[R. Halcrow, 4700; R. Malcolmson, 4781; P.M. Sandison, 5227; G. Gilbertson, 9578; J. Hay, 5375; P. Blanch, 8565; C. Young, 5815, 5918.]
It is said that in bad years, when the crops or the fishing, or both, have failed, the population would starve in winter and spring if the merchants were not to make advances of meal and provisions; and that they could not do this, but for the security afforded by having the men engaged to fish to them for a price to be settled only at a distant day. Even if supplies of food are not required, men may be unable to go to the fishing for want of boats, lines, and hooks, which they have to get from the curer, and which, it is contended, may properly form a first charge against the proceeds of the enterprise. Fishing is always most productive when the men are paid by shares, not by wages; and it is not desirable to introduce any change which would necessitate the payment of the men by wages.
[W. Irvine, 3896; T. Gifford, 8150; H. Hughson, 9599; W. Irvine, 3834; A. Sandison, 10,007; L.F.U. Garriock, 12,605.]
It may be replied, that however true this may be, it just presents one of those cases in which the weaker party is likely to be led into a disadvantageous bargain, and in which, upon recognised principles, the law may interfere for his protection, by regulating the bargain so made, or by teaching him how to escape from the position of disadvantage. The transition to a new state of things might in bad seasons be attended with some difficulties and hardships, especially to those who are now indebted. Thus Mr. A. Sandison, in recommending a system of monthly payments, says, 'I think it would pauperize a number of the fishermen, because there are a great number of them in debt, and in the transition from the one system to the other they would require to pay up their debts, so far as their means would go' (Q. 10,015).* One cannot avoid observing that this class of objectors to cash payments exaggerate both the inability of the people to provide against the evil future, and the value of the 'merchants' as a source of credit in bad times. It is impossible to judge of the energy that would be exerted under the stimulus of necessity by a population which has always had landlords, tacksmen, and merchants to depend on in adversity. Those who urge that the men could not live, or at least could not go to fish, unless the merchants were there to supply their wants, forget that, while the existing system presents one ready source of credit to fishermen, it closes up all others. The fish-merchants, by getting delivery of their debtors' fish, have such a security for their accounts, that other shopkeepers do not now venture to furnish any but the smallest quantity of goods to the average fisherman on credit. But if there was some certainty that the fish-merchant had not a contra account against the fisherman, at least equal to the price of his fish, other merchants would not have the same reason, in cases of necessity, for refusing to give some credit to deserving men. This is shown by the fact-certainly an exceptional one-that a most successful business has been established in Dunrossness by Mr. Gavin Henderson, in a district where the tenants are strictly bound, and that he has been in the habit of giving credit to considerable amounts to fishermen bound to other merchants. And other cases of credit sales by others than the fish-merchant are recorded. The extension of credit dealings with smaller shopkeepers is, however, strongly deprecated by Mr. Spence and Mr. Sandison, partners of the firm of Spence & Co. It is enough to remark, that such credits would be subject to the ordinary rules of the law; and that if they were found to be injurious, it would for the Legislature to consider whether the rule of the Arrestment of Wages (Scotland) Act 1871, or a short prescription, should not be extended to them.
*'10,016. Do you think the fishermen under that new system would not be able to get credit to a certain extent?-I don't see how some of them could. For instance, take the year 1869. In 1868 the fishings were almost a failure. Our total catch in Unst and Yell amounted to £1607, which could not average much over £4, 10s. to each fisherman. That year we imported meal and flour to the amount of £1824, cost price per invoice; we paid in cash for rents to Major Cameron, Mr. Edmonstone, Lord Zetland, and others, £1600; and we expended on fishing-boats and fish-curing materials £780,-being a gross amount of outlay of £4223 against the fishing, the return for which, as said, was only £1607.'
[R. Henderson, 12,855; M. Laurenson, 7342; D. Edmonstone, 10,658; J. Thomson, 11,711; L. Moncrieff, 11,518; G. Georgeson, 12,032, 12,118; J. Twatt, 12,186; J. Spence, 10,559; A. Sandison, p. 248, f.n. 10, 494.]
It may be contended that a law which would restrict the freedom of fishermen to contract for payment in proportion to the profits realized on their fish, would be inexpedient; but it is not impossible to frame an enactment which, leaving them this power, should require payment, weekly or monthly, of such a proportion of their earnings as would obviate the necessity of living on credit.
OPINION OF MR SANDISON IN FAVOUR OF SHORT PAYMENTS
It is satisfactory to find one of the most enterprising and intelligent merchants in Shetland stating a strong opinion in favour of a system of monthly payments for fish. Mr. Sandison's evidence on this subject, with which the other members of his firm agree is as follows:-
'10,006. Do you think it would be possible to introduce any system by which the settlement should not be made at such long intervals?-I have considered the matter seriously since the Truck Commission was first spoken about, and I have come to the settled conviction that it would be very much better for the curer to pay monthly in cash.' '10,007. Would that payment be according to the quantity of fish delivered, or by way of wages, or partially both?-There are two reasons why I think wages would not do. In the first place, the fishermen would not like to take wages, because if they make a good fishing they would not get so much as they do now; and, in the second place, I am sorry to say that with the greater part of them, if they got wages they would not fish half so much.' '10,008. Then what system would you suggest?-I think the right system is just to fix a price at the beginning of the year of so much per cwt. for green fish, and pay it monthly or fortnightly in cash as may be agreed upon.' '10,009. Do you think it likely from your experience that the fishermen would agree to that?-Two years ago in North Yell, when I settled with the fishermen there, I urged the men to take cash payments, because we had no store there, and it was an inconvenience for us to send goods. We had to employ a man and pay him, which cost us something. But I found that they all declined my proposal. In the same year, 1870, I tried to engage our fishermen in the south of Unst and in Yell at a fixed price, and I did so. Every fisherman who went out in the south end of Unst and Yell that year was engaged at 7s. per cwt. I made that bargain in December in writing; but when settling time came we could afford to pay them 7s. 3d., and I did so, according to the previous practice. I might have pocketed £30 by that transaction; but if I had done so, the fishermen would have thought I had treated them dishonestly.' '10,010. Were they going to grumble?-I have no doubt some of them would have grumbled if they had not got the additional price. I would not say that all of them would have grumbled, because there are some of our fishermen who are very intelligent and very reasonable men, and who would have understood the thing, and said that a bargain was a bargain.'