10,999. Do you not still pass 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 pass 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 Shipping 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 Shipping Act requires that all wages shall be paid, not in that way, not in obedience to any order, but in the presence of the shipping 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.