CO882-(2-3) — Page 313

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

1 TILTIC.O.882

יניייייי

2 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- | COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

22

neglect of it, has not had many a most serious consequence upon some of the many hundreds of labourers you were engaged to attend. If it were not for the great number of charges upon this head, which, if the forms of criminal practice permitted, I would be glad to see united in one, I should be inclined to inflict the highest penalty. But, under the circumstances of the accumulated penalties being likely to occasion too ruinous a punishment for you, I will, in this class of cases, inflict the highest penalty only in respect of one estate, viz., La Forêt, where it was proved that death did more than once occur in your absence, and during the period of your prolonged abandonment of all visits to the estate. In the other cases of this.class, I will inflict the smallest fine.

The remaining charges of false entries, four only in number, but admitted to be but specimens of what you have done on all estates, I cannot within my jurisdiction It has been stated that this is deal too severely with. Your acts admit of no excuse. simply a laxity of practice, very generally adopted, a conventional disguising of truth for the sake of screening irregularity from Inspectors. I trust there is no real foundation for the statement that members of a noble and honourable profession should habitually resort to such mean shifts and outrage truth day by day in deliberately written words in books of professional record I am unwilling to believe possible. You have also stated that these cases appear at first sight as serious, but that on further consideration they must seem trifling, and that you failed only in the technical observance of the requirements of an unnecessary law, which you say was enacted with the sole object of satisfying those authorities who would have suspended Indian immigration to this Colony if such a law had not been passed. Such a defence I cannot admit. In the first place, I have not to consider in any way the necessity, or prudence, or advantage of the law as made; but I must remark that if such a law was necessary to prevent the suspension of immigration, it must have been deemed by the highest authority to be of a very essential character, as the auspension of immigration, which would have resulted from its non-enactment, would be one of the most serious evils that could befall this country. If, therefore, it was regarded as an essentially necessary law, it could not have been contemplated that it might be recklessly and wantonly set at defiance by those specially called upon to act under it.

In these four cases, therefore, I feel bound to inflict the highest penalty. Cases Nos. 63, 67, 75, and 86, fine 101. in each case.

Cases Nos. 61, 65, 68, 70, 72, 74, 76, 79, 97, 80, 81, 82, 84, 87, 62, 64, 66, 69, 71, 73, 77, 78, 98, 99, 85, and 88, fine 27. in each case and costa.

The result of these fines will be no doubt a heavy aggregate penalty to you. I have leaned to the side of clemency as far as my sense of duty would permit, and if my sentence needed any argument for the justice of its enforcement, I will but remark that even the total of all the highest penalties that I could have inflicted would but form part of the amount of fees or payment which you have received from some estates which you did not even visit, and from others where you have not fairly earned your money from the planters.

Judgment.

Under Ordinance No. 29 of 1865, Articles 16 and 17.

confession in four Dr. J. Bolton, you have been convicted on your own violations of the Ordinance No. 29 of 1865, two of which have consisted of the entire abandonment of visits to estates during several weeks. The reason you have given for your conduct is that you had notice that your were about to cease to be employed on these estates. I perceive in this excuse that you overtook the highest claims of your profession upon you, and that self-interest alone has directed you in these matters. In the two other cases you are charged with not certifying the books as correct. I draw my own conclusion as to the cause of this neglect, as it is fair to assume that having been warned of the penalty in the notice given to you to make your certificate, you I cannot overlook the fact of did not certify because you could not honestly do so. your being Government Medical Officer of the district, and bound by the habits of official as well as professional business to understand fully the seriousness of the irregularities you have committed. As the falsifications of entries have not been

proved in your case, I cannot deal with it as severely as that of Dr. Tyack.

In your case also there is the feature of receiving fees and payment for work

23

either not performed at all or very insufficiently attended to. The fines I inflict, I believe, will form but a small part of the sums you must have so received.

Fined 31. in each case and costs.

No. 5.

Governor the Hon. Sir A. H. Gordon, K.C.M.G., to the Earl of Kimberley.—{Received March 8.) (No. 69. Miscellaneous.) My Lord,

Mauritius, February 9, 1872. IN my despatch No. 188 of the 21st September, in speaking of the proceedings before the štipendiary Courts, I mentioned that a case of complaint of labourers against their employer, into the merits of which, as still pending, I would not then enter, had been then for four months before the Stipendiary Court of Pamplemousses. That case was only finally determined on the 29th November, and as it was one which, though not of very great importance in itself, raised many questions of considerable interest, I directed the Substitute Procureur-General, who had assisted the immigrants during the course of the trial, and watched the proceedings on behalf of the Crown, to make me a full report with respect to it.

2. That Report I have now the honour to inclose for your Lordship's perusal. It is so ably drawn up, so clear in its narrative, and so convincing in its argument, that it would be unnecessary for me, even had it been possible for me at this time, to make any lengthened comment on ita contents.

8. Having, however, received Mr. Ellis' Report only a few hours before the time fixed for the departure of the mail, it is out of the question for me to do more than briefly indicate what appear to be the most striking reflections suggested by the facts of the case.

•

4. Of these, the first and most obvious is that the practice of the Stipendiary Courts, which were intended to administer prompt and substantial, but not very formal justice, between master and servant, must need great reform, when an issue so simple as that between Mr. Poulin and his men can remain undetermined from May till November.

The next reflection which presents itself is that the difficulty, which in this case appears to have attended the lodgement of the complaint, from whatever cause arising, may recur in other cases and will often amount to a substantial denial of justice. It is also impossible not to perceive that, had it not been for the exceptional support which the complaint received (a thing not in itself desirable, it is manifest that it must have failed, and that those who brought it would probably have been punished for having brought a "malicious" complaint against their master. But if this be so, can we feel quite sure that this result is not actually arrived at in similar cases where no sych extraneous support is given to the complaint ? Another and very disagreeable subject for reflection is the manifest unwillingness of the Stipendiary Magistrate to decide against the master, and the influence which the same feelings appear to have exercised, though to a less extent, over the petty sessions.

Nor is it a satisfactory conclusion that, if the law be soundly interpreted by the District Magistrate of Pamplemousses (and it must be borne in mind that several men have actually been punished and undergone their sentences under his judgment), although an immigrant wronged by his master may individually complain to the magistrate; if more than one are wronged they may neither discuss with each other whether they shall complain, nor may one invite the other to join in his complainvrt.

5. Your Lordship will, I think, be pleased with the manner in which Mr. Ellis has drawn up his Report, which will well repay perusal. I would especially direct your Lordship's attention to pages 17, VIII, 19, 22, 25, 96, and 48.

I may add that Mr. Poulin some years since severely assaulted the wife of one of his labourers, who died shortly afterwards. There was not sufficient evidence to bring home a charge of manslaughter, but he was tried and convicted on the charge of violent assault.

In the West Indies such an event would have precluded him from receiving any fresh allotment of new immigrants for a very long period, if not permanently.

I have, do.

(Signed)

ARTHUR GORDON.