James ClarkBorn: 1856/B225 | Clark James | James | Margaret Tremble |
||
West Australian 22 November 1889MR. STREETER AND THE NOR'-WEST PEARL FISHERY. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,-The Western Mail of the 19th Oct., in noticing Mr. Streeter's arrival in the colony, makes several errors whioh I would like to correct. In the first place Mr. Streeter does not own one third of the pearling fleet on the Nor' West Coast. His fleet, although slightly the largest in number, is not of the same value as at least one West Australian owned fleet, nor does it produce the same quantity of shell. There are several other fleets whose owners would hesitate about exchanging with Mr. Streeter, whose interest at most one seventh of the whole. Mention is made that Mr. Streeter has always paid his duties, but the fact is suppressed that the Undine cleared out from Cossack when she arrived from Melbourne with stores on a pearling cruise, although it suited his business afterwards, I presume, to enter in and pay duties as others did also. Mr. Streeter will no doubt, gladly avail himself of the concessions the Government are making the pearlers, although he has not had the manliness to stand out and fight for them with the rest. The pearlers have the most approved appliances known, to procure pearl shell, and in this respect are ahead of Mr. Streeter, and seeing this gentleman has only visited the Nor' West twice, for a short period, the pearlers are not likely to be guided by any suggestions of his, based on such little experience. In conclusion, Sir, I would say that I have no wish to detract from Mr. Streeter's services to the colony, but there are others who though not West Australian born have the interest of the colony more at heart, and who by building boats instead of getting them from Singapore, buying stores, land and other properties, by being residents, and circulating more money than Mr. Streeter, are likely to do the colony more good. Of course, we are pleased to have Mr. Streeter with us, but your readers must not have the idea that he is the "only" pearler. I am, &c JAMES CLARK. Pearling Grounds, North West Coast, Oct 9, Brisbane Courier 17 November 1893LETTEBS TO EDITOR. THE PEARLSHELL FISHERIES. Sir,-From time to time notices appear in your paper of the doings of our steamer Billie Barlow at Thursday Island, the " exasperation" she has caused the people there culminating in a deputation waiting upon Sir Thomas M'llwraith, and his in- tention to stop our operations. All those little things call for no comment from me, but as you were good enough to think the matter of sufficient importance for a leader, and are wrong in your inferences, I claim space for reply, and also to acquaint your readers with some facts connoctod with the fishery. Until the beginning of last year all pearl- shell, large and small, were collected and exported, some weighing as little as ¼lb. This was continued for years without exhausting the beds. A feeling prevailed that it was not right to kill such small shell, and the Government were asked to prohibit its export, which they did from the begin- ning of last year. This prohibition had not the effect of stopping the taking of small shell, In spite of heavy fines the practice was indulged in. Not only so, but it was commonly reported that large quantities of small shell were opened for the pearls that they might contain, and the open shell thrown overboard to decay, thus benefiting no one. It was after several convictions had been recorded that I was asked by tho Hon. John Douglas if I could not devise some plan by which this waste might be prevented, and I suggested transplanting. I had applied for a lease some eight years before, but there was then no law enabling the Government to grant me one. My third application was accepted, and I obtained the lease of Friday Island Passage for fifteen years. The well-boat Pilot was constructed, and not being able to do the work, steam had to substituted before transplanting was successful. I should like to explain that the small shell now being laid down are obtained twenty to thirty miles out at sea, away from the land, from a bed that is inexhaustible, but unfortu- nately it can only be worked profitably some three months Of the year on account of the strong south-cast and north-west winds and its exposed position. Last year when working on this ground wo found that three-fourths of this shell were too small for export, and after passing it through the gauge we were compelled to throw it overboard on the very remoto chance of picking it up in another year or two. Considering the immense extent of ground a very remote chance indeed. It occurred to us, as it would to most business men I think, that it was a very foolish thing to throw a shell, however small, overboard if by transplanting it safely we could lay it down where it would thrive and where it could be obtained again easily. For using this ordinary foresight, and being a little