mr. Rossers:

When instructed to check the time-tables I have done so from the tram lines, standing on the road. I don't know whether they saw me or not, but anyone on the ear could have seen me. I never found any difficulty in being able to check the time-tables from that position. I could do it just as well there as from behind the log or the fence. I have never taken up a position at Kingsland where the men could not see me. I have been satisfied with the conditions in the service. I was some time before acting as Relieving Inspector for about six months. So far as I am concerned there was dissatisfaction as to inspecting being done. As Conductor I never heard any expression of dissatisfaction or heard them say there were things they did not approve of. I had been Inspector, Relieving Inspector, and I was Conducting up to the Strike. I was on the shift that came out, and my car was left empty with the others. I left because the others left. I had no opinion as to the principle for which the men struck. I never thought anything about it, and simply went out because the others did it.

Mr. Rosser:

I believe the witness has always been a straight man, and one of the best Inspectors in the service.

By Mr. Carter:

I should have gone on as a Motorman, but I was appointed as Inspector, and at that time I was being put through a course of instruction. As an Inspector I warned a man before reporting him. I have always been told to do this. If I saw a man at a serious offence I would certainly tell him before reporting. I was put over the men before I had a practical knowledge as Motorman. I have been Motorman for about twelve months, since being Inspector.

By. Mr. Sherry:

It is a fact that men will go out of their way to oblige me in carrying out my duties as Inspector, and in my turn I would give them a straight deal back.

By Mr. Walklate:

It is a rather delicate time just now; you can hardly dare t6 speak to some of the men; they think everybody is watching them.

Herbert James Baker, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Walklate:

My name is Herbert Janies Baker. I am a clerk at the Ponsonby Depot. I have been in the service three years next November, during which time I have been in the employ of the Company as Conductor and Clerk, Conducting for twelve months and the remainder of the time as Clerk. When Conductor I had no complaints to make as to the Inspectors. Since being in the office I have not come under the Traffic Department.

By Mr. Rosser:

I remember the 1906 Strike. I was then a Conductor. James Mills was Motorman. I was on the morning shift, and had gone off duty when the Strike occurred. I remember the meeting in the Y.M.C.A. Buildings the night before. I said at that time I would not strike, as I was not in a position to do so, and did not care to. I had heavy re- page 66 sponsibilities. I said it openly. I approved of the Strike then, but I had undertaken certain responsibilities, and should not see my way clear. During the last twelve months I had been under another officer in the depot. In a general way we hear simmerings, but nothing definite, be we could see there was some discontent. I have heard at times, when the men have received the "Please explain," they said it was trivial: that is all. When Straker was sent down I was there. I don't remember definitely that he complained about losing his run to go to the office.

By Mr. Morris:

On that occasion I remember the language used was forcible, tat not out of the ordinary.

By Mr. Rosser:

It was before he went to the office; when he got word at the window. I have no recollection of any words that he used. I

William Thomas Rowe, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Walklate:

My name is William Thomas Rowe. I am a Ticket Inspector in the service of the Company. I have been employed by them for five years and one month, as Conductor, Motorman and Inspector. I was Motor man over four years. I have been Inspector for two months. When the merit and demerit system was in vogue I stood high up. Mr. Hansen gave three prizes of £3, and £1. I came third; next quarter I came first, and the last quarter I tied with Motorman Haslam tor the first place. There is a system of signals among the men to notify where the Inspector is. When I am on a line too long the men know where I are, and I have to dodge to another line across country, without letting them know. If a Conductor is a new hand and there is a miss-fare I tell him where the passenger is, and he collects the fares; that is if it is a fult car. If there are eight or ten passengers and he has had time to see to the fares, I ask the passengers where they joined the car, to whether they have overridden their sections or have tried to "best him. If I find a passenger trying to impose on the Conductor I ask they don't know what he is employed for. On the first occasion I find the fare missed I tell the Conductor, and if I find more later on I the matter. I make allowance if he is a new hand. During the time was Motorman I was satisfied with the treatment by the Inspectors got merit marks, and I always had the privilege to go to the office-was in the wrong I got demerit marks; if otherwise, I got them celled. I have no complaints as to the treatment I received from Traffic Manager. I have been down once "on the carpet," as the saying is, before Mr. Hansen, the General Manager.

By Mr. Rosser:

I have been Inspector for about two months. I was the 18th or 19th of May, three days before the Strike was held applied for the position of Inspector about four years before, when Conductor. I was offered the position, but preferred to be driving as Motorman. I applied for the Onehunga run, but Mr. Alec Paton came back, and claimed this; and as he was senior man he got the preference; as senior man he was entitled to it though at the time I felt sore about it Signalling has been carried on ever since I was in the have given signals myself. I have been reported for it, and got demerit page 67 marks for it, for breaking one of the rules of the Company by passing signals. I don't know as to its being a big sin; I didn't think so then. Since being Inspector I see it is wrong. I don't see why they want signals, as all the Inspectors treated me fairly. I served under Inspector Tickle. I never noticed him coming out of the ground or behind poles. I was on the Epsom side, and he was not there very much. I did not notice any discontent at Epsom Depot amongst the Motormen. I did not know of anyone reported for trivial offences and losing time going to the office. I have never heard a complaint about it, I remember 1906 Strike. I was a Motorman on the morning shift. I did not go on strike, because when Mr. Carey came to me I said I would take on a learner. I have not been in the Union, and I never attended the meetings, and could not say whether the men were justified or not. I have heard about Beaston being dismissed. I read the papers after the Strike. I do not feel justified in giving an opinion as to Beaston's dismissal and whether the Strike was justifiable.

By Mr. Carter:

I did not strike during 1906. I never got a present from the Company afterwards for that; I did not get £2 8s. for that. Mr. Walklate gave me no instructions, nor Mr. Lysaght, as an Inspector. I am a uniform man, and I have not been in plain clothes while inspecting.

By Mr. Sherry:

As to the signals, I was conversant with them as a Conductor and as a Motorman; it went back as far as that. The signals were not used so much then as now. It was a very rare case five years ago to use them. It is only during the last twelve months that it has got to such a pitch as at present.

  • (Court adjourned to Wednesday, the 15th, at 10 a.m.)
  • (Court resumed. Wednesday, 15th July, at 10 a.m.)
  • Mr. A. Rosser requested permission to call another witness.
  • Leave granted.

Benjamin Guy, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:

My name is Benjamin Guy. I am a Fitter. I was formerly a Conductor on the spare list of the Company. I joined the Company about last September. I am not sure of the date. I remember the Sunday after the Agricultural Show in Auckland. I was booked up for the No. 4 Kingsiand run at the Ponsonby Depot. I got the information of that booking on Friday afternoon. There is a sheet put in a case at the barn, and all runs for Saturday and Sunday following are shown. I reported myself on Sunday, about half an hour before the time; that is the usual course. I was due to go out by 12.45. I got my waybill. Mr. Morris asked me if I would oblige him by talking a Remuera run, as a Conductor booked for that run was sick. Afterwards Conductor Armitage came in, and said he did not mind taking a run, and Mr. Morris said, "Then be "quick, and get your uniform and block." Mr. Morris then said, "Perhaps Guy won't mind, and you can have the Remuera run." The rule on Sunday is, if on the spare list, a man is entitled to the run; therefore I was entitled to the Remuera run on account of the Conductor being sick. They always commence at the bottom of the list; that is to give a chance to a man earning very little to get the best nm on Sunday.

page 68

After the spare men are supplied, then the regular men come in, but the spare men always have preference on Sundays. I told Mr. Morris I didn't think it was fair to me, as I was entitled to the Remuera run or the one booked up for Kingsland. He turned on me and said, "I can "see you wish to refuse duty, and you won't be required any more at the "barn." It is a serious offence, refusing duty. The Remuera run is a better run than the Herne Bay, as it is a longer run, and therefore more profitable to me. We get time and a-half for Sunday work. I told him I did not refuse duty, I was willing to take the car out but I didn't care about being taken off one and put on another, particularly to oblige a regular man. As a spare man I would not make very much that week, but a regular man would make his regular wage, £2 2s., or more. I saw you at your office on the Sunday, and told you the facts of the case. I saw Mr. Lysaght on the Monday morning, and he said it appeared to him that I had refused duty. I told him I had not. Then he said, "You "to be grumbling." I had a right to grumble about a shortage; they stopped me 5s. on the Onehunga run on the Wednesday preceding, which was actually more than I earned that day. I knew I was not short. I reckoned up my tickets. They afterwards returned me 50 one penny tickets booked up against me, which I never had. If I had not protested I should have had to pay the 5s. I did not consider that I was rightly discharged, as I did not refuse duty. I gave references to the Company, and was accepted on those. I signed the big application form, in which there are about 35 questions. I am a married man. I did not get a reference when I left. I have been on various work since leaving the Company, The last job was as a fitter at Waihi which ended on Saturday day morning last. I paid the doctor's foe of 5s.; I also paid for my license, only the one, and that was for last year, until December 31st. I did not pay for one this year, I did not get the doctor's certificate. I have been in there three or four times, but could not got an answer at all. I consider it belongs to me, as I paid for it.

By Mr. Morris:

You asked me if I would oblige by taking the Remuera run never said anything to me about a man not turning up. I had been on the Remuera line before, so it was not a case of managing it. I was not signed on, but you told me to get the block out. It was when you were giving me the blocks that you asked me to do this. I know a man different block for each run but you gave me the right block, and told me you would give me the tickets in a minute. I did not get the special block. I was entitled to the Remuera run according to the rules, The block has nothing to do with the run. I took your word as a gentleman that I should have the nm. You told me that I would not be required any more at the barn, and I considered I was dismissed when you I me that. When I saw Mr. Lysaght I got no satisfactory answer, I considered I was dismissed, because I was told so by my superior I had no trouble with the officials while I was working. After I was discharged Inspector Griffiths and I had a bit of a row; he struck me first, and I struck him back, as any man would do. There was cause for trouble, but I was not excited; I was quite cool and sober, It was on Monday.

By Mr. Walklate:

I went to see Mr. Lysaght because I reckoned I was entitled to see the Traffic Manager. Mr. Lysaght said. "You know what Morris told page 69 "you yesterday," and that was sufficient. I look it that I was dismissed.

By Mr. Carter:

Mr. Morris is Inspector at the barn, He said I should not be required any more at the barn; he considered I had refused duty. There seemed to be grumbling amongst the spare list men all the time—a good deal of discontent. They were not satisfied as to the shortages. On three or four occasions I have had 2s. 6d. put against me, but they refunded it when I complained. It must have been five or six occasions. I have been three or four times for the doctor's certificate, and Mr. Lysaght refused it and said I could not get it back. It was certainly my property. I had my references back, but they still hold that certificate.

By Mr. Sherry:

I was entitled to take the run according to the rules of the spare list. I should have been the next man for Mr. Morris to put on. Armitage was not booked up at all he being a regular man. He would have to come in after the spare list was fixed up.

By Mr. Rosser:

The mere fact of my not having the Remuera block and tickets did not count, as it did not affect my position on the spare list, and I was entitled to the best run going. I did not hear about the spare list men complaining while I was there. I did not have trouble with any officer until I considered I was badly treated. Inspector Griffiths afterwards told me he did not think there was an honest man working on the Tram Company. I told him I was as honest as he was. I had the 5s. returned back to me when I left, he struck me first, and left a little bit of a mark, I think. I believe you first suggested I should go to Mr. Lysaght, as Mr. Morris had not the power to discharge me. One firm I was in I remained with for 14 years. It was a gun-maker's in Birmingham and I showed that discharge when I applied to join the Company.

By Mr. Morris:

I was at the Epsom Depot before coming to the Ponsonby. I asked for the change, as it was too far to walk, and I would have to get up at 4 a.m. I had no dispute with anyone there.

Mr. Rosser referred to Witnesses being subpæenaed by the Company at the last moment.

Mr. Walklate explained that snbpaænaes not signed by Mr. Cave had been issued in ignorance and that fresh subpæenaes had consequently to be issued with Mr. Cave's signature attached.

Evan Tickle, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Walklate:

My name is Evan Tickle. I am employed in the service of the Tram Company as Ticket Inspector, I have been in the employ just over five years, for eighteen months as Conductor, three years as Motorman, and about seven months as Inspector. As to checking time-tables, I have never received any instructions as to keeping myself unobserved; none whatever. I have never had special instructions to pay special attention to men about to leave the service. As regards checking cars when nearing the terminus, I consider it necessary. I have never had any trouble page 70 in doing that with the passengers who had thrown their tickets away or destroyed them. I have known passengers to drop their tickets. I am an experienced Motorman, and have been in the barn for three weeks, for three hours a day. In regard to a miss-fare, there is scarcely anything said to the Conductor when the cars are full or nearly so I usually speak to the Conductor on the back platform. As regards reporting men. I did not notify them except in rare cases, as I think it Would lead to more or less personal trouble. I am quite aware that there is a system of signals used by the men on the cars. I took some steps to over-come that. I may possibly cross from one part of the district to another. But in no other way. I have stood in the doorway in College Hill on several occasions when it was very wet, and I have also sat down on the ledge of the steps waiting for a car. I might also have been there entering notes in a book. The Suffolk Hotel is just by Wood Street. There is no truth in the suggestion that I was hiding there. I have no recollection of a passenger remarking something about shooting myself with the revolver I am supposed to carry. I know nothing about what Conductor Steen says as to turning my coat in to hide the buttons, and putting my cap under my arm. I have been on several occasions in ray uniform overcoat, which does not fit well, as it is too small across the chest: it won't button. My uniform coat has metal buttons. I have often had my hat off my head, but I am not one of the "hatless brigade." though Steen very rarely wears a hat on duty. I know nothing about hiding behind telegraph posts or keeping the pole between myself and the men. I never stand in the roadway until the car comes up, and I do not' expose myself more than I think necessary. As to Motorman Breen's evidence, I might possibly have been standing under the verandah; I have stood there many a time. I do not know of any doorway in Freeman's Bay between the gasometer and the penny section. There is a verandah at the end of the penny section. As to Motorman Rock-lands' statement, and to my endeavour to force an excess of passengers on his car, I was standing at the junction of Hobson and Victoria Streets when his car came along from town. The Conductor asked me to keep passengers off, which I did but Mr. Travers was then an employee of the Tram Company, and had just left duty. He was not a paying passenger but I told him he might get on. I kept the remainder off. Rocklands, it appears, looked round and saw this employee on the platform, and he came round to the rear and ordered him off the car, but when I said he was an employee Rocklands walked away. Later in the day I was on his car: he beckoned me through to the front platform, and we discussed this case, and Rocklands said had he known Travers was he would have said nothing, and then qualified his remark by saying, "Didn't I walk away when you told me?" and I said, "Yes, "you did." It is an understood thing that we must give up our seats for paying passengers. If Conductor Hodson states that I went across from the Ponsonby Road to the Suffolk Hotel, that would be the ordinary way from one line to another. As to not showing myself there. I nothing about it, unless the time or date is given. As to my playing hide-and-seek around the telegraph pole at the Junction Hotel. I the man's observation was very narrow. There is a little sharp at that particular place, so that you could not hide from a Motorman there, even if you wished to do so;' it would be impossible to do so. We often stand there. There are three Inspectors on racing and football days. On those-occasions we must, of course, take a keen observation of page 71 the cars, to tell whether there is an Inspector on; if we did not we might get on the same car, which would be rather silly. (Buckley's evidence read.) There is no date, and I cannot say anything about that. He might have seen me step out from the direction of the doorway; you cannot sec the doorway coming down the hill. I never stood at "the Union Bank corner. Generally speaking, I did not expose myself, but on the other band. I did not hide. As to the incident of the fourpenny ticket mentioned by you when I was a Motorman, it occurred in this way. We arrived at Onehunga terminus, and were having lunch, sitting on the same scat. There were two fourpenny tickets lying on the seat, and I said to him, Don't you sec this is a weakness in the system, when a man could pick up tickets like this and re-sell them. That started a discussion between us, which lasted two or three minutes. I was not making any suggestion as to selling the tickets for profit. I was simply showing the weakness of the system. I could not say what became of the tickets. I threw them on the floor. He never said anything at the time that I suggested the selling of the tickets.

As to Mr. Bassett's statement with regard to my crouching behind St. Matthew's Church fence, it is an open fence; it would be necessary to know what is meant by crouching. If he meant I was standing and leaning on the fence, I admit it, but if he meant I went down on all fours. I do not admit it. I have often stood at the fence, leaning on it and waiting for a car to come up. It is a low fence at that place. I remember the incident mentioned by Conductor Browne, as I had to report on it to Mr. Lysaght. The facts are these: I hearded the car al Shortland Street: I was in private clothes: the car was about quarter full: it didn't till up at Wellesley Street, but I took no further notice after that. After passing the penny section, somewhere in the neighbourhood of West Street, he came and tapped me on the shoulder, and asked if I was supposed to give up my seat, the same as themselves, and I said certainly, why do you ask, is there anyone standing? He said "No," but there was. I said, "it is rather late to come and tell me now, "but had I known I would have stood up." When I joined the service I went to see Mr. lysaght, and, not being familiar with inspecting. I asked for instructions. He asked me if I had a Rule Book, and said. There is your guidance; follow it. I am not in the habit of harassing a man, as Inspector. After being Inspector four or live weeks I met Wade, the Motorman, at the corner of Hobson and Victoria Streets, and he was off duty at the time. He told me if I did not change my tactics I would not be in the service three months. He also said he was surprised that I did not stand in a proper place, and proper manner, and suggested how he would stand. At this corner there is a telegraph pole, and the Greaseman's grease cans are against it. I was standing about four or five yards towards College Hill from this pole, and he said t had no right to stand there; I should stand over on the corner of the footpath, which would face the road down towards town. When I was Motorman I never thought I was harassed by Inspectors. I never had any complaints against the Traffic Manager.

