PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :--
EPILL CO. 885
24 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
6
Mr. COMYNS CARR: That is a small point; the other points are much more important.
The MAGISTRATE: Yes.
Mr. COMYNS CARR: On arrival they went to this hotel, and immediately after their arrival, on the first day, and every subsequent day that they were in the Argen- tine Republic, they called, sometimes twice a day, at the Employment Bureau. They found one official there who was able to speak English, and he informed them--
Mr. RAEBURN: I object to this.
Mr. COMYNS CARR: If my friend objects to this I contend that this is a point which clearly is admissible.
The MAGISTRATE: There may be a technical objection to what was said in a representation which was not a representation governed by the defendant. What you can do is to show that they went there and asked for work, and it was declined. If Mr. Raeburn chooses to cross-examine on that he can, but I do not think you can go further than that.
Mr. RAEBURN: I only object because I cannot test any statement made in my absence. The facts my friend is entitled to prove, but any statement made by officials out there I must object to, because I do not know what they are. This is a penal offence, and in the interests of my client I must act strictly.
The MAGISTRATE: Yes. The details may not be relevant, but you can show that they applied for work and were refused.
Mr. COMYNS CARR: I submit the details could be given for this reason, that the representation made was what the Argentine officials would do when these men got there, what they were in the habit of doing, and what they would do. Surely I must be able to show what they did do.
The MAGISTRATE: Yes, that is fact, but what their particular reasons were I do not think you can give evidence of.
Mr. COMYNS CARR: If you please. Then I will confine it simply to this for the present that these nine men, of whom I shall be able to call seven before you, called every day, and sometimes twice a day, at the Employment Bureau in Buenos Aires, and applied for work, first of all in their own trades, and then in any other trades; and for the whole of that time they were uniformly unsuccessful, and their applications were refused. For twenty-one days they remained there, and some- times twice a day they called at the Bureau, and every day their applications were refused. Also, all of them spent a considerable time calling personally on business premises of all kinds in the city, and universally they found their applications were refused, and the fact that they were unable to speak Spanish was a universal bar to their obtaining employment. They made complaints to the British Consul, and the British Consul did something. Again, of course, I am precluded from telling you not only what the British Consul said, but also, I am afraid, what he did. Generally, I think, I can tell you that the British Consul made every possible effort on their behalf. At the conclusion of the twenty-one days these men were repatriated, and sent back home at the expense of the Government, to whom they are liable, of course, in the ordinary course, for the repayment of the expenses incurred in their repatri- ation. In addition they suffered very considerable hardship while they were there, and all of them suffered very considerable loss. There is the loss of money which they paid for their fares, the loss of their belongings, and loss of time in which they might have been earning wages in employment, as many of them were at the time they decided to embark on this expedition.
R
Those are the facts with regard to these particular men, who were repatriated on the s.s.
Alcala" by the British Consul there. If it rested only on that I should that there was nothing to show that this defendant was aware at the time when agree he took the money of these men, and when he gave these pamphlets and made these statements to them, to show that he knew the statements were untrue. As a matter of fact, for some time past the condition of things has been the same as it was with regard to this gentleman. I shall be able to call before you one witness, who was also sent out by Mr. Hetherington to the Argentine in November, 1912, who was the subject of exactly the same representation by him, and he met with the same fate on his arrival. Of course, it is extremely difficult to get hold of witnesses other than the particular ones in this case, but I have one witness whom I can call before you. The Emigration Information Office, which is an official Department formed for the purpose of supplying emigrants with information with regard to the places they are thinking of going to, has had occasion several times to issue warnings to the public
7
with regard to the state of employment in the Argentine, and the prospects of English- men who emigrate to that country in the hope of finding employment. As I shall be able to prove to you that the defendant admitted that those warnings had come to his knowledge, I am entitled to read to you the warnings issued by the Emigration Information Office, which he admits he has seen.
+6
+
+6
*
46
46
Mr. RAEBURN: I do not admit the warnings.
Mr. COMYNS CARR: The evidence will be that the warnings were issued, and I shall proceed to read them. In April, 1912, the Emigration Information Office, not for the first time, issued a warning in these terms: "In view of enquiries received as to emigration to the Argentine Republic, the Emigrants' Information Office desire to warn intending emigrants that they will find in that country laws, language, climate, money, and conditions of life and work all differing from those to which they have been accustomed. These disadvantages are of special importance in the case of unskilled emigrants, but they are a serious handicap to any emigrant going "out in search of employment." That was very largely circulated, by means of the Press and otherwise, but unfortunately the representations continued to be made as before by people in the position of the defendant, and on the 9th September, 1912, a further warning was issued: "Warning to Emigrants to the Argentine Republic.-- "Since the warning issued by the Emigrants' Information Office in April informa- tion has reached the Committee from various quarters with regard to unemploy ment and consequent destitution among emigrants in the Argentine Republic. Persons arriving in the Argentine, especially clerks and unskilled labourers, with- out a competent knowledge of Spanish or with insufficient funds, are likely to find themselves in a serious position, and intending emigrants are strongly advised to communicate with the Emigrants' Information Office, 34, Broadway, Westminster, S.W., before booking their passages." That, again, was very widely circulated, but it did not produce the desired result. About the 10th January, 1913, the Emigrants' Information Office having had their attention specially directed to Mr. Hetherington, Mr. Macnaghten, Chairman of that Office, and Mr. Malcolm Jones, the Chief Clerk, called on Mr. Hetherington at his office in the Strand. They took with them a document, and Mr. Jones informed him that they had this document, a petition in which his name was mentioned as the chief offender in procuring people to emigrate to the Argentine Republic. They pointed out to him that these people were reduced to hardship and destitution on their arrival in that country, and that the circulation of statements with regard to the prospects of employment there were leading to this destitution of British subjects in the Argentine. The defendant did not agree with their suggestion that he should discontinue booking ordinary emigrants to the Argentine. He pointed out that people sometimes emigrated to parts of the British Empire without success, and that some people went to the Argentine and were successful. Mr. Jones informed him that to the ordinary British emigrant in search of employment the Argentine Republic was quite unsuitable, and that, in spite of the promises held out by the Argentine Government that work would be found for those who went out, with, in addition, free board and lodging, in a very large number of cases of destitution followed. He said that he had received their previous warnings, and had posted them up in the office. I may say that the applicants who will be called before you (those of them who went to his office) did not see any of the warnings posted up, although one of them spent half an hour in the office examining maps and other things on the walls. The final remark which Mr. Hetherington made on the subject was, that if he did not book these emigrants some one else would, and there the matter was left.
I submit to you that that conversation, and that warning made personally to Mr. Hetherington by the officials whose duty it was to collect information on this subject, and the personal information which they conveyed to him that these state ments were no longer true, if they ever had been true, and the fact that these promises were not fulfilled, and the result of encouraging this emigration of people without capital and without definite contracted employment before they started, led to the destitution of British subjects in large numbers in this country, and is an offence under the Act. My submission is that this defendant, having chosen to disregard that warning, and having chosen to repeat and continue to repeat his advertise- ments, is liable to be convicted. I shall show you that, as a matter of fact, since the complainant's return to this country one of these emigrants has received from this defendant a further series of the same pamphlets. Having chosen to repeat, and continue to repeat, that course of conduct after receiving that plain warning from those whose duty it is to enquire into the facts, he must be taken either to have known