moro enterprising than our fellow shellers, we are reviled at Thursday Island, and the community generally think we have been perpetrating some immense swindle. Even you say we have had justice meted out to us by Sir Thomas, who took one whole afternoon to thoroughly grasp the situa- tion from our opponents' point of view. We claim that by bringing in these small shell we are doing no harm to the other shellers. We may dump the shell down on our lease where it is our property, but the spat from that shell will go drifting along with the tide and become public pro- perty. How are we to get spat for culti- vating unless we bring shell in to get it from, seeing that all the inshore beds were exhausted long ago ? No steps whatever have been taken to transplant or cultivate pearlshell. Beds are discovered, worked out, and no thought or care given to renewing those beds or fight- ing the enemies of the shell. Instead of every sheller having his own private bed, similar to the oyster beds in Moreton Bay, wo find the first attempt condemned without a fair trial. Seeing that our plant is worth £25,000, and that besides we have larger interests in Queensland probably than the people agitat- ing against us, I should say decidedly that it was to our interest to conserve the fishery instead of ruining it. What we are doing every man could and should do. It may not be possible for one sheller to bring in his shell, but co-operation will do it, and I hope to see every white sheller farming his own lease, and the exclusion of the Japanese from this privilege. The fishery is gradually drifting into this race's hands. They already own sixty-seven boats, which number thoy are constantly adding to, and, unless some concession is made to the white sheller, such as a transplanting or cultiva- tion lease, I am firmly of opinion that our pearl fisheries will be almost entirely in their hands at an early date. Settlement on the land has always been encouraged, and why not settlement on tho sea ? and how can you have soltlomont without granting leases ? In conclusion, sir, I would say that as wo were invited to do what we are doing by the highest Government official at Thursday Island, at a cost of £4000, which sum we shall have expended by the 31st Decernber, we shall not meet with justice if our operations are checked beforo we are recouped this sum. Further, the boats I am connected with support sixty whites and 200 coloured men, and I think our interests aro just as worthy of consideration as our opponents'. -I am, sir, &c., JAMES CLARK. Zoomplus thumb minus left thumb right up thumb down Show/hide Brisbane Courier 5 May 1896PEARL-SHELLING CASE. CHARGE AGAINST JAMES CLARK AND CO REMOVING SMALL SHELL DECISION OF THE POLICE MAGISTRATE. FINES TOTALLING £1096. (By Telegraph from our Correspondent.) THURSDAY ISLAND, May 4. The Police Magistrate delivered judgment this morning in the case against James Clark and Co., who were charged with removing and having in their possesion small pearlshell for purposes other than of cultivating. After reviewing the,circumstances of the case very carefully, the Police Magistrate said it had been clearly proved that the shell in question was not cultivation shell, but had been obtained after cultivation had ceased. The proof was also clear that Mr. James Clark was responsible for the taking of the shell, although he might not have been in actual knowledge of the illicit work. His worship commented upon the fact that no evidence had been brought for the defence to show what became of the shell which died during transit for cultivation purposes. He remarked, with reference to the Government condoning the offence, that there were some good reasons for delaying action when it was believed that the shell was gathered for purposes of cultivation. The evidence had, however,justified the prosecution. Referring to the fine to be inflicted, he said his penalties in previous cases had ranged from 1s. to 10s. per shell. The latter, in this case, would be a terrible penalty, and even half that amount would be pretty severe, though perhaps not more severe, proportionately, than the penalties that had been inflicted on some offenders whose property consisted of some craft not worth £20. Jame3 Clark, trading as Jas. Clark and Co., owned the largest fleet of pearling craft in the Straits, consisting of first-class schooners and luggers. He named 2s. 6d. per shell as a penalty not too excessive to meet the ends of justice, and this fine was to carry costs. The fine is equal to £1047 7s. 6d., and the costs amount to £49 3s., making a total of £1096 10s. 6d. Mr. Seldom, solicitor for the defence, gave formal notice of appeal. The shell was ordered to be forfeited. Brisbane Courier 24 July 1896THURSDAY ISLAND PEARLSHELL CASE. We learn that the Crown has consented to the making absolute of the rule nisi granted by the Chief Justice for setting aside the fine of £1069 inflicted on James Clark and Co., pearl shellers, Torres