548
That this was not made clear the Governor now blames himself. On the 17th and 21st December the owners wrote again to this office. They said in the second letter that the Harbour Master proposed to lodge these men in the Sailors' Home at the owners' expense, which they thought would not be fair, that the men had their wages to draw which would keep them for some time and then if they became distressed seamen the cost would be refunded by the owners to the Board of Trade; a further telegram was then sent and the answer came that the crew had been discharged.
The harbour master now explains that a few days later than the last interview with the Agent or Master, or both, the Agent informed him that the owners would have nothing to do with the maintenance of the men, and he points out that the men once paid off "were bound to become distressed and that "until they were the owners' responsibility did not apply".
He says that he then interviewed the crew who insisted that they should receive their money in full and refused to go to the Sailors' Home, that he pointed out that they need not be discharged at all at Hong Kong, as their agreement would not expire for another four months, but that they said they had been misled as to the terms of the agreement. He adds that the Italian Consul General also interviewed the men, and tried to persuade them either to deposit some of their money with the harbour master or to refuse to be paid off until more satisfactory arrangements could be made, but the men except two would not take the advice offered, and were discharged.
42392 43091.
discharged on the 23rd.
He also states that the wages due together with a month's bonus were far too small to pay the passage home and that it was only a matter of days before they would become destitute and remain so until they could be sent home as distressed seamen.
It seems to me that we ought to know more on the following points:-
(1) Have the men as a matter of fact become an expense to the Colony and if so for how much.
(2) At what date after their discharge did they become an expense, i.e., how long should their money have lasted and how long did it actually last.
(3) Is it clearly the case, as the harbour master states, that under their agreement the men could legally have refused to be paid off - if in paying them off the terms of the agreement were complied with, and what happened to the two men who refused to be paid off.
(4) Is it clearly the case as the harbour master states that crews discharged in Hong Kong are in the habit of allowing deductions from their pay to stand against their keep in the harbour master's hands and that the refusal in the present case was unusual.
(5) The Governor states in paragraph 6 of his confidential despatch of 9th September (page 16 of print) "It is the invariable custom here on ships being put under charter for conveying coolies for Chinese crews to take the place of the European crews, who are then sent back to England at the owner's expense".
He
548
That this was not made clear the Governor now blames himself. On the 17th and 21st December the owners wrote again to this office. They said in the second letter that the Harbour Master proposed to lodge these men in the Sailors' Home at the owners' expense, which they thought would not be fair, that the men had their wages to draw which would keep them for some time and then if they became distressed sea- men the cost would be refunded by the owners to the Board of Trade; a further telegram was then sent and the answer cane that the crew had been discharged.
The
harbour master now explains that a few days later than the last interview with the Agent or Master, or both, the Agent
informed him that the owners would have nothing to do with
the maintenance of the men, and he points out that the men once paid off "were bound to become distressed and that
"until they were the owners' responsibility did not apply".
He says that he then interviewed the crew who insisted that
they should receive their money in full and refused to go to the Sailors' Home, that he pointed out that they need not
be discharged at all at Hong Kong, as their agreement would
not expire for another four months, but that they said they
had been misled as to the terms of the agreement. He adds
that the Italian Consul General also interviewed the men,
and tried to persuade them either to deposit some of their
money with the harbour master or to refuse to be paid off
until more satisfactory arrangements could be made, but the
men except two would not take the advice offered, and were
discharged
42392
43091.
discharged on the 23rd.
He also states that the wages
due together with a month's bonus were far too small to pay the passage home and that it was only a matter of
men
days before they would become destitute and remain so until they could be sent home us distressed seamen.
It seems to me that we ought to know more on the follow-
ing points:-
(1) Have the men as a matter of fact become an expense
to the Colony and if so for how much.
(2) At what date after their discharge did they become an expense, i.e., how long should theirmonoy have lasted and how long did it actually last.
(3) Is it clearly the case, as the harbour master
states, that under their agreement the men could legally have refused to be paid off - if in paying them off the terms of the agreement were complied with, and what happened to the two men who refused to be paid off.
(4) Is it clearly the case as the harbour master states
that crews discharged in Hong Kong are in the habit
! of allowing deductions from their pay to stand against their keep in the harbour muster's hands and that the
refusal in the present case was unusual.
(5) The Governor states in paragraph 6 of his confiden-
tial despatch of 9th September (page 16 of print) *It is the invariable custom here on ships being put under charter for conveying coolies for Chinese crews to take the place of the European crows, who are then sent back to England at the owner's expense".
He
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.