PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
TLC.O.
882
2
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO |
240
altered their decision, for the Commission of the Governor certainly gave no authority to the individual Commissioners to report separately and without concert with their colleagues.
10. Mr. Fraser seems to think that his Report contained matter which I was unwilling to have published. This is so far from being the case that I was anxious to see it published, and did all in my power to induce Mr. Fraser to publish it himself, for I was quite aware that whilst it remained unpublished its importance was likely to be much exaggerated, and its contents supposed to be something very different from what they really are. Mr. Fraser, I imagine, is quite as well aware of this fact as myself, and has accordingly carefully refrained from any such publication.
11. Mr. Fraser quotes certain words from a report contained in the "Commercial Gazette" of a speech made by me in Council on the 20th May last, which, had they been uttered by me, would undoubtedly prove me to have made a very inaccurate statement.
12. Being well aware, however, that anything I might say was likely to be mis- reported by the "Commercial Gazette," I took the precaution of reading that speech from a written paper, which was subsequently placed at the disposal of the reporters of all the Port Louis journals, This correct report will be found in other news- papers, but the "Commercial Gazette " preferred to give its own version of what its proprietors considered or wished me to have said. That this version is incorrect I need hardly remark.
I did not say that "Mr. Fraser had told General Smyth that in the main he agreed with the report," which would have been absurd, and which every one who heard me would have at once perceived to be absurd, because it was well known that the report did not exist at the time referred to, but I did say that I regretted Mr. Fraser's report could not properly he published by the Government, as its publication would show that he did not so greatly differ from his colleagues as appeared to be supposed, and that in the main he agreed with their conclusions. I said also that whilst I did not think the Government could properly disclose what were, in fact, confidential suggestions, I invited Mr. Fraser to publish the document himself, and should be glad to see him do so.
13. I regret that Mr. Fraser should again have made use of this quotation from the Commercial Gazette," because whatever may have been the case when he first wrote to General Smyth on the 6th July, I find it difficult to understand how, on the 24th October when he wrote to your Lordship, he could have been ignorant of the inaccuracy of this report, of which I took steps to secure his being informed, as well as to bring the correct report under his notice.
14. As regards the statement made by Judge Gorrie, and which appears incon. sistent with that of General Smyth, I have requested him to make any observations he thinks proper, and these observations will no doubt be forwarded to your Lordship.
The explanation of the apparent discrepancy will, I believe, be found in the fact stated in General Smyth's letter of April 19, that some of the members of the Com- mission came to his house to read over the draft Reports, Mr. Justice Gorrie being at that time confined to his room by severe and protracted illness.
15. My own statement was to the effect that this paper had not been seen by all Mr. Fraser's colleagues. I did not believe that it had been seen by more than one, and although an opportunity was afforded to members at the General's private house of reading all the draft suggestions, I doubt whether they all availed themselves of the offer he made them to take Mr. Fraser's suggestions home to peruse at leisure. Certainly, more than one of the Commissioners has informed me that he never read them, and I believe the fact is that the other members of the Commission did not attach to them an altogether equal degree of importance to that which is not unnaturally attributed to them by Mr. Fraser himself.
16. The issue in this discussion has, however, dwindled down to one infinitesimally small, and I regret, and am almost ashamed, to trouble your Lordship with further correspondence on so trivial a matter, although, I presume, some remarks will be expected from me on the contents of Mr. Fraser's letter; I trust, however, that I shall not again have occasion to address your Lordship on the subject.
I have, &c. (Signed) ARTHUR GORDON.
241
No. 68.
The Officer Administering the Government to the Earl of Kimberley.—Received March 13.) (No. 12. Miscellaneous.)
Mauritius, February 5, 1873. My Lord,
REFERRING to Sir Arthur Hamilton Gordon's despatch No. 290 of the 20th of September last, I have now the honour to forward, at the request of the Inspector-- General of Police, copy of a further communication that has been addressed by him to the Royal Commissioners on the subject of the Police inquiry Commission.
I have, &c. (Signed)
Gentlemen,
Inclosure in No. 68.
EDWARD NEWTON.
General Police Office, December 28, 1872. IN continuance of my Reports to your address respectively of the 24th August, and 14th September last, I have the honour to forward a copy of a communication, received from England, from the Honourable J. Fraser, by which you will perceive that, at least half of the Police Inquiry Commission were unaware that the file of General Orders in this Department, handed in to one of the members, formed part of the documents before it. Moreover, Mr. Fraser's testimony goes to show that this gentleman, like two of his colleagues, did not connect the question put to the Honourable Mr. Beyts, by the then Head of the Police Department, with documents forming part of the evidence before the inquiry, and also that the same prominence by was not given to the file handed in by Mr. Spencer, as to the orders "picked out " Mr. Seed, by direction of his chief. Had it been otherwise, and had those members, who were aware of the tenure of some of my orders, brought those orders to notice, both the Honourable Messrs. Fraser and Antelme state that their Reports would in justice necessarily have been materially modified.
