Second Shetland Truck System Report Part 183

7332. You left that when they took it into their own hands?-Yes.

7333. Had you any difficulty in getting a shop in which to carry on your business in this district cannot say that I had. I was offered this place by the Busta trustees. It was in a state of dilapidation when I took it, and they offered it to me on condition that I would make the necessary repairs on it for myself.

7334. Was any difficulty stated about giving you the shop on account of interfering with the business of the other merchants in the district?-No.

7335. Do you sometimes buy fish from the fishermen who are employed by Messrs. Anderson & Co. or by Messrs. Hay & Co.; I mean odd hauls now and then?-I cannot say that I buy any from Messrs. Hay Co.'s fishermen, because they would hardly sell to me on account of the inconvenience.

7336. But are you aware whether the practice exists of the fishermen employed by you selling occasionally to the factors of other merchants, and the fishermen of other merchants selling occasionally to you or your factors?-I think that practice exists only to it very small extent.

7337. But you have detected that practice to certain extent?-I cannot say that I have; there have been very few fish bought from such men.

7338. Was that done because the men did not get cash advances from the parties for when they fished regularly?-I don't think it was. I think it was merely done from a notion on the part of the men.

7339. Did they get merely the same price which they would have got from their own employer?-I think they got the same price in all cases.

7340. Then why should they not deliver their fish as usual in the ordinary way?-I cannot say. They perhaps think it is a privilege to sell to any one who will buy from them-although that is not the rule. It is understood that they are not at liberty, as a rule, to do so, but yet they do it, although it has been very rarely in my experience.

7341. When they sell their fish in that way, are these transactions for ready money?-Not always. They may sell them in order to pay some goods which they have got before. If they were selling them to me, they might bring them in order to pay some account which they had at my shop.

7342. Are there many fishermen dealing at your shop on credit who fish to other merchants?-Occasionally there are a few.

7343. You have accounts with them?-Yes; with a few.

7344. Are these accounts settled annually, at the ordinary settling time, as a rule; or is there any rule, about the period for settlement?-There is a rule that they shall settle annually after the settlement with their own curers, and at that time they usually bring part of the cash which has been paid to them.

7345. Do you sometimes find that these accounts are not settled at that time?-Sometimes I do.

7346. Are you a loser to any extent by the failure of the fishermen to settle accounts of that kind?-I consider that I am, in some cases.

7347. But these debts sometimes run over a period of years?-In cases where the parties are poor they do.

7348. Have there been offers made to you by fishermen who are in these circ.u.mstances, and who are in your debt, to settle their accounts by engaging to fish for you during the fis.h.i.+ng season?- No; I cannot say that there have been any offers made to me of that sort.

7349. You have not taken on a fisherman who was in your debt in that way?-No.

7350. Do you not know of any case in which you have taken on a man who was in your debt, simply with the view of allowing him to pay it off?-With the fishermen on the Busta estate I have done so.

7351. Were these men who had incurred a debt to you while they were fis.h.i.+ng for another merchant?-In one instance that was the case; but I find, as a rule, that a party who is in debt is not one who is likely to be ready to offer his services. The fact that he is in debt is no inducement to make him fish for you, but rather the contrary.

7352. Do you think that, as a rule, he will continue to fish for his former employer?-Yes.

7353. But the fact probably is, that if he is in debt to you in that way, he is also in debt to [Page 177] his own employer?-I believe that is generally the case.

7354. Have you known any case of a fisherman changing his employer because he was so deeply in debt to him, that that employer would not advance him any more goods?-I have in my own transactions had to refuse advances to a fisherman, because I knew he was getting into debt deeper than he could pay. I refused to advance him any longer, and left him at liberty to do the best he could for himself.

7355. Did he leave you at the end of the season?-Yes.

7356. And at the beginning of it new season, did he go to another employer?-Yes.

7357. In that case how have you secured your debt?-I gave him perhaps a year, and then I had to press him for the amount.