By Mr. Rosser:

I never got any instructions as to checking time-tables. The Rule Book gave me full instructions in those matters. The Inspector's Book was handed to me by Mr. Morris. I have not got it with me. I could not say whether it was a new book; I did not notice any great wear in page 72 it. I did not have one for my own property. I have not stayed at a terminus to check a car. I have never been told off to do that. I am aware that signals do exist. I may have used them myself: I am not sure; it is a long time ago. I was Motorman for three years; I never used them as Motorman. The first month or two as a Conductor I did I did not drop it because I thought it was a sinful practice; I thought it was too much trouble. The old hands signalled one another, but they did not signal me very much. I did not ask them to drop it. I did not take the benefits or give any. With reference to Haslam's evidence I deny hiding at England Street, also at Suffolk Hotel. I don't remember meeting Roy Hodson, but I often nod to him. If he states he watched me for ten minutes hiding at the Suffolk Hotel, I say it was untrue. That corner is not a square corner; it is an angle. Any person standing on the footpath in Wood Street cannot be seen by approaching Motormen; at least, I don't think he can. I deny that I stood away back round the corner as he said. I deny that I carried a revolver. I might have told someone that I did, but it was only bluff. It might have been because you were making false pretences with me just then. When it is stated in evidence that I had my coat turned in to conceal the buttons, and my hat off, and under my arm with the badge out of sight. I say it is untrue. I say that Steen may have seen me with my hat off. I don't say I was hiding the coat or the badge, and I did not put the hat out of sight. I never stood on the road to watch the cars, because it would not be sensible. For one thing, the road is only meant for horses, and it is not always safe for a man, I do not think it part of ray duty to stand in the road, but I stand back out of the way of ham wherever it is convenient for me to stand. I can find convenient places all over the city of Auckland and suburbs. With reference to Rocklands and the excess passenger, I don't remember the Conductor speaking about it, but I remember the Motorman. I think the Conductor was Belmont. He shouted out to me to keep the other passengers off the car. I allowed Mr. Travers to get on, but he is an employee of the Company, and not a passenger under the circumstances. I cannot override a Conductor's rule in this matter; I did not do so. I gave Travers and Belmont raised no objection; at any rate, I heard none. The Conductor would be the one to be fined for overcrowding. I have not received any instructions from Mr. Lysaght to take short cuts from terminus to terminus. It is not mentioned in the Inspectors' Book. I often used Wood Street for that purpose. I remember Herdson speaking to me when I boarded his car, but I don't think it was by way of congratulation. It is a long time ago, and I cannot remember details of everything that took place. I don't say I did not punch the ticket. He certainly bad a ticket when I checked it. It is proof positive that he had a ticket when I punched it. I did not tell him about the art of deduction. I have read Conan Doyle's works, I have read Sherlock Holmes; he is a fine character. I cannot say that I followed it out. I have not got a free hand. I have had many instructions from you. Mr. Lysaght has not interfered with my free hand in the least. With reference to the incident of the two fourpenny tickets, I was Motorman and Speakman was Conductor. We discussed all sorts of things in covering a wide range. I suppose that came under the same heading. What advantage would it be to me to do anything with him? I did not think it was necessary for me to warn him; he is of age, and understanding. With reference to Bassett's evidence, I don't think there is a page 73 big post at the corner of the fence. I deny that I was in a crouching attitude. With reference to Browne's incident, when I looked the car was not full at Wellesley Street; I remember he stopped there, and that is all I know. I did not say there was no cover at the Junction Hotel; I did not mention the word cover. I did not say there was no place where a man could conceal himself. I have not drawn a map of the telephone posts; I have got them in my memory fairly well. I would not be able to testify when standing outside in the road so well as when I didn't. These are not extraordinary incidents, or I should remember them. I say this matter of standing in and out goes on every day, and scores of times each day. I could not possibly remember each time I have boarded a car. I could not mention any solitary occasion when I stood up in the road. With reference to the 1906 Strike, I think I was on the afternoon shift, and the Strike occurred about 5 p.m. I think I left my car. It is a matter of indifference to me now as to whether I regretted it or not, I have not thought of it. I am not satisfied I did the right thing; I have not thought much about it. I did not study whether the men had a just cause for striking at that time, I was always a member of the Union, and I attended the meetings. I really could not say what was done at the meeting in the Y.M.C.A. Buildings. I would not like to say whether I counselled caution at that meeting. You are cautious, but I don't know about myself. I don't call that a prominent part taken. I came to your house about it, but I could not tell the date. I think I was there the morning of the Strike, November 14th. I don't recognise that my coming to your house showed that I took particular interest in it. The case you refer to was not a miss-fare, and I do not know where the passenger got on. I did not take the Conductor to task for not having collected her fare in Ponsonby Road. I remember the incident, if you are referring to George Denham. What really took place is the car was fairly full; I boarded the car, and found a lady there whom I thought had been in the car all the time, so I asked her where she boarded the car and she informed me she had just got on. I was satisfied, and checked the car. I did not say anything to the young woman, and did not intend to say anything to the Conductor, or caution him for it but he followed me to the front and asked me what right I had to ask passengers where they got on the car. After that he became somewhat abusive over the matter. I tried to explain; he would not listen, and thought I had been unjust. I stayed on the platform, thinking he would cool down, and I turned my back on him. He still spoke about the matter. That is all there was in it. I don't think that was a bad start for me; I thought it was merely a misunderstanding on his part. As five coppers being given to a passenger in exchange for sixpence and my going to the Conductor and getting a threepenny piece and two coppers. I say no such thing ever took place to my knowledge. I think I know to what you are referring. I don't remember that incident as you put it. I did not interfere with Conductors as to change given to passengers, I think you refer to C. W. Smith's case, which I reported to Mr. Lysaght, I was on the College Hill car, conducted by Jamieson. He complained to me he had run out of change. He was a new man then, and I advised him to get change at the office. I boarded his car later, and he still complained that he had no change. I took out my purse and found three coppers, and handed them to him and in return he gave me a threepenny bit. He afterwards went inside, but did not avail himself of these coppers; but I don't know page 74 why; but went to the front collecting fares. I thought the man, being new, might have misunderstood. I went to the passenger and said. "I "see you have a few coppers, would you mind giving me three of them for "my Conductor, as he is out of change?" He producted four coppers, and I took three, which I handed to the Conductor, and he handed to me in return a threepenny bit, which I afterwards gave to the passenger. It was to enable the Conductor to collect his fares. I went down to the office over this present case, and saw Mr. McElwain there. I could not say whether all the Inspectors were down. I could not say whether some of the Inspectors are afraid of losing their positions with the Company. I am not. I am pretty well depending on my wages for a living. It is not a fact that I have shares in a big brick kiln. I am not going to reveal my private affairs here. I have not been inside a trap for over three or four years, as far as I remember. There was no case of a horse bolting with me; I am quite sure of that. I did not tell Conductor Holden that there was not an honest man in the Company's employ. He is under a delusion if he says so. I do not remember telling Rocklands that the men could bring Mr. Walklate to his knees if they stuck together. I remember having a conversation with Buckley, in which I advocated a Strike. I conversed with him on matters in general, and might have asked him whether you could cancel registration and have a Strike; and he may have told me that the award had not run out. I don't remember saying "That is the only tiling that will "bring Mr. Walklate to his knees." Bobby Wade told me the men did not approve of the way I conducted my business, I remember the incident of Buckley playing hide-and-seek round the car, and I asked him what was the reason for it; he also had his hat the wrong way about. Rocklands did not tell me the reasons of it. He did not say he "imitating my dirty tactics." I did not know that the men did not appreciate the way I carried out my duties. I could not know what Buckley was doing when he acted in that manner.

I was in the barn three or four weeks. I am not quite sure. I know nothing about Rogers asking for me to be taken out of the barn. I am never on the same road as other Inspectors are, so don't know their methods. I am very seldom out in private clothes. Any work done as Inspector by me was following the Book of Instructions, I do not think it tells me to get out of sight. I do not follow my own ideas. I don't know why you ask the question as to keeping back out of sight and then boarding a car. I said I did not stand in the road. I have nothing to do with the Motormen, whether they see me or not. I consider it well to be out of the road. It is impossible to answer questions Yes or No.

By His Worship:

I consider it is better for me to stand out of the road.

(Court adjourned to 2 p.m.)

(Court resumed at 2 p.m.)

Inspector Tickle, examined by Mr. Rosser:

(Report read.) I know the circumstances referred to in the report you have just read. The report is not correct. I have no received a copy from the Company, but I have seen it. I know it has been sent in.

page 75

I was waiting" for an up car when this man who was supposed to be injured came over to me and wanted to know if I could tell him who were in charge of that particular car. I referred him to the office for the names it is some weeks since the accident happened. I was not present at the time, and I never saw anything but the finish. He complained something about the men running with the pole the wrong way, and something was said about their pulling the wires out and it was very careless of them. I said it was possible they did, but I expressed no opinion as to getting rid of the men out of the service. I have been asked by Mr. Walklate for an explanation. I did not know which car it was for certain. I cannot see any reason for the Motorman being under the apprehension that a false charge would be brought up against him. That was all the conversation I had with the man and I do not know his name. When I was appointed Inspector I considered I was competent. Instructions were given to me as to how to pursue my duties. (Instructions to Inspectors read.) I consider that good advice, and I have always endeavoured to follow that. I have never catechised a man in front of a passenger. I may have spoken to a man through him speaking to me first. I never deliberately asked a man any question in the presence of passengers. It was in a firm and considerate manner. I have spoken in front of passengers on very few occasions, and only where a man spoke to me first. It lowers both in the opinion of the passenger: If the Conductors in those cases forced it on to me. I was compelled to answer. I answer in a calm and firm way. When I was a Motorman I did not give any free rides. I remember Cusack, the Epsom conductor. I do not remember the instance of two lady friends being with me on the front platform. I would not say, but it is possible they were in the car. They were not on the front platform; that has never happened.

By Mr. Morris:

With regard to the Cook Street incident, my waistcoat has bright buttons on. They were not hidden in the way Mr. Rosser described it.

By Mr. Rosser:

I mentioned the overcoat was too small in the chest. I will explain this: I cannot purchase a suit or an overcoat ready-made that will fit me. I must have three inches across the chest more than an ordinary man. I am seldom able to button the coat owing to the fact that there was not enough room. I invariably work with my coat open, but when windy I simply button it together, and I presume that is the reason I have been accused of all these things.

By Me. Morris;

The coat is single-breasted.

By Mr. Carter:

The very fact of pulling it over would hide the buttons. This spot is covered by the verandah, and I would not be exposed to the rain when under that. When on duty I am not compelled to wear uniform. When working in specified hours I am compelled to wear a uniform. I have, never done private clothes duty in that exact term. I have reported a man whilst wearing private clothes. I presume I was on duty, even after working the eight hours. I go on the rule that I am always on duty. That is a rule with the other Inspectors, too, I think. I would not be an Inspector if I didn't like it. If I expressed my opinion to anyone. I think I said I would sooner go back to Motorman; there is page 76 too much worry attached to this, but the officers don't worry me I have heard about the complaints given here in evidence. That is not the first time. I have been up before Mr. Walklate because of the agitations made by some of the men for not dealing with them properly. I have known several occasions of Inspectors meeting on the same car. In that case I would not go through the car. No one follows me and reports if I did my duty properly, as far as I know. I have never done it to another Inspector. The Inspectors Rule Book is a printed book, similar to that one you have. Notices are issued to the Inspector? from time to time; they are copies of notices similar to notices in the barn. I did not ask to go to Epsom when Inspector Etheridge resigned. Mr. Lysaght has never told me that all the men are dishonest. He has not even implied it.

By Mr. Sherry:

When I started on Inspector's duty I certainly understood were a great many points to pick up. I worked under the old system as Conductor; I never had anything to do with this system. I do not think it is more complicated. I think I commenced duties on a Friday; in fact. I am sure I did. When I was Conductor it was my practice when changing from one block to another to put down the new number before finishing the old one. I always did that, as I was instructed that way. Any Inspector conversant with the system knew that can hardly call it a system: it is not a whole system; it is only a point I agree with you, there are a number of points.

By Mr. Walklate:

The only instance when I came before you was when I came to meet a deputation; it was not as to doing my work.

Peter McElwain, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Walklate:

My name is Peter McElwain. (Report handed to witness.) I know that report, as to Conductor Herdson's car. That is my report, and it was made in connection with the incident that occurred on his car. That report is absolutely correct. The statements made here as to what was said to me by Conductor Herdson are absolutely correct. (Report read.)

By Mr. Rosser:

I am decidedly of opinion that that report is correct, and that those words were used by Herdson. I would not go back on what I say, It was without provocation. He spoke to me first. I had previous trouble, but that was an incident on the Kingsland line. Instead of taking me to the back of the car, he came in front of the passengers. I remember the time of the last strike, and that the Inspectors sent a report to the star Office to say that they were quite satisfied with Mr. Lysaght's administration. I believe all the men were unanimous in The men met together, and they expressed their opinion. They were round about the office waiting for instructions; it might have been outside of the office. I was not called to the meeting. I found afterwards that a report was sent to the Star Office. I am quite satisfied that all the men expressed their opinions in that way. I was satisfied as far as certain things went, but I certainly considered that as far as having a man placed over me was concerned that Mr. Lysaght was to blame for it. I am the oldest Inspector in the service. I am satisfied now with the explanation given by Mr. Lysaght, and, considering the page 77 work involved, I should not care to take up that position, as there is a good lot of work attached to it. I do not know that there is any difference between the work in connection with that and my own work. I did at the time feel sore, but considering my wages have not been altered I am just as well off, and have not the responsibility. I believe three years ago the Inspectors held a meeting in Karangahape Road, but I am sure I was not there, I do not know whether I received any intimation. I knew that the meeting was going to be held. I consider now that any man who took part in a thing like that, to try and do a man injury, if he got a slap in the face for it it served him right. If a man had a complaint to make, he had a right to make a report. I am not quite sure whether I was Head Inspector then or not. I am not clear as to whether I was a dissatisfied Inspector at that time. I might have felt that I might lose my job, and that is the reason. I had no reason to believe that, but every man has a right to consider his wife and family first. I think the request was squashed. There was some mention about an insulator at the bottom of Wellesley Street. I went to Mr. Hansen and to Mr. Carey, and after explanations they were satisfied that I was not to blame for it. It took fire. I don't know that anyone can blame me for it, as there are similar things that have occurred since. Mr. Carey didn't tell me that while I was pulling the switch out at Wellesley Street he was pulling it in at the power house. I know the switch did burn out, but similar things have occurred since, and you have to take risks in a case like that. I think Inspector Ashe received similar wages to mine, I consider the Management are the ones to deal with the question of a man being suitable for a certain position: it is for them to choose. Inspector Ashe was made Inspector of Uniforms at the Ponsonby Depot. I am satisfied there was a lot of work attached to it. At the time I was a little bit sore about the seniority, and I tried to think what I might have missed, and consider perhaps that I had not carried the thing out as I might have done. I think it falls for the senior Inspector as a rule to do that work. I was Chief Inspector for a while, and did that work then. I have heard nothing as to my not carrying out the duties properly, but it might have been taken off my shoulders to relieve me. I have no more recollection of the round robin affair than what I have already stated said Mr. Lysaght gave it me but I don't know that he told me that it came from the Company. I have no knowledge of Mr. Martelli. I know him personally, but I think he was an Accountant at the time.

By Mr. Sherry:

I consider a girl is a girl, until she turns 25. They did not appear to be more than that. I have found out since that one of these ladies is a married woman, and has a child. It may not seem fair to the Conductor, as the Company might surmise that these two girls were relations or friends of that particular Conductor; but I did not state it in that way and I did not write the report to read that Way. They did not appear old to me. They were in evening dress, and very often you will find even a woman of thirty in evening dress would appear much younger. I did not notify the Company that one was a married woman. I know Mr. Carey's instructions about dealing with fairness, I might have made a statement to the Company, and mentioned that afterwards I found that one was a married woman, but I won't say that I did. I do not know that there are many' men that will say that I did not give them fair play. Certainly', I say now that it was an error. I could not alter the report, but I could add a rider if necessary. page 78 I should have used the term "ladies." The report does not accuse the Conductor of giving anyone a free ride.

By Mr. Walklate:

I explained to you that they were in evening dress, and they looked very young. I did mention that to you. They were going to an evening party, I think. I told you they were about 22 or 23 I thought.

By Mr. Morris:

As to the meeting of Inspectors in Karangahape Road, I used the words Do a man an injury." In using that term I considered that any working under a master who would do anything to undermine him It is only natural that he would slate him down for it I certainly think that meeting was for that purpose of undermining.

Vaughan Walker, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Walklate:

My name is Vaughan Walker. I have been in the service of the Company for 3½ years as Conductor and Inspector. I have been Inspector for about eighteen months. I was Conductor in Brisbane for 4½ years. I gave notice to leave, and got a good discharge. The arrangements there as to inspection were about the same as here. I could never see the reports, and could not tell who reported me. Here I can see the reports. As far as working on the road, it was the same inspectors used to board the cars at unexpected places, before the cars reached the terminus, and report the men, I have been instructed to check the time-tables here, and was instructed to keep out of sight. If see a man doing wrong I tell him, but I don't tell him I am going to report him, because I would get too much abuse in most cases if I did. I never got instructions to pay particular attention to men during the last few days before leaving the service. If I found a miss-fare on the car, I asked the passenger where he boarded, to see if the Conductor had had a fair chance to collect the fare before reporting, as I was instructed to treat the men fairly. Sometimes I found a passenger had overridden a section, and sometimes fares not collected, not necessarily near a terminus. I have found cases of tickets being thrown away, but not generally. I was promoted to Inspector direct from the Conductor's position. I have had training as Motorman. I passed my examination and went to the Ponsonby Depot for instructions, when I was first promoted as Inspector. I have been treated by the officials of the Company very fairly.

By Mr. Rosser:

I had experience as Conductor in Brisbane. It is a private company, It is not a fact that Brisbane and Auckland services are the only private companies. Melbourne is so, or it was when I was there. I could not say whether it is a municipal concern now but I do not think so. I consider men here have a better chance than in the Brisbane service I heard a few complaints about the system there. I have read about the complaints of the Conductors here, but I did not hear of As Conductor I never heard of having to report oneself at the Office. It never happened to me. I was instructed to check time-tables, and keep out of sight. I got out of sight the best way I could. I have never planted myself in an upper room behind a curtain. I have never found it necessary. I stand on the footpath, and board the car from there. I do not take any method to conceal myself at all. I have an overcoat, furnished by the Company, and it is made to fit. I was page 79 measured for it and it fits me all right, but it is too small now. I have never taken precaution to cover up the buttons on the coat nor hidden my hat under my arm. I find I can carry out' my work as inspector without that. I have not found the necessity of carrying a revolver yet. I have never been threatened in any way. I never told anyone that I carried a revolver, so as to bluff them. I have never had to borrow an extra book because my own report book was full. I have never been told my reports were not coming in plentifully enough. Inspector Griffiths never said to me that he was dissatisfied. I have always been satisfied with my conditions, and have no room for grumbling. I am not a married man. I live in Ponsonby Terrace. I have been there about a month now. I was at Swanson's, in Ponsonby Road, before that, and prior to that I stopped at Mrs. Heaney's, in Sentinel Road. I left there once, and then went back again. I was there about six months. She was the widow of Mr. Steve Heaney, that used to be in the tram service. I have my reasons for leaving the first time, but would sooner keep them to myself. Mr. Morris suggested to me that it would be advisable for me to shift my quarters, and I thought he was quite right. There was a Conductor staying there when I was made Inspector. I might get too familiar with the man. I am perfectly satisfied with the conditions of this Company. It was not because the Conductor staying there had a bad character. I did not know Steve Heaney at all. I knew he had been formerly in the service. I knew nothing about the round robin affair until the other day. They did not discuss these matters there.

By Mr. Carter:

About six weeks after being appointed Inspector I learned the duties of a Motorman. I have done duty in private clothes. I have checked time-tables then. I have done it in the Company's time, not in my ordinary shift. I did not report breaches of rules, but I saw plenty. My instructions were to report the arrival and departure of the cars. I was not instructed to wear false whiskers. As Conductor I was rather reserved, and did not mix up with the general file. I would not hear what was going on very much.

By Mr. Rosser:

I was not Inspector during the 1906 strike. I was Conductor. I was on the afternoon shift. I was on the shift that struck, I am a member of the Union. I think the men were quite justified in coming out at that time. Since then I have seen no reason at all to alter my opinion.

