CO882-(2-3) — Page 317

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference -

TULITICO.

882

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

2 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

30

plainants, which was fully taken advantage of by the defendant, who, in cross-examina- tion, led the various witnesses to speak to time with definite exactness, and, from the resulting discrepancies between the statements of the witnesses, sought to detract from the weight to be allowed to their testimony.

There was also another great difficulty which must always attend the investigation of facts spoken to by Indian witnesses. I refer to their universal disposition to exag- gerate. This tendency I am inclined to regard as, to a great degree, the result of habit, and as arising from a desire to represent a fact forcibly rather than as indicating the intention to convey a false idea. I come to this conclusion from observing that an Indian witness, however strongly it may be his interest to speak the truth, is, in the case of ordinary labourers at least, never proof against the impulse to magnify or embellish his statement, and also from remarking that in many cases the statements were so palpably magnified as to preclude the idea that they were expected or intended to mislead. But to whatever cause this inclination to exaggerate is to be traced, it certainly existed, and the facts affirmed by the Indian witnesses were so mingled with fictitious statements as often to render it a difficult task to extricate the former from the latter.

Another difficulty met with in dealing with the Indian witnesses was forcibly illustrated by what occurred in the course of the hearing before the Petty Sessions. On the first sitting in the case before this Court, the defendant, in cross-examination, asked the complainant then under examination the names of the witnesses whom he proposed to adduce. There is no provision in the Stipendiary Code rendering it neces- sary to furnish the adverse party with a list of witnesses, and none preventing the production of fresh evidence at any time before the party's case is closed. The Court, therefore, cautioned the witness that, if he pleased, he might decline to answer the question, and say that he had committed to his legal adviser the determination of what witnesses he should call. The complainant accordingly declined to answer the question or to give the names of his witnesses. On the following day a similar question was put to another of the complainants, and he at once replied that he had no witnesses; and the same answer to the question was given by all the complainants in succession. Previously to this the complainants had always been ready to refer to witnesses in support of their allegations; but, after the occasion above-mentioned, they could never be prevailed upon to disclose, even to me as their counsel, the name of a single witness, or even to admit that the other men of the band suffered from the same trent- ment as they complained of. Their invariable answer was that they had come to complain of the wrongs suffered by themselves individually, had no witnesses, and knew nothing of the hardships suffered by others. As the only possible cause of this sudden and complete change was the caution from the Bench above-mentioned, it was evident that the witness to whom it had been addressed must have communicated it in a very much altered form to his companions, and that they must have come to the conclusion there was some danger to be apprehended from mentioning the names of witnesses, and unanimously determined (as the best mode of avoiding the danger) to deny that they had any witnesses to adduce, or that they could give any evidence with regard to their co-complainants. This idea must have taken an almost incon- ceivably strong hold on their minds, as I subsequently found it utterly impossible to obtain from any of them the name of a single individual who could speak to any fact of their alleged grievances. After the greater number of the complainants had been examined, the Protector of Immigrants and two or three other witnesses were sub- pened on their behalf. As soon as this step was taken, the defendant altered the form of his question from "Have you any witnesses ?" to "Are A., B., and C. (naming the witness summoned) your witnesses ?" To this question an answer was returned in the negative. In order to prevent them from repudiating the very witnesses who could best prove their case, I explained at considerable length to several of the complainants that I had caused these witnesses to be called on their behalf, and why I had done so, telling them that they must, if asked, state that these witnesses were called hy me on their account. My endeavours, however, were unsuccessful. Nothing could disabuse their minds of the idea of danger in mentioning the names of witnesses. The very men to whom I had carefully explained that the Protector of Immigrants had been called to give evidence on their behalf would, on being cross-examined by the defen- dant, strenuously deny having any witnesses, and say that the Protector was not called in their name.

To come now to a summary of the evidence laid before the Court with reference to cach of the counts :—

1. The first count as it originally stood was—

31

"1st. Waking them up at 2 o'clock A.M. to be sent to work, and keeping them st work until past 6 P.M., and thus obliging them to reach their camp at 8 P.M."

