PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :--
C.O.885
21 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
42
Section 127 (2) of the Immigration Ordinance, 1891, are invariably carried out. Immigrants are not taken back to their plantations unless the employer requests their return in the prescribed manner.
26014
I have, &c.,
CHARLES T, COX.
No. 34.
FIJI.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE to THE GOVERNOR. [Copy to India Office, 5th March, 1912. L.F.]
(No. 209.) SIR,
Downing Street, 21 September, 1911.
I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch, No. 126, of the 6th of July,* on the subject of certain proposed amendments in the Indian Immigra- tion Ordinance, and of your despatch, No. 125, of the same date, † on the question of return passages for time-expired indentured Indian immigrants.
2. After full consideration of the arguments adduced in your despatch, No. 125,† I am prepared to withdraw my proposal that employers of indentured coolies should be required to pay for the cost of the return passages of such coolies.
3. I consider, however, that the Colonial Government should continue to be liable for the whole cost of these passages, especially having regard to the fact that the passages can only be claimed within two years after completing ten years' resi- dence in the Colony, a limitation not contained in the law of Trinidad.
Governor, No. 88, 15 June, 1905. Secretary of State, No. 86, 17 August, 1905. Secretary of State, No. 123, 12 December, 1905.1
4. In this connection I desire to point out that the minute by the Agent-General of Immigration embodied in your despatch, No. 125, is hardly accurate. If you will refer to the correspondence, as noted in the margin, which passed in connection with the Ordinance No. 20, of 1905, and No. 8, of 1906, you will observe that, so far from the burdens on the Government of Fiji being increased by those Ordinances, they were considerably limited. It is not the case that by the Ordinances of 1905 and 1906 provision has been made for a right to free passage to India to any child born in Fiji of immigrant parents, whether accompany- ing its parents or not, and up to any age. On the contrary, the effect of those Ordinances to limit the right of children, and the position now is that a child born in the Colony is only entitled to a return passage up to the its parents or guardian back to India, and, if not so born, up to the age of 24, whether age of 12 if accompanying accompanying its parents or not.
5. At the same time I desire that you will consider whether it would not be advisable to give further encouragement to the practice of time-expired coolies settling upon lands within the Colony. I understand from paragraph 4 of your despatch, No. 125, that it is no longer the practice to make special offers to the time. expired immigrant to induce him to stay, and it might perhaps be desirable to revive the policy of 1888, modified in such manner as may suit the present conditions. I gather from the minutes of the Executive Council that the rent payable on land acquired by the Indians is usually considerably higher than 23. an acre, which was the rate offered in 1888, while no grant is now made, as in 1888, towards the cost of building a house and providing food, tools, furniture, seeds, and animals with which to commence work in the Colony.
6. In reply to the second paragraph of your despatch, No. 126,* on full con- sideration I consider it desirable to adhere to the amendment of the law as to exten- sion of indentures originally proposed by the Agent-General in the minute enclosed in Sir C. Major's despatch, No. 277, of the 23rd of December,§ namely, to limit the discretionary power of a magistrate to grant extensions to cases of convictions for desertion or unlawful absence from work, and to the actual time lost through the absence or desertion, and any period of imprisonment in respect of the offence. This would put an end, as he points out, to the extension of the period of service in respect of prosecutions for failure to show diligence or to complete a task, and I
• No. 32.
† 23164, 25164, and 43074; not printed.
§ No. 16.
↑ No. 31.
43
observe that the arguments in paragraph 4 of your despatch No. 128, and paragraph 7 of your despatch No. 125, are based on the assumption that the amendments suggested by the Agent-General will be made, and not merely the amendment suggested in paragraph 2 of your despatch. I consider, moreover, that in every case the total amount of the extension of a coolie's period of service should be limited to six months, and I have to request that the Ordinance may be so amended.
7. I have carefully considered the view expressed by yourself and the Agent- General in the 5th paragraph of your despatch, No. 126,* against abolishing imprison- ment for minor offences and substituting deductions from wages. the difference in conditions between the employment of labour in the Solomon Islands I do not think that Protectorate and in Fiji, to which reference is made in your despatch, is sufficient to render the system of deductions inapplicable to Fiji. The deductions fixed by the magistrate would, of course, be such as to leave the labourer sufficient wages upon which to maintain himself and his family, if any. I therefore adhere to my view that the Ordinance should be amended at once, as requested in paragraph 7 of my despatch, No. 90, of the 4th of May.t
8. With reference to the 3rd paragraph of your despatch, No. 126, I do not see any reason to depart from my view that the Governor should be empowered to pre- scribe by regulation what provision employers should make for the education of the children of their indentured labourers. The matter would, of course, be dealt with by the Governor in a reasonable spirit, and if his action were unsatisfactory to the community representations would, no doubt, be made, and the question would be submitted by the Governor for the decision of the Secretary of State. I shall, there- fore, be glad if the Ordinance can be amended as suggested by me.
31363
No. 35. FIJI.
I have, &c.,
L. HARCOURT.
THE GOVERNOR to THE SECRETARY OF STATE. (Received 7.35 a.m., 27th September, 1911.) TELEGRAM.
Your despatch, 3rd August, No. 147. I concur in views expressed in your [?my] predecessor's despatchs quoted in last paragraph; but call attention to para- graph 4 thereof. It is desirable that manner for dealing with requisitions from several Colonies be decided. If Calcutta Agency cannot comply with whole of requisi- tions of any Colony in any year it should be settled what proportion of obtainable immigrants each Colony is to receive. In view of larger requirements and requisitions of Fiji as compared with Trinidad, this Colony should be given priority, and be called on to pay larger share in expenses Agency.—MAY.
31670
No. 36.
THE GOVERNMENT EMIGRATION AGENT AT CALCUTTA FOR TRINIDAD, &c., to COLONIAL OFFICE.
(Received 30 September, 1911.) Trinidad Government Emigration Agency,
SIR,
21, Garden Reach, Calcutta, I HAVE the honour to refer to your letter, No. 4080, of 8th March last,||
September 13th, 1911. addressed to the Under-Secretary of State for India, in which the Government of India are asked if they can offer any suggestions for the treatment of ankylostomiasis in India.
• No. 32.
↑ No. 24.
‡ No. 30,
§ 5073 not printed.
No. 20.