Mr. Fraser you will see had not, when he wrote, the evidence of the Police Inquiry Commission before him, which will account for the error into which he has fallen in his concluding remarks. Had he had that evidence under review, he doubtless would have noticed Mr. Bell's allusion to these orders,—and have remarked, that nowhere in the examination of officers or members of the force were any questions put to illicit the existence of orders of the tendency of No. 88 of 1889, and 28 of 1870, though their existence and their being actually before the Commission is admitted by two of its members.*
I
In conclusion, may I express an earnest hope that you have been furnished with copies of the correspondence through the Colonial Secretary's Office, noted in the margint occasioned by my previous Reports, which correspondence has taken place since their submission to you, for I deem that in justice to all parties who considered that the facts brought forward in defence of myself and Department, reflected on them, as also for the full appreciation of the case, that these documents, referring as they do to others, forming part of your inquiry, be attached to my evidence with which they have such immediate and intimate connexion.
I have, &c.
(Signed)
J. T. N. O'BRIEN, Lieutenant-Colonel,
To Her Majesty's Royal Commissioners.
My dear Colonel O'Brien,
Inspector-General of Police.
9, Idol Lane, London, October 28, 1872.
In reply to your question regarding two Police General Orders, one No. 88 of 1869, the other No. 28 of 1870, copies of which you forward to me, I beg to inform you that I had never seen them previously. I have not the evidence taken by the Police Commission before me, but I feel certain that the point was pressed as to the arrest of Indians found out of their districts, and I more than once expressed my
, September 14: A/1729,
• Answer 201, alluded to in paragraph 8 of my Report of August 24. + Letters, A/1607, September 9: 819, September 9: 392, September 10: September 26; 227, September 30: A/1730, September 26; 226, September 30; A/1882, October 16; A/1883. October 16; 259, October 26: Government Order 4982, November 14, 1879.
[134]
3 QPage 421
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
TIITTIC.O. 882
لاستسلا
2
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO
242
strong opinion that arrests for being merely out of their districts was illegal. I feel the more confident in this statement from a reference to my Report, of which I subjoin an extract. Had I seen, or been aware of the existence of Order 28 of 1870, "the terms of that extract would necessarily have been materially modified; you will, however, gather from this extract that the police officers do not themselves seem to have been aware of the order referred to.
To Colonel O'Brien, Mauritius..
I remain, &c. (Signed)
J. FRASER.
Extract from Mr. Fraser's Report to the Chairman of the Police Commission, dated March 7, 1872.
Paragraph 6 (Old Immigrants' Petition).
"Here the Petitioners have, I think, good reason of complaint, for it is clear that, according to the interpretation given to Article 48 of Ordinance 31 of 1887 by a great number of Magistrates, inspectors of police, and constables, they are justified in arresting and condemning an immigrant to prison with hard labour, merely because he happens to be out of the district, for which his pass is taken out and in which he lives. Fortunately such cases are rare, but they ought not to happen at all. For myself I find nothing in the Ordinance or Regulations making it incumbent on an Indian to have his pass endorsed by the police, or altered, unless he changes his residence, occupation, or employer. By Article 48 above alluded to, arrest is only justifiable when persons are found out of their district under suspicious circumstances. Copies of all the Magistrates' books containing their decisions are forwarded every week to the Procureur-General, and these decisions therefore would appear to meet with his approval; and with such weighty authority against me I feel somewhat diffident of expressing my opinion too strongly. But if Article 48 has been rightly interpreted, and applied hitherto, the sooner it is changed the better it will be in my opinion."
(Registered No. 26.) šir,
General Police Office, January 25, 1873.
In compliance with the request contained in your No. 674 of the 1st instant, I have the honour to forward my letter with its annexures of 23rd ultimo, as well as of the correspondence alluded to, which have, agreeably to the wishes of Her Majesty's Royal Commissioners, been duly printed at the Police Press.
I have, &c. (Signed) J. T. N. O'BRIEN, Lieutenant-Colonel,
Inspector-General of Police.
To the Secretary,
Royal Commissioners.
(General Branch. Registered No. A/1007.) Sir,
Mauritius, Colonial Secretary's Office, September 9, 1872. With reference to your letter of the 7th instant, forwarding copy of a communi- cation which you have sent to the Royal Commissioners, containing your reasons for disagreeing with the Report of the Police Inquiry Commission, I am directed by the Governor to request you to transmit a copy of the above communication to Captain Blunt, and to call upon him, if you have not already done so, for explanation of the circumstances to which you refer in paragraphs 5, 44, and 50, for his Excellency's information.
