Second Shetland Truck System Report Part 263

10,977. When you say that it was done with the man's consent, do you mean that at settling time the agent, who was aware that you were a creditor of the man, would arrange with him to hand over part of his wages to his former creditor?-Quite so, if the man was willing to do so.

10,978. The agent might advise him to do that, but not compel him?-He never could compel him. He would simply ask him if he chose to pay the claim; and if he chose not to pay it, there was no compulsion whatever.

10,979. Did you ever know of a man refusing to do that?-Very often.

10,980. In that case I presume that since the Merchant s.h.i.+pping Act of 1854, there were no means compelling payment?-None; except, of course, that he could be taken to the Small Debt Court.

10,981. And there was no security, no lien on the men's wages?- None whatever. There never was that at any time. It was purely with his own consent if the money was used for paying another agent's account,

10,982. How long is it since these lists were interchanged between the agents in Lerwick?-It was previous to 1854. Perhaps there may have been some handed since then; one agent may have handed his accounts to another, in order to get recovery of them.

10,983. You say you have been nineteen years with Mr. Leask, and therefore these lists must have been interchanged within your time?-Yes; I was first employed in 1853.

10,984. Do you say that there have been no lists of that kind exchanged, and no information communicated with regard to the men's debts, since 1853 or 1854?-I don't remember any since 1854: there may have been, but I don't remember handing any lists or receiving any lists since that time.

10,985. Or receiving any information at all with regard to the debts of the men?-Not since the Merchant s.h.i.+pping Act of 1854.

10,986. Why do you fix that date?-Because at that date it became compulsory to have the men s.h.i.+pped and discharged before the s.h.i.+pping master.

10,987. Has that always been done since 1854?-Not always. It was done I think, in 1854 and 1855, and it was not done again until 1867. In that year it commenced again, and the wages were all paid down in presence of the s.h.i.+pping master.

10,988. But if the Act was not observed with regard to the payment of wages in presence of the s.h.i.+pping master, how did it interfere with the pa.s.sing of these lists?-The practice was given up.

10,989. At that time was it the practice for the men [Page 269] to receive payment of their wages at the agent's office?-Yes.

10,990. Was that done during all the period from 1854 down to 1867?-Yes, but not including 1867.

10,991. Can you say that, during that period you retained no portion of any man's wages for debt of another agent?-It is quite possible we may have done so, but I don't recollect.

10,992. I suppose your books will show whether any portion of a man's wages was so retained?-Yes.

10,993. Do you remember any case in which that was done?-I don't remember any particular case, but it is quite possible; in fact, it is even probable.

10,994. Do you think that some retentions of that kind took place every year?-I don't think so. Of course, if a man gave an order on Mr Leask to pay a debt or an account for him, he was bound to pay it if the man had funds in his hand. I have seen that done- that a seaman gave a special order in favour of another agent or another party.

10,995. Is that done frequently?-Not very often, but it is done sometimes.

10,996. Is it done by the man of his own accord?-Decidedly.

10,997. But probably at the request of the other agent?-I don't know about that. For instance, instead of getting money from the seaman, he might get an order on the agent, the same as he might get an order on the bank.

10,998. But the other agent who was the creditor of the seaman does not know necessarily that you have money belonging to the man in your hands as agent?-Not unless the man tells him.

10,999. Do you not still pa.s.s lists each year from one agent to another, stating the sums which are due to you by the men?-No.

11,000. I do not speak merely of seamen indebted to you; but do you not pa.s.s lists of all seamen whom you engage for the whaling?-Not at all. We have no occasion to do that, because it could serve no purpose whatever.

11,001. Why?-Because an agent who had a seaman in his books as a debtor would know at once whether that man was engaged by another agent in a particular year.

11,002. Is it the practice for one agent to be allowed to inspect the lists or books of another, in order to ascertain what seamen have been engaged?-I never did that or saw it done.

11,003. I suppose there are means of finding out in a small place like Lerwick what seamen in a particular year have been engaged?-We sometimes found it out in the s.h.i.+pping Office.

Whenever we wanted to see where a man was, we went there.

11,004. Can you state distinctly that in every case where such an order is presented for payment of a seaman's debt, it is presented without any previous communication between the agents?-I suppose it always is, but I don't know. The one agent has no interest whatever in recovering debts for the other; he gets no

remuneration for it.

11,005. If that is the case, why does he not refuse to honour the order?-I would not dishonour the order if the man had funds in our hands.

11,006. But the Merchant s.h.i.+pping Act requires that all wages shall be paid, not in that way, not in obedience to any order, but in the presence of the s.h.i.+pping master in hard cash?-That is true; but it still allows a man to pay his debts.

11,007. Should not the agent leave him to pay his debts himself, and so obey the law?-It is merely as an accommodation to the seaman that we pay his debt for him, and we trust to his honesty that he will repay it to us.

11,008. But still, on the part both of the agent and of the seaman, is not that an infringement of the law?-No, it is not an infringement.

11,009. Does not the law require the whole wages, without any deductions other than those specified in the Act to be paid over in presence of the s.h.i.+pping master?-Yes, and that is always done.

11,010. If that is so, how is it possible, for you in obedience to such an order to retain the man's wages?-I do not retain them.

The man comes back and repays his debt.

11,011. Then that is not retention in obedience to an order?-It is not retention: there has been no retention since 1867. Every man, since then has got his money in the s.h.i.+pping Office, and those who had accounts in the shop came back and paid them.

11,012. Then how did it happen that you spoke of these orders being implemented?-I was referring to the period before 1867.

11,013. Your statement now is, that no such orders have been given, or acted upon since 1867?-They may have been given, but there have been no deductions from the seaman's wages since then, except the captain's account, the first month's advance, and the allotments. With these exceptions, the whole money was paid down to the seaman in the s.h.i.+pping Office, and when he had an account in the shop he came and paid it.

11,014. Will your books show that?-Yes.

11,015. In what way do, your books prove it?-I request that the s.h.i.+pping master be called upon to prove it.

11,016. To prove what?-To prove that the men get their wages in money in the s.h.i.+pping Office.

11,017. I intend to call Mr. Gatherer to prove that but you have come forward in order to contradict Mr. Hamilton's report, and the question I asked is, in what way do your books prove that no such orders have been honoured since 1867?-Mr. Gatherer will prove that since 1867 the men have got their wages paid down to them in money.

11,018. Am I to record that your books do not prove that?-They do not prove that. I want the s.h.i.+pping master to prove it.

11,019 Then your books will not prove that all the wages have been paid to the men in cash, and that no sum has been retained in obedience to a seaman's order?-That can be proved by the s.h.i.+pping master.

11,020. But your books do not prove it?-We have accounts with the seamen, and when they get their wages, they invariably come back and settle these accounts. We do not retain anything; we invariably pay them the whole money that is due to them, and they can either come back or not as they choose.

11,021. Who is it that hands over the money to the men on behalf of Mr. Leask in presence of the s.h.i.+pping master?-It is generally Mr. Andrew Jamieson, and sometimes myself. One of us attends at the s.h.i.+pping Office along with the men, and hands over their cash to them in presence of the s.h.i.+pping master.

11,022. Do you generally find that a seaman comes down to your office immediately after he has been paid, and settles any account that he is due?-We generally find that that is the case; in fact, always when they have accounts they come down and settle them.

11,023. Have you known any exceptions to that rule?-I have only known one man who tried not to come down and settle his account.

11,024. Who was he?-He was a lad belonging to Lunnasting, named Robert Grains. He declined to come down and settle his account but he afterwards came on the same day. I think that occurred two years ago.