PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O. 885
24 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
52
Did you not understand quite clearly from their visit that in their opinion you were doing wrong in telling people that the Argentine Government would find them employment?-They wanted me to think so, but I have been sending them for forty years, and I had had no complaints.
You were not going to stop?-Not until I had complaints direct myself. You realised then what Mr. Jones was saying to you was a complaint, did you not?--Yes.
You made up your mind to disregard it ?He told me to be more careful-not to stop booking or close my office up. I did not know they were connected with the Board of Trade office.
You did not?—No, I did not know till this came about that they were connected with the Board of Trade.
They are not. Did they not tell you they were connected with the Emigration Office? Yes. I get information there just the same.
The question we are trying is whether you gave inaccurate information, and whether you did not know you were giving inaccurate information. When they visited you you realised they were making a complaint?-They came with that intention, I suppose.
And you made up your mind to take no notice of their complaint?--I did not do anything of the kind, because I did.
What notice did you take of it?-I told them I told everyone that booked what sort of work they must expect if they asked about work. It would be either upon a cattle ranch, or outdoor construction. The outdoor work was very different perhaps to what you are accustomed to now, and the wages are low.
You suggest you told all the witnesses that have been called here that ?—I told every one of these people here either one or the other.
Mr. RAEBURN: That is all the evidence, Sir John, I propose to call.
I do not know whether you think it convenient that I should address you now, as I should have a considerable number of points to put before you.
The MAGISTRATE: As you may be some time I think we had better adjourn till Monday morning.
(Adjourned to Monday morning, the 23rd inst., at 10.30.)
Fourth Day.
Mr. RAEBURN: If you please, Sir, I am sure you must be as glad as we all are that we have now arrived at the last stage of this prosecution, and it is now my duty to address to you what few remarks I have to make on behalf of my client. I am not quite clear whether we are now proceeding upon all the summonses, or whether I am supposed to be addressing you on the first one only!
The MAGISTRATE: Technically, of course, it is only the first one.
Mr. RAEBURN: I thought it right to ask what was the position, but as the evidence has all been given, and all the cases bear similar features with which I can deal generally once and for all, it might be convenient if I treat, for the purposes of my speech, all the evidence as having been given in regard to each of the summonses.
Now, Sir John, no one can have listened to the proceedings here without recog- nising that this prosecution is a mere move in some, I was going to say, game, but it is more serious than that to my client, which is being played between the Britishr Government and the Argentine Government. The importance of protecting emigrants, not only against themselves, but possibly from what we have seen here, against foreign Governments, must be obvious to everyone, and I hope that nothing I say here on behalf of my client will lead anyone to suppose that I attach less importance than ought to be attached to protecting emigrants. But the question, or one question, is whether these proceedings are the most apt way in which to ventilate this question. You have here, sir, before you, not the Royal Holland Lloyd, not the Argentine Consul, or any Argentine authority, not the Nelson Line, not the Royal Mail, not Messrs. Wainwright Brothers, but you have a mere sub-agent, Mr. Hetherington, a man who must have sold infinitely less tickets, and distributed infinitely fewer pamphlets than either of those other parties I have mentioned to you; Mr. Hetherington, who is the lowest in the scale of all those persons, has been brought here before you. How has he been brought here? The Emigration Authorities complain, of course, of the conduct of Mr. Hetherington. They say, and ask
you to
53
believe, that for some years, at any rate, for the whole of last year, he has been fraudulently misleading emigrants, sending them out to the Argentine on the promise that they would find work, or that work would be found for them by the Argentine Before Government, and that all those promises have been false. What do they do? bringing him here by summons, do they do anything in the way of sending him an official letter warning him that he had been guilty of a course of conduct of which they complain, and that if he persisted in it he would be prosecuted? Not a word of that sort. There was no warning, nothing but an interview, which I will deal with directly, on the 10th January 1913, at which alleged warnings were given him. They admit that after that they knew he was going on advertising these passages to the Argentine, and for nearly a year nothing was done, not even were those warnings, those useless warnings which were issued and sent to the newspapers, which may or may not have been inserted in the newspapers, sent to Mr. Hetherington, although this Emigration Board would have you believe that on the 10th January, 1913, they knew he was the chief offender, to use their own words. Not a word does Mr. Hether- ington hear from them directly or indirectly until he is served with these summonses in February of this year. It may be asked: What is the real relevance of that with regard to this prosecution. The relevance is this. If you come to the conclusion, as I hope you will not, that my client has been guilty of an offence under this section of the Statute, then I submit the method by which the prosecution has been prepared ought to weight very heavily with you with regard to the fine which you will inflict upon my client. It is for that purpose, and that purpose only, that I emphasise what I have been saying to you.
nation.
Now, Sir John, to come more particularly to the offences charged here. You see the Board of Trade are not content with issuing one summons. The Board of Trade have issued no less than 10. There were seven summonses originally, but they then took advantage of an accidental adjournment, their case apparently not being strong enough on the first seven summonses, to find three other men and to serve three other summonses upon the defendant, with the result that my client stands here faced with 10 summonses, whereas in my view one summons would have been ample. But 10 summonses are making a persecution of it. Why these 10 summonses? My learned friend rather let it out in his opening speech to you when he referred to one of the sections of the Act, I forget the exact section, and invited you at a stage which is now nearly approaching to award each of these men certain sums out of the fines which you are going to impose upon my client; in other words, the object of these proceedings is to recover for these men damages which they could not recover in any civil proceedings because there is nothing, and has been nothing, proved before you which in any way in law amounts, I submit to you, to a warranty that these men would receive employment when they reached their desti-
Now, Sir John, what does the prosecution set out to prove here, to deal with that first, and then I will deal with what they have proved. They have got to prove, first of all, that my client induced these men to emigrate to the Argentine; they have to prove, secondly, that he induced them to emigrate by some representation, what- ever the representation may be, and that I will deal with directly; they have got to prove, thirdly, that that representation was false; and lastly, they have got to prove that that representation was false to the knowledge of Mr. Hetherington. I think there is no dispute between us as to that matter. They have got to prove that Mr. Hetherington had, as has been described, some guilty knowledge with regard to this representation. It is clear that has to be proved, because the section is headed, Frauds in procuring emigration," and the marginal note is, "Frauds in procuring passages." Of course, a marginal note is no part of the Act, but it has been held that one may look at the marginal note for the purpose of seeing what the scope of the particular section dealt with is. The heading of the section is on a slightly different footing to the marginal note, because it has been held that the heading is to all intents and purposes part of the preamble, and that may assist you in regard to the scope of the section. I submit clearly, Sir, if you look at the heading and the marginal note, and if you look at the extremely heavy penalty which may be imposed, imprisonment with or without hard labour for a period not exceeding three months, it is perfectly obvious what is hit at there is, putting it in one word, fraud.
Now, Sir John, with regard to the inducement. Supposing I go down to Messrs. Thomas Cook and Sons, in consequence of seeing a trip advertised, and book the trip through them, if it can be said in those circumstances I have been " induced to Norway, there is evidence here of inducement, at any rate, in all of the cases but
**
to go