Straits, for alleged breach of the small shell regulation in July, 1895, at Thursday Island. The rule is to be made absolute on the first ground set forth by the appellants, namely :- (1) That the complaint was not made within six months from the time when the matter of complaint arose, as required by section 52 of the Justices Actof 1886. (2) That there was no admissible evidence of removal of the shell within the colony of Queensland. It is, however, stated In the consent that it was not deemed necessary to consider the other grounds. These are as follow :- That there was no admissible evidence for purposes except those of cultivation as prescribed by section 11 of the Pearlshell and Beche-de-mer Fishery Act Amendment Act of 1891. That there was no admissible evidence of possession by the defendant James Clark of any shell. That the number of shell was improperly calculated. It may be added that the application was made by Mr. E. Lilley, Instructed by Messrs. Unmack and Fox. The Argus 4 Sept 1918PEARLS AND PEARL-SHELL. POSITION OF INDUSTRY. INTERVIEW WITH "PEARL KING." From the days when Cleopatra dissolved her pearl in vinegar and drank it off to the health of Mark Antony down to very recent times pearls and pearl fishing have been surrounded with romance and mystery. Now science gives cold blooded and prosaic explanations of tho origin of pearls as cysts or coats of matter with which the oyster surrounds parasites or intrusive bits of grit. Pearling has become an organised industry which seeks to have a price fixed for its product by the Federal Ministry yet even now there is romance as well as plain business in pearling as a talk with Mr James W Clark of Brisbane at Menzies Hotel yesterday proved. I am urging the Federal Ministry to fix a price for pearl shell, said Mr Clark, taking the business side first. Before the war shell was worth about £225 a ton. When war begin the market was completely disorganised. Sellers have had to take what they could get with a limited and irregular demand at the reduced prices I have, for instance sold shell in America at £130 a ton On the other hand the cost of getting the shell has gone up 50 per cent or more. The smaller men are being forced out of the business and the others are keeping things going at a heavy loss which cannot continue. There is now a demand for shell in Great Britain but the shipping space is needed for other things But there is no reason why Australia should see the industry shut up or sell shell at a loss This country practically controls the pearl shell market. Australia produces about 90 per cent of the world's supply, the only other source of any importance being the Aru Islands in the Netherlands Indies Wbv should not the Federal Government fit the minimum prici of shell at say £200 a ton or £225? The pearlers could keep the output for the present us near as possible to the limited denium! and be given an advance of perhaps £130 or £140 a ton with interest at 6 per cent until they realise. This would keep the industry going on a reasonable basis and after the war there will be a strong demand for shell. The pearling industry employs some 400 boats with seven men to a boat or nearly 3,000 in all. Very few of the Thursday Islands boats are still pearling, all the others have turned to collecting the Trocus shell which can be collected in great quantities and is sold to Tupan at £30 a ton. But in Western Australia we have not that alternative. If the small man is safeguarded an owner of two boats can do very well. The divers nowadays are nearly all Japanese; few Malays and Manilamen are left in the business. Another question that arises is the working-up of the pearl-shell, continued Mr Clark. "This would bo a very suitable industry for returned soldiers. For instance a man who has lost a leg could find a suitable able occupation in making buttons etc. I am trying to get the necessary machinery and an instructor from America. I have approached the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Millen) and he has promised that when tbe industry is established the importation of buttons will be prohibited thus preserving the Australian market for ourselves. Whv should we stop at this? Why should we not export our pearl-shell in the manufactured form? I am satisfied that the pearl oyster beds off the West Australian coast are practically inexhaustible. The present practice of taking small shells should however be forbidden in the interests of the industry itself. Our oysters have shellsup lo 12in. in diameter and a minimum of five inches or so should be fixed." 