Thomas Henry Ashe, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Walklate:

My name is Thomas Henry Ashe. I am Inspector in the Company's service. I have been there about four years, as Conductor, Clerk, and Inspector; about two years as Inspector approximately. Prior to joining the service of the Company I was in the service of the New South Wales Railways and Tramways, I recollect the conditions in Sydney. I was connected with the Tramway Manager's office ten years ago, before the installation of the electric system, I know, although not prepared to swear, that there were private Inspectors travelling on the cars. There were also uniform Inspectors, six in number. I have not received any special instructions to watch men who were leaving the service. I have not been instructed to watch any man in particular. If it is a trivial matter, I warn the Conductor before reporting him; it all page 80 depends on the circumstances and the nature of the offence. A miss-fare would all depend on the loading of the car; every Conductor is liable to miss a fare with a heavy load. It would also depend where the passenger got on. I have checked time-tables under instructions from the Traffic Manager and Mr. Morris. My instructions were to remain unobserved. I took up a position between Grey Lynn and Kingsland on one occasion. I know there is a system of signals, and they exist now. They show the whereabouts and movements of the Inspector on the road. That renders it necessary for Inspectors to take great precaution. They have to counteract the signals. I take it it is the Inspector's duty to check the oars unobserved. I have been thoroughly satisfied with the treatment I have received from the Company here.

By Mr. Rosser:

I stayed at various places while inspector. I am a single man. I boarded with Mr. Etheridge. Naturally we would be intimate, living together and being in the same service. I have never received instructions as to working with female detectives or spies, nor with female passengers. I have no need to resort to that. I don't think it would be a good system. I think I can do my work effectively. My knowledge of the Sydney trams is from ten years ago. I have read about a big upheaval in that service. There was a Royal Commission appointed in 1906 to inquire into it. I could not tell you whether there has been a change. I have not acted as Secretary of the Auckland Tramways Union. I was appointed Secretary of the Sick and Accident Fund. When in Sydney they didn't have a Heard of Appeal. To remain unobserved, I presume, is to remain unseen; I should not think that it meant to take up a station in an upper room or doorway. I known instances where Borough Councils. Road Boards, and individuals have complained of the irregular running of the cars, hence the checking of the time-table. If those complaints come in, the remains that the time-table has not been adhered to. It must be the fault of the men the "juice" going off, or the car being derailed. I would ascertain and report what was the cause. I do not know of any place of convenience for the men at the Kingsland terminus. It is probable that a man being unwell might be delayed. I took up my station between Grey Lynn and Kingsiand. I could change at a moment's notice I do not think it necessary to hide in a doorway opposite Page's store Where else would a man board a car if he didn't board it from the road? I stand out in the open and board a car. I have never found I have been unable to do my duties by so doing. I am unable to question as to the system of signalling adopted by the a defence against the spying by the Inspectors. These signals have not become more prominent lately. They existed when I was the Grey Lynn lino, I do not think they exist any more now; than three years ago. I didn't use the signals when a Conductor, I did my well, or I endeavoured to, it is very probable that I cut across country from one line to another. I might take a special car down College Hill travel up Wood Street, and get into Ponsonby Road, but I don't remember any special instance, but it is possible that I have done so know about other Inspectors. I should certainly not addres a Conductor in the presence of passengers. I would speak to him privately first. I was for a long time relieving Inspector; I should say about six months. I was satisfied with my position then. I had reason to complain, as I was harassed by certain men in the service, by two or three, page 81 and I felt my position keenly at that time. I remember delivering a letter to you from Mr. Lysaght one evening but I don't remember saying that I ought to be one thing or the other. It is quite probable, as I felt I ought to have some status. I don't remember saying I was not satisfied. I believe something passed between us, but it is so long ago I don't remember.

By Mr. Carter:

I was taken from the ranks of Conductors and made Inspector. When I was appointed Inspector I was instructed to pass the Motorman's examination. I don't remember how long it was; it may have been a few days. I have done plain clothes duty, checking time-tables. If I saw any breaches of the Rules, it would depend on the nature of the offence, and if warranted I would report it. When appointed as Inspector I had no instructions whatever. I was simply told to go in private clothes and check the time-table. I don't remember having reported men for other offences when checking time-tables, though possibly I might. Mr. Etheridge never did any private detective work; at least I never heard of it. I don't remember any system of signalling in Sydney; it was not necessary for us then. They' had the bell system then. They only had about six Inspectors, but there were private Inspectors as well. I would not swear to that. In 1906 it was said they only had three private Inspectors—a lady and two gentlemen. I would not dispute that. As an Inspector, I think it is a wrong thing to use signals. You ought to know what makes it wrong better than I do. I suppose if a time-table were not maintained, and if some employees know the whereabouts of an Inspector, it would upset the time-table, as they might loiter at the terminus, and so on. As a whole, I think we have a good body of men here. I never heard any officers of the Company say they were a bad lot of men; they have always spoken respectfully about the employees. I have never been asked to wear false whiskers when inspecting. I have never known anyone else to do so.

By Mr. Walklate:

I would wait until the car came, and then walk into the road and get on it. I would not stand in the middle of the road, unless at the Despatcher's pole. One of the steps to counteract the signals would be to go from line to line across country. It would be quite natural to go from College Hill up to Ponsonby Road.

By Mr. Carter:

It might possibly occur that Motormen and Conductors, knowing the whereabouts of the Inspector, would perhaps take advantage, knowing the Inspector to be off the road, and remain at the terminus for a time. As an illustration, say a car is at the terminus for ten minutes after its time, and if an officer of the Company remains unobserved, he notices this, and investigations would show subsequently the cause of his being there all that time. If a Despatcher told him to lay over, for a time, I don't see how they could punish a man for that offence. Perhaps that man would be asked to explain the cause of the delay. You would report a man, and he would get a "Please explain." It does not say the man would be called upon for an explanation, as the matter could be investigated by the officials without bringing a man into it at all. There may have been some unaccountable delay.

(Adjourned to 10 a.m. on Thursday, 16th July.)

page 82

(Court resumed Thursday, 16th July, at 10 a.m.)

James Brennand, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Walklate:

My name is James Brennand. I am Superintendent of the Rolling Stock. I have been with the Company 10 months. Prior to that I was seven years in Sydney first of all as Electrical Inspector, and then General Foreman. I can tell you about the Inspection system there. It is very strict, and the men are watched far more than in Auckland. There are a large number of Inspectors. About 60 or 70 of all ranks. There are Inspectors. Sub-Inspectors, Motor Inspectors, Ticket Examiners, and Electrical Inspector's. Seven years ago there was a considerably less number of Inspectors, but the service has increased very largely by three or four hundred ears. I could not say how many Inspectors there were seven years ago, I am not prepared to say what the private inspection is, but there is private inspection, and some of the Inspectors wear plain clothes. I was in the Engineer's Office at head-quarters with a gentleman holding the same position as I hold in Auckland now. They have Bundy Clocks at various points, and at North Sydney about four are used. Before the installation of the Bundy Clock the Inspectors went out and checked the time of the cars. They simply went along the road; I don't think they had any particular rule as to being on or off the road, I consider it would be better to be out of sight. Inspector there did keep out of sight. It is about three and a-half years since the Bundy Clocks were introduced. Before that Inspectors used to check the time-tables.

By Mr. Rosser:

I was seven years in the Sydney service, I started there as Electrical Inspector in the Engineer's Department. They are very strict there; more than in Auckland. I was there during the Royal Commission; it was a very long inquiry. There were certain measures adopted by Mr. Kneeshaw that came in for strictures, but a lot of the cases were not proved, Mr. Beeby conducted for the Union, and, I think. Mr. Hollis was associated with him as Barrister. The men complained about the Bundy Clock, and about the method of Inspection. They brought various charges against various members of the service and against Mr. Kneeshaw, but I think they were not proved. The glass fronts was one of the grounds of complaint. They tried them in George Street, and the drivers asked for them to be removed. There are no obsolete brakes there; they are all up-to-date. There has been a Royal Commission as to the brakes also. The Bundy Clocks kept too firm a check on the Conductors with regard to maintaining the time-table. If there is a delay on the line through any cause, loss of power or otherwise, with the Bundy Clock every man running on the line would the same delay; that has happened. On all the single lines they work the staff system, and that compels a man to run to a time-table whole system depends on a staff being at a certain place at a certain time on the single lines. They checked the time-tables along the I think it was said at the Royal Commission that the only possible way of checking them was similar to that suggested by you, namely, looking out from a window, behind a curtain. It all depends on the locality as to whether there is sufficient cover outside. It is no good of an Inspector going to look for faults when everyone can see him coming. The method of having a Union Jack Hying or brass band playing would cer- page 83 tainly not do. I should think an Inspector should get somewhere where everybody would not see him; but I don't think he need take particular moans of disguising himself. There is a possibility of a-Motorman telling another one. As to delaying the cars, I am not a traffic man but if I had to catch a train, and depended on the car to get there, it might be a very important thing. One car running late may throw all the other cars late also. You want to find out the man who is causing the delay in the first case. It was said the Inspectors hid behind tombstones in cemeteries, and all that sort of thing. I could not compare this service with the Sydney one for discipline, particularly amongst the rank and tile. I have nothing to complain about as to the officers. I am certain I have never told a Motorman that there were Heads of Departments here not fit for the position. I consider I would have been disloyal to the Company if I did. I think there were about 850 to 900 cars running in Sydney. I have been on the cars four nights a week in Sydney, and have had to stand every time and at the time of the Commonwealth celebrations they sat on the roofs of the cars. Going home at night it was not once in a month that I could sit down, as there is no limit to the number of passengers carried. The power is very good. I had charge of the Power Station, and the bolts broke a couple of times a day. The worst gradients are at North Sydney. There is a bad rise going towards the University at Sydney, but it is a long and steady grade. Where I lived I had to run very hard for a ear, as there was only one every half-hour. I have got on with the men here very well; in one or two cases they have spoken rather peculiarly. I don't think there is a man in Sydney would question your authority, and they have done so here. I have not been brought in contact with them very much, but my experience with the men in Sydney has been longer than here.

By Mr. Carter:

I was attached to the Electrical Department in Sydney, and had nothing whatever to do with the traffic. Being in the Engineer's Department, I would only report on the equipment. I was attached most of the time to the North Sydney circuit. They had two Ticket Inspectors and about 75 cars. When I went to North Sydney first the rolling stock there was 35 single cars, and when the cars were coupled they doubled the rolling stock. As to cheeking the time-tables, there is no Despatcher at Gore Hill, but there is an half-hourly service. There is a starter at morning and night, but none during the day. At Neutral Bay there is no starter. Working on the staff system was a chock on the other man; if a man were late it would throw the whole line out of gear. I do think it necessary to have a man out of sight when checking the timetable. I think the best method is the Bundy Clock. Some of the charges made at the Royal Commission were not true. As far as I remember, Superintendent F. H. Brown got a rise in salary; I don't remember that he was censured. Smith was censured, but that was for something that occurred in the old days. I don't consider any inquiry is fruitless; it is well to ventilate grievances sometimes. A lot of the grievances were only imaginary. If there is an Appeal Board I think there is far less trouble, as the Union has to investigate the complaint very seriously before going to the Appeal Board. There have been cases of reinstatement, however, by that Board. The glass fronts are not the same as ours; they are square, like a motor-car. The discipline is not so good here; it is very rigorous in Sydney. I think there should be page 84 good discipline—very strict and very just. Mr. Kneeshaw has a very hard problem to keep all those men quiet, and I think he is a very fair man, and if a decision is given against him he is not the man to carry it any further. There is more difficulty on the double lines than on the single ones, and several men have been dismissed for overrunning the staffs trying to make up time. I don't know whether there is ten minutes at the termini, but during the time the Conductor has to do certain work to clean his car. They cannot leave until the Bundy Clock tells you; if you left before the Clock would show it. I am in favour of plain clothes detectives; I think one now and again has a very good effect. In the States it is very much in vogue. I have been out with one in Chicago. I consider if a man carries out his duties that he is paid for there is no fear of anyone "pimping." The Inspector should know the duties of the men he is watching. He may not be a "pimp," but he should report the case. Is any Inspector a "pimp?" An Inspector should be competent and able to do the duties of the men he is over If you have a private detective he cannot do that. All the Inspectors in Sydney do not wear uniforms; I could name half a dozen who never were uniforms. They are not Electrical Inspectors: They are under Mr. Kneeshaw and the Traffic Inspectors. Personally, if I were a Manager of a Tramway I would put every man in uniform, and I would not give them half the chances they get now. I would not call any man a "pimp."

By Mr. Walklate:

The 75 cars I mentioned were cable cars. They were both motor, driven with one controller. The carrying capacity varied from 18 to 70 passengers according to the class of cars; they had four different classes There were about twenty carrying about 70 passengers, and fifteen cars, similar to the small cars here, carrying about 18. Also. 15 cars similar to No. 49 here, with end seats, carrying about 35 passengers. There is no limit to the accommodation at all. At the termini they have to change sometimes, use a switch, and come through points. The cars are permanently coupled. I did not come across special detectives in America. I went out with a private detective in Chicago, but he was not from a special agency; he was properly attached to the Company, as far as know. As far as checking the time-tables is concerned, it is not so much to check the men as to have the number of cars carrying out the time-table.

By Mr. Rosser:

The regulation with regard to smoking is very strictly enforced on the cars, and at the terminus, too. The men are not allowed to smoke there.

By Mr. Morris:

If a man is running late it may have a very big effect on the equipment if he had to drive his car to make up the time-table, especially on grades.

William Haydock, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Walklate:

My name is William Haydock. I am a Clerk in the service of the Company. Previous to that I was Conductor for about 15 months and Inspector for 10 or 11 weeks. Since then I have been a Clerk in the Traffic Office. I was quite satisfied with my treatment by the officials page 85 during the time I was Conductor and Inspector. It is nearly three years ago since I was Inspector. I am at the Ponsonby Depot. There was a shortage of 5s. Conductor Guy was overcharged this amount in his account owing to the figure being mis-read; 504 was mis-read for 564. In checking the unsold value of the tickets it showed an excess for 5s. and we gave him a credit immediately. He never paid the 5s.; it was only a matter of a day or two before the shortage was shown on a shortage sheets One Sunday afternoon my attention was drawn to Mr. Morris asking Guy if he would go to work, and he refused. He was asked three times. If I remember rightly, it was to take the Herne Bay run. Mr. Morris had asked him previously that should a man not turn up for the Remuera line would he take it and he agreed. It would be my duty to give tickets and change; but I was not instructed to give him tickets, etc. for the Remuera run; he was not given the Remuera run as far as I know. I was present at the time. Guy positively refused duty; he was only asked if he would take the Remuera line." When he would not go to work Mr. Morris got a substitute for the run, and when all the runs were out Guy asked if he could leave his block, and we said he could; he had got his block and change to go to work. He left the block because there was no work, as all the runs had gone out then. He was not dismissed by Mr. Morris. I understood the Head Office dismissed him. I heard nothing to cause me to believe that he was dismissed at the depot. I was present all the time. The Conductor was outside in the Motormen's Room, the Mess Room; I was alongside the counter, and Mr. Morris was with me. There are the usual openings for giving out tickets.

By Mr. Rosser:

It is three years since I was Inspector. I was only Inspector for about ten weeks—I was relieving Inspector. A vacancy occurred at the Ponsonby Depot, and Mr. Clarke asked if I would take it. It was not because I preferred that position to being Inspector. If I had been permanent Inspector I don't think I would have gone into the office. I remember nothing about the meeting of Inspectors in Karangahape Road. As to the shortage, the Conductor makes up his cash; he puts tickets into the envelope and seals them down, that is the exchange and return tickets, puts the cash on the tray, and puts the amount down in the revenue journal. The Receiving Clark counts it in the presence of the Conductor. Any shortage in the cash should be detected by the Clerk. I did not take the cash from Guy; at least I don't remember if I did. It is marked in the revenue journal, so much for cash and so much for return tickets. I don't check whether the figures are right or not; they are checked next day as a rule. A man is put on the work especially to check it the next day. That is the method during the present time, and also in Guy's time. Formerly the clerks checked it. I don't think that is a better system, because at that time when they were put away that was taken as final; now it is not; we check the unsold value, and that is carried forward on the book, and a mistake is easily discovered that way. There could not possibly be any dishonesty in that method. I have not heard of young Conductors being marked up with £1 shortage in my time. I have heard of blocks of tickets being lost and found again. There was one case at the Depot this week. The Clerk at the office could not possibly be dishonest without my finding it out. I make a general inspection of their work. I detected the mistake in which Guy was overcharged 5/-in about page 86 acouple of days. He was referred to Head Office for refusing to work, but I could no say whether he was discharged or not. I remember hearing something about him hitting Griffiths. Guy was not correct as to what he put in the Revenue Journal. The figure was 504, but it looked like 564, hence the mistake. They were both correct. The man was quite right; it was reasonable for him to work it out at 564. The tickets didn't show it. Every man's shortage is checked when leaving the service. There is not a tremendous amount of trouble over short ages; not that I am aware of, at any rate. It is not the shortage that is charged up, but the amount they pay. For instance, a block of tickets that is lost, when returned, he gets credit for it. I am aware that it might occur, a passenger asking for change of a sovereign, and the man is glad to give change sometimes, and, as you say, he may put the sovereign in his pocket, that shortage would be charged against the man. If the next day he found the sovereign and paid it in, it would go against the shortage. It is not a fact that they would keep the sovereign and pay it in at the end of the week. About Thursday we make up the sheets for Saturday and Sunday; all the runs are allotted. The Last Man on the Spare List is Placed on the First Run, and I Believe Junior Men in the Service Get the Preference of the Larger Runs Guy Was Booked Up on the Kingsland Run; I Don't Think it is a Time-Table Car. (Guy's Evidence Read.) I remember Mr. Morris asking him to take the Remuera run if the man didn't turn up. No one is entitled to any run after the bookings are up. It is only at the time of the bookings that we follow that rule. Guy is not correct in his contention that he was not offered the Herne Bay run. I should not think that run is harder on the men. When I had it I didn't think so. I could not say whether that is the last in on Sunday night. I consider that Guy refused duty. I heard Mr. Morris say if he refused work he would be refusing duty, but I never heard Mr. Morris say if he refused work he would be refusing duty, but I never heard him say he would not be required any more. I will swear if he did say it I should have heard it. The length of the room is about the length of this table. (Diagram shown to witness) I answer the telephone when it rings, but I was not in another part of the room. I never moved at that time.

By Mr. Morris:

With regard to the Conductor having any future check, he can always refer to the Revenue Journal, whore his own figures are down at the time.

