167
40
SUNDAY LABOR IN HONGKONG HARBOUR.
being done throughout the world in regard to this question, it is indeed remarkable that the Chamber of Commerce should have taken up such an antagonistic attitude to the moderate and just requests of the maritime profession employed in these scas. Not only do we unhesitatingly maintain that the seafaring community are entitled to the privilege of exemption from work on Sunday while in this port, on all grounds of justice, expediency and public sentiment, but we think this portion of the community will be found to possess undoubted legitimate rights in this matter, for-irrespective of other facts-in the days of the infancy of this colony, strict regulations enforcing such cessation of labour formed a chapter in its laws. By what authority and for what reasons these regulations have been annulled we shall doubtless know when the long promised Ordinance records are published. Then again will arise the question whether a local Ordinance of a Crown colony can over-ride an Imperial Act of Parliament or the Common law of England, on a matter of vital public concern. However, the Labour movement in general is but another phase of the question under review here. What would the British workman say if any interference were attempted in regard to his Sunday's rest?
Would any legislation be possible in regard to such a question in Europe?" He would indeed be a very courageons, as well as a very foolish, individual who would publicly advocate such a measure. Such being the case, in the name of common sense and justice, why should members of a profession who have done so much towards making Great Britain's commercial position what it is to-day, be placed in a disadvantageous position as compared with what they enjoy in the "mother country," merely because one or two harsh and exacting taskmasters contend that they will suffer somewhat in their pockets! Surely those members of the Chamber of Commerce who so conspicuously defended Sunday work must be singularly obtuse if they cannot see the untenable nature of the position they have taken up, for while in Europe we observe even Emperors sympathising with the demands of employés and influencing concessions towards moderation and conciliatoriness, in Hongkong the representatives of toading shipping firms and others, whose prosperity has greatly depended on the labour and loyalty of the British mercantile marine, are the bitterest opponents to moderation and conciliation. This is neither au edifying or creditable spectacle of colonial justice, and it is pitiable to witness the representative of a leading firm reduced to the extremity of falling back on the Chinese for an excuse! Mr. J. J. Keswick must be well aware that the Chinese are quite capable of caring for themselves in this matter, also, that as a matter of fact, the major portion of Chinese traders in the colony appreciate, as fully as they do at Canton and other Treaty ports, the advantages of a weekly day of rest; in fact it is one of the most remarkable as well as one of the most encouraging facts in the premises-- this wide appreciation of Sunday rest by the Chinese at all the Treaty ports throughout the Empire.
Every expedient having been tried in Hongkong, the question now seems to have resolved itself into this:-The principal shipping employers continuing inadmissible to reason, strong representations have been made to the central Federation in England with which the Mercantile Marine Association is affiliated, and through it an appeal can be made to the British public. Further, there can be but little doubt that common cause in this matter will be the result, and the selfish dominant few be speedily brought to a proper appreciation of their position and impotency-a kuowledge of the fact that they are powerless to cause Hongkong to remain much longer the very reverse of a centre of light and civilization in the Far East. Of one thing the officers may rest assured, and it is this, that in any struggle that may be forced upon them, the victors will be the coalition that remembers and acts up to the time-worn maxim-UNITY 18 STRENGTH."-" Hongkong Telegraph,” 21st November, 1890,
THE SUNDAY LABOUR QUESTION.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE HONGKONG TELEGRAPH,"
SIR, In the issue of your evening contemporary of the 24th inst. a letter appears from a correspondent who assumes the nom de plume "Sui Jure," dealing with the much discussed question of Sunday labor in this colony. The subject is one of great interest, and I beg the privilege of replying to him through the columns
your widely-read journal.
of
SUNDAY LABOR IN HONGKONG HARBOUR.
4 I
"Sui Jure" states that "it is not a matter to be treated by British merchants and shipowners of this place, but by Home Legislation." Now, sir, this colony lias practically that which Ireland desires., viz, Home Rule, and I think it will amount to a slur upon local law-makers if they allow this matter to be carried to the House of Commons.
,
Again, "Sui Jure" states that H. E. the Governor brings forth the argument that "Marine Officers and Engineers are paid for 7 days' work.'
Now if my memory serves me, H.E. said "that Officers could not do 7 days' work in 6." Does "Sai Jure," or any reasonable man, desire them to do this? As to the 4th Commandment, to which he refers, I suppose that the Chinese in Hongkong may be included as "the stranger that is within thy gates," even if officers and engineers only rank as "thy servants and thy cattle!"
He further states that there are only two ports in the East where Sunday labour is not restricted." "Sui" will find that not only is Sunday slavery permitted in Hongkong and Singapore, but also in Penang and the Straits ports. The "heathen Clinee," whether he be sampan-man or 'ricksla-coolie, demands from the unsuspecting stranger extra pay for work on that day. Only a short time since I was in Swatow when a sampan-man demanded double pay because it "b'long Sunday"! The 7th day work may be as Mr. E. Mackintosh says, "merely an incidence of the voyage," but if it was a quiet Sunday it would be a pleasant incidence, instead of being even worse than a Sunday at sea, where the officers only have their "watch to keep. There are few shore men that have half the responsibility of an officer on board ship for 12 hours out of 24. He has under his sole charge a magnificent vessel full of valuable cargo, and as many as 500 passengers on board at times. Do passengers, owners and insurance companies ever think of the consequences of that man (officer of the watch) shutting his eyes for 10 minutes, or even being in that stage of exhaustion when he can walk across the bridge and be to all appearances awake, yet all the time being--as I have heard a sailor describe it "shoring his eyelids up with matches !" And yet, sir, they refuse this man a day's rest when he happens to get a Sunday in this Christian port!
The Engineers also, though they only keep 8 hour's regularly on "watch out of the 24, are often called out of their beds to attend to their duties. In port they not only have the superintendence of their subordinates, but have to performa severe manual labor themselves, often working many hours into the night. These men are in a position where the slightest carelessness might either blow the whole ship to pieces, or at least cost their owners thousands of dollars. I ask, is it right to grudge these men their Sunday rest when they happen to be in port on "the Sabbath of the Lord our God." Every one must know that while cargo is being worked the engineers have to be in attendance on the steam apparatus and machinery.
I have heard it pointed out that at home the tramways and railways run on Sundays; but that form of labor is minimized as much as possible, passengers and mails only being carried. Further, it is not done for private gain, as cargo work on board ship is, but merely to meet the public convenience.
It is said that the inconvenience of suspending all labor in this port on Sunday is intensified by the fact that this is not a terminal port." Surely if all vessels were alike compelled to stop work on the Sabbath it would not affect any particular interests, as one day more or less cannot affect imperishable cargo such as ocean-boats usually carry.
Colombo, too, is not a "terminal port," yet the Port Charges for Sunday work have practically put an end to moral slavery there.
To conclude, I must agree with "Sui Jure" that, not only would it be no loss, but, I believe, it would be a positive gain to all shipowners were they to avoid all Sunday labor. "Let us do unto others as we would they should do unto us."
Thanking you in anticipation for according space to this.
Yours, etc.,
A TRAVELLER.
Hongkong, 26th November, 1890,
$