'As to the pearls themselves they are a mere side-line with us" continued Mr Clark, "pearls are too uncertain. The price ranges from 1/- per carat up lo £1,000. I have in my time had six pearls of which the collective price was £25,000 but the most wonderful I have seen is the Star ot the West found in 1917 which I still have. It came out of a 3¼in shell. I will tell you a story about that. In 1550 a negro slave in Spanish America picked up on the beach a small ovster-shell which seemed hardly worth opening but be did open it, and found tbe famous pearl La Peregrina which is still in the crown of the Queen of Spain. I want the Star of the West to be placed in the crown of the Queen of England if it's considered worthy of a place there. The most wonderful thing I have seen in my 17 years in the business is a small fish of pearl about 2½in long. What has happened no doubt is that the fish darted into the mouth of the oyster when it was open probablv seeking refuge from a large fish. The oyster closed on it and formed layers of pearl round it. The finding of pearls is a pure lottery and the valuing and handling of them a most delicate and intricate business. The story of Cleopatra and the pearl is quite feasible said Mr Clark in answer to a question. Vinegar dissolves the material of which tne pearl in composed and I once detected a faked pearl by means of this test. Pearling is a fascinating pursuit but I am going out of it. I have been in the business since 1881 when I went to Thursdav Island. I began operations on the coast of Western Australia in 1886. Naked diving had been carried on for years there and tbey said that tbe oyster beds were exhausted. We soon showed how far wrong that idea was when we began to Help fix this text!work in the deeper water with the aid of diving dresses." Brisbane Courier 22 Feb 1897" Although the trip was taken for plea- sure," said Mr. Clark, " I determined to see if, during it, I could not get a better price for our Queensland pearlshell, and with the aid of my friends, Messrs. Burns, Philp, and Co., and Messrs. M'llwraith, M'Eacharn, and Co., I am glad to say I succeeded In raising the price fully £10 a ton." He pointed out that it was found by his company and the other two companies combining, and getting several other friends to place all the shell in their hands, that they were enabled to hold at least three-fourths of the total quantity on the market, and, that being so, they insisted in getting an advance of £10, which was only a reasonable price. The values had pre- viously been very low, and had caused great distress at Thursday Island, but the prices now obtainable would give shellers a fair profit on their labour. In this way it was seen that the presence of large com panies in the field did not operate against the small sheller, but that at their own risk, and without the small sheller being involved in any cost, they were enabled to benefit the latter, while benefiting them- selves. Since arranging the matter, Mr. Clark has met other producers of shell, and they told him they were quite willing to place their shell In his hands at any time to hold for a fair price, instead of sacrificing it, as they had had to do in the past, by competing against each other. On account of the increased price, some Queensland boats, although they did not have a largo talke, show a very fair profit on the last year's work. With regard to the 5in. and 6in. limit, about which so much was heard during the process of legislation last ses- sion, Mr. Clark says it is a matter of the utmost indifference to his firm whether the Government fix the limit at 5in. or 6in. for shell for export Of course it would be better if the shell could bo left until it attained its greatest size, which would be considerably over 4in., but he points out that as the men travel over vast areas of ground, and may perhaps travel over it in some cases, only once In their lifetime, it is very desirable they should be allowed to pick up any marketable shell, and as they do not know whether the shell is over or under 6in. until they open it, it is very hard to have to throw away shell just be- low the limit, and it was on this account, bocause his firm knew that quantities of shell had been thrown overboard when it was just below 6in., that they advocated the 5in. limit Out of, say, eighty cases obtained by one fleet since the 5in limit came into force, only one case was below the 6in. limit Of course this will not always be the case. In many places, pro- bably, 10 per cent will bo under the 6in. He does not think that divers would bother about taking up shell less than 5in, or even 6in. shell. It is not so easily seen as the larger size, and weighs very little. Speak- ing of the question of transplanting, Mr. Clark says it was found too expensive to transplant shell under 6in. The quantity obtainable was not sufficient to pay to put a steamer on to bring them in. It would have cost £20,000 to lay down shell for five years before any return was had from the first lot laid down. While in England, Mr. Clark engaged the services of a scientist from the South Kensington Museum for three years, and the company have bought and are fitting up a vessel to moor on cultivation beds, and will en- deavour to cultivate shell from the spat to be obtained from the shell laid down in Friday Island Passage four years ago. Mr. Clark