7358. Did you take him to court?-Yes; I took him to court, because he refused to pay what I believed he was able to pay.

7359. Have you ever in such a case succeeded in getting any part of your debt settled by his new employer?-Yes.

7360. How was that done? Did you, at the beginning of the fis.h.i.+ng season, get the new employer to make an advance to the fisherman to account of your debt?-In the case I am referring to, the employer at the end of the fis.h.i.+ng season made a payment to me, as an instalment on the debt.

7361. Was that done by arrangement with the fisherman?-Yes; the fisherman went to his new employer and got his line or security for a part, indeed for the whole amount, to be paid in three instalments, in three years, because I thought it better to part with the man when he was getting too deeply into debt, and perhaps the change in going to another employer would lead him to better himself.

7362. Was he likely to better himself in such circ.u.mstances?-It chanced that he got into a good fis.h.i.+ng boat, and he did better himself.

7363. But that was just a chance, was it not?-Yes, I should think so.

7364. Was it the man who wished to go to another employer when his supplies were stopped by you, or was it you who wished him to change?-He could not do without advances, and he would not give me security to cover my risk in giving him any.

7365. But the new employer, in employing the fisherman, took exactly the same risk which you refused, and I suppose gave him supplies?-Not to the same extent. It was only after the man had been at sea at one season at the fis.h.i.+ng for his new employer, and had earned a fair earning, that he paid me one-third of his account, and became good for the balance to be paid at the end of the next two seasons.

7366. Did that merchant become good for the whole balance of your account?-I don't know whether it was legally or formally gone into, but it was understood he would see that the man paid me.

7367. Was that a single case, or has it occurred oftener with you?-That has been the only case in my experience.

7368. Who was the merchant?-Mr. Greig, the manager for Messrs. Hay & Co.

7369. Are you aware whether that case is of ordinary occurrence in transactions between fish-curers, when fisherman leaves the employment of one and goes to that of another?-I think it has been an understood thing among them; at least some time ago, when I was more in connection with the larger concerns of Hillswick and Ollaberry, it was understood that when a fisherman ran away from his responsibility, after getting into debt, his new employer, if he was taken up by another curer in the district, would be morally liable to pay the balance for the man, if it was reasonable. I don't know whether that is the practice now or not.

7870. Was there just a general understanding that the new employer should make some kind of arrangement about it, the particulars being settled in each case, or was there a rule that he should become responsible for the whole debt, or for a specific proportion of the debt?-I think it was understood that it would be fair for the new employer to become accountable for the whole debt, if it was reasonable, or for such a proportion of it as he would undertake to pay for the man.

7871. Were you in the employment of Mr. Anderson at Hillswick?-I was a partner in the business at Ollaberry. I was in the employment of Mr. Gideon Anderson for years before, and then I was manager at Ollaberry, until I went to Lochend.

7372. Before you left Ollaberry you had not been in business for yourself, but you were merely manager for Anderson or Anderson & Co.?-The firm was Anderson Brothers & Laurenson, and I was a member of that firm.

7373. Before you left the firm, did that understanding which you have described exist among the fis.h.i.+ng curers in this neighbourhood?-Yes.

7374. In your experience, was it generally acted upon?-I think it was. I may mention that I did not have to do with the fishermen in the summer season, while I managed the business at Ollaberry for seven years. I had only to do with the winter fis.h.i.+ng. In the summer they fished for Hillswick, and I had nothing further than ordinary transactions with the fishermen then. It was chiefly the hosiery trade and the winter fis.h.i.+ng that I knew about.

7375. But you were, to some extent, acquainted with the transactions which took place in the summer fis.h.i.+ng?-Yes.

7376. And in describing this understanding, you are speaking from your general knowledge of the system pursued?-Yes.

7377. With what merchants, in this part of Shetland, did that understanding exist, and was acted upon? Did it extend to Messrs.

Hay at North Roe; you have mentioned an instance in which it was acted upon with them?-That was in my own experience since.

7378. But did the understanding extend to them at that time?- Messrs. Hay & Co. had not a station there then: it was another firm.

7379. To whom did that understanding extend?-To Messrs. Adie, Mr. Inkster at Brae and to the firm of Anderson at Hillswick.

7380. Did it extend to the Mossbank people?-I cannot say. The fishermen were not very likely to remove from here to Mossbank, or from Mossbank to here.