CO882-(2-3) — Page 352

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference -

C.O.882

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

2 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

102

Article 118 states, with regard to Mooblah, that "having spent one day and probably more under arrest" and again "but the police constable who probably did not know one word of his (Mooblah's) language, having asserted that he had told him quite a diffierent story; Mooblah was sentenced to 28 days' imprisonment."

I have found nothing to justify the insinuations conveyed by the words "probable" and "probably," or the covert accusation of perjury against the constable. It seems to me quite within the bounds of probability that the constable was an Indian, and in any case that both he and Mooblah understood and spoke "Creole."

The evidence of the Magistrate proves conclusively that it was the Magistrate who made the assertion alluded to, and not the constable.

Mr. Martindale, the Magistrate, deposes that he condemned Mooblah (who had, no papers) upon

"the evidence of a police constable, to whom he had told a totally different story.

Article 157 is as follows:-

The evidence in regard to the special cases annexed to the petition shows that on one of these occasious the police had gone in the night to a populous settlement, the sergeants being drunk, and the men also, and took the inhabitants prisoners, although they had passes, on pretence that their passes were for the neighbouring district, but the boundaries of which were not known to the police themselves; on this occasion, as on a similar occasion, the police arrested, as vagabonds, Creole children in their parents' houses, and dragged them off to the police station, &o.”

Mention is thus made of two occasions, on which Creole children (i.e. Indians born in the Colony) were arrested in their parents' houses during the night, and dragged off to the police station, these are referred to as "this occasion" and "a similar occasion," the distinctive feature of "this occasion" being, that the sergeants were drunk, and the men also. But what says Inspector O'Connor, the only evidence the Commission had regarding "this occasion ?" "I sent out several sergeants and a party of men to arrest anyone whose papers were not in order. They brought in some ten or eleven as far as my memory serves me; I speak particularly about a case which I recollect, because of the sergeants having been afterwards reported by me, along with some of the constables, of having being drunk and acting improperly. At Nouvelle Découverte they met with some Moka constables, with whom they got drunk and began fighting together, several of them were afterwards severely punished. There was nothing special about the vagrants on this occasion. I cannot recollect why the prisoners were brought in. The corporal in charge of the prisoners was sober, but the sergeants were

drunk."

The statements of Dilloo being read, and witness asked whether he ever knew of such a case, he replied, "No, an Englishman is incapable of such conduct."

It results, therefore, from the evidence, that the inhabitants of a populous settle- ment, arrested on "this occasion," were ten or eleven in number, that Creole children were not amongst them, and were consequently not dragged to the police station.

That the reasons given for arrest in the Report are mere assumptions. That the evidence that the sergeants were drunk along with some of the men, while the corporal in charge of the prisoners was sober, is tortured into the assertion that "the sergeants were drunk and the men also."

It also results that the circumstance of the offending sergeants and constables having been punished severely is omitted in the Report. The fact is, that there was no caso brought before the Commissioners or any complaint made of Creole children, or any others, having been at any time arrested during the night in their parents' houses. The only instance of arrest in the house of their parents was the very excop-. tional one of Dilloo, and the Magistrate who knew about his case having died, there was unfortunately nothing to go upon but the evidence of Dilloo, his sons, and Plenitz, which varies considerably, and the acta de naissance of the children wore not produced to the Commission.

Dilloo says his children were arrested on a "certain morning." Arrests on account of disputed boundaries only occurred once. Magistrate Dideir deposes, 1,174 :-"They have never returned, and have never been arrested;" and "I told the police at the time not to arrest them."

Articles 74, 76. Insinuations are made by employing the word "if," which seem to me uncalled for and unwarranted, and the fact is not here stated, as it ought to be, that by section 55 of Ordinance 31 of 1867, “No officer or constable of the police can lawfully enter houses inhabited by immigrants without a warrant from the Stipendiary or District Magistrate." Certainly no casual reader of the Report would know this to be the case if he merely read Article 250 and the rubric of Article 44 of the Report

103

I dissent from the under-mentioned Articles, amongst others for the following

reasons :-

135, 252. Because I do not concur in the recommendation that all fees payable at the Immigration Office shall be made by stamps purchased at the Treasury. I think that any such measure would entail much needless trouble to the immigrants in passing to and from one office to the other, and increase the motives and facilities for bribery.

160. Because I am not of opinion, as stated here, that "there must be numberless cases of oppression which the framers of the law never contemplated, but which are the necessary consequences of their policy." I protest against any such conclusion as an attempt to shift the blame from the proper quarters. It is clear to me that all such cases as those referred to were principally the consequences of the inaction of the Executive Council and Executive Officers, especially the Procureur-General's Department.

184. Because it is here ignored that the death rate in 1867 of 4-08 spoken of by the Protector as extremely low refers to a time of epidemic fever.

Because the statement is not correct, according to my knowledge, that the districts of the island where the largest sugar estates are situated were almost, if not entirely, free from fever. I consider this Article inaccurate, and the conclusions fallacious. See 1,947.

198. Because I do not concur in the opinion that "the agricultural interest of the island has been very prosperous since 1888." The very reverse has been the fact, unless the hurricane of 1868, which reduced the crop of 1868-09 by quite one-third, and the succeeding droughts, which also reduced the crops heavily, can be termed prosperous.

Because there is no evidence to justify the assertion that immigrants are "settling down now into habits of order and industry" any more than formerly. Indeed, this assertion, and the inference contained in the last paragraph of this Article, that “in ordinary cases, apart from any special law, we should have expected crime to show a diminution in similar circumstances," is in singular contradiction to Article 197 of the Report, which says, "It is notorious in the Colony that crime has not decreased.”

202. The whole of the evidence goes to prove a fact which is not mentioned here, i..., that whatever difficulty was experienced in placing newly-arrived immigrants, it was not that they were not wanted, but because the planters had not ready cash to pay to Government for cost of their introduction.

When terms for payment were granted, the men were taken at once. This places matters in quite a different light than is conveyed by the Report. Neither is it a fact that when placed they displaced, or prevented from obtaining employment, nearly an equal number of old immigrante, who were thus left to shift for themselves. If there had been an over supply of labour in the market, this would have undoubtedly been the case, but there was not; there was employment for all (and more) had they chosen to work. It is merely assumption to say that the new arrivals displaced nearly an equal number of old immigrants, or that they prevented them finding employment. See 1,877, 1,881, 2,049.

210. Because it assumes that vagrants are kept in the Colony against their will.. Upon what evidence ? Magistrate Farquharson says, " In cases of vagrancy, including desertion, the men never asked to be sent back to India, or complained that they had not been sent back according to agreement" (see 2,274); and the Protector (2,047) says, "The number of labourers applying for work at my office are few, very fow, and it is generally when they wish to get a ship to return, on the plea that they cannot find work."

None of the immigrants alluded to in Article 243 were vagrants, and upon this evidence the conclusion is come to that, because "we do not see why men of this description should be kept in the Colony against their will, and looking at the vagrancy returns, a free return passage at the end of ten years' complete residence would be a great boon to Mauritius." Confirmed vagrants can be sent away now, if the Governor chooses so to order it.

243. Contains an assertion which I consider utterly inaccurate and unwarranted. It speaks of "the general complaint made by the Indians examined before us as to return passages to India, and this (amongst others) we found well founded.”

I deny that any such general complaint was made. Of the Indians examined, I find reference to back passages made by Jajan, who says he was promised a back passage. He was and is entitled to one, was never refused it, and when referred to the Protector, not in the manner stated in the Report, but to find out whether his complaint was well founded, he refused to allow his name to be registered for a return