11,008. But still, on the part both of the agent and of the seaman, is not that an infringement of the law?-No, it is not an infringement.
11,009. Does not the law require the whole wages, without any deductions other than those specified in the Act to be paid over in presence of the shipping master?-Yes, and that is always done.
11,010. If that is so, how is it possible, for you in obedience to such an order to retain the man's wages?-I do not retain them. The man comes back and repays his debt.
11,011. Then that is not retention in obedience to an order?-It is not retention: there has been no retention since 1867. Every man, since then has got his money in the Shipping Office, and those who had accounts in the shop came back and paid them.
11,012. Then how did it happen that you spoke of these orders being implemented?-I was referring to the period before 1867.
11,013. Your statement now is, that no such orders have been given, or acted upon since 1867?-They may have been given, but there have been no deductions from the seaman's wages since then, except the captain's account, the first month's advance, and the allotments. With these exceptions, the whole money was paid down to the seaman in the Shipping Office, and when he had an account in the shop he came and paid it.
11,014. Will your books show that?-Yes.
11,015. In what way do, your books prove it?-I request that the shipping master be called upon to prove it.
11,016. To prove what?-To prove that the men get their wages in money in the Shipping Office.
11,017. I intend to call Mr. Gatherer to prove that but you have come forward in order to contradict Mr. Hamilton's report, and the question I asked is, in what way do your books prove that no such orders have been honoured since 1867?-Mr. Gatherer will prove that since 1867 the men have got their wages paid down to them in money.