Captain Goya Henry Has

Seaman Trouble

From Our Own Correspondent

Rabaul, June 8.

IN the District Court at Kavieng, on May 29, Goya Henry, Master of MV Matoko, charged one, Lilom, casual labourer, and native Boss Boy of the vessel, under Section 112 of the Native Labour Ordinance, 1946, which provides that: “Any person who entices or induces a labourer to absent himself from the services of the employer or knowingly harbours an absentee labourer, shall be guilty of an offence.”

The Magistrate ruled that this section was void, and non-suited the Master.

A charge under Section 113, of the same Ordinance, was heard against four native contract members of the crew of the vessel. This section provides that; ‘Any labourer who without reasonable excuse fails to perform, or carelessly or improperly performs any work, which under the contract it was his duty to perform, shall be guilty of an offence.

Captain Henry said in evidence that tor eight days his ship had been loading copra on the New Ireland coast. He oerthed at Kavieng at six a.m., on May 27, and shortly afterwards noticed that most of his crew were missing. Upon their return about 10 a.m., he ordered them to wash the decks, but on the ground that it was a Sunday, they re fused his order and walked ashore in a Dody.

Addressing the Court, Captain Henry said: “My vessel is licensed to carry 51 aassengers, and I have a normal crew of 17. From open, flagrant and forthright iefiance at a wharf, it is but a step, and a short one at that, to defiance at anchor, md defiance at sea. It seems to me that my trade as a ship’s Master in these waters carries enough hazards as it is without this danger. Except for a steer boy and a lookout, none of the crew ever works whilst the ship is under way. My decks had not been touched for eight days!”

The defendants pleaded not guilty and swore they had not heard the alleged order.

The Magistrate said there appeared to be a doubt. The prosecution’s case lacked corroborative testimony. He thought that such supporting evidence might have been available, but the Captain had not brought it. The charge against two of the defendants was dismissed, and that against a third withdrawn. Fourth de fendant was fined 5/-.

CAPTAIN HENRY asked the Court for a ruling as to his power to discharge casual labour which had been en gaged at Rabaul at Kavieng, adding that it was his intention, unless the Court ruled otherwise “incontinently to dis charge” certain of his casuals since it appeared he had no redress at law, and this case had wider economic repercus sions involving all employers of casual labour.

Mr. Dyer said that Captain Henry had authority to discharge such casual labourers, adding that if after four days they were not gainfully employed they were liable to come under the attention Df the Native Labour authorities.

Interviewed after the hearing, Captain Henry said: “It’s no wonder these Gov ernment ships lose money. To describe jneself as a Master is an empty form ality—a quaint, old-fashioned conceit.

Fhe truth is that a vessel may be held to ransom at the whimsy of any loafer Dr malcontent down on the books as a Drew member, but better described as a cabin-class tourist!”