realises that it is a pity for others engaged in the industry that the results of the scientist's investigation cannot, in fair- ness to those who are solely at the expense, be made public. The experiment will cost the company about £2000. It was rumoured that Mr. Clark was on a mission home to sell out, but he says he doubts if anyone would be willing to take tho risk of going in for the industry, more especially when it is known that the company to which he sold out in West Australia has just liqui- dated with a loss of £20,000. Queensland shell is regarded as the finest placed on the market but unfortunately has not had a chance to attain its greatest size of late years. Old, thick, bold shells are much In demand, and command the biggest prices, but very few are obtainable in Queensland.Help fix this text |
Brisbane Courier 20 May 1896PEARLSHELL PROSECUTIONS. THE JUDGMENT. (From the "Torres Straits Pilot.") Upon the case Bennett v. Clark being called on Monday, 4th instant, the Hon. John Douglas, P.M., read the following as his judgment: This is an Important case on an information laid under the eleventh section of the Pearlshell and Beche-de-mer Amendment Act of 1891. It appears from the evidence that J. M. Forbes, an inspector of fisheries at Thursday Island, from information received by him on the 20th July last, proceeded on the following day, the 21st, being Sunday, to the Friday Island Passage, where a ketch named the Pilot, and owned by James Clark and Co., was anchored. He took with him an assistant, an officer in the Customs Department, named R. B. Downie. Forbes found a man named Bryant in charge. He told Bryant that he was an inspector of fisheries, and went on board. He found twenty-four cases of shell on board. He opened four of them. One of these contained exportable shell above the 6in. limit. Another contained a mixed lot—some exportable and some below the limit. The other two contained shell under the 6in. limit. Having inquired from Bryant, as inspector of fisheries, whence these cases came from, he was told that they had been brought from the schooners Olive, Sagitta, and Sketty Belle by Mr. Munroe and Mr. Outridge. Forbes having taken a note of this, returned to Thursday Island, leaving Downie in charge. That evening, on Forbes's return to Thursday Island, the Mr. Munroe referred to by Bryant called on Forbes, representing himself as much interested in the shell which had been seized, stated that it was all shell which had died in transit from the fishing ground to the cultivation ground at Friday Island, and that there had been correspondence about it between Mr. Hennessey, the former inspector of fisheries, when the Billie Barlow was engaged in transferring the cultivation shell. He did not produce any correspondence, and on searching the records of the office Forbes could not find any referring to the matter. On the faith, however, of Munroe's statements, and on a guarantee that Munroe would be responsible for the shell which had been seized, he agreed to withdraw Downie. On the following day he wired full particulars to the Collector in Brisbane, quoting Munroe's statements, and requested instructions. He received a reply that he was to do nothing further in the matter until he was instructed. He never received any instructions after that, and not long after left Thursday Island for Cairns. On the day after the seizure that is, on the 22nd of July, James Clark, in Brisbane, addressed a letter to the Collector of Customs in Brisbane. He had doubtless been advised by Munroe of the seizure of the 21st. In this letter (exhibit No. 19) he therein corroborates the statements made by Munroe to Forbes. The fourteen cases seized, he says, contained shell which had died in transit during the planting operations in 1893-4. He adds that they had been demanded by Mr. Hennessey, then Sub-collector at Thursday Island, but that the Collector of Customs at Brisbane, who then was Mr. King, had declined to confirm Mr. Hennessey's demands, and stated that they might be used for further catchment. So far Munroe's statements and Clark's statements agree, and they were made almost simultaneously at Thursday Island and at Brisbane. John Bryant, however, the caretaker at Friday Island Passage, gives a somewhat different version of the matter. It will be remembered that he was in charge of the Pilot when he was interrogated by Forbes, and he remained in charge of her until he handed her over to Johnston, one of James Clark's employees, at Goode Island. Bryant took charge of the Passage and the ketch on the 3rd of December, 1893, and remained in charge of her until this year. He is still in charge of the Passage, which is leased by James Clark, and is represented by the counsel for the defence as a trustworthy man. He states that he was living on board the Pilot when the Billie Barlow was engaged in planting shell in 1893-4. He states that she used to go up the Passage and chuck over the shell, and on her return