( 97 )
Q.--Do I take it that you consider such a penal clause as against the liberty of the subject or contract ?
A. It is against the liberty of contract.
Q-If the Police had better control over these men-
A. But the Police don't do the work they already have so well as we would wish. No Government Department does do its work so properly or as well as it might be done.
Q. I suppose that remark would apply to most commercial firms too?
A. Yes. A private individual is better able to get his own way than through the medium of a Government Department.
Q.-There seems to be a feeling abroad that the private individual can't control his coolies, and now we are making efforts by means of this Commission to devise a means of controlling these coolies.
A. The same state of affairs has existed in every portion of the world and no country ever will be able to control its servants. It is not likely that we will be able to control them bere.
Q-My own view is that one should not be stopped from experimenting because there is a possibility of failure. We think, on the other hand, that there is a probability of success, and I don't think one can say there is no chance of success in such a matter as this. Referring to your main objection with regard to the penal clause, liberty of contract, you know, don't you, that liberty of contract is already restrained in many cases?
A. It is.
Q-So that at any rate we have prece lent on our side. I will give you as instances, the following:-No man can enter into a contract to commit a crime, no man can enter into an agreement to commit a civil wrong, or an agreement which is contrary to public policy. Now then, I put it to you that, in such cases, the basis of them is a desire to promote the public advantage, is it not? In such a case as the present, where the proposal to introduce a penal clause and to enforce registration is based securing the advantage of the public at large, don't you think precedent has a good deal of force in the matter and that, after all, this interference with the liberty of contract must be looked at in the light of whether such interference is for the benefit of the public or not?
A.—I don't think you will find a precedent in the case of servants.
It is a very old question and must have come up several times, both here and elsewhere, and no country, so far as I know, has succeeded in effecting a remedy. It has been tried over and over again, I fear.
Q-At any rate we have tried it with cargo boat people, public chair and ricksha coolies who may be viewed as public servants. The experiment with them has not failed, and I can't see why it should not succeed with private servants.
A.--As far as public coolies go, I don't think it is at all proved that it has been a
We should be better off if we had an unlimited number of them.
success.
Q.-You are going on another point now. It is the question of the restriction of the numbers, as the effect of licensing, which is quite a different thing. There is no proof that anything of the kind has happened,
A. The licensees have imported to the Colony a number of very unfit coolies. Q. Do you mean to say that if there had been no licensing, we would have had more fit and able men brought into the Colony?
A.-I think so.