PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
FLITTIC.O.882
2
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
134
the new regulation framed in accordance with the recommendation may have been misconstrued or misapplied by the Magistrates.
Under the former system the immigrants who had overstepped the time granted to them for entering into a new contract or taking a police pass, had to be detained and forwarded to the Immigration Department for further inquiries. In practice this rule often inflicted great hardship upon the immigrant. From Savanne, Grand Port, Flacq,-the furthest districts-immigrants presumed to be vagrants were sent to me, in Port Louis, for the further inquiries. I had generally to send them back to the districts whence they had come, as the further inquiries could only be prosecuted where they had been domiciled, and their detention was thus, very frequently, inevitably prolonged to an extent certainly never contemplated by the authors of Ordinance No. 31 of 1867, however it may have been endeavoured to incriminate their motives.
36. It is obvious to all but those who will not see it, or who are so blinded by their prejudices as not to be able to see it, that the further inquiries could not be prosecuted in Port Louis when the immigrants' abode had been in another district; that they could only be prosecuted in the district of the last domicile of the immi- grant; and could not be made otherwise than through the local authorities, unless a large increase of staff had been added to my Department, for the special purpose of making such inquires.* It was, therefore, that I, as Chairman of the Committee of 1869, submitted to the Governor paragraph 5 of the final Report of the Committee of
1869.
37. But, Sir, permit me to ask whether paragraph 5 of that Report constituted the whole of the Report ?-whether it was fair to the Committee of 1869 to say that their Report comprised all the recommendations which have made the law of 1867 much more onerous than its authors intended, basing that assertion on one single paragraph of that Report, even if the opinion conceived of the intent and effect of that paragraph were not as incorrect as it is. Should the whole of that Report (which the Commissioners then undeniably had in their possession) not have been produced to show how far such an assertion was justified?
38. I inclose a copy of the whole of that Report, and beg to submit a summary explanation of every one of its clauses, so that your Excellency may at once see how just it is to say that the recommendations they contained contributed to render the law of 1867 more onerous than it was, or was intended to be.
39. Clauses 1 and 2 of the Report merely contain preliminary remarks, concluding with the observation that modifications seemed to be needed, both in the Ordinance and in the Regulations.+
40. Clause 3 suggests that the penal sanction of Article 21 of Ordinance 31 of 1887 be extended. That Artiole, dealing with flotitious contracts, simply rendered them liable to cancellation. We thought it right to recommend that a fine should be made awardable against both parties to such contracts.
Was this making the Ordinance of 1867 more onerous, or was it pointing to one of its most important deficiencies ? Is it the interest of the community that fictitious contracts should be tolerated? Is it not rather the interest of the community that such contracts should be repressed? If so, did we, by recommending that the parties to such contracts should be punished, in any manner contribute to rendering the law
more onerous ?
41. Clause 4 recommended that the delivery of the police pass should be made subject to the police Inspector's being satisfied as to the bond fides of the declaration made by the applicant.
His Excellency Sir II. Barkly, commenting on this recommendation, said that he doubted whether the Ordinance meant the applicant to be entitled to the pass whether he declared his abode and occupation rightly or wrongly, truly or falsely. What else did we recommend than the carrying out of what the Governor himself considered to be contemplated by the Ordinance? We only recommended the ascertainment, by the Inspector of Police, of the veracity of the declaration. Was that rendering the law more onerous to any but those who were guilty of having made, or were induced to make, false declarations ?
• Seeing that in paragraph 217 of their own Report the Commissioners say:-" We think it extremely desirable that whatever obligations may be laid upon the immigrants with regard either to tickets or passes, they ought to obtain them without many of the objectionable formalities and journeys which now exist" (sic),—I am sure that these explanations would have sufficed to convince most of the Commissioners of the expediency and advisability of the recommendation cuntained in paragraph 5.
