CO882-(2-3) — Page 390

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference-

TLC.O.882

2 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- | COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

189

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

Arts. 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 259 and the rubric of Article 44 of the Report.

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

reasona :-

Arts. 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.

Art. 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.

Art. 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.

Bee 1,947

Art. 198.-Because I do not concur in the opinion that "the agricultural interest of the Island has been very prosperous since 1868.”

The very reverse has been the fact, unless the hurricane of 1868, which reduced the crop of 1868-69 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 Rays, "it is notorious in the Colony that crime has not decreased."

Art. 202.-The whole of the evidence goes to prove a fact which is not mentioned here, i.c., 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 immigrants, 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. Bee 1,877, 1,881, 2,049.

Art. 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

188

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 to so order it. Art. 213 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 pars, plaint was well-founded, he refused to allow his name to be registered for a return passage. His evidence shows that he receives 20 dollars, or 41. per month, in addition to a bag of rice (161 lbs.), and 8 lbs. dholl-per month, and he has free lodging and medical care besides. Chunagee and Rajoo say they were promised a return passage, and ask to be gant back. Perbutty, Codabuocus, and Ramen make no complaint, but ask to be sent back. Ramen is entitled to go whenever he chooses. Boodhyn, Mohur, and Parohund, say they cannot save money enough to pay for back

It was extracted from Parchund that he possessed two cows, for which he had

passages. paid 401., and he complained that when he wanted grass for them he was obliged to pay for it.

On this evidence it is deliberately stated that there was a general complaint as to return passages.

The petition of the 10,000 old immigrants makes no complaint on the subject. Art. 271 states that "with a view to prevent cases of confirmed vagrancy, we recommend that a return passage to India be given after a residence of five years, in addition to the industrial residence." I dissent from this Article, and all of a similar nature touching return passages, first, because it is a question which does not come within the scope of the inquiry directed by the Governor's instructions; secondly, because the recommendation has been adopted on the mare presumption that it will prevent vagrancy, and without any examination of the reasons and motives for discan- tinuing the granting of free return passages, and because there is nothing in the evidence to justify the raising of the question here.

The whole question is one upon which I reserve my opinion until I am able to examine the subject thoroughly and fairly.

J. FRASER.

9, Idol Lane, London, Junę 25, 1872.

(Signed)

Remarks on the Reasons of Dissent by the Hon. J. Fraser from Report of Police Enquiry Commissioners.

I-GENERAL REASONS OF DISSENT.

(1.) Non-Publication of Documenta.

THE first general ground of dissent is "because three documents alluded to in

the Report are not forthcoming and the proceedings as published are thereby incomplete."

This is not, properly speaking, an objection to the Report itself, that is, to the language, opinions, or conclusions of the Commissioners. The words used by

Mr. Fraser are, that "the proceedings as published are thereby incomplete." He forgets that the Report was not intended for "publication." It was a Report to the Governor, who had himself sent to the Commission copies of the documents referred to, or had the principals in his possession; and it is surely treating de minimis, when one of the Commissioners makes this a ground of dissent from the Report of his colleagues.

The character of the objection does not seem to improve when it is recollected that Mr. Fraser, although entrusted by his Excellency with the important public duty of the Commission, did not remain in the Colony until the Report was considered and adjusted, and the documents to be attached by way of prefix or appendix selected, but suddenly left for England about the time when the Royal Commission was announced. Had Mr. Fraser remained for another month, his colleagues, the Governor, and the

Page 390Page 391

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

6

Reference :-

LTLIC.O.

882

2 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

1

184

Colony, might have obtained the benefit of his experience in the preparation of the Report, and especially in the selection of the documents which were to be published," as he phrases it; but not having considered the adjustment of the Report of sufficient importance to keep him in the Colony, it is extraordinary that he should regard the documents to be appended to be now so important as to require his formal dissent.

The documents which Mr. Fraser deems so absolutely essential, are thus described by him:--

"(1.) The letter of one of the Judges of the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Gorric, incriminating the Police.

"(2.) Proceedings of the investigation into the action of the Police, &c., both of which documents are referred to in the Governor's Letter of Instructions, dated 29th November, 1871; and again, in the Minutes of the Commission, page 4, as laid upon the table.

(3.) The special inquiry ordered by the Governor, and referred to in page 6 of the Report, as to be found in the Appendix."

The words used in referring to the first of these documents, as being a letter from Mr. Justice Gorrie, "incriminating the Police," are calculated to leave a very false impression of its nature. The Colonial Secretary, in referring to the same document in the Letter of Instructions to the Commission, which must have been before Mr. Fraser when penning his reasons of dissent, thus describes it:-"Some months since his Excellency received a letter from one of the Judges of the Supreme Court, a copy of which I have the honour to inclose, by which his Excellency's attention was called to the fact that evidence given on a trial for arson then lately held, appeared to show that means had been taken by the Police to procure confessions from the parties accused, and to obtain evidence against them, which were both irregular and objectionable."