This count was spoken to by all the complainants, and, as all the labourers of the camp were aroused and sent to work at the same time, the evidence of each individual went to prove the complaint of the remainder. The original terms of the count were very unfortunately chosen, and I am convinced that they do not give an accurate idea of the extent of the grievance alleged, though the words used may have been the correct translation of what the spokesman of the complainants said. Fortunately there were two modes by which a tolerable precise and correct idea of time could be obtained without having recourse to reference to hours, namely, by the fact of it being light or dark, and before or after gun-fire. In the second complaint, this count was retained, but amended as follows:-

1. "Being kept at work for a period exceeding that fixed by law." From the mass of evidence laid before the Stipendiary Court, and that of the Petty Sessions, the following summary of the complainants' statements has been drawn

up:-

Two morning bells are rung on the estate of "Mont Choisy." The first, for rousing the men; and the second, for roll-call preparatory to the labourers leaving the camp for work. The first bell is rung very early and while it is yet quite dark; the other about half an hour afterwards. After roll-call, and when the men have reached the fields, the morning gun fires.* It is then that the bells of the neighbouring estates ring. About gun-fire work is commenced. It is continued until ten o'clock, when an interval of more than half an hour but of less than an hour is allowed for breakfast. After breakfast work is resumed and continued until the task is finished, or, if the task is not sooner finished, until after sunset, when it has become nearly dark, and when, as the complainants expressed it, it is impossible to "distinguish the colour of the hand." This may be taken as a general summary of the statements of most of the com- plainants on this head. Many of them, it is true, made statements differing from this, and placing the time of rousing and beginning work much earlier. These statements were generally expressed by hours, and I think their inconsistency may, to a great extent, be regarded as the result of the endeavour to express time by a mode of caleu- lation with which the witnesses were quite unfamiliar.

Two Indians, Hossenbaccus and Poordil, who had left the service of Mr. Poulin before the complaint was lodged, were referred to by the Indians, and on being examined as witnesses, gave practically the same account of the work hours as the above. A Creole, Marcelin Polryène, formerly sirdar or overseer with Mr. Poulin, gave this account of the working day :-He belonged to the "Mont Choisy" camp and not to that of "Bois Rouge." The first bell of the "Mont Choisy" camp rang at 4.30, the second bell at 5 A.. There was a clock in the camp which witness heard striking, and so knew precisely the hour. The morning gun was rarely heard in the camp, but when heard it was as the men were leaving the camp for their work. Half an hour was allowed for breakfast. Work on the estate ceased at 5:80 P.. The neighbouring bells

rang about the same hour as those on Mr. Poulin's estate.

In addition to this evidence on the part of the complainants, there was the state- ment made by the defendant to the Honourable Mr. Beyts above referred to. The part of his statement relating to this matter is as follows :—

"I ring my first bell at half past four; the second at five. The roll-call takes place at a quarter past five. At half past five my men go off to their work. They leave off work at half past five."

It appeared that Mr. Poulin had, for some months, superintended the roll-call of the man himself, so that no mistake could have been made by him through ignorance.

On behalf of the defendent several of the Indian and Creole employds of the estate were examined, whose statements were to the effect that the first bell rang at 5, the second at 580 A.M., and that the evening bell for ceasing work rang at 6 P.M. It will be noticed that these statements are inconsistent with that of Mr. Poulin himself, and make the working day to consist of about one hour less.

The only evidence offered by the defendant, in addition to that of his servants, was that of the proprietors of the neighbouring estates. Thair evidence went in no way to contradict or modify the other evidence, but merely to prove a fact which, if it had any bearing on the defendant's case, was adverse to him, namely, that the estates in the neighbourhood exacted from their labourers as many hours' daily labour an did

• The morning gun was fired during the three months immediately preceding the lodging of the complaint, at the following hours In February, from 4:30 to 440 a.m.; in March, from 4:50 to 8 A.M.; in April, from 6:10 to 15 A.M.