I have, &c. (Signed)
E. NEWTON, Colonial Secretary.
Line Barracks, September 14, 1872.
Sir,
In reply to your letters Nos. 319 and 822, calling for any explanations I may wish to offer on the paras. mentioned therein, viz.: 5, 8, 32, 40, 44, and 50, I have the honour to state, for the information of his Excellency the Governor, that the
243
inferences which cannot fail to be drawn from the statements therein contained are, so far as I am concerned, almost unfounded.
At para. 5 it is stated that, though in the possession of the Commissioners, it would appear that a "file of other General Orders which was handed to one of the members was not submitted to all the others, and the file itself, when returned to my office, was found minus a page 31, on which one of the principal instructions as to the modus agendi of the Police was laid down." "Para. 8 states that only such orders as could lead to such an inference and tell against the Department, were made known to the Commission." Para. 32 refers to General Order No. 21 of 8th March, 1871, as "one of those on the file kept back.” In para. 40 I am charged with misleading the Commission by only producing "such orders as were published in the Report," and of not supporting an "absent Chief and the good fame of the Department," to my own credit; again, at para. 44, with "the publication of part of your orders, the sup- pression of others," and in para. 50, I am stated to have withheld General Order No. 28 of 1870.
The file of General Orders alluded to was on the table of the Commission, and remained there during the whole of its sittings, after having been produced--when the sittings for taking evidence were concluded, I, as head of the Police, took them away. -This file of General Orders was a collection that the Superintendent had made of all orders referring to Ord. 31 of 1887, for his own personal convenience. It was not an official document belonging to the Office. Copies of all General Orders are sent to each station in the Island; to the Superintendent's Office, the Adjutant's Office, the Sergeant-Major's Office, also when asked for, to the Inspector-General's Office, and monthly to the Colonial Secretary.
The General Order No. 28 of 1870, to which you especially allude, was read by me to the Honourable Mr. Beyts, when that gentleman was under examination on the 25th January, 1872. Q. 2035. It is incorrectly entered in the text of the evidence as No. 60 of 1870; but that order has nothing whatever to do with the question I put on Mr. Beyts' Annual Report, para. 50, Art. 5, for it refers to immigrants in Government employ having a pass indorsed by the Officer of their Department, whereas General Order No. 28 of 1870, relates to immigrants not under engagement, and having all their papers en règle, being out of their district for a day or two and able to give a satisfactory account of themselves, on business, &c. General Order No. 22 of 1871 runs thus: "The attention of Inspectors is called to General Orders Nos. 28 and 68 of 1870,-when an Indian is found out of his district with his paper en règle, with photographs, numbers, &c., all correct, and able to give a satisfactory account of himself, he should not be arrested merely because he may have left his district." These two orders were read by me to the Honourable Mr. Beyts, and he was naked whether they did not carry out his wish and intention as expressed in his Annual Report para. 50-5; bad General Order No. 60 of 1870 been one of the orders read, it would not have borne on the subject, nor could the question put have received the answer recorded as given. The page 31 of the file of General Orders was taken out by me, after the Commission had concluded its sittings for taking evidence, and was attached to my Annual Report on the working and statistics of the Police, which I submitted to his Excellency on the 12th February, 1872; the Commission having concluded its sittings for taking evidence on the 5th February, 1872. In that report, I thus allude to these two General Orders, No. 8 of 1870, and 28 of 1870, when speaking of the decrease in the number of vagrants at para. 23, 2nd. "From the less stringent interpretation latterly given to the law, and from orders that have been issued to the Police, the Indians are not so liable to arrest. I will quote two or three of these orders, from which it will be seen that some of the most marked of the Honourable the Protector's suggestions, viz.: para. 50-5 and 6, in his Report last year have been anticipated, and that such was and is the practice in the force. General Orders Nos. 8 of 1870, and 28 of 1870, marked A. 1. and B. 1." By this marked reference to these, it appears to me that I took the strongest measures in my power to "support my absent Chief and the good fame of the Department." This Report was laid before Council on the 20th February, 1872, and was printed, commented on, and before the public months before the Report of the Police Commission was completed. Had I wished to "suppress " these orders or to have "misled" others by withholding them, I should hardly have put them into a Public Report. The "much better spirit now prevailing in the force," could hardly be supposed to allude to the time I had been in charge, as Mr. De Pleivits alludes to the fact at the P.8. to the Petition, vide XVII of the Report, that is before my appointment.