The difference between the description of the letter thus given, and that adopted by Mr. Fraser, is sufficiently obvious. A letter described simply and summarily as incriminating the Police," might be taken to refer to a general accusation against the Police with reference to their actings under the Labour Laws, or otherwise, and thus two assumptions might be made, which it is to be presumed Mr. Fraser did not intend should be made; first, that Mr. Justice Gorrie had been travelling beyond the imme- diate sphere of his duties; and, second, that he had been appointed to sit as a Com- missioner in a matter where he was the accuser, The description of the letter given by the Colonial Secretary shows, on the other hand, that it referred to a particular trial for arson, to special individuals of the Police Force, and to a specific action of these individuals, viz., unwarrantable means to procure confessions and evidence. In drawing the attention of the Governor of the Colony to what had been witnessed by himself in a trial before the Supreme Court, the writer was thus not only within the immediate sphere of his duties, but he was performing an imperative duty to secure purity in the administration of justice. The second document, the absence of which, from "the proceedings as published," has been so prominently put forward as a reason of dissent, is a Report of a Board of Officers of the Police Force, appointed by the Governor to inquire into the facts referred to in the letter. The reports of such inquiries are not generally "published." They deal with the character of individuals, and with acts which may have no general significance. The investiga. tion was something entirely apart from the Report of the Police Inquiry Commis. sioners, which dealt with the "system universally pursued in the island," and not with the facts of any particular case, or the officers involved. It was merely sent for the information of the Police Inquiry Commissioners to explain his Excellency's reasons for appointing them to investigate the system, and to indicate the points of inquiry. Had Mr. Fraser, however, before his departure, expressed the slightest wish to have the letter and the investigation appended, the Chairman would undoubtedly have so directed. The third document is "the special inquiry ordered by the Governor, and referred to in page 6 of the Report, as to be found in the Appendix." Undoubtedly when any document is referred to as to be found in the Appendix," it ought either to be found there, or the reference in the body of the Report ought to have been deleted. words were, in point of fact, deleted from several copies of the Report; but, Mr. Fraser having found them in his copy, seizes upon the inaccuracy, in order to manufacture a reason of dissent.

The

The assertion he makes "that the production of this document is important as the only means of establishing or disproving the assertion contained in the Report, that a woman was kept for nine days in the house of a police serjeant, exposed to threats and promises to induce her to accuse her paramour of murder," only shows with how

185

little attention he had read the evidence before hastening to attempt to throw discredit upon the Report. Indeed, he himself is marked as having been present at the meeting of the Commission on the 5th of February, 1872, when the following evidence was given by Mr. District Magistrate Farquharson:-

"

Q. 2268. In your District Court proceedings do you find that the police frequently bring up confessions of accused parties?--A. No, there are not many, but we had a confession the other day, and when the case was brought up for examination, the person, & woman, charged the police with having kept her for nine days in prison, and with having gone to her in the daytime and at night to press her to declare that her paramour, who was then a co-accused with her, had confessed to her that he had committed a murder; that she had been even threatened to be put in a privy if she did not speak as she was wished to do; the Serjeant of Police, on the other hand, promi- sing that she would be discharged if she spoke according to his wishes, or punished i she persisted in keeping silent.

Q. 2264. When did this occur?-A. This occurred about a month and a-half ago.

"Q. 2266. Who is the Serjeant of your district and the Inspector?-4. The Serjeant is Delalande, and the Inspector was, at the time, Macpherson. She charged the Serjeant directly to his face.

“Q. 2266. Did he deny it, or what!--A. There was an inquiry afterwards made by direction of the substitute Procureur-General, and the inquiry could not be made very fully, in consequence of the absence of Inspector Macpherson and the Serjeant, who had to do with the case, but, so far as we could see, the main facts of the statement of the woman were justified.

•

•

•

"Q. 2209. Was the house apart from the prison or the police station ?—4. I do not know where it was, but it must have been apart from the District prisons. Serjeart Delalande, in the declaration be made on the inquiry instituted by me, admitted that he had, on several occasions, gone to the house where the woman was kept in custody. I have sent the inquiry to the Procureur-General. I have sent it about a week ago.'

It is all the more extraordinary that Mr. Fraser should have omitted to remember this evidence, since he informed us, at the time, that neither the man who was murdered, or the man who had been socused, was in the service of his partner, Mr. Currie.

It will thus be seen that what the Commissioners stated was based upon evidence given them by one of the District Magistrates of the Island, who, after an inquiry had been held, found that the main facts of the statement of the woman were justiñed. It was suggested that an additional inquiry, ordered by the Governor, should be appendică. to the Report to give fuller explanation of the affair, but in consequence of the dia- integration caused by the abrupt departure of Mr. Fraser, either no application had been quade for copy, or the inquiry ordered by the Governor had not been ready when the Report was printed.

(2.) Two Articles of Report said to be disapproved by majority of Commissioners.

Mr. Fraser's second general reason of dissent is "because two articles have been allowed to remain in the Report, although the terms in which they are couched were disapproved of by all the Commissioners with the sole exception of Mr. Justice Gerrie.

When Mr. Fraser uses the words, “ all the Commissioners,” he means the Commis- sioners who signed, because he, for example, being absent, could not have disapproved. It so happened that Mr. Justice Gorrie was also absent from illness from the £ual meeting of the Commissioners, when the Chairman proposed some alterations in the words, but not in the sense, of two Articles in the "Bumusary of Conclusions." All the Commissioners who signed had previously adopted the Articles as they stand, had sense of them had already signed the Report to be sent to his Excellency. In these ofrons- stances the Chairman contented himself with mentioning in his covering letter, the desire of the three gentlemen present for a modification in the terms.

This extreme care was, perhaps, unnecessary, as the modifications did not afleet the sense, and the Report, as it stood, was signed by all the Commissiomers present, but it shows, at least, the minute attention of the gallant Chairman to the defails of the Commission. Doubtless the last use he anticipated his letter to be put to, was that the Member of the Commission, who had quitted the Colony before the termination of its

[134]

8 B

•

Page 390.

Page 395.