By Mr. Carter:

I said there does not seem to be any discontent about the shortages at Ponsonby. It has not been brought to my notice. I don't remember a man saying he would not pay the shortages, as it was against the Truck Act. I don't remember that, even though you say it was in your presence. With reference to Guy's matter, it happened about twelve o'clock. All the runs were going out at that time. The controversy lasted about five or six minutes, I was not away from the place at the time; I was putting new tickets in the cases alongside of Mr. Morris. Guy was booked up for No. 4 Kingsland run. He was asked to take the Remuera run because it would go out first. I think it went on time, about 12.15. The Kingsland run would be about I o'clock (12.50). Mr. Morris got a substitute. Armitage came around the place. Mr. Morris asked me to take charge, and he actually went out and got a man. I could not swear if the substitute was for the Remuera line. There is a certain status for men to sign on by, but that does not apply page 87 on Sundays; if a man is up to his time he gets his run. I am under the impression he does not get ten minutes extra pay. Armitage was not booked up that day. I have never seen any partiality as to runs being given, even though the men are three or four minutes late. Guy was offered a nm equally as good. Guy didn't have any tickets issued to him, but he had his own block, and he had a waybill. He was not signed on for Remuera or Kingsland, but I could not swear to that. If a man paid in 5A short one day, and the next day gave 5/-over, it has been allowed. A conductor does not get surpluses returned, only in this way; supposing a man takes out a block of tickets of £I 0/10. if we have received £1 0/11 for that block, he gets a penny back; surpluses in that way are refunded. Every day I make out a sheet showing shortages. There are slight surpluses occasionally. We don't allow surpluses to balance a man's shortages in that way.

By Mr. Sherry:

It is not the rule now for the man receiving the Revenue Sheet to check the numbers with the numbers on the block. I have a man to go and do that specially the following day. I think the first Remuera run is 12.5, there is not much difference anyhow, on Sunday. The Remuera nm goes longer than eight hours. I think, as it pans out longer hours.

By Mr. Walklate:

At the time of Conductor Herdson's discharge his shortages were the largest in the service; they were above the average. Separate blocks are kept for each man. If any mistake such as Guy's occurs, it is pretty certain to come home. It is bound to show it It could not go through without. Under the old system shortages were a very considerable matter at the Ponsonby Depot. At the rate we are going now shortages will soon be a thing of the past.

By His Worship:

I mean the rate of decrease.

By Mr. Walklate:

The shortages a year ago were from ten to fifteen pounds. To-day we are getting three or four pounds only; that is the actual collectible shortages. A Conductor may be a pound short to-day and pay it up to-morrow. That is not shown. Yes, that must go on the shortage sheet, but we put it through petty cash afterwards. Mr. Morris deals with the old bags, as to keeping them in repair.

By Mr. Rosser:

Herdson generally paid his shortages at the end of the week, but there is still a little left.

Mr. Rosser: I advised him not to pay it, as it is an infringement of the Truck Act, and I told him so.

Witness: The tickets used to be very thin, and printed with advertisements on the back. The tickets are easily loosened before starting to use them, but it may be possible for two tickets to be torn off together. It is not necessary that a Conductor should lose that; he would take that back again, but the Conductor would have to pay it if he were short I have not known of tickets blowing away on the Onehunga run. Herdson always paid his shortages; I would not call him a dishonest man; it has not been alleged that he was. His shortages page 77 were above the average but I would not say he was dishonest, though he did not necessarily pay them without demur.

By Mr. Carter:

The spare list men have regular blocks of their own. The tickets are not perforated at butt; they have to tear each one off.

Lewis George Francis Spry, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Walklate.

My name is Lewis George Francis Spry. I am an Inspector in the Tram service. I have been in the Company's employ for four years as Motorman and Inspector, I have been Inspector since may 18th. There was a system of signalling between the Motormen and Conductors, and there is one now. As an Inspector I have to take precautions accordingly. I have had no instructions to pay particular attention to men about to leave the service. Whilst Motorman I was not harassed by inspectors, I am quite satisfied with the treatment I had from the Traffic Manager all along. As to checking cars, I would see the men did their work, but I would use my own discretion when checking.

By Mr. Rosser:

I was promoted to Inspector on May 18th. There has been no need to pay attention to men leaving the service during that time. I have not been called down to the office about this Board and the present case. I got word I was wanted up here, and I came. Word was sent to me by Mr. Morris. He first asked me how long I had been in the employ of the Company, and practically what evidence I have given here this morning. It was at Ponsonby Depot, not at the office. I had no occasion to use the signals when a Motorman but I saw others do it Signals were given to my ear. I have known Conductors and Motormen summoned for running past passengers; it is the Motorman's duty to look out for passengers. Since the strike I have not been called a by Mr. Walklate and I did not receive any cautions from him; I word from Mr. Morris. I cannot report a man if he does not do anything. With reference to observing traffic, I have had no occasion to hide myself upstairs, behind a Jog, or up a tree. I don't stand behind telegraph posts. Sometimes I can hide the buttons with an overcoat on, I always button it up.

By Mr. Carter:

Mr. Lysaght appointed me Inspector. I applied for the I never won a prize on the merit system when in vogue. I am not a senior man in the Depot to which I am attached. Instruction I received were verbal. I have a printed book of instructions at work from 7 until 2, and from 5 to 6.30; that is the I start have not done morning shifts on Saturdays. On the other shift I at 1 o'clock and work until 11, but I have three hours off during that time. I am not always on duty, whether in uniform or not. I I a private clothes Inspector, and' I have never done any of that work. I have not reported a man when in private clothes. I have not had instructions to report a man in such a case.

Mr. Walklate:

You might turn the coat in so as to hide the buttons so as to show His Worship, You will observe that it did not make much difference as to the show of the brass buttons, Your Worship.

page 89

Mr. Rosser:

If the coat is turned in that way there is only one row of buttons, and a man might take him for one of the fraternity, and his suspicions are lulled.

(Court adjourned until 2 p.m.)

(Court resumed at 2 p.m.)

Evelyn Harry Morris, duly sworn:

Touching on the subject of the meeting of Inspectors in Karangahape Road some two or three years ago, I was one of those Inspectors, and it was to formulate a petition asking for certain alterations concerning the Inspectors. As far as my memory serves me, in those days we carried small ticket books, containing tickets, which were sold to the passengers at reduced rates, and we asked that we should be excused from carrying these during the 5 o'clock rush; that some sheets that the Conductors sign when we check the car should be done away with, and this has since been done; that we should have new uniforms every nine, instead of twelve, months, owing to the general rough usage they receive; that, if possible, one or more Inspectors, if the Management thought fit, should be excused from coming out at five o'clock and work longer during the day, as the hours were broken on the morning shift; and also asking for an increase of salary, owing to the number of hours we worked. I am quite certain there was nothing in the nature of complaints against the Traffic Manager. I do not think Mr. McElwain was present, but I fancy all the other Inspectors were. He perhaps, had his reasons for not coming. That was the nature of that petition.

With regard to checking time-tables unobserved, I have done a good bit of it off and on, and I have been unobserved, except on one occasion. It is simply to assure ourselves that the time-table is being run something near the time set for cars to leave the termini. We have complaints from passengers that they do not leave on time, and in some instances the cars are delayed longer than necessary, and the equipment suffers in consequence of being driven along the road faster to make up the time. Perhaps, too, the passengers may be hurried on and off when late so the Motorman might arrive in time. With regard to the statement made by Inspector Walker, that I suggested that it was not advisable for him to board at the same place as Motormen and Conductors. I was giving him some advice. I had been Inspector longer than he, though he was perhaps connected with trams longer than I was, and I suggested it would be well not to board with them, as it might happen that his work would not be made so easy, especially with the men in the house he was living in; and that was my only reason for doing this.

With regard to the question of Conductor Guy on a Sunday, and being on the spare list, the men are booked up about Thursday evening, and on the Sunday as a rule we have nobody at the depot to take out a run in case a man falls sick, though that does not often happen. Conductor Guy was booked up on an extra car we run on the Kingsland route, though not on the time-table. The car, although it invariably runs, is a car we are not legally bound to send out, and if it misses a trip it is our look out. The time for that car is about the same as any ordinary car on that run. The time-table shows three to Kingsland and send four on Sundays. On this particular Sunday in question I page 90 think four men were absent, and I did not learn that two of them were not coming until 11.30, when they rang up by telephone. I telephoned for one Conductor and went down to Motorman Smith's house, who had two Conductors hearding with him—Conductors Buckley and Armitage, I asked them to come along, as I had some work going. I think I gave them half an hour to get changed and get to the depot. Just before 12.15, when I was getting anxious. Conductor Guy was in the depot, and I said to him, I think I will have to change your run and you will get a longer run, in the event of the man not turning up. Do you think you will be able to manage the Romuera run. I asked him if he would manage it as it is a run with four one penny sections, and it only goes out on Sundays from my depot, and consequently the men have not had the chance of practising on that run. I don't consider he was as bright a Conductor as, perhaps, the average. However, Conductor Armitage came along, and I gave him the Remuera run, and told Conductor Guy I would want him to take the Horne Bay run. Both cars go out at 12.15, and I don't think at most there is 20 minutes' difference between the two runs. He refused, as he wanted the Remuera run. I asked him two or three times. I had then to make other changes, in order to get this Herne Bay run out, and I had to change quite a lot of men to get the cars out. When I got them out I went for other men. When the runs were out he asked if he could put in his bag, and I remember taking it from him and saying he could put it in now as there was no more work, or something to that effect; that is all I said. I think.

With regard to the whiskers, which certainly grow into a beard in a day or two. I used them to discover, or to got hold of, some witnesses in regard to a tram accident which terminated fatally, and in which the Motorman and Conductor had no witnesses at all. I was given the reports, and asked to do my best to discover some witness, if possible not only for the Company's sake, but also for the Motorman's. Since that time we have had two Motormen who have had to stand their trial for manslaughter, I did it as much for the men as for the Company. I heard these witnesses were dodging me, so I got a hairdresser to disguise me one night, and went along, and eventually got hold of the witnesses' names, and through their evidence it was proved to be an accident.

By Mr. Hansen:

I used the whiskers entirely on my own account.

By Mr. Rosser:

With reference to the mooting of inspectors, I had been then about one or two years. It is three years ago. I joined in following the Kingsland accident, in 1004. The accident was on Christmas Eve I think. It must be less than live years since I joined. As far as I was concerned, and I understood it, the object of the meeting was as I have stated. The meeting was really to sign what had been formulated. The meeting didn't last half an hour. Some discussion took place on one or two things. Mr. Bassett was there. We sent in the petition to the Company. I think all the Inspectors were there with the exception of Mr. McElwain. I never heard of Inspector Cox working 25 hours. He would be allowed to go off to get anything to eat. There is dissatisfaction and satisfaction. As I understood the feeling of the meeting, if the Compnay could not see its way clear to shorten the hours of Inspection, they would be satisfied if the Company thought it was page 91 necessary those hours should be worked. We have extra men out on busy days, but there is more work to do now. One Relieving Inspector is an absolute necessity. More than one man would not care about the position of being sometimes Conductor and sometimes Inspector. Had another man been put on work would have to be found for him. I was on the Conductors' spare list before February, 1904 for about three weeks or a month. I had had no previous experience in tram matters. I passed my exam, as Conductor, and was told I passed it well. I was on the spare list at Epsom. I presume the Inspectors and the Company should know their own business best. The increase of salary did not take place at that time: it has taken place since. Before that time Inspectors started at £2. I have done a good bit of checking time-tables. I have gone to termini, and, if possible, by another route on the tram line. I have taken up a position where I could see the cars, and have sent in a report as to the times the cars arrived and departed. I was unobserved, as far as I know, except on one occasion, spoken of by Motorman Haslam, when by the Bayfield Church. I was there long enough to chock five cars. That would be about half an hour. If he saw me when he went to town he would probably see me on coming back. Serious breaches I would report, and let the Management use their own discretion. Under the circumstances I think it was more or less a serious offence sitting on the box. If anything had run suddenly out of Cox's Creek Road he would not be in a position to use his brakes. He is a tall man, but was sitting on a low locker. I can't remember reporting any other breaches. I did not borrow a hook from Inspector Bonner; it was from Inspector Mackay, because my own was full. At that time Mr. Anderson was Superintendent here, and complained very much on several occasions of Motormen and Conductors travelling between the Three Lamps and depot and crowding on the back platform, and so preventing passengers from getting In and out. I am not certain whether notice was put up in the depot that they were to go inside. I was sent to Curran Street to report the number of the car, and also, if possible, the names of the Motormen and Conductors on the roar platform over the number of three. I stood in the road the whole time, and reported. Each man had to be reported on a separate form. They were going from the barn. I think the trouble was there was no smoking allowed inside the car, and they went on the back to smoke. I am quite certain that the petition went into the Company. It was typed or written by Mr. Bassett. I think, but I would not swear to that. There was no secretary required; it was drafted beforehand. There may have boon a chairman, but as far as I remember the mooting took place on the Sunday morning. The petition was read through and signed. I do not say Guy was not competent to take the Remuera run. I do not consider he was as bright as the average Conductor. If you had to explain anything to him he took a long time to grasp it, but I don't say he did not do his best. If he went on in November he had been four weeks as Conductor. When I was on the spare list I could tell you every stop in the whole system. There was a different system of tickets then, and it was more difficult in the old days. There were different colours, and the tickets were not the same all over; in some cases it was much more complicated than now. With this system, if you know the sections, you can work the tickets all right. Taking all things into consideration, I don't think Guy had anything to complain about. I think he was not reasonably offended when there was only twenty minutes' difference between the two runs—that is, between page 92 Remuera and Herne Bay run. I considered him more fit for the Hence Buy than the Remuera, for the reasons already stated. I was in the position to judge what was the best thing to be done, and I did it. As to the whiskers, I cannot say I do keep that outfit by me. I was recognised, but I got what I wanted. I have not used that disguise in any other matters connected with the service Inspector Tickle gets his instructions from me at times. I have sent notices to him, but I don't always seal my letters; as a rule they are strictly private. It is quite possible I have sent to him to come to the depot and get instructions from me. I think he is a capable Inspector. Each man has his own method of working. As far as I have seen, his methods are proper. I don't think I should be called upon to say as to his evidence. I have tried to disassociate myself with my place on the Board, but I don't think I should give that opinion now. I have checked the time-table at Newmarket from an upstairs room in a chemist's shop. The chemist not there now. I did not use a room at the Three Lamps. That was the only occasion I was in a room. I didn't use a doorway or a verandah at Kingsland. I can get a better view. I stand where the fit takes me whether if is by a verandah or pole, or not. I don't stand out in the middle of the road when the car is half a mile away. I generally take the road or footpath for it. I don't know that I have made a attempt to hide myself. I stand where it suits me. I have qualified as Motorman. I have driven a car for about four hours. The Motoman has not done anything as to touching a car although he was at my elbow. I forwarded a report to Mr. Brennand. I fancy it was put in at my request. I went out afterwards on car No. 57, and drove the part of the way down Khyber Pass. The report as to the efficiency brakes did not come to me. I was told the car came off the Herne Bay line, and it was put on as an Epsom special, and I drove the car don Khyher Pass and made two stops. The brakes were on the hard side; you may say there were some grounds for its being run in off Herne Bay. I recognise College Hill is worse than Khyher Pass to take a car down. The rise on the bridge in the Khyber Pass makes it safer. There was an excuse, as Motorman Buckley said. I have used no position on the Epsom line for reporting men. I used to get Runciman my boots, and was in there one day and saw what you are about to refer to. I lived at Park head, Parnell. I consider Mr. Rwnciman the best soles on boots, and I am a pretty good judge. I report the men for the accident, but I could not say whether they got punished or got demerits for it.

With reference to Haydock's evidence, I have not worked in the same position when checking blocks of tickets. On certain occasions I give the blocks out, but I receive no cash whatever. I would not like to say anything about the checking of tickets. Now and again you hear a grumble about shortages, but they are very rare now. The present system is very thorough, but it takes time to check those blocks and to be able to put the shortages on the sheet. The tickets and exchanges are put in an envelope and opened at the Head Office. Beyond knowing that they are checked by two different parties, I cannot say I know any more about it. The Conductor can go down and count them if there is a shortage. I could not say how long the tickets are kept. There have been complaints, but if you are going to keep the man to count his tickets he will be there half the night. I remember Conductor McDonald being dismissed. I remember his wife coming to me about his dismissal.

page 93

I most decidedly did not tell her that 25 Union men were going to be dismissed. I asked her to go and see Mr. Lysaght at the Head Office. If she is prepared to swear I told her tht, it is incorrect. I never said that to anyone, and should not dream of doing so even if I knew. I certainly do not know that that is so. I thoroughly agree with those instructions to Inspectors as to taking the Conductor away from the passengers and speaking to him firmly out of their hearing. I never spoke in front of passengers, unless the Conductor spoke to me, and then I have had to answer him. The Inspectors' Book is a little wee book of printed instructions telling them to handle their men fairly. I think Inspector Tickle is the only one that has not got one. I was under the impression he had. I have not got one with me.

Mr. Rosser:

I would like it to be produced.

By Mr. Carter:

I have been in the Manukau Hotel bar parlour, but never watching the men through the windows, and I never brought a man up. I would like to say I have a friend who occasionally stays there, and I go and see him. I might possibly be able to see a car, but I have not observed, if a man delayed over his time at the terminus he would have to make up time. That does harm. If you feed too quickly they run up to a stop at a fairly high speed. They also hurry passengers on and off. These particular tactics have led me to cheek the time-tables on more than one occasion. There is also harm done to the equipment, wear and tear when time has to be made up through loitering, and the oar has to be driven at top speed. I say you could be more economical in the use of current by running at slack time than loitering at the terminus. Anyway, it would be more economical up College Hill. There is also the wear and tear on the brakes running up fast to the stopping places. I never heard of the case of a man named German running from the barn to Queen Street. It is a fact that I open up the barn at six o'clock every morning, and occasionally I have been on duty at eleven o'clock at night, but in those days I take time off in the day.

I may sometimes be asked for the name of a man whom I consider suitable for an Inspector, but my recommendation is not necessarily taken. I do my best in giving out runs from the Ponsonby Depot. A man came five minutes late this morning, and got it. As far as possible I am always fair. If the run goes out at 2.30, and it goes half a minute before, the regular man wants to know why; if half a minute late the spare man wants to know why. It is not a fact that I always take the same man, but some few men may get more than others, on account of their coming into the depot early. Sometimes I have instructions to do something that takes me away from the depot. When giving out Specials, unless previously asked for, I must give out to the men who are there first, or who are among the first, because it has happened that men coming in later don't want them, and the bulk of the men are then underway. I have never been asked for a special, or work by a man if he wanted it, without giving it him. I understand Mr. Anderson was Superintendent during Mr. Carey's holiday. Each Inspector uses his own discretion. It is impossible to lay down hard and fast rules for an Inspector, as different occasions ari.se, and he must use his own discretion in order to cope with them. I know the telegraph post at Kingsland, and it would be hard to stand on the path anywhere without the page 94 post coming between you and the Motorman, but as for plaining myself behind the post, I have never done it. I had no authority to test No. 57 brakes, and I did not make a report. I was riding to Epsom, and drove the car down Kbyber Pass. I could not say what for. I don't test any cars that are condemned, I don't consider myself qualified to test them. Anybody know's whether a brake is stiff or not. I was driving more or less for five months. I could not say who counts the tickets. I have heard they are checked by two people in the office. A clerk has to account for whatever cash is taken in. I never reported Davy Inch for smoking. I gave my reason for not considering that case of Haslam's as a trifling offence. If a Motorman walked away from his car and left the handles on the Controller I should consider that a serious offence, as it is a direct breach of the rules, so is smoking at the termini, but that is not so serious. I still contead that Motorman Haslam, sitting on a low locker, was not in a position to have full control of the handles. The locker was considerably lower than the present seats. If a man ran across the road the Motorman would have to cut off' the power and apply the emergency brake. If be did not move the locker, it was worse. I won't admit anything beyond that he was sitting down. I was standing on the opposite side of the road from the church. He had the power on. He cut the power off to draw up for me. I did not duck out like Inspector Tickle. I consider it was a serious breach of the rules, for the reasons I have given, I reported men for breaches that were committed according to the Book, such as leaving the car. I would also report a man for excessive use of the current, but the only circumstance was a Motorman during a decker down Eden Terrace with the track brake hard down. I reported that, under those circumstances. I could not say whether it was before or after I qualified as Motorman. F think Inspectors should have plain clothes. I could have a smoke then. I think it to have the termini checked by a man in plain clothes, concealed view. It is the only way to get a practical idea of how the cars are running. It is known that cars do not leave at their proper time, of complaints come in from passengers, and I think it only fair to the Motorman and to the Company to know whether there is any cause for complaint. I have informed a man on one or two occasions that I was going to report him, but it has been the makings of a good quarrel warn a man before reporting him. I consider in some cases a warning goes further than a report. I don't think it always wise to tell a man before reporting. If a man knew he was in the habit of doing wrong and three or four days after he got a "Please explain" he would remember something about it I was not planted when I reported Haslam. I was on the road. I cannot see the difference in my walking across country to the Grey Lynn or Kingsland line and coming out on the men there. I have heard some Inspectors say they report breaches of rules when in plain clothes, and others say they do not.

