354
Charge (a) is that Mr. Guterres in paying off the crew of the "Alcinous" deducted from the wages of some members of the crew the sum of $1250 owed by them to the head fireman and received a commission for doing so.
The evidence in support of the answer is a plain denial.
Who charge is that of Ng Sz Ko, a boarding house keeper, alleges that he saw the $1260 deducted and himself handed the commission of $65 to Mr. Guterres.
We have therefore the unsupported evidence of this man against Mr. Guterres' denial. (Captain Rumsey who has an intimate knowledge of the class of man in question told me that he "would not thrash a dog on the unsupported evidence of a boarding house keeper", and that the Council did not regard him as a man of character is clear from the fact that they unanimously declined to believe his statement in support of charge (c) that Mr. Guterres was in the habit of deducting odd cents from the men's wages).
On Mr. Guterres' side is the evidence of the Captain of the "Alcinous", who was present at the paying off, and states (enclosure C. in the memorial) that no deductions were made from the wages and that nothing of the kind could have occurred without his knowledge.
Mr. May's rejoinder to this is that unless one of the crew made an appeal to the Captain in a language which he understood the transaction could be effected without his knowing anything about it. I put this to Captain Rumsey who replied that the suggestion was absurd.
Enclo. 2.
11943
When a crew is paid off the Captain gives to each man a statement of the amount which he is to receive. When the paying off takes place the Articles of Agreement are produced, which show the amounts due. The men "sign off" by signing their names on the articles opposite to the sum stated as due to them. They know what is due and the Captain knows. He is present and sees the actual sums paid, so that no deduction could be made without both the man and the Captain fully understanding it.
As to the suggestion that the men could not complain because they could not make themselves understood, Captain Rumsey points out that the whole crew is present. If no one in the whole crew has any means of communicating with the Captain, the ship must be in a parlous state. If the men affected could not appeal to the Captain direct, they must be able to appeal to some other member of the crew, who could explain it.
This objection seems to me to be unanswerable.
Captain Pulford cannot have been ignorant of the transaction, if it occurred. He has no motive in lying about it.
On the other hand, in the case of Ng Sz Ko there is a probable motive for trying to break Mr. Guterres. Captain Rumsey states (and his statement is supported by many of the letters in this paper) that these boarding house keepers were always trying to get Mr. Guterres to deduct sums from the men's wages, which they alleged to be due to them. Mr. Guterres has persistently refused and has turned them out of his office. What is more likely than that one or two of them should try to get him ousted in hopes of finding a more squeezeable successor?
I believe this charge to be conclusively disproved.
Charge (b) is that Mr. Guterres refused to pay a Chinaman Cheuk Foo his wages.
Cheuk Foo's story is that he went to claim his wages and that one Sai Yau was there and insisted on $20 being deducted to satisfy a debt. Not desiring this, Cheuk Foo went away. He does not state that Mr. Guterres spoke to him at this time. He came back later and Mr. Guterres declined to pay him unless Sai Yau was there.
He