from this, she usually came alongside the Pilot, and transferred to his charge the shell which had died in transit. They were at first kept in loose heaps. He received instructions to clean them, which he did. Munroe sent him some timber for cases, which he made up, and he then packed the shell in those cases, fifteen in number. They were not branded, and they were taken away afterwards by Steve Clark in the Billie Barlow before she left Thursday Island for Townsville. At the same time some other cases were also taken from the Pilot, of the contents of which he was ignorant. Everything was then cleared out of the Pilot. He received his instructions from Munroe, whom he recognised as manager of the cultivation business. All the cases which he had on board the Pilot when they were examined by Forbes had been received subsequently, after the Billie Barlow left. Whatever else the shell now seized may be, it is not the cultivation shell which died in transit. Who, then, brought it in or "removed" it? Here again we have to depend solely upon caretaker Bryant. He says that it was brought in by Bond and Munroe. Some statement, it seems, was made to Forbes about Outridge being also concerned in this, but I am not satisfied as to that. Bond and Munroe are the designated "removers." Who, then, is Bond and who is Munroe? Are they employees or partners in the firm of James Clark and Co.? There is no proof of that. We hear of Munroe as representing himself as "interested" in the cultivation shell. That is all. It is clear to me that there has been an infraction, and a very serious infraction, of the 11th section of the Act of 1891. Is the defendant responsible for that infraction? I cannot doubt that he is. It is true that he may not have had any personal knowledge of the removal or the possession of the shell in question. He may have been convinced, honestly convinced, that the shell seized was the shell which died in transit. He is not a resident on Thursday Island, and in this he may have been duped by some of his emplovees. Certain it is, however, that caretaker Bryant was likely in this matter to have been better informed than his employer. He swears positively that all the dead cultivation shell was taken away by Steve Clark in the Billie Barlow. No attempt is made to disprove the statement. If it is untrue, Steve Clark must know it is untrue. Yet he is not called. Neither is Munroe called. Surely he could have contradicted the statement if it is not true. He is manager apparently of the cultivation area, and should know what has become of it. If it has not been exported from the port, illicitly exported, he ought to be able to produce it. Still, am I justified in convicting James Clark, trading as James Clark and Co., on this information? I think I am. Clark is the registered owner of the Pilot, ketch. She was anchored in the Friday Island Passage, which is leased by Clark, when Forbes found the contraband shell on board, and Clark himself claims it as part owner. Moreover, when finally seized by Bennett it was in Johnston's custody and possession, and Johnston tells us that he is employed by James Clark at Goode Island. Outridge also, in his letter of the 1st February, 1896 (exhibit No. 14), acknowledges on behalf of James Clark and Co. that he is in possession of it at Goode Island. Some serious objections have been raised, and I have been asked to dismiss the complaint on several grounds. The first objection seems to be a pretty serious one—namely, that the offence, being a "simple" offence under the Justices Act, should have been dealt with by information within the six months laid down. I hold, however, that the offence is one involving two conditions—the removal and the possession; the remoyal may have been at any time during the last two or three years, but the possession continued with the defendant until the 12th of March, when it was taken out of his possession by Bennett, the present Inspector of Fisheries. Thus I hold that the information has been laid within the limit of time prescribed. Another objection is that there is no proof of removal, and it has been contended by the counsel for the defendant that there can be no proof of removal short of ocular demonstration. That proof it would, of course, be impossible to submit. The actual removal of any one pearlshell from the bed of the ocean can only be testified to by the diver who brought it to the surface. This would render nugatory the provisions of clause 11. But in my opinion there is sufficient proof to satisfy all reasonable demands for proof of removal. How can a shell be possessed by anyone unless it has been removed from its natural habitat, the bed of the ocean? The shell in question can scarcely have been evolved by the mere terrestrial operations of such chemical agencies as may be at James Clark's disposal. He is not possessed of supernatural powers, and can scarcely be expected to create mother-o' pearl shell of the kind scientifically known as