CO882-(2-3) — Page 396

"

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TIITTIC.O.882

2

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

•

Sir,

194

Line Barracks, Port Louis, September 1872. IN commenting on the reasons of dissent of