CO882-(2-3) — Page 318

323

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference

TTC.O.8

.882

2

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

32

Mr. Poulin: showing that the practice of overworking men was not confined to." Mont Choisy" estate.

As the result of the evidence, I come to the following conclusions:-1st. That roll-call in the morning was held at about 5 A... 2nd. That between thirty and forty minutes was allowed for breakfast; and, 8rd. That the evening bell for ceasing work rang at 5:30 P.M. Now, assuming that the second or roll-call bell marks the period at which the day's work begins (a fair assumption, as that is the period from which absence is marked against the labourers), the above data give a working day, exclusive of time allowed for breakfast, of little less than twelve hours. I should add, however, that this only applies to those labourers who did not finish their daily tasks within that time. What the average number of such labourers was it is impossible to say, but it is certain that there were every day a considerable number in this position. There are also grounds for suspecting that, when men showed energy and strength sufficient to finish the task considerably within the twelve hours, the tasks originally allotted to them in common with others were increased.

The method in which failure to finish the task was punished will be explained in dealing with the 9th count.

A

2. The 2nd count in the first complaint was omitted in the amended complaint. This ground of complaint was not proved, and from the varying and exaggerated stories of the witnesses I am inclined to think that it never existed as a general rule on the estate, but originated from some single instance of ill-treatment, which was incautiously taken before the magistrate as a general complaint, and which, having once been made, the Indians would not abandon, or admit to be founded on such slender basis.

3. The 3rd count was also rejected in the amended complaint. This was done as the evidence given in the case of the five complainants (of whom only two or three complained under it), along with the evidence of the hospital attendant, called on the part of the defendant, proved that there was no very serious grievance suffered by the labourers in connection with this matter; and that, if any existed, it was hopeless to attempt to prove it by the unaided evidence of Indian witnesses, it being impossible to prove that the state of the sick at the time, when they were sent to perform the light works referred to in the count, was not that in which nearly all the hospital doctors recommend light work to be given to patients.

4. The fourth count was also omitted in the amended complaint, and for very similar reasons. It was only insisted in by one of the five complainants, and that was a case which had happened eighteen months before, and as to which there were no witnesses.

5. The fifth count was retained in the amended complaint, and was to the following effect:

(5.) "The amount of 'pioches' and other tools given to them to work on the estate is reduced from their wages.”

This was one of a number of pretexts upon which money was deducted from the wages of the labourers. The practice of stopping money for tools appeared from the evidence to have been introduced about a year previous to the bringing of the complaint. The evidence was perfectly uniform on the part of the complainants, and was, that on a certain pay-day from 38. to 58. had been retained by Mr. Poulin from each of his labourers for tools given them to work with on the estate; that no promise of restitution at the end of the engagement had been made to them; that no receipt for the money was given to any of the complainants; and that no instance was known to them of men who received back the money upon leaving the service of their master. The Indians above referred to (Hossenbaccus and Poordil), as having formerly worked on Mr. Poulin's estate, were examined on this point, and stated that money had been deducted from their wages for tools, and that on leaving the estate they did not receive it again. Hossenbaccus, however, said that, at the time when his wages were retained, he was told that he would have the amount restored on returning his tools at the end of the engagement. He added that this promise was not kept, but that, though he demanded the money on giving up his tools, it was refused; to him.

Mr. Poulin's evidence on this subject, as given by the Protector of Immigrants, is as follows:

"It has been a long standing practice on this estate to stop from the first or second payment of wages 3r. for each man, as a guarantee for the tools confided to him. The amount so deducted from each man's pay is returned to him at the end of his engagement, if he then leaves the estate, and before leaving returns his tools; the rule applies to Creoles as well as to Indians. The men of the gang of Luchman

(881, 794) who have complained of that deduction having been made from their pay have made false statements; their sirdar has made himself answerable for the tools confided to them."

The estate book contains no reference to the fact of this money having been retained from the wages of any of the men on the estate; but the wages of the month in which the stopping for tools took place bear to be paid in full, subject to the usual deduction for sickness, absence, &c.

The only evidence adduced on this point by Mr. Poulin was the statements of his employés on the estate. Of these, three or four gave evidence to the effect that the former practice on the estate had been that the tools should be given to the men every morning on going to work, and taken from them every evening on returning to the camp. So long as this system continued no money was retained on account of the tools. This plan was not found to work well, the men being discontented at frequently getting tools with handles to which they were not accustomed-too long or too short, too thick or too thin-and accordingly they had at their own request been allowed to retain their tools permanently; the value of the tools being retained by Mr. Poulin in order to indemnify himself for any injury which might happen to them other than the ordinary wear and tear. To the majority of the Indians (these witnesses said) receipts were given, on presenting which, with their tools, at the close of their engagement they would be entitled to receive back the money. From the complainants (who almost all belonged to the band of a Sirdar Lutchman) no money was cut for tools, Lutchman having consented to make himself responsible for them. Of the receipts said to have been given to the other men on the estate for money retained for tools, the defendont failed to produce a single instance.

The Sirdar Lutchman was one of the witnesses called by the complainants, and on examination he said: "Mr. Poulin told me he would cut money for the tools. He said that all must be cut alike, but that at the end of the engagement, if the tools were returned, he would return the money. No one stood answerable for the tools to M. Poulin. Money was out from my band. Why should I be answerable for the tools? Is the field my property that I should do so ? There were no papers given to my band for the money."

Weighing the evidence carefully, I am of opinion that the balance of proof is in favour of the allegation in the count being substantially true. On the one hand, we have the statements of sixty-seven Indians, all agreeing together; the admission by the defendant of general custom on the estate; the failure to produce any receipt for tool-money given, as alleged, to the remaining Indians; or of any instance of the money having been returned at the conclusion of an engagement, and the denial by Lutchman that there was any different arrangement made with reference to his band. In addition to this we have, what amounts to a misstatement on the subject, in the estate book, which shows money marked as paid, which the defendant himself admits was never paid, but retained to meet a certain contingency. On the other hand, we have only the allegation of an exceptional course having been taken with these men by four or five witnesses in the pay of the Defendant.

The result I have come to is that money, to the amount of from 3. to 58., according to the band to which these men belonged, and the tools required by them, was retained from the men for tools; and that there is no evidence to show that in any case that money was restored to labourers on the termination of their engagement.

VI. The sixth count was omitted from the amended complaint. It is:

(6.) "Two rupees were forcibly cut off from their wages for the 'ghoon,' but that money was used for that religious ceremony."

The

The Ghoon is a frame-work, often of considerable sise, and covered with hangings, tinsel, &c., made for the purposes of the religious services of the "Yamsé.' complainants all alleged that money was taken from them for the purposes of the Ghoon, without their leave having been obtained; but admitted that it was used for the purposes of their religious ceremony. From the evidence it seemed to me that a serious question might have been raised, had the complaint been for misappropriation of the money. Of the sum mentioned in the count, one-half was money retained for labour lost by two days' absence from the estate. The balance was devoted to the payment of the "Ghoon." It appears that double this amount was deducted from the wages of the Sirdars. The sum would thus amount approximately to:

For 850 men

For (say) 11 sirdarı

In all

[134]

Dollars.

175 11

186

K