meleagrina margaritifera. To my mind he must have obtained the shell now in court from the bed of the ocean. His possession of it is prima facie evidence of its removal. He is possessed of the means of removal. He has vessels and luggers fitted out especially for the purpose of removing shell from the bed of the ocean. Vide exhibit No. 14, where under the heading some of these are enumerated. Those vessels and luggers are licensed for the purpose by the proper authorities. Their special vocation is to remove and bring to port shell which they obtain within the territorial limits of Queensland. I cannot doubt that these shell were so removed, and they have been proved to be in James Clark's possession. It may be that James Clark himself had no guilty knowledge of what was going on. That, however, does not alter the case. James Clark, trading as, James Clark and Co., is responsible, I hold, for the offence charged against him in the information, and I am bound, I think, to convict him. I should add, perhaps, a word as to the objection on the ground of condonation. As to that, I may at once say that if there has been an offence, and if that offence has been charged in open court, no assurance from any executive officer, whether superior or inferior, can suffice to arrest judgment. For my part, I think that there is some justification, or, at any rate, some excuse, for the reluctance which apparently has been felt in authorising a prosecution in this case. It was hardly antecedently probable that an influential firm such as James Clark and Co. is, would, under cover of the privileges which they possessed as cultivators of shell, have lent themselves to such a breach of the law devised for the protection of the industry in which they are so deeply interested. The statement made that this shell was the shell which had died in transit, coupled with the assurance that there was correspondence in existence to maintain these averments, were very confidently made; and for myself, up to the time of entering upon this inquiry, I anticipated that they would be proved. I can scarcely wonder, therefore, that there should have been some hesitation in authorising this procedure. The result has now proved that it was justified. I have now to decide what penalty shall be awarded. It will be necessary that the whole of the shell seized shall be forfeited, and I adjudge it forfeited. Then, next, what penalty shall be awarded? The maximum penalty is £5 for every pearl oyster found in the possession "of the offender". In this case we have it in evidence that there are 8379 shell below the 6in. limit. I am perfectly satisfied with the return made by Mr. Downie to that effect, and my judgment will be based upon that computation; but if the defendant desires it, and if he is willing to pay the cost of a fresh count and measurement, arrangements will be made for that purpose, so that he may participate in the count and measurement. As for the amount of the fine or penalty? In the cases brought before me under this section during the last three years, I find that the penalties range from 1s. per shell to 10s. per shell. Ten shillings per shell in this case would be a terrific penalty. Even half that amount would be pretty severe, though perhaps not more severe, proportionally, than the penalties inflicted on some offenders whose whole property consisted of a crazy little craft not worth £20. James Clark, trading as James Clark and Co., owns the largest fleet in the Straits, consisting of first-class schooners and luggers. Under the circumstances of the case I name 2a. 6d. a shell as a penalty not too excessive to meet the ends of justice, and that is my judgment. This will carry costs. The Argus 29 June 1921PEARL VALUED AT £10,000. BRISBANE, Tuesday.-A pearl valued at £10,000 was exhibited to the Taxation Commission to-day by Mr. James Clark, a pastoralist, and who is interested in the pearl industry- The. pearl is larger than a sparrow's egg; Mr. Clark claimed that it was the finest in the world Help fix this text Brisbane Courier 23 March 1895Thursday Island Brisbane Courier 29 April 1897THE MINING COMMISSION.
EVIDENCE AT THURSDAY ISLAND.
THE PEARLING INDUSTRY.
(By Telegraph from Our Correspondent.)
THURSDAY ISLAND, April 28.
The Mining Commission have determined
to get away by the Tslnan, leaving tomorrow for the South, otherwise they would
have to wait for a fortnight. They sat from
7.30 p.m. to 10.45 p.m. yesterday taking evidence regarding the pearlshell industry, the
Hon. John Douglas and Mr. Dennett, sub
collector of Customs, being examined. The
taking of evidence will be continued to-day.
The principal fact elicited was the passing
of the industry into Japanese hands. West Australian 30 Nov 1889LONDON, NOV. 28. A Pearling Trade Company, with a capital of £50,000 has been registered. The company purchases the pearling fleet belonging to Mr. Clark of North West Australia. |
Brisbane Courier 8 December 1893TORRES STRAITS PEARL-SHELLING. |