Paul Maximillian Hansen, duly sworn:

I think I will deal first of all with the reports from motorman Mills. The Strike on November 14th, 1906, took place about 4.30 in the afternoon. About six in the evening Mr. Rosser, the Secretary of the Union, came to my office to interview me in regard to the Strike, and the question as to why Conductor Beaston was dismissed came up, and in connection therewith Mr. Mills' report, which stated that Conductor page 95 Beaston was a man with whom he would not work. I read this out to Mr. Rosser, and followed that report up by immediately reading Mr. Lysaght's report to me about the same matter. In a similar way these two reports were dealt with later on in the same evening, when all the men were present, and, Your Worship, it is for this reason that it has now been stated that Mr. Mills' report was added to. It was added to, in a way, because you will observe that Mr. Mills' report is a very short one, while Mr. Lysaght's report was three times as long. But I state most definitely, and I realise that I am here on my oath, that to Mr. Mills' report nothing was added by Mr. Lysaght, especially in the way as was stated, which would imitate Mr. Mills' writing. These two reports were read over one alter the other, and that makes it quite clear how the mistake has arisen, because, as I have said, Mr. Lysaght's report to me about the same matter brought so much more forward as to what Mr. Mills had stated verbally to Mr. Lysaght. This report from Mr. Mills was brought to me several days before, and if this report had been in any way added to surely I would have noticed it. Hut Mr. Rosser and the gentlemen who now stale that Mr. Mills' report was added to, and that they saw these reports on that evening, when the excitement was on, will now see that a mistake of this kind could easily have been made. The fact whether it made a difference to Mr. Mills that somebody might have added to his report, and imitate his writing, or whether something was written which he now states he did not say to Mr. Lysaght. I think that is where the real point is. Mr. Mills objected that Mr. Lysaght reported what he is supposed to say and what he did not say. The report is in your hands, and with the explanation I have given I feel sure that this will make it clear as to the way the mistake came about, and that Mr. Lysaght should have been thought to have added to Mr. Mills' report.

I might also say a few words in regard to Mr. Bassett's evidence that he has given. Mr. Bassett acted as our Private Inspector, and he stated that in that capacity he gave satisfaction to the Company. Mr. Bassett is quite right; he did give satisfaction. I consider that a sort of private inspection, or, you may call it unexpected inspection is an absolute necessity. In a tramway system which covers miles of road there must be some check beyond the one which apparently is required here in Auckland, if it is wished that an Inspector waits for a certain car say, at Khyber Pass at 12 o'clock. Inspection of that kind would be quite ridiculous; and I repeat, again, that a sort of unexpected inspection is absolutely essential. But when it comes to a disguised inspection, I have always been, and am still, much against it because I consider a disguised inspection, when men go about in beards, or buttons turned back, they are unmanly, and they are not right.

A good deal has been said, and one of the demands deals with Mr. Lysaght. I have been associated during the last nine years very closely with him. I have known him when he was Chief Inspector for the horse tramways. I was then the present Company's Attorney, and the then Manager of the Tramways expressed himself in the highest terms of Mr. Lysaght. When I took the Management I saw no reason to change my opinion. I can say this, that Mr. Lysaght has been a most conscientious officer, and if he had not been told to go in for the inspection methods that are now complained about, I am quite sure he would not do it. He would never do things like this on his own account. He has never been asked by me to do it. I have already stated I am strongly against dis- page 96 guised inspection, and I am quite sure he has never been asked by Mr. Walklate to do it. So far as Mr. Lysaght is concerned, I have the highest regard for him, and I have so far heard nothing which would alter my mind about him. There was one matter especially brought up against him, that is this "round robin" business, that occurred some nine years ago, in September, 1899. I was here then, in charge of the new Company, and I remember Mrs. Heaney came to see me, and complained that her husband was dismissed. I looked into the matter. I was merely here to convert a system from horse traction to the electric traction, but I spoke to Mr. J. S. Kidd, who is now dead, and he then told me he knew about the whole matter. I said matters of this kind should never happen. They are absolutely absurd, and I strongly disapprove of it. He explained it was one of those local affairs, and that I had not been here long enough to understand, and the feeling against that man was such that other men said they would not work for him. From what Mr. Kidd then told me I did not gather that he exactly started this "round robin," but he also did not say that Mr. Lysaght started it. It appeared to be a matter that was started with Mr. Kidd's approval, so to speak. So far as Mr. Lysaght is connected with the matter in is then position, I do not think for a moment he would have started a matter of this kind. If Mr. Kidd had known it was Mr. Lysaght he would have said so, as I mentioned Mr. Lysaght's name to him.

Now with regard to the signals used by Motormen. It has been stated these signals were started here at a certain time when the men considered it necessary to protect themselves against the unexpected inspection by Inspectors, but I know this is not the case. The signalling was introduced by the first Motormen we engaged for Auckland from Sydney. They brought the system from Sydney, and it has been in vogue ever since. Your Worship has also beard something in regard to one of the promises which was made by me on the settlement of the last strike. The wording of that promise referred to is as follow:—"That any employee accused of anything involving dismissal shall have the right to produce evidence in his defence, if procurable." This was always carried out, but during the six or seven months after the strike there was hardly occasion for me to make use of it because the only man who was placed before me for dismissal was Motorman Rocklands, and when I looked into his case I found there was no reason for dismissal, and he was not dismissed. Then there was one Conductor, Pyke, the only man dismissed during that time. He was brought up before me for dishonesty, and I remember quite well I told him the proofs were very strong and if he made a clean breast of it I would not prosecute him but if he denied it we must go on. He confessed to several charges of being dishonest, and of course he was dismissed, and nothing more has been heard about it. So during this six or seven months my promise with regard to giving reasons to men going to be dismissed really didn't come up. That was the "Paradise" period, Your Worship, but I was not in Paradise myself; I was only supposed to enjoy it.

When Mr. Lysaght gave evidence he made one mistake which I should like to correct. He stated Mr. Martelli was not then employed by the Tram Company, but Mr. Martelli was employed then but he was suffering from his lungs a great deal, and he was very often laid up with his complaint, and it may be for that reason Mr. Lysaght made page 97 this mistake. He had an idea that he was not with the Company, and I would like to rectify that mistake.

By Mr. Rosser:

With regard to Mills' report, it is very probable that I made a remark that as matters were smoothed out it was not advisable to re-open the question. I really considered the whole matter done with, and I did not see any reason why we should re-open it. I could not be a prophet, and look into the future and find it was not done with. I only received one report from Mills. Mr. Mills himself was not very clear, and mixed up his statements considerably. He said he told one thing in the first report, and the other thing in the second report, and really the report contained both matters. An addition was not made to Mr. Mills' report, imitating Mr. Mills' writing. I understood you to say it was really added in Mr. Lysaght's writing. I know of nothing of papers being sorted. We have got a cellar now and there may be some alterations in connection with water, and the papers may have been re-arranged. It is impossible that the second report could have become destroyed, because it was never there as far as I know. These papers were all kept by myself in a safe. I never remember seeing the report. I would be the first to acknowledge it as I have nothing to hide about it. I had a very high opinion of Mr. Kidd; he was universally respected. My acquaintance was not a very thorough one, as I knew him unfortunately only for a very few months that I was mixed up with him. To what extent he approved or disapproved of this "round robin" business I could not say. I was very angry about it myself. He may not have said much about it but he gave me the impression that he was well aware of the fact. I don't know to what extent Mr. Kidd was against it or not, or upon whom lies the responsibility of it. I disclaim all connection with it, and had I known before, it would not have happened.

With reference to the promise made by me as I explained about Mr. Rocklands, it was the only case. He was dismissed by Mr. Carey who had no right to dismiss him. I looked into the matter; it was just a few days after the strike. There were two men passing each other on the cars, and one called the other a blackleg. It was my business to smooth matters down, and I considered a good warning would do, and told Rocklands to go on with his work again. I remember a deputation of the Committee of the Union reminding me of my promise. I think Mr. Walklate said he would adhere to his promise, that al! men being dismissed should receive a reason. As far as I am aware. I think he has carried that out. A week's wages in lieu of notice is much better in my opinion. Mr. Walklate is naturally guided by the Arbitration Court Award. It is a legal point as to the week's wages in lieu of notice, and it is very difficult for me to say. I don't remember McPherson. I remember the case of Mr. Lewis reporting to me after the strike. I remember now it was in my office, and McPherson said he would apologise to no man. I don't think he was dismissed; I think he resigned. I remember Mr. Lewis complaining, and this man was present. I made it a rule that the man who accuses should be present if possible. I really don't remember the case of Motorman Buckley and the dog on the car three years ago. If Mr. Bassett sent a report in to me about Mr. Lysaght, then I must have received it and it must be filed at the office, but I don't remember receiving it.

By Mr. Carter:

I don't remember reading Mr. Mills' report aloud, but I may have page 98 done so. There may have been a cry out about that report. I would not say it was not so.

By Mr. Sherry:

What you state as to my saying, "'You naughty man, Mc-Pherson, why did you not apologise to Mr. Lewis" may have been said by me. He had a right to apologise or resign. I remember the case now quite well.

Mr. Rosser referred to Inspector Mackay not having been called and he considered it was necessary that he should be, as it would clear up an important point as to the female detectives. He also considered that the inquiry could not be closed until his testimony had been taken on the matter. He was unfortunately laid up now with an attack of influenza.

Mr. Walklate stated that he intended to call him as a witness, but he was in bed yesterday and to-day, but if better he would have him called to-morrow.

(Court adjourned until Friday, 17th July, at 10 a.m.)

(Court resumed Friday, 17tth July, at 10 a.m.)

Mr. Rosser explained that he wished to clear up the point with regard to the "round robin," and had subpoenaed Mr. Martolli, and, if the Court would allow him, he would have that subpoena served on him and try and get him here this morning.

Mr. Walklate raised no objection.

Evelyn Harry Morris:

I omitted to state yesterday that while I have been an Inspector Mr. Lysaght never instructed me to particularly watch a man in any shape or form, whether he was either under notice to leave or resigning. Neither did he instruct me to pay particular attention to Conductor Beaston, nor at any time asked me to get any private person to assist me to do anything in the way of detective work or otherwise.

By Mr. Rosser:

I remember Guildford; he was a very good Conductor. I don't know whether he came from Australia or not, and I could not say whether he went the other side to visit his people. As far as there was no reason to impugn his honesty as a Conductor. I was not instructed to pay attention to him during the last week of his notice. I could not say whether Inspector Griffiths received instructions to do that. Inspector Griffiths is now in Melbourne. I could not Griffiths inspected Guildford's work, even though you state it as a fact I have arranged doubles—that is, working with two Inspectors, checking the same car. It does not necessarily show that there is a suspicion of the man, but to get a true idea of how a man is doing his work; if the car is inspected by an ordinary Inspector, then another Inspector gets on afterwards, and you have a real good idea to go on. It does not necessarily imply that you do not get a true idea from the one Inspector. It is simply to get a true and accurate idea of the which a man does his work. We have not necessarily a suspicion of a man when we are working a double on him. After a regular Inspector checks his car he is subjected to another unexpected inspection later on. I see nothing against it, as far as the morale in the service is concerned.

page 99

By Mr. Carter:

I Have done it on my own, to get an accurate idea of the men's work. Mr. Lysaght has never instructed me to do that, not that I remember. I don't remember working a double on Beaston. When I was on the Ponsonby shift I had little to do with Conductor Beaston; if I remember rightly, he was on the opposite shift to that on which I was working. I would therefore only see him during rush times, between 5 and 6.40. It might happen I might only check his car perhaps two or three times a week. I really cannot say I took particular notice one way or another of Beaston. I may have reported him for something, or I may not. I don't say he was a first-class man; I would rather not say. Anyway, he was about the average; but I didn't notice him particularly one way or the other. I could not say what he was discharged for.

Andrew Mackay, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Walklate:

My name is Andrew Mackay. I am Chief Inspector at the Epsom Depot of the Tram Company. I have been Inspector for five and a-half years—since I joined the Company. I was appointed Inspector. Prior to that I was with the Brisbane Tram Company, six years as Conductor. The inspection in Brisbane was somewhat similar to what it is here. But the discipline is much more strict than here. I have passed as Motorman, and have driven a car on several occasions, ever since I have been with the Company. I Wave driven a car for a couple of hours at a time. If anything happened to a Motorman, I could take the power off him. If I found a passenger without a ticket when checking a car I would ask where he got on: he may have come from town, or only just got on. I treat the Conductors as fairly as I can. I am satisfied with the treatment I have received from the officials of the Company.

By Mr. Rosser:

I was in the service during the time Mr. Beaston was there. It was suggested to me but I was never asked directly, to get the assistance of friends to catch or trap Conductors. It was suggested to me by Mr. Lysaght, who said if he was in my place he would get somebody, in suspicious cases, to buy a ticket. I had done it once before I was asked to do it. It was in Watson's case. Another Conductor in Ponsonby barn came and told me that there was a Conductor blowing on Sunday how he could beat an Inspector, and I would get into trouble over this. He had said he could make live or six shillings on a Sunday. I came down to the corner of Victoria Street, and met two passengers there, and asked them to take the numbers of the tickets, and when they got off they gave me the numbers. I did this on my own initiative. My brother and sister-in-law were the passengers. I remember that case being brought up for trial. The result was that the machine was found to print different numbers, and it proved that the numbering machine was not infallible, and it was possible to have wrong numbers on the block. Watson's case was dismissed. I did this in Watson's case, but I have never done it since. "A suggestion" from a superior officer is practically "an instruction," if you like to take it that way. If you do not take the suggestion it would seem as though you were not smart enough, or you were not acting in the best interests of the Company. I could not say it would surprise me or not that Mr. Lysaght has sworn that Mr. Bassett's statements were false. Mr. Lysaght issued the suggestions. I make that difference, it was a suggestion, and not an in- page 100 struction. I went down to meet the ear from Ponsonby to Herne Bay, and met my brother and sister-in-law there. There was no arrangement by which they did that; I merely got from them the numbers of the tickets. As to Spence's case, I would explain that it was not to trap the Conductor. Inspector Etheridge came to me at Epsom Depot and said that he had evidence that Spence had sold his wife a ticket which there was reason to suspect was an old ticket. I said I did not think so as I had known Spence for a number of years, and had always found him to be a good Conductor and an honest man. From one word to another an argument arose between me and Etheridge. I was willing to back my word, and it was arranged to get a passenger to buy a ticket, and I was sure that Etheridge would find that the Conductor would not pick the ticket up. I had no idea at the time that the ticket would be picked up, and a Court case would come out of it, or I should be the last one to do such an act. It was simply through the argument between myself and Etheridge that this was done. Those were the only two occasions that I know of that anything like this has been done. I had known Spence for a number of years, and he was the last man I should suspect of doing a thing like that. The suggestion was made after Watson's affair, about three years ago. I was instructed, with other Inspectors, to dodge from the Kingsland route to Arch Hill, so as to check the cars.

I was present at a meeting of Inspectors in Karangahape Road about three years ago. Mr. Bassett was there. It was called for different things—wages, a less number of hours, and uniforms, etc. I don't think we had less hours afterwards; they were about the same. There was a rise in wages of 5s.; it was £2 5s., or £2 10s a week; I forget now. Mr. Bassett acted as Secretary, I think. I forget whether there was a Chairman. I cannot remember anything about spying on the men. There was nothing to be ashamed of in that meeting. It was an open and straightforward way of putting the grievances before the Company Mr. Lysaght never asked me to watch certain men. As to watching a man towards the last week, it depends on the record he has; if good, the ordinary attention is sufficient, but if there is anything suspicious there would be extra attention. It would be the honesty called in question rather than a breach of discipline, as a man has a big chance during the last week. I have been instructed to work doubles, in conjunction with another Inspector. Mr. Lysaght gave those instructions. It would not be on good men. It simply means that when an Inspector has checked the ear, another Inspector checks it again further along the line, when the Conductor is not expecting it. Before I went to Epsom I was on the road, the same as other Inspectors. I have never planted myself. I found I could carry out my work with credit to myself and do my duty to the Company without doing that. I am on the Epsom side, and have heard nothing about Inspectors placing themselves poles. Inspector Tickle does not inspect the Epsom line: only on race days, as far as the Junction Hotel. I did not consider it necessary to do that sort of thing. I have never found it necessary to carry a revolver. I felt I was quite safe amongst the men. The men have no enmity against me; at least. I have never heard of it; I feel I have the respect of the men. Mr. Lysaght has never expressed an opinion to me that all Conductors make money out of the Company, but he said some Conductors do so. It is not my opinion that they make money by reason of handling so much. With reference to the Reuss page 101 incident, be was put on the morning run about three weeks ago. There was a note sent in that morning by Mr. Scherff that Reuss was to have the morning run. I think he said Mr. Walklate instructed him. Mr. Scherff is Foreman of the depot. I am Chief Inspector in the office. Reuss went out on his run. I remember the feeling amongst the men; some of them spoke about putting their waybills in, but they said they would wait until they went out on the road. The bulk of the men were out before Reuss took his car out which goes at 7.13; it is pretty well the last oar; there is only one regular oar behind that. It is wrong to say the Epsom men are agreeable to his going back. I remember Mr. Sherry coming there, and he advised the men to keep on until you had been communicated with. There has been no effort made to put Spry back. I think he is living in a "fool's paradise" if he thinks the men would be agreeable to his coming back. We have had very little trouble at my depot with these men, except that Reuss incident. They are both Motormen, and would require a Conductor each to work with them. Now, with reference to Etheridge's evidence. (Part evidence read.) The arrangement arose out of an argument I had with Etheridge. I stuck up for the Conductor's honesty, and said I would arrange with a passenger to buy a ticket, and it would not be picked up afterwards. The ticket was picked up and I was proved to be wrong. Mr. Etheridge had never met that passenger before, that I know of; but it was arranged that she should be there. It was a Miss Daniels. I think he knew the relationship she bore to me. I tried to prove my contention was right—that Spence was an honest man. It was not to trap him. (Part of Mr. Lysaght's evidence read.) There never has been a female engaged to act as Inspector. I myself did it first in Watson's case, on account of that Conductor blowing how much he could make on Sunday. After that I didn't want my people mixed up in Court. I don't know how to reconcile the evidence of Mr. Lysaght as to discountenancing it; I could not say; but the one statement does not seem to match with the other. I have known other cases of tickets being wrongly numbered; only last Sunday, on the Onehunga run there were three tickets the same number. That was reported to me by Inspector Rowe, and shows the machine still makes mistakes. Even if a passenger has a numbered ticket, it is not infallible as a test for a Conductor's dishonesty. I take the whole blame for acting like I did in Spence's case; it was on account of the argument with Inspector Etheridge.