Whether the suggested modifications had to be carried out by regulations under the existing Ordinance, or through an amending Ordinance, was a point to be determined by the Executive Council itself.
135
42. To Clause 5 I have already alluded in paragraplis 34 to 39 of this letter. 43. Clause 6 referred to Article 47 of Ordinance 31 of 1867. In practice this provision had proved ineffective. The defaulter (a man presumed to have inade a false declaration as to his abode or occupation, or who had made no declaration at all), on receiving a summons, generally decamped, and, under the law as it stood, a warrant could only be issued against him after a summons had failed to bring him forward.
We thought it right to recommend that the preliminary process of the summons, which had been recognized to have made the law perfectly nugatory, should not be compulsory, but that it should be left to the discretion of the Magistrate either to issue a summons or a warrant according to the circumstances of each case, and the reasons he had for acting with more or less celerity. Was this intended to render, or did it tend to render, the law more onerous to any but those who infringed the law? and, if so, was it not calculated to protect society against the misdeeds of such violations of the law ?
44. Clause 7 recommended that a fine should be awarded against the master in every case where the servant was not discharged in accordance with Article 4 of Ordinance 16 of 1852. Was that rendering the law more onerous to the immigrants?
45. Clauses 8 and 9 (vide Inclosure B) were manifestly proposed for the protection of immigrants against the fraud and deception likely to be practised upon them by dishonest job contractors.
46. Clause 10 proposed that Regulation 42 should be modified. I have already demonstrated quite clearly that the intent of this proposal was to modify the law so aS to make it more beneficial and less burdensome to immigrants.
47. Clauses 11 and 12.--We did certainly recommend in these clauses that either fine or imprisonment should be made awardable against immigrants; but what immi- grants? Defaulters under Regulations 43 and 44. Those who, without lawful excuse, failed to declare changes of abode or occupation, or removals from one district to another.
If the pass-system is to be continued, and its principal objects are-as they undoubtedly are--to ascertain the abode and occupation of every immigrant not working under written contract, the process must be made compulsory. If it be enacted, on the one hand, that the declarations must be made, and permitted, on the other, that they be not made, it must be obvious to all but those who will not see it, that the system had just as well be abandoned; indeed, that it would be far better to give it up altogether.
Whether it should be maintained or not is quite another question; one which it is not my present purpose to deal with; but its maintenance being assumed to be necessary (and the Police Inquiry Commission, I see, do not venture to recommend its abolition), it should evidently not be maintained as a mere sham and a delusion.
Shall it nevertheless be said that it is not the less true that these, at least, of our recommendations rendered the system more onerous? Is this a fair and impartial appreciation of our motives or of the results we aimed at ?
48. Clause 13 was obviously meant for the protection of immigrants employed by job contractors.
40. Clause 14.-This Clause proposed the limitation of the number of jobmen's licenses, according to the requirements of each district; to render the licenses forfeit- able when not used bond fide; to compel the holders of such licenses to work as jobmen under a tariff to be published with the approval of the Governor; to punish the infringe- ments of the existing regulations requiring jobmen to wear badges by which they may be distinguished; and to raise the price of the jobman's license from 4. to 17. per
annum.
All these were steps which the Stipendiary Magistrates, the very officers who had followed out the working of the pre-existing regulations, had represented to us as neces- sary to render those regulations effective. The three first, though provided for by the new regulations, have never been carried into effect.
50. The fourth measure, that which refers to badges, is defensible, I hold, on the same ground as the pass system. If requisite, the wearing of the badges must be made compulsory; if not requisite, it should not be prescribed by law at all. But to enact in a law that badges shall be worn, and to allow, by the same law, that they be not worn, would ovidently be making a law merely that it might be turned into a laughing-
stock.
51. The fifth measure recommended in Clause 14 (the raising of the fee to 17.) is alluded to in the Police Inquiry Commissioners' Report in torms clearly implying a reproach; yet the Report does not my a word in explanation of the reasons which had