Second Shetland Truck System Report Part 322

13,639. In addition to the fish which are delivered in a wet state at your stations, do you purchase dry fish?-Mr. Leask has been in the habit of purchasing ling for a firm in Dublin for many years.

He also buys cod in a dry state occasionally.

13,640. Last year, I understand, you bought all the Greenbank fish?-Yes, all the Greenbank ling, not the other.

13,641. And also some from Mossbank?-Yes.

13,642. Did you also buy dry fish from Thomas Williamson, Seafield?-Yes.

13,643. Do you supply Pole, Hoseason, & Co. with goods as wholesale merchants?-No.

13,644. Then these fish would be settled for by cash or bills?- Yes; by cash at three months from the date of shipment.

13,645. Were these ling paid for at the current price-Yes, at 23 per ton, free on board at Mossbank or Cullivoe, the port of shipment.

13,646. The men, I understand, are paid according to the current price of dry fish at the end of the season?-Yes. They get all the advantage that the curer can afford to give them. The price is not fixed at the commencement, and I think it is much better not.

13,647. What was the current price at the end of last season?- 23.

13,648. Is that calculated to afford 8s. per cwt. for green fish?- Yes. In the previous year the price was, I think, 21 for dry fish, and the price allowed for green fish was 7s. 3d. for ling. Of course tusk and cod were much less.

13,649. How would a transaction such as you have mentioned be taken into account in ascertaining the current price at the end of the season? Would you stand in the position towards the curers of a wholesale purchaser?-Exactly.

13,650. Do you think a number of small sales in the course of a season may be able to get a higher price than a large curer who sells all in a lump all the end of the year?-At rare times he may sell a small parcel for a larger price; but generally, I think, the small curers get a less price than we do at the end of the season.

13,651. Would you be surprised to hear that some small curers were able to pay their fishermen much higher prices for ling and all other fish than the larger curers, and that they have done so, in point of fact, for some years back?-Such a thing is quite possible.

They may have got more for their fish when dry.

13,652. How would you account for that?-I cannot account for it; it may have happened by accident.

13,653. Do they require less remuneration for their trouble?-No.

13,654. Or does selling in small parcels enable them to get a higher price?-Sometimes it may.

13,655. Do you think they may sell to retail dealers at once, and thus get the advantage of the retail price?-Perhaps they may sell a small parcel at once at a higher price; but, as a rule, I don't think they do. I think a large parcel generally sells best.

13,656. Is not a large parcel sold to parties who themselves supply retail dealers?-Yes.

13,657. But a small dealer, by taking a little more trouble, may possibly sell direct to the retail merchant himself, so that he secures his profit without the intervention of another dealer?-He may.

[Page 340]

13,658. Is that the way in, which you account for him getting a higher price?-That is the only way in which I can account for it.

13,659. The small curers get not only the curer's profit, but they also get the wholesale fish-dealer's profit at times, by selling direct to the retail dealer. Do you think that is a reasonable explanation of the matter?-I think so. It is the only way in which I can account for it, because I know that the large curers pay the utmost they can afford to the men.

13,660. Do you supply Thomas Williamson, Seafield, with goods?-Yes.

13,661. Are these set in the account against the fish which you buy from him?-Yes.

13,662. And that account is settled from time to time?-Yes.

13,663. Is that the only security which Mr. Leask has for his supplies to Williamson?-Yes; in fact he has no security at all until he gets the fish.

13,664. I suppose Mr. Williamson's is a case of man starting business without much capital?-I think so.

13,665. Is Mr. Leask his security with the Commercial Bank?-I know that he became answerable either for an account or for the value of boats, or perhaps for both; but I could not say what he may have done with regard to the Commercial Bank.

13,666. Are you aware that Williamson obtained letter from Mrs.

Budge's agent requiring the fishermen on Seafield to fish for him?-I am not aware of that; I never heard of it before.

13,667. You showed me before the correspondence which had taken place between Mr. Leask and Mr. William Jack Williamson.

In a letter dated 7th December 1869 Mr. Leask stated that he had directed the fishermen to fish to him (that is, Williamson), and that Williamson had become liable to him (Mr. Leask) for the rents as James Johnston had done: had he done so?-I suppose Mr. Leask simply recommended them to fish for Williamson; he did not direct them.

13,668. But the word used in the letter is 'directed?'-That simply means recommended. Mr. Leask never directed them to fish for Williamson, or to fish at all. They might have gone to the ends of the earth, to the south, or elsewhere, for anything he cared; but when they did fish, I suppose he wished them to fish for Williamson.

13,669. Probably that recommendation would be taken into account in fixing the rent to be paid for Williamson's premises at Ulsta?-It was not. The rent has never been reduced on account of that.

13,670. But it would not be reduced; it would rather be raised, because that would increase the value?-There was no such understanding at all. I deny most positively that Williamson's rent was increased in consequence of the tenants being allowed to fish for him.

13,671. Was Williamson on the property when Mr. Leask bought it?-Yes. Mr. Leask has been at very great expense on Williamson's property, repairing houses, and one thing and another, and very likely he would have raised the rent in consequence of that. I think he paid about 20 one year for improvements, and there were other improvements carried through which cost a great deal of money; and I consider that Mr. Leask was ent.i.tled to a percentage upon that.

13,672. Did he get a rise of rent?-I don't know that he did. I am only saying that if he did get it he was ent.i.tled to it.

13,673. But is it not reasonable to suppose that man can pay a higher rent for a piece of ground if the fishermen in the district are under an obligation to deliver their fish to him?-He ought certainly to pay more for a monopoly; there is no doubt about that.

13,674. Do you not know whether the rent was altered after Mr.

Leask bought the property?-I believe the rents in general were raised a little,-not the whole of them, but a great many of them,-because Mr. Leask has been at a great deal of expense in building new houses, and otherwise.

13,675. Have you any doubt at all that the fact that the fishermen were fishing for Mr. Williamson and Mr. Johnston was taken into account in fixing the amount of their rents?-It had nothing whatever to do with the fixing of the rents.

13,676. Was it merely as a favour to the merchant who occupied the premises that the tenants were directed to fish to him?-Quite so. It was merely a favour to recommend the tenants to fish for him.

13,677. That was no favour to the fishermen, however?-I don't think it was, but it did them no injustice, because I have no doubt Williamson would have paid them the same price as other people.

13,678. Did Williamson become liable to Mr. Leask then for the rents of the fishermen?-No, never. Williamson never became liable for anything but the balance in his hands.

13,679. Mr. Leask's letter states that he had directed the fishermen to fish to him, and that Williamson had become liable to him for the rents, and he complains also that Williamson had not fulfilled that obligation: had he not become liable?-He may have talked about doing so, but he never did so.

13,680. Did he promise to become liable?-He may have promised to become liable, but to the best of my knowledge, he never did so.

13,681. Is it not a very usual, indeed almost a universal, arrangement in Shetland, that some of the fishermen's rents are paid to the proprietor by the fish-merchant to whom his tenants fish?-Yes; I believe that is quite common.

13,682. Is it not very often done by debiting the fishermen with the amount of the rent in the fish-merchant's books, and the fish-merchant handing a cheque to the proprietor for the slump sum of the rents due by his fishermen?-Yes, that is quite common.

13,683. Is it not almost universal?-I believe it is, but in this case it was not done. Williamson simply paid the balance in his hands which was due to the fishermen. When the balance could not pay for the rent, of course Williamson did not make it up.

13,684. He did not pay any rents for fishermen who were not able to pay for themselves?-No.

13,685. But James Johnston had done so, and fulfilled his obligation?-In one or two cases, I believe, Johnston did so.