Mr. Walklate called in last night to see if I could come here to-day. Inspector Ashe was there also last night. That was merely a friendly visit. Inspector Rowe is in every day; he is working in the barn, and comes to me for instructions. I have told you the whole truth in regard to this man Spence.

By Mr. Morris:

I do not consider the young lady connected with Spence's case as a Female detective. She has never been engaged as a female detective.

By Mr. Carter:

I have been relieving Traffic Manager. I was trained as Motorman after I joined the service. I only know Mr. Etheridge since joining the Company. He is rather an excitable man. Mrs. Etheridge was never employed to do detective work. I have no bother as to giving runs out at the depot. Men are sent to the Mead Office for pulling a wire down page 102 or insolence to passengers. They go in their own time; they don't lose the run; I always arrange that. They are allowed to travel on cars free when in uniform, not otherwise. As to the appointments of Inspectors, some are taken off the spare list. The majority of men have been trained as Motormen after being appointed as Inspector. It is for the Management to consider about the appointment of Inspector. I have a good knowledge of men. I have heard several complaints about the Inspectors' methods.

By Mr. Rosser:

In giving runs out on Sunday, the junior men have the preference. The greenest men are put on the easy run, e.g., Parnell. The best men would be on the Onehunga run. If a regular man was there I would call him to take the car in the case you mention, but if nobody there I would take on a man and go out later and try and find another man. The junior men have the preference for the best runs, because it brings in most money; Saturdays and Sundays are their best days. Some of them don't make much on other days. The senior man has the privilege through the week.

By Mr. Walklae:

When I said Mr. Lysaght "issued suggestions" it was in conversation. It arose after the Watson case. He did not say I should employ female detectives. I don't consider female detectives have ever been employed. I had the opinion that Spence was an honest man. I changed my opinion afterwards; I had to. I could not swear as to the meeting of Inspectors; it is three years ago. I remember something was read to the meeting, as to wages, hours, uniforms, etc. I believe I signed something at the meeting. It lasted, I believe, about an hour, as far as I remember. I would not trouble to take particular precautions about the majority of men during the last week of their service. I would be satisfied that the majority were all right, hut in some cases we have a different class, and they are not all the same. In those oases we would take special precautions. I have never had genera! instructions to watch all men that are leaving. I have had instructions to watch a man. As regards doubles, to my mind it does not matter whether an Inspector gets on at any time if a man is doing his duty.

By Mr. Carter:

I have inspected cars near a terminus, and have found passengers have thrown their tickets away.

Claude Martelli, duly sworn, examined by Mr. Rosser:

My name is Claude Martelli, and at the present time I am employed by Mr. J. J. Craig at the Railway Wharf. I remember being an employee of the Auckland Tramway Company in 1900, or the beginning of 1901. I was there under Mr. Kidd's management. I remember the the "round robin." Mr. Lysaght brought it to me, and told me what it was. He said some men had a complaint against the Foreman (Mr. Heaney), and they got this "round robin" up to give to Mr. Kidd to bring the matter to a head. I told Mr. Lysaght "It was rather a mean "way of doing things. Why not sign it from the beginning, and come straight down the list?" He said they did not want it known who started it and the thing would have no effect unless I signed it. I page 103 demurred, but in the end I said I would put my name at the foot, down below the lot. I had nothing particular against Heaney; be was somewhat uncivil at the telephone. He was a rough diamond. The first time I saw it all the signatures were on it. The names were all radiating from the centre. It was the first one I had ever seen. Mr. Lysaght did not tell me Mr. Kidd was the author, or gave instructions for it to go round. I don't think Mr. Kidd did it. That is my opinion. I knew Mm for many years, and don't think he was the kind of man to do that sort of thing. Mr. Kidd said that Mr. Lysaght gave it to him. He crime out in the office, put his band on my shoulder, and said, "Laddie, "what is the meaning of this. I knew there was a bit of discontent; it "will have to be brought to a head now." He asked me the reason of my signing it; I also told Heaney the reason I signed my name at the foot. Shortly afterwards Heaney resigned from the service. I am certain Mr. Kidd would not originate that "round robin." I remember him as groom, and then Manager, and found him always very straight and outspoken. Mr. Lysaght's evidence is not correct that he did not know me at the time.

To Mr. Hansen:

I was not in the room when you spoke to Mr. Kidd about this "round robin" business, and I cannot say what Mr. Kidd told you. He did not mention it to me afterwards.

Mr. Walklate said he would like to put in the following documents:—
1.The Inspectors' Rule Book.
2.Certificate of Service given to the men now when they leave.
3.Letter sent by the Inspectors to Mr. Hansen relating to that meeting, and Mr. Hansen's reply.
4.Full Press cuttings relating to the recent strike from the star and Herald newspapers.
5.Replies I sent to Mr. Rosser to those four letters already put in.
6.Copies of correspondence that took place between Mr. Rosser and myself prior to the recent strike.
7.Two or three letters with reference to Reuss and Spry.
8.Press reports contained in books showing a record as far as I know of the strike of 1906.

It has been suggested that Mr. Lysaght was the cause of that Strike, and it may perhaps throw some light on that, so I am putting them in with the other documents.

Joseph John Walklate, duly sworn.

My name is Joseph John Walklate. I am the General Manager and Attorney for the Auckland Tram Company, I have been concerned in tramway management in various places for the past twenty years or more in various countries in Europe. I have been connected with tramways in the United Kingdom and Australia, so that I am pretty conversant with the methods adopted. I have also studied tramways in the United States and also Canada.

As regards Herdson's case: I have to state that Herdson was discharged from the Company's service, and offered a week's money in lieu of notice. He was informed that we had no further use for him. The page 104 reason that was afterwards given was that he had been insolent to an Inspector. Prior to that his record had not been altogether satisfactory. In a service like this we take a man on if we want him and it must follow that if we don't want him any more we put him off—that is the universal custom. A man, if he does not wish to continue his job, can leave it by giving the usual notice, and the employer is at liberty to take similar steps. It is not necessary for any reason to be assigned by either side. There is another point that has arisen during the hearing of this inquiry, that is as regards the payment of a week's wages in lieu of a week's notice. That is a common proceeding, particularly a common proceeding, in the tram service. It is equivalent to a week's notice, because the man is told he will not be required in a week hence, and his service will be paid for during that week. He may not be called upon to work; it is in effect a week's notice, hut during that week he is not required to work.

As to checking time-tables, I might state on that subject it is necessary to check the arrival and departure of oars from the outside termini, and whatever has come out in the evidence as to that I take full responsibility for. It is necessary for me to know this to enable me to endeavour to work the service satisfactorily, and to know exactly how the cars do arrive and depart from the termini, and I have to take these steps to ascertain it, and I shall continue to do so. The only other matter I want to mention is Mr. Lysaght. I have been connected with this Company for slightly over a year, and I can only say I am perfectly satisfied with Mr. Lysaght's performance of his duties. I know of no actions of his to which exception can reasonably he taken, and I do not think he would wish to act in an unfair manner with any of the men under him. These are the only matters I wish to speak about.

By Mr. Rosser:

I am quite certain that a week's wages were to be given to Mr. Herdson. It was not offered to him at the time; I am satisfied he told, but I was not there. He was told by me when he saw me in company with yourself. I remember saying he was going to get it. Mr. Lysaght was instructed what to do beforehand, and he informed me he had done it, and Herdson in his evidence states that he was very excited and shocked at the time, and that accounts for it. I should be very surprised, as well as shocked, if I received a cable from London that my services were not required. With reference to Brown's case, I do not reinember stating that we were shortening the spare cannot remember every detail. I am not aware there were men outside to sign on. I say it is not necessary for any reason assigned by either side, the Award says when a man is but dismissal and discharge are two different things. Where a man is discharged with notice no reason is necessary, hut where a man is dismissed a reason is given.

Mr. Rosser read Clause 10 of the Award. Herdson was not dismissed; he was discharged. When we have dismissed a man we have given good cause. Until I am convinced in some way that I am wrong, of course I shall continue. I have also looked up Webster's Dictionary, and I think that it states these words: Discharge, refers to the completion of something, but Dismissal, means dismissed from office.

His Worship:

If an ordinary seaman gets his discharge, then the voyage is over: page 105 there is nothing, as it were, against him, and he must got his discharge; but suppose a seaman gets a dismissal, there is an imputation there.

Witness:

If you spoke to a man in the Army as to his discharge, nothing is said; but if you asked if he were dismissed from the Army, he would probably knock you down.

Mr. Rosser:

Then the word discharge has acquired a certain moaning with regard to seaman that does not exist in any other service.

Witness:

It is not mentioned in the Award about a week's wages. I remember Holden's case. There was some misunderstanding about that. It would require no consideration; my view was a week's wages from the very first. I believe Herdson has not yet returned his uniform. It has been the custom that when a man returns the property of the Company he gets back his money. We hold a week's money against his clothes, and so long as we have any money in hand we call that back money.

With reference to checking time-tables, it is necessary to check the arrival and departure of the cars. I will take the responsibility of Inspector Johnstone engaging rooms. I consider it was necessary, though it was before my time. There was no spying on another man. All the Inspectors were told to do was to tell us the arrival and departure of the cars at the terminus. I have beard about Mr. Tickle's tactics and I remember the deputation drawing my attention to them. I am not satisfied that Inspector Tickle has done anything like what is suggested. The point appears to me to be something like this: I consider an Inspector would be foolish to expose himself to the man on the car coming up but, on the other hand. I would not view with favour any Inspector hiding or crouching behind a fence, but I don't think he has done that. He assures me be has not. I certainly believe Tickle, when he says he has not crouched down. I have to be a trustful man to some extent. I see there is a likelihood of a strike in Sydney, owing to the espionage there. It has not been suggested to this inquiry that I employ private detectives. In conversation with you, when I was first introduced on referring to the big Unions in the Old Country. I think I said I thought it was not so terrible in New Zealand after all, as Strikes were prohibited here. You must remember New Zealand has been looked up to as a paradise where labour troubles were unknown; that was the impression put about in the Old Country, and I am afraid it is not quite correct. I have seen Strikes in the Old Country, and I was concerned in one about the construction of a Tramway. I have also knowledge of other Strikes in other countries. I am afraid in Now Zealand no Strike is justified.

Now with regard to Clause 4: "Any Inspector proved guilty of making misstatements, or false reports against employees, shall be instantly dismissed."

I remember that Press cutting that you are now referring to, about Inspectors disguising themselves. Those remarks were addressed to me by Mr. Carter I believe.

I didn't know that that Inspectors' Rule Hook existed until a day or two ago. I don't believe in books for Inspectors; an Inspector, who wants a book, would not in my opinion be suitable for the position. When asking Conductors and Motormen to take a position as Inspector, we have met with a few refusals. I presume it is because they don't care page 106 to work under the conditions for the Inspectors. I won't admit that we don't get the best men as Inspectors. I don't know that George Nichols has been asked. I won't say there are not as good men on the ears as Inspectors; some may be better. I remember some of the names mentioned by you but I remember the faces more than the names I consider that Rule Book obsolete, and I have given instructions for it to be withdrawn. The same thing applies to the other Rules. I am only waiting for time to complete new Rules. It has not come up, as to taking notice of any report where the Inspector was in plain clothes. I would take notice of a report if on an important matter, and I should be much obliged to any officer if they saw anything serious to notify me. I knew nothing about Spence's ease, or as to "sisters, cousins and aunts" being employed. I accept the responsibility for whatever goes on now. I believe "the end justifies the means." in that ease, at any rate. The only means I have of judging as to a man's private character, is the record of the man's services in the Company. I had a record of Herdson and I did not consider lie would be a satisfactory man; there were culminating incidents on the record The record consists of reports which are available to the men. They are not put in tabulated form. I had no use for the merit and demerit system. I know all about it, and I was before the committee that drew it up, but I do not consider that it was of any use to me, and I declined to have it. A man can see his reports, and they constitute his record. Therefore. I might answer: "He can see his record." The demerit system wherever used has caused dissatisfaction. I think it is still in operation in some Companies. I am not in favour of utilising the services of female detectives. I am not sufficiently a lawyer to say whether the case you put would be aiding and abetting; it all depends on the way it is done.

By Mr. Carter:

Mr. Herdson was discharged. I have not tried to make his case parallel with a man leaving the Army or Navy. I have no objection to giving a man a reference. If he is dismissed I don't give one. A bad Motorman may make a good Inspector—an inefficient Motorman, or how bad, I will not say. I believe in giving the senior position; everything else being equal. I always do. I have heard it stated that men are taken from the spare list, but it depends on individual cases, and I could not give a general answer. In a serious case a man can see the report against him. If a passenger complained about him, I would allow him to see it. If a man were called to the Head Office, and I was satisfied that he was right, and he was in jeopardy, I would show him the report.

By His Worship:

If he satisfied me after conversation, I would not consider it necessary to show the reports, I must keep sometimes the names of the people to the report a secret. I do not want necessarily to commit myself to show the correspondence I get from outside, but where necessary in the interests of the man I will do it.

By Mr. Carter:

Motorman Buckley's case was before my time. In a "Please "explain" I think the purport of the report is put in, but sometimes a report would deal with two different subjects. I think we might put in the full report.

page 107

By Mr. Rosser:

It is about six months, perhaps less, since that certificate of character was issued. Before that, it was not my practice to give any certificate, excepting to men going out of the Company. In England it is a practice not to give references for men passing from job to job. But big firms keep a big form for sending to employers asking very full questions, but when a man is leaving the service and going abroad, it was a general practice to give him a certificate. Unless going abroad, it was not given; that practice was followed here, until we decided to bring this form in. That certificate was given. I understand, as he was leaving the country.

(Court adjourned until 2 p.m.)

(Court resumed at 2 p.m.)

Mr. Walklate:

I have finished the evidence now, and I take it any remarks should be made at this time.

Your Worship and Gentlemen.—I will be as brief as I possibly can, but there are some matters I would like to deal with. My task is a much simpler one than I anticipated, in view of the demands that were, made upon us and which formed the basis of this inquiry. I think I should impress upon you the mass of information which has been placed before you, and ask you to view the fact that the points at issue are Conductor Herdson; reasons to be given in case of discharge and dismissal; inspection of reports; and calling evidence of the men who are reported for breaches of the regulations; false reports; Mr. Lysaght; and, lastly, the question of so-called blacklegs.

I do not propose to deal with the evidence in detail, much of which is quite irrelevant, and the remainder is wholly insufficient to support the claims advanced. I shall therefore leave it to the Board under the able guidance of Your Worship to analyse it. The greater part of the evidence put forward by the other side relates to ancient history, but times change, and methods with them. Much of it is evidence that really did not relate to any of the points I have enumerated.

Turning to the incident of the "round robin" and Heaney, that is one of the most startling proofs of this fact, that it dates back to ancient history, considering it occurred before either of the parties to this dispute were in existence as organised bodies in Auckland, and, further, the people concerned in it are both now dead. Surely it shows a weakness on the part of the Union to have to go back so far for evidence in support of one of their demands—nearly ten years. Had it occurred recently it is quite possible great stress might be laid upon it

The arrangement as regards to men who are dismissed from the service being given reasons was hardly brought to a test during the period that had been referred to, immediately' before I came here, excepting in one instance, where a man confessed his dishonesty. As regards my actions in this matter, they have been governed by the Award of the Arbitration Court. There have been several matters mentioned during the hearing, and one of the application forms in use has been held up for some criticisms by the other side. I would like to point out that an amended form got out some time ago and actually printed, would have been in use for some weeks, but for the fact that some accident hap- page 108 pened, and a parcel lost. The point is, they are practically discarded and others will be in use immediately. References have also been enticised. I have put in a form of reference which is now the form in general use, and is given to a man leaving the service, except such as are exempted on the face of the form. Improvements such as these mentioned have been carried out by the Company, and we are always to make these sort of improvements; hut it must not be forgotten that the Company is entitled to some consideration. It was also suggested that a man on joining the service had to pass a severe ordeal before being engaged and he had to produce references for ten years past, but that is not a necessity, and it has not been a necessity actually, because men have been engaged who have had no reference whatever. So long as a man is capable and does his work conscientiously in the service he need not fear of losing his job, as it means when taking on a new ma that during the first six months he is a source of anxiety and expense until he has become conversant with his duties. It is a duty I owe to the Company, and also to the public, to engage the most suitable men. It is inevitable that mistakes are sometimes made, and then we have us unsuitable man, and, of course, he has to go. Suspension has been mentioned, and I may point out it is a form of punishment, if I may use a term, I am not in favour of, and in any case it is only resorted to as an extreme case, and the time is paid for if a man is found not be have been guilty of the offence which brought about a suspension. There is another aspect of this matter which has not been brought forward, and trouble for this Company has been brewing ever since the Award of the Arbitration case was made. It was early in June last years, and dissatisfaction was expressed that the demands of the Union had been granted by the Court; and from that time onwards we have had more or less trouble. Shortly afterwards, in the following month there was trouble with regard to the "strap-hangers." The employees' decision not to carry more than the number of passengers that could be seated caused a great deal of disturbance between the employees and the Company. From then onwards various applications were made to the Labour Department, and informations put in against the Company. Many of these came to nothing, which I think shows that they were vexatious, and intended to harass the Company. On that subject Mr. Rosser, in his opening remarks, stated that the recommendations of the Arbitration Court had been ignored by the Company. Although those matters did not concern the present inquiry, I think it only proper I should point out that these recommendations that seats should be provided on the cars for workmen were carried out. That is an item I think that was mentioned. Another was glass fronts on the cars and those have been tried on ten cars. Overcoats have been supplied, The spare list was another item about which recommendations were made, and I submit improvements in respect to the spare list have been made, although the number of men has not been reduced. The average wages of the men on the spare list, indeed, are now much higher. Holidays were mentioned, and that was the only recommendation not acted upon. A few months prior to the hearing of the case the Chairman made some offer to the employees as regards holidays, but it was refused dealing with questions in the Particulars of Dispute. As regards to Conductor Herdson, as I have already stated, he was discharged. He was told a week's pay would be given him in lieu of notice, not yet returned his uniform, nor applied for the pay for that week page 109 An employee is at liberty to leave any job on giving a week's notice or forfeiting a week's pay; and it is the custom, not only in the Dominion, hut throughout the world, for the employer to take the same course as the employee. It is surely not right that this Company should be compelled to deviate from the accepted rule, which no other Company is compelled to do. This question of reasons was strongly urged in the mining dispute of 1901, hut neither the Board nor the Court which adjudicated upon it would grant it, and it has not been remedied by any Court in New Zealand. For instance, an employer may have evidence that satisfies him that an employee is dishonest, and yet it might be impossible for him to prove it in a Court, in which case surely it would be better for both parties that a man gets notice to leave rather than be dragged-into a Court, at the risk of his character being damaged or the employer charged with malicious prosecution. It may transpire that after a man has been engaged it is found he is subject to fits. That is a matter most difficult to prove; in fact, a medical examination will not disclose the fact, and surely to keep him on would obviously be a very great risk, not only to the Company, but to the public. It is quite possible at any time more suitable men may offer than those employed, and surely the Company should be free to take them on, even if they have to dispense with the services of the unsuitable men they have. Again, a man who may have an excellent record in an office or shop, if we engage him as a Conductor, we may find he may have a temper, rendering him unsuitable to us as Conductor. It would be best for us to dispense with his services, but it may be difficult to give a satisfactory reason to the man; almost impossible. Another instance; a man may be found disloyal to his employer, or, for some other reason, quite unsuitable, and surely we must be free to remove them if we consider it necessary.

