PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
C.O.
Reference :-
-882
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
2 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE. LONDON
132
with the photographer who undertook the work, the term of that agreement had necessarily to be awaited, and its conditions to be observed; that tenders were invited through all the newspapers, and no photographer volunteered to do the work at a lower price than that which was accepted; that, to realize the desired effect, the system had to be applied to the whole inimigrant population within as short a time as possible; that the system, until it was made compulsory by law, had been imposed upon nobody; and that all who, until then, had declined to submit to it, had been left perfectly free to do so.
24. The total sum paid to the photographer is alluded to in terms clearly intended to denounce it as a lavish expenditure, but might the sums paid out on contracts for steam communication, at a time when steamers were scarcer and dearer than at present, not be just as well referred to as money spent far in excess of what now has to be laid out for the same object?
Had the Commissioners made further inquiry into the effects of the portrait system, they would have learnt the further fact that the amount annually paid by immigrants for duplicate tickets has thereby been reduced from an average of 5,2001. to 1,1701. in 1870, and 1,2201. in 1871; that the saving that immigrants have thus been enabled to realize since 1864 has already amounted to 23,0001., and is likely to continue at the rate of 4,0001. per annum so long as the fee on duplicate tickets will be maintained at its present rate.
25. But the Report goes on to say that the charge even now (28. for two portraits), is six times the value of the article produced. Each portrait is thus stated to be worth no more than 2d. As the authors of the Report are doubtless too scrupulous to advance such a statement without good reasons for doing so, I recommend their being requested to indicate the means by which the cost might be reduced to such an extent, as an important economy might thereby be realized by Government. But this, I fear, is only another example of the errors into which the Commission fell by the hastiness of their proceedings.
26. To illustrate the use of a permit to work, the Report says, in reference to an immigrant who has procured one on payment of the ordinary fee, "The paying of those 58. brought him no privilege, but merely subjected him to fresh liability to arrest and punishment if he exceeded the time mentioned in the permit."
A permit to work is a document issued to an immigrant who has no papers, for the purpose of enabling him to work during a probationary period of one month; yet it is said to bring to its recipient no privilege but that of being arrested after its expiration, if he exceeds the time for which it is granted. As well might be argued that a railway ticket carries with it no privilege but that of exposing its possessor to be arrested and punished if he travels beyond the distance for which it is granted.
27. I should stop here, were it not that there still remain numerous charges levelled against my Department which I cannot leave unrefuted.
28. The Report next takes up the internal management of the Immigration Department, and says, "As to the internal administration of the Department, we were by no means satisfied with what we discovered, although it was impossible for us to go, And the with all the minuteness which we could have desired, into the affairs." result of the inquiries into the working of the Department is thus expressed in the chapter styled "Summary of Conclusions," par. 251:—
"That the mode of book-keeping was very loose, under which (sic) it' was impossible to trace any individual payment by an old immigrant."
29. I regret that I should have to do so, but I cannot help meeting the assertion contained in the foregoing paragraph with a positive denial. Ifad the Commissioners come to my office to look into the system followed there; had they chosen to ask me for further explanations regarding it, they might have learnt that it was quite possible to trace out any individual payment made by an immigrant, as well as any other sum received in the office. They would have discovered that the practice was to file a voucher in the office for every sum received, and that all the vouchers so filed have to be exhibited to the auditor, who periodically examines all the accounts of the office.
But not one of the Commissioners ever visited the office for the purpose of examining into its management; not one of them looked minutely enough into its system of internal management to understand it thoroughly; and yet it is asserted in their Report that the system was louse and far from being satisfactory. I say that the mode in which the system was examined by them was loose and far from being satisfactory; and that the judgment passed upon it is utterly unfounded. I challenge a further inquiry into the matter by competent persons, and have not the least
A
133
hesitation in appealing to the opinion of the Auditor-General as to the efficiency of the checks which have been in force in the Department.
80. But the official vouchers which are kept for exhibition to the Auditor are called "flying jottings;" it is stated that they are destroyed by the cashier, whereas they are never in the cashier's possession, and can only be destroyed by the Auditor after his examination; and it is affirmed that "the Protector with great promptitude agreed to alter the system, which, on reflection, he could not but perceive to be liable
to great abuse.”
This last allegation, to say the least of it, is quite inaccurate. I neither did, directly or indirectly, avow that the system followed in my office was liable to great abuses. I simply declared that I was quite disposed to adopt any measure likely to strengthen the guarantees already existing in the system which I followed. So, even the readiness I evinced to admit any useful suggestion coming from the Commission, has been travestied into a confession of guilt!
31. The Report further says:-"We also understand that in future the immigrant himself shall pass to the chief clerk, after paying his money to the cashier, in order to state how much he has paid, in place of a mere memorandum being sent from one officer to the other." What is represented here as a measure only intended to be put in practice in future, is a measure actually in practice in the Immigration Department from time immemorial, as might easily have been ascertained if the other officers of the Department had been questioned with regard to it. (See Mr. Anderson's answers, 1,257 and 1,258).
32. In paragraph 137 it is said-" Since the oral testimony was completed, we have obtained information relating to the amendments of the regulations. A Com- mittee had been appointed in 1869 by Governor Sir H. Barkly, consisting of Mr. Beyts as Chairman, the Inspector-General of Police (O'Brien), and Mr. d'Emmerez de Charmoy, District and Stipendiary Magistrate, to inquire into the working of the new law. Those gentlemen made an interim Report, which we had before us during our examination of the witnesses, and we were led to believe that no final Report had ever been presented.”
By whom were the Commissioners led to believe that there was no final Report? Did the very designation, interim Report, not clearly show that there must have been a further Report? Was it not the easiest matter in the world to procure that other Report from the Colonial Secretary, to whom it must have been sent ? Simply because I could not, when once questioned abruptly, instantly remember it, or point out its precise date and indicate at what period it had probably been written, it was immediately inferred, without my having been requested to procure the wanted document, without my having been asked to assist the Commission in seeking for it, that it was wished and intended to withhold it from them. I merely ask, whether any such concealment of a public document, of a Report which had been submitted to the Governor of the Colony, and to the principal Law Officer of the Crown, was possible? and I, moreover, ask whether the harbouring of such a suspicion towards a public officer holding the confidence of Government--a confidence of which not a vestige could justifiably be withdrawn from him-was proper on the part of the Commission ""
83. Continuing the reference to the above-mentioned final Report, the Commis- sion, or rather the Report presented in their name, says: "Such & Report, however, was made on the 2nd August, 1869, and in it are comprised all the recommendations for alterations of the regulations which have made the law of 1807 so much more onerous than its authors intended."
And paragraph 5 of that final Report is quoted Be a proof quite conclusive that the Report which had so been attempted to be concealed from the Commissioners was a document which there was reason to conceal, and that it was a document which rendered the law of 1887 much more onerous than its authors intended. The para- graph quoted will be found in the copy of the final Report which I herein inclose."
34. Had the Commission given me an opportunity of explaining the objects of the recommendation contained in the above-mentioned paragraph 5, and the reasons which had led the Committee on the Labour Laws to submit it to the Governor of the Colony, I might perhaps have hindered the majority of the Commissioners from arriving at the conclusion they have come to regarding it—a conclusion the utter inaccuracy of which it is perfectly easy to demonstrate.
85. The object of that recommendation was not to render the law more onerous to immigrants, but just the reverse; it was intended to render the law less onerous to them; and such I hold has been the consequence of the change, except in cases where
[134]
2 M