As regards the second item, that is, giving reasons for dismissal. Reasons have always been given where a man has been dismissed, and by dismissed I mean dismissal without notice; and therein I differentiate from discharged. In those cases where a man has been discharged, with a week's notice or a week's pay, we are under no obligations to give reasons. No reasons are therefore given, beyond the statement that we have no further use for him. The illustration I gave before, that an old soldier would be highly insulted if you said he was dismissed from the Army, but if you told him discharged he would not mind very much about that.

The next item is No. 3, as regards reports. (Read.) No. 4 is very shortly stated. As I previously said, any person proved guilty of making a false report will be dismissed, I think that should apply to any service.

As regards item 5, referring to Mr. Lysaght's methods, I submit it has not been proved by the evidence that Mr. Lysaght was the cause of the 1906 Strike, and further, he was never accused of that to my knowledge, until quite recently. Further, I submit it has not been proved he has been guilty of harassing Motormen and Conductors, or giving instructions for that to be done. I may say that the case against Mr. Lysaght is-largely depending on evidence given by men who have gone out of the service, and the majority of men now in the service have nothing against him. That has actually been stated by several witnesses called by the other side, and considering the large number of men passing through his hands during the years he has been concerned in the page 110 management of this Company, I think that what you have heard will demonstrate to you that there is a very small proportion of dissatisfaction. I question whether it is possible that a man can be found in such a position with a large body of men without being objected to by some I must state that if the Board gives way to the men in tins case it would render the position an intolerable one. I am afraid a man who would please all the men would be of no use to the Company. That is pretty obvious; in fact so far as that evidence is concerned regarding Mr. Lysaght, I think I should have no hesitation in characterising it as flimsy in the extreme. The question of Inspectors must of necessity be obnoxious to any employees not carrying out the Company's regulations. The Company must be protected against broaches on the part of employees and there are also some men about whom we are receiving complaints from the public, and it is only with an efficient system of inspection that we can find out what is going on. I would point out, too, that Inspectors, as you are well aware, are employed, not only as tramways, but in every other large business. Banks. Government Departments, railways, post office, and in all large stores; if not in New Zealand, in other parts of the world, and throughout the world, and in many cases these Inspectors are supplemented by a system of provide detectives as well. It would surely not be suggested that these Inspectors in any of these institutions should notify a department before they call in to make an inspection. I know' in my own experience it is not done. It would render their inspection absolutely useless if they did it. The object of the Inspector is to make an unexpected inspection, and to see that the persons concerned are carrying out their duties. If the inspection is not unexpected, then naturally they would be prepared and carrying out their duties. Under those circumstances the bad would be on the same level as the good. Proper inspection disclosed a fact a certain proportion of the employees are bad and therefore useless to the Company. Again, if the Inspectors were curtailed in their action, in the manner suggested, and if we were bound to give a satisfactory reason before discharging a man, a man that we knew perfectly well was defrauding the Company would remain in possession, and we would have no means of getting rid of him.

The last item is the matter of "Blacklogs." I use the term, although it has been applied incorrectly to Messrs. Reuss and Spry, who refused to go out on Strike. I always understood a "Blackleg" was an outside man, who volunteered to come in and take the place of those who had gone out on Strike. These men did not do that, but in this case they simply had the moral courage to refuse to be coerced into committing a breach of the law. At the conclusion of the Strike an agreement was made with the men to resume work, and this question of "Blacklegs" was then raised, and it was clearly agreed that the men were kept off was because His Worship the Mayor made a suggestion to me that I should keep them off to allow the feeling to subside. This was explained to the deputation that came to see me, and they termed it a "graceful concession on "the part of the Company," but it was afterwards said that the Union understood that I had agreed that the Company should keep these men off until this Board sat. I may say it was a misunderstanding on their part. However, one man, as you have heard, was put on his car for some half a day, and, as was pointed out to me by Mr. Rosser, there was page 111 some feeling raised about it, and that happened to he the very day we received news of the appointment of yourself as Chairman of this Board. I thought it was close to the time when we would have the matter dealt with, and we would keep them off. That is the reason that these two men are not working. There is one aspect of it I should like to emphasise. This man Spry was driving his car on the morning of the Strike, and he refused to leave his car. By leaving his car iii the street he would have rendered himself liable to proceedings under the Arbitration Act for striking, and to proceedings, I think, under "The Police Offences" Act "for blocking the roadway. The other man Reuss reorted for work in the afternoon on the day of the Strike; and both of them were engaged for some hours at the Epsom barn. These men have been paid their full wages since the Strike commenced, because I think no decent Company would do otherwise to men who had remained loyal to them as they did. And further, Your Worship, no Conciliation Board, however constituted, would force any Company to discharge men for refusing to break the law. This is an arbitration under the Arbitration Act, and I have no fear that the Board will do otherwise than to protect these men, who have endeavoured to follow the Arbitration Act.

Mr. Rosser:

Your Worship and Gentlemen,—I may say that I propose to treat the matter in the first place as Mr. Walklate has treated it—that is in the order in which the demands were made to the Company, and latterly have been placed before the Board. Therefore, I will take Clause 1—Herdson's re-instatement. I submit that even now no cause has been assigned for Herdson's dismissal; it has been alleged that he was insolent to his superior officer, and on that I would say it is a question of one man's word against another's—that of Herdson's against Inspector McElwain's. I cannot plead that there would be a difference between their temperaments at the time, as both, perhaps, would be excited; but Herdson's evidence is entitled to serious consideration as much as Inspector McElwain's is, and it has not been proved he was insolent to his superior officer. But, assuming that McElwain is correct, which I am willing to assume for the moment, it is an offence not necessarily punishable by a summary dismissal.

I asked Mills a question in his evidence, Had ho been insulted or received insolence from a Conductor under his guidance? Mills was in the position of Switchman, which is a serious responsibility in a crowded thoroughfare. Upon him rests the sole responsibility of stopping the cars, as he takes the responsibility of a collision at certain points. His authority is higher than that of a Ticket Inspector, and while it came out in evidence that Mills had been insulted by a Conductor, who had even used obscene language, not as in the case of Herdson, where he used "King's English" only, but this was a case of filthy, obscene language, and Mr. Lysaght himself in that case said that he would send the man down to apologise or he would have to be dismissed. He apologised, and the matter was ended. Now, I mention that to show that there is no precedent to show that this is an offence punishable by summary dismissal, even on the assumption that Herdson was insolent, which we deny. It was, as you will discover, not a regular thing to check a car so close to tile terminus. When that is done it implies a suspicion on the man in question that would rouse his ire, and hence he took the step he did. He spoke plainly to the aggressor. He is a gentlemanly young fellow, with good address, and comes of a good family. It is natural he page 112 was roused at the way McElwain doubted these girls, and doubted his word. Burke is wrong when he said "The age of chivalry is dead." No doubt he used language that was not respectful, hut that is a big difference to insolence. Then, again, the punishment was beyond all requirements for the offence. He was summarily dismissed without a character, and, as I have pointed out several times during this inquiry, look at the character a man had to put in where even copies of references were of no use, and if copies were placed in the first act of Mr. Lysaght was to say, "I want the originals if you have them." I may say for a long time I was unaware of what the application form was; I could not get one, and the only way I could get one was by sending a young fellow to apply for a position. He didn't want the job, but came to me with the application form, and I typed it out and during these proceedings I have lit upon an original which has been put into the Court. I ask Your Worship to seriously consider—the other gentlemen have considered these facts—this application form—a form which is not in existence in any other average employment in the world.

Here is an application form that to answer fully would entitle a man to go into any society so far as his character is concerned and yet this is dissipated at a moment's notice, because, forsooth, he dares to speak out of his usual tone to an Inspector who calls his honesty into question. That is the sole reason of it. Then I think I am right in pointing it out that a worker's asset—his only asset—is his character, and that when that character is at stake, then I think that man is justified in standing up for it. We find that the only man who is not careful as to his character is the man who has no character to be careful; of! So, in Herdson's case, it was not a serious offence: it was only human for him to take the offence in the way he did.

"Who steals my purse, steals trash;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed."

Now, then, I think I am right in asking that the man who comes into the service with a character, and has to answer the questions on that form, practically for the previous ten years, and with all the other minutiæ that are set down in that application—he is justified in saying, "I am dismissed at a moment's notice, without a character, and I am "practically ruined." It is not the first time this has been done Beaston's was a parallel case, Beaston was dismissed, or discharged which ever you like to call it, it makes no difference, at a moment's notice for an offence he did not commit, viz., writing on a with a smoking wax match. He was discharged, and there was a Strike over it; what was Beaston's case in 1906 is a case of history repeating itself in the short space of eighteen months. The former was, punished by a fine in the Arbitration Court of five pounds and costs, and the latter has to be decided on when the Arbitration Court comes next to Auckland consider it is not asking too much in that proposition that He shall be reinstated or given a valid reason for his discharge.

Now with reference to the Clause 2—the written guarantee. I would point out that the wording of this and other propositions was framed at the time when there was no mention of a judicial Board to consider that. They were in the form of an ultimatum to the Manager but the prayer is the same to-day as on May 20th, when this page 113 ultimatum was delivered. The two Strikes were from parallel causes, and Mr. Hausen agreed to some provision that would obviate cases in the future, and that was carried out while he was in the service, and then after six months, instead of "a people arose that knew not Joseph," I might say. "a Joseph arose who knew not the people," in the person of the present General Manager, who came to the Colony fresh from the Mother Country, and of course, he brought his ideas from the Mother Country. I don't think we pride ourselves over much when we say that although Britishers are Britishers all the world over, there is more difference between workers in the Old Land, with all its hoary traditions, to workers in this freer country, with this climate of ours in New Zealand. I do not think I am disrespectful to Mr. Walklate when I say that perhaps the experience during his first twelve months' Managership of this Company in Auckland, will stand him in good stead, and the temper of the Colonial worker is not as he understood the temper of the British workman in the Mother Country. We have it in his reply, and it was also advanced during those four days the men were on strike; that this is not a good proposition, because it is unworkable and that if a reason were given, it would be actionable. Well now your Worship. I may point out that I suppose that in the standard works, such as "Smith on Master and Servant." it is clearly laid down on page 347 (it is an old edition, but I am informed there is no alteration), and I would like to read this for the benefit of the members of the Board. (Extract read.) Now that fairly shows that a reason given to Herdson in a bona fide way without malice (and malice would have to be proved in the event of any action against the Company), and that character would be privileged and not actionable. That is so in law, but I submit with all due respect to the law, that sometimes there is a higher reason that a certain thing should be done, and not only is the legal aspect in favour of it but I think the moral aspect is in favour of it also. I am aware that characters are freely given—sometimes too freely—simply from a desire to say, "Well. I do not wish to do him any harm, and I will give him a fresh start." But in this case it is advisable that no honest man should be refused a character. Now, the Company has not shown Herdson was not a dishonest person, and he had a right to his character, and we now ask that this shall be embodied in the Board's finding with regard to this trouble.

Holden was dismissed without reason. Brown was dismissed. A man after three years' training in the Melbourne Tramway and Omnibus Company. Now. I presume we sometimes look to the other side as furnishing the readiest instance of where a man has to keep his eyelids peeled, and if a man can serve three years in Melbourne and Sydney, it is not for us to say. "He might come up to their requirements, but he is not good enough for Auckland." I feel in Auckland we have everything to learn from a good many places that are outside of our boundaries, and Brown, having served three years as a Conductor, and, coming here with references (and he is not an insolent man, but a man of good address and good training), was dismissed and told that he was not required; that he was not suitable, and that they were shortening the spare list. I am a witness to that; I heard it said; and when we came out we found men waiting to sign on and take his place. The latter reason was not tenable, because ocular demonstration proved that, and the training of the men disproved the first contention, that he was not suitable. The fact of the matter is, the Company want men who are docile, submissive men who realise the Apostolic injunction. "Ser- page 114 vants obey your Masters, for this is right," and they forget the corresponding injunction, where the master has to be careful of the servant Brown and Herdson were men who stood up for their rights. They would not allow any man to trample on them. These are specimens of men no longer required, because "unsuitable."

Clause 3. The weight of evidence has been that this has not been done in the past. I will guarantee that Conductors and Motormen have learnt something during this fortnight, that they can see the reports if they ask for them. Many of them have been too timid to ask for them, and those not too timid did not realise they had a right to ask for them. The weight of evidence has been that it has not been done in the past. Mills' report, that we have complained about—that report that was sent in by Mills, and was added to—the evidence shows a direct conflict, and all the Board can do is to weigh the one against the other. Mills said his report was added to, and as one who recollects Mills' attitude on that evening, I can bear witness to it. It was only too painful, he was raging at finding that one of his mates had said. "That is a crook report you put in against Beaston." and when read he said, "It is a lie; I never wrote that report." We did let the matter rest. We tried to resurrect it, but Mr. Hansen, with his affability and desire for peace, said. "Let the matter rest," and it was allowed to drop. If the course of procedure had been altered, the matter would have rested still. Men are called down there, and the reports read out to them, and in some eases they cannot say whether there are any interpolations in that report. They get on at the Inspector, and say that he has told lies, and yet there is nothing in the Inspector's report compared with what has been read out. My own recollections are clear on that: Mills' are also clear, and also the men who were standing around me. I think Mr. Buckley mentioned he was on my left side when I read the report. The report is not produced, and the only solution is that there has been a shifting from the old office to the new, and there have been documents lost, as two Inspectors were sorting them out and tabulating them quite recently. I am as certain that the sun will rise to-morrow morning that that other report, that could not be produced in this existed at that time, and that was the report I read.

Now dismissal for false reports has been dealt with by Mr. Walklate.

Now I come to Clause 5. as to Mr. Lysaght's removal from direct contact with the men. Mr. Walklate has put a peculiar construction this. It would be dismissal or discharge. Ah we ask is that he removed from direct contact with the men. There was another officer at the time of the 1906 strike, Mr. Kidd, junr., and he was not discharged; but Mr. Hansen was wise in his own day and generation, and when the Union insisted upon it practically removed him on 1st, 1006, from direct contact with the men and yet he is in the of the Company to-day. I am not pleading for a special created for Mr. Lysaght. The Union doesn't trouble about they are practically unanimous in this matter, that Mr. methods have been the direct opposite to conciliatory, and causing men to work in harmony in the service. In a service like this it is absolutely essential for the complete success of such service, and to study the requirements of the public, that there should be harmony No business would last any length of time in which the principals and subordinates were at "sixes and sevens" the whole time. So in a service like that somebody must suffer, and I dare point out it is the public that suffer through this want of harmony in working a service page 115 like this. I have seen a Motorman refuse to go to a fallen wire, and although a competent electrician, he said, "Why should I go and help a company that does not help me?" I must confess that is a terrible sentiment to get abroad amongst a body of men, and the sooner that is eradicated the better. It would make Mr. Walklate's business lighter, easier, and less responsible if matters were arranged so that the men would see that it is better to work in with the Company as the parts of one big machine all working in harmony to bring about a desired result. But I submit it will never happen so long as Mr. Lysaght is allowed to continue in his position as Traffic Manager.

We have been accused of introducing ancient history; well, the Union is justified in sketching his career, because had it been one of modern instance it may be reasonably concluded it was an error of judgment, and it was not right to jump on a man because he had committed an error of judgment. But, in order to make the matter more conclusive, and put it before the Board in all its points and bearings, the Union has shown how he has boon concerned in his operations with the men as far back as the last century—1899—as that is the date of the "round robin." In this there is another conflict in the evidence. The witness Mr. Martelli, who was here this morning, whom I had no opportunity of speaking to personally until he came into the box, states that Mr. Lysaght, in his opinion, was the man who first introduced the "round robin." Now, Mr. Hanson's evidence showed that it was Mr. Kidd, and Mr. Lysaghts evidence showed that it was Mr. Kidd, and I can only assume the most charitable construction that "it is because dead men tell no "tales, but live ones do." In this ease I feel a little bit grieved that an imputation should be cast on a man like the late Mr. Kidd. I knew him by sight as a boy, and as I grew to manhood, and when he died there was a universal feeling of regret and appreciation of an honest man who had left, and a straight man. I am not alone in that; I have made inquiries, and I find that opinion was universal, and now we have him brought in when no longer able to speak for himself. The "round robin" is an artifice, adopted by timid men, to get certain results without danger to themselves. No man should be afraid to sign anything openly. The "round robin" is a resort for timid men and in many instances cowardly men, and this is the method adopted to bring about the dismissal of a respected servant, Mr. Steve Heaney, who "was a bit rough, but who was a diamond." His discharge shows he was respected by the Company, and that is put in as an exhibit. I want to point out the incongruity of this. Hero is a Manager (Mr. Kidd), who wants to get rid of a subordinate, and at the same time it must not be lost sight of he has the matter of discharging him in his own hands, as he can give him notice of a week or a month, and say, "Heaney, we don't want you anymore, "you are unsuitable," and Heaney could do nothing. But, instead of that, the man who has this power in his hands gets up a "round robin" and gets the men to sign it that they want Heaney out of the road. It is ludicrous; it is too absurd. Now, take Mr. Lysaght's evidence. (Read.) Therefore, I say we go from that—it is absurd—to have it told us here by Mr. Lysaght on oath that Mr. Kidd wanted the "round robin" to discharge a man he could have discharged with the stroke of his pen. And we are to accept that as truth! I refuse to take it, and I don't think the Board will take it either. Then, again, he gives a direct denial to pretty nearly all the charges. Inspectors Cox, Bassett, and Campbell; he does not exactly say they are liars, but he practically states that what page 116 they say is not true, I felt sad at his evidence, and when I got home I found that George Washington had died in 1799, and possibly that was the reason of my sadness. I thought, here we have one word against three. The Board will weigh the evidence and draw their own conclusions. Not with reference to Mr. Hansen, he gave evidence that Mr. Kidd did apeak to him about it and I must give Mr. Hansen's evidence the same construction I have given Mr. Lysaght's. I cannot conceive it is possible that any man who has the power to do it with the stroke of the pen could descend to such means, particularly knowing Mr. Kidd's character for probity and honesty. Mr. Martelli to-day has confirmed me in that opinion by his evidence, and had I seen him before he went into the box there is other evidence I now find I could have drawn, which I did not draw, and which I cannot now refer to. Therefore I think we are justified in going into ancient history, because it is by mistakes in the past we can shape our course in the future. Now, we do not ask for him to be discharged or dismissed, but to be removed "from direct contact "with the men."

I now come to the "Blacklegs." These two men whom we call "blacklegs" were put in as witnesses, and I must confess they made a very sorry showing for themselves and for the Company. Spry was a self-confessed "blackleg" of twenty years' standing. In 1888 he stood out in the Melbourne Strike; in 1906 he did the same thing, and also in 1908. A man who is too busy educating his two little children at night to even read the papers, and the man who never reads the papers. I consider an ignoramus, and one that cannot keep abreast of the times, as he can form no opinions of his own except by comparing with others: and that is the only way that one is able to form them and to mature them. He is probably the only man in Auckland who never read the newspaper during those four days of the Strike. Reuss has figured in two Tram Strikes. It has been a bone of contention ever since that a man who is a man would never have stood what they have stood in the Epsom Depot. They have been "sent to Coventry" ever since. It is not a pleasant of affairs for men who are working in the Company, where you harmony and concord, instead of discord. Each of these men have a Conductor, and the very man who was working with Reuss wanted to know whether he would be found fault with if he went on with work. Sometimes I have to give absolution, and in that case I Had to do it. It shows the feeling men have in working with others who are traitors to their own kind. Apart from the law as to whether you are doing your duty to your master, there is the law as to whether you are doing your duty to your neighbour; and in this case I submit the duty to the neighbour was the higher duty. Reuss was not pressed by the Union to say where he had put in five years of his time. I did this out of consideration. I say this, if the two men are put back it will do violence to the feelings and the self-respect of the majority of the men who have to work with them. Mr. Mackay was asked this morning as to the feeling of the men at the Epsom Depot. He is a very quiet, estimable, straight going officer, and he is popular with the men; not sacrificing the Company's interest for the sake of popularity, but is able to do his duty to the Company and yet be obeyed and treated with respect by the men under his control. There is less trouble in the Epsom Depot than in the Ponsonby Depot, and it is due to his tact in handling the large body of men. And yet there was his experience and opinion. There was trouble three weeks ago, and there will be trouble if these men went page 117 back. Now, then the Board has got to decide whether it was in the interests, or, if you put it bluntly and heartlessly, whether the interests of two men are to be sacrificed or 250. That is what the Board have to solve, and it may be that they may say, in the interests of the majority—and the majority should rule—"the feelings of the majority should be "considered." If there had been 50 or 60, or a larger number Mr. Walklate could have made, perhaps, a better case, but when there are only two against the rest, I say it is a very poor case indeed. It is true the men have agreed to abide by the decision of the Board, and they will loyally abide by that decision, and they are prepared to do it; otherwise they would never have gone back on the 25th of May. Practically the men considered the ball was at their feet, and it was only standing up to get what they asked for, because the public was beginning to get restive, and the public will not consider either party if they are being defrauded themselves. So, when the men considered the position they decided to leave the matter with the Board and abide by the result. Therefore there is no need for me to impress the serious responsibility that rests on the Board in weighing these matters and giving their decision.

Now, as to the line of defence adopted by the Company. The defence has practically been a denial of everything. Even Inspector Tickle, who has figured largely throughout these proceedings, denied everything. The only time that he was hiding behind telephone posts was in a storm or in bad weather. The number of cases when that has happened, and that have been brought forward, must give Your Worship a very poor opinion of our genial Auckland climate. If every time he ducked out from behind a post there was a storm on I would tremble for the poor opinion of the climate you would have from the evidence given by him that he only did it to keep in shelter. He cannot help getting behind the posts; it is his nature. Dr. Watts has told us that long ago, and he is a living exemplification of the fact: "it is his nature to." The other inspectors seem to have struck fair weather where they were; they did not need to hide from the storm, and yet they did their duty efficiently, and Tickle does not. He does not keep out of sight after all; therefore there is no need for it. That is why the signalling has gone on to such an extent, because of this man being promoted and using those tactics,

Now, I think the Company cannot be congratulated upon the promises they make, especially with regard to Tickle, and they committed a serious error in promoting a man like that. They denied everything. Now, if the Company had brought forward this defence, it would have been a very hard matter for us to combat it, "That it must necessarily "follow that in a Company like this, with such a large number of men "handling such a big amount of money, there are shortages which we "have to account for, and cannot, and it is absolutely necessary to take "some precautions to provide against this," then that defence would have been very ingenious, and one hard to meet lnstead of that it is a defence of denial, and that is the easiest defence the Board can have to consider. Where there is a direct conflict of opinion, it is an easy matter to weigh the evidence for and against, and that is what the Board has to do. I think that it must be decided that the weight of evidence is against the Company in that respect. There has been hiding behind the curtains, and Johnstone took all the responsibility of that. It must not be lost sight of however, that an employer is responsible for any acts done by his subordinate in carrying out the employer's work.

page 118

It has been proved time and again that an employer is responsible for what is done in his absence even. In licensing matters I think you will bear me out that that is so; the landlord is responsible for what is done by an appointee in his absence. And so in this case the Company cannot disassociate themselves from any acts done by their Inspectors, even if unaware of it; but the Company was not unaware, because my letter book shows that there are letters notifying them. In this case the letter-book shows that the Company were approached months ago with reference to Tickle's acts. A special deputation waited on Mr. Walklate, consisting of ten or twelve of the Conductors and Motormen, who complained that they were harassed by this man, and Tickle was there, and the Manager heard all the parties, and yet there was no alteration. Mr. Lysaght cannot plead he knows nothing about it, because Mr. Buckley, the ex-President of the Union, told him of it, and I believe that Mr. Lysaght expressed disapproval of his tactics, and there seems to be dis-approval amongst his fellow-Inspectors. There is not one of them that will imitate him. "Imitation is the sincerest flattery," but none will imitate; he stands alone in this respect. He considers Sherlock Holmes was a fine character, and he has been dubbed "Sherlock Holmes" in the service. When "he sees a feather there must have been an egg to produce "that feather;" that is his idea of a deduction. If the Company had admitted taking these precautions, it would be a hard defence for us to meet, but they have not done this; they have denied everything. Mr. Hansen has not scrupled to express his disapproval of these precautions, and in his evidence says, "They are unmanly, and are not right." Mr. Morris was asked—and from his judicial nature he claimed exemption, and I respect that exemption—to give an opinion, but I leave it for him to give his opinion in the right place.

Then comes the question of espionage, and it is a very peculiar fact that Sydney was quoted by Mr. Brennand. He expatiated on the Sydney system of discipline, and said it was better, and the supervision was more rigorous. But I claim there is a difference between and espionage. Discipline is not produced by espionage, and while he was expressing his approval of Sydney discipline, etc., modern science was flashing the news across the sea that the men of Sydney—the highly disciplined men—had kicked over the traces. They had done such an undisciplined thing as to remonstrate against the espionage. Where is the discipline? The line had been drawn to breaking point and now we hear that the Commissioners are to receive a deputation bearing on this matter, and that the Unions are prepared to enforce their demands. Where is their discipline now? I say the men in Sydney had gone under espionage until it was too hard to bear, and in this case perhaps espionage has something to do with the discontent of the men at present in Auckland. I must admit, and I think I should discipline he wanting in intelligence and judgment if I did not admit, that discipline is highly necessary. I do not wish to belittle discipline there is a necessity for it, but it is not brought about by espionage—the one is necessary, the other repugnant. We have to go back to the French Revolution, and if a man wanted another guillotined all he had to do was to drop a private communication in a letter box, and the man was condemned in private, and guillotined the next day. Espionage is always distasteful. It is not so only to those who are doing wrong but I submit the most upright and conscientious men cannot work under a system of espionage. One of the greatest punishments to criminals who may be immured in a cell is to have a cell with peep holes in, where page 119 the warders have espionage on his every movement. Day and night there is an eye watching him, and he doesn't know, whose it is or what for. Discipline can be brought about by treating the men with justice, firmness, and respect. Espionage will never do that. Compare the Union's witnesses in the box and then it is only necessary to refer to Mr. Lysaght. He did not give his evidence in a manner that was calculated to impress any judicial Heard with a sense of the truth he was giving in the box. There was a shrinking, a stammering, and a halting. Then take Mr. Morris himself, and questions put to him in the box. I do not say there was a shrinking, but I do say this, that there was a carefully-thought-out answer before Mr. Morris gave it and no persons hearing his answers could do so without seeing at once that there is something behind, that he is carefully fencing and evading. I mentioned it at the time, and he took time to think. Why should there be time to think, when the truth is hot upon a man's lips? I do not accuse him of untruthfulness, but I say he engineered the answers given by him. Take the Inspectors. If you will note when you come to read the evidence, the evidence from the Junior Inspectors is much of a much ness, the same questions for the same answers, and it shows the evidence is on one particular line. And then, if you compare that evidence with the evidence given by the Union's witnesses, it must be apparent to all there is a great difference in the conduct of the witnesses in the box. Take Etheridge; you yourself, sir, rightly warned the man as to his manner of giving the evidence. I could prove that man guilty of perjury, but choose to discount his evidence altogether. He did not know! I never saw such a judicial Agnostic in all my life. He knew nothing under cross-examination, but in the examination he knew everything even as far back as four years ago. But when it came down to seven months ago there was a lapse in the memory. I don't believe in memory being intermittent like that. I have heard of old men able to remember things which occurred in their boyhood better than things occurring recently, but I cannot understand a young man going into the box and showing such an intermittent memory as he did. Inspector Tickle was all right until cross-questioned, and then he gave some evasive answers, and one question I asked him he could not understand: but when your Worship asked him the same question in the same words, he grasped it at once. That will give you a remarkable idea of how intelligence penetrates into some minds, but it makes a difference as to Who asks the question. Mr. Spry admitted they had been cautioned by Mr. Morris to be very careful how they carried out their duties until the present agitation was over. How long is it going to last, if the same system of espionage and hiding is to be pursued after this Board gives its finding? With all due respect to the Board, though they give their finding, the irritation will remain. It is a psychological fact that the lid of the kettle makes the noise, because there is a fire under it and it is of no use removing the lid to stay the agitation—the fire must be removed. I apply the point. You have to remove the cause, and I think this inquiry has shown that the cause does exist, and the sooner it is taken away and matters remedied the sooner we shall have an effective service. I trust the Board will speak with no uncertain sound at to its finding in this respect. The defence has certainly shown that there has been a lack of dates on our part. This certainly is a defect, but it has been so common during the last twelve months that men have ceased to record it but that will be remedied. The Union is now giving an order for books for the breast pocket. I trust they will not be page 120 needed. I am anxiously looking forward to a settlement of the difficulties by the finding of this Board. I have only to compare the Wellington and Auckland service. I strived there a fortnight recently, and made my way amongst the men there. I found the Inspectors. Motormen, and Conductors were a happy family compared with what we are here. They were all in the Union, and that did not imply that there would be collusion to defeat the interests of the Company or the interests of the public. Those interests were being studied: at the same time there was harmony amongst them. I fail to see why the same thing cannot obtain here. In Wellington I find the men were studied. I find there are Despatchers' boxes, where a man can make up his sheets, and see the cars going along in all directions, sheltered from the weather, and if you compare that with our men here it is a wonderful improvement. It is a wonder the Despatchers last as long as they do. Here they cannot use indelible pencils even in making up the day sheets. They have been told they don't keep the sheets decent. How can they do it?

Now, with reference to glass fronts. If the Company would carry out the recommendations of the Court, and introduce glass fronts, there would be much more content in the service.

With reference to these men that have been discharged. Why, some of these men are holding good positions. Take Holden, he is with a good employer, and gives good results, and that shows it was not his character he was discharged for. He reflected on the condition of the brakes—that was the reason. Brown has acted in different capacities at the Grand Hotel, and bears a splendid discharge, but the season has now closed. Cox is in the Railway Department. He got no reason for his discharge, and he came here with the full knowledge of his superior officer. Herdson is too recent to speak of. He would have left the district, but the Union wished to retain him here. He need not trouble for his future. Apart from any character he has lost from the Company, his address and his past career will get him a position again.

These are not wastrels, but respectable young men that have been discharged from the Company. What a shame they should have been dismissed on frivolous pretexts.

Now, as to the difference between "discharge" and "dismissal." In Annandule's Dictionary I find "discharge" means to dismiss. I looked up "dismissal." and I found it was to discharge. The same thing occurred to a visitor to Auckland, and clergyman, the Rev. James Flangan, who had London experience, and we look on London as the hub of the Universe. Mr. Flanagan was at our church parade, and acted as chaplain for the occasion, and the same thing struck him as anyone else. His definition between discharge and dismissal was given in the course of his definition between discharge and dismissal was given in the course of his address, and he said this: (Extract read.) That was his idea, and it evidently does not exist in the Old Country; and one can only say, with all due respect to Mr. Walklate, "It is strange such difference there "should be twist tweedledum and tweedledee." That is the only difference between the two words. Mr. Walklate introduced the dissatisfaction with the Award, though the men have abided by it loyally; and though they did not get the increase of wages asked for they have abided by the Award ever since; but there was also the question that the men were being asked to perform too much work for the money they got, and the result was the strap-hanging question arose, and the men objected to take more than the car was licensed for. They were well within their rights, and well within the law. We have a pliable City Council in Auckland, and they amended the By-law, and allowed more accommoda- page 121 tion to be found in these ears, and the men have abided by that By-law. I may say, however, that the matter is in abeyance, and as soon as these proceedings are settled the appeal will come before the Supreme Court as to whether that By-law is ultra vires or not.

With reference to the shortages. It is a well known fact that the shortages occur at rush times in crowded oars; wrong change is given, while men are pulling switches, opening points, etc. I take it the men have boon justified in the action they took, because if they pay shortages they don't got overs, It may seem rather strange as to why they should not have overs. It is impossible to avoid this, and I may say some men are unable to make up their own block. On a two-hours' run a man has had 22 blocks of tickets, amounting in value to £37 10s., to take out for two hours, and there is a big responsibility. I totted up one man's tickets, and sent a letter to Mr. Walklate to say that the men were responsible for this amount. The man had to put some in his trousers, some in his waistcoat, and some in his coat pockets, for a two-hours' run—22 different blocks of tickets! That is a source of discontent among the men and I think the Company have been told about it and should do their host. The men are overburdened with responsibility. Glass fronts are being tried. I am told they happened to be on the ten oars they were obliged to purchase.

Mr. Walklate: It is wrong; they were made to our order.

Mr. Rosser: I withdraw that.

Now, with reference to Herdson not receiving his week' pay. Considering the matter was in abeyance, the Union advised Herdson, or, rather, the Union decided, he was not to put in his uniform until the Board has decided on the question. That is the reason he has not put his uniform in.

With reference to the reason for dismissal in the mining ease in 1902, I have dealt with that. It has never boon brought forward that a man subject to fits should be retained, and if so, where is the necessity to mention it? A man can be told "you have the interests and the lives "of passengers at stake." and that is not actionable. So also with temper. I do not think it would be actionable to tell a man he had a brute of a temper, and he was not fit. Mr. Walklate has brought this in. His illustration of the Army and Navy was dealt with this morning. Discharge has become an accepted term in those departments, and it has become an accepted term of the Tram Department; that is the explanation of it. If you take a sailor, he knows what you mean, but I have never heard it applied to a Tramway management before.

I think now I have practically covered the ground opened up. There is only this to say, that Herdson's shortages were mentioned as being above the average. Now, as I asked Mr. Haydock that did not show him to be a dishonest man although his average was higher; yet he paid it cheerfully; he paid everyone except the last, and I advised him that the Union considered he was not justified in doing that.

With reference to the Award, it does not show you can suspend a man. "He must be discharged for good cause." That will be made a matter of comment in another Court. Mr. Walklate also mentioned the fact that frivolous charges were made with reference to running the cars, and nothing has come of it. I say we have a ground of complaint where regular men, for working on Christmas Day are entitled to time and a-half. It was a wet day last Christmas, and men were taken off and sent home because the oars were not required. It was a Southern page 122 ruling that a man is entitled to a week's wages if he gives weekly service, so long as he is ready and willing to work. It occurred in connection with the Arbitration Court. We contend they were weekly servants. The attention of the Labour Department was drawn to this, and it was sent on to the Law Department. That is still in abeyance, and we shall bring it up before the next sitting of the Court. It has been pointed out by the other side that they are discharged men that have given evidence here. Mr. Cox was a discharged man; he is now in good service. Mr. Bassett was a man who, as Mr. Hansen said, did his duties well, in a not very pleasant and trying position, as private detective. Mr. Hansen spoke highly of him in that respect. Now he is an auctioneer in this city. It is no inducement for him to come here. It may be said it would be an inducement the other way, not to speak against the Company. Mr. Bassett deemed it his duty to come here and testify as to what lie knew of the management, seeing we had decided to bring in history, and to show the Company all we could concerning Mr. Lysaght from the first. Mr. Bassett deposed that complaints about him were sent in to Mr. Hansen. I want that document produced. That will show that this has not been trumped up by the Union; it happened in the past, and is still happening. And now, in conclusion, sir, and gentlemen, I have to thank you for the time and patience you have bestowed on this inquiry. The Union has risked it's all on this inquiry, as we have agreed, as I said before to go back to work, and leave the matter in the hands of a Judicial Board, when perhaps by standing out we could have forced, so to speak our demands on the Company. That was not done. The men, in a wise moment, considered it was wiser to trust to a Judicial Board and go back to work.

I wish to state that the Arbitration Act is still supreme in this respect; that the provisions of the Act said to be so much in jeopardy still obtain; and that the Tramway men, in striking, did not wish to see that Act despised, or repealed, but that, though they broke the provisions of the Act, yet had it not been for their desire to obey the Act this Board would not have been sitting now.

His Worship: You will have noticed to-day has been a very hard day on the stenographer. It has been talking all the time, and consequently we will not be able to get the transcript from him until Monday morning, and I don't consider it fair to ask for it before that.

We propose to meet on Monday at 10 o'clock to find out what we will do. In the meantime I propose to go through the evidence myself, and we will then meet together and discuss matters.

I may say that this matter is a very serious one indeed, not going to hurry, as it requires due consideration, and that will be given to it. We will let you know 24 hours before we want you, and then we need not interfere with the Brake Commission.

(Court then Closed.)

1. Alexander George Jarrett, of Swanson Street, Auckland, Authorised Reporter by examination under "The Shorthand "Reporters' Act, 1900," Do Hereby Certify that this, and the foregoing 210 sheets, contains a true and correct transcription of the Shorthand Notes taken by me on the dates, at the time, and in the place, above mentioned.

Dated this 20th day of July, One thousand nine hundred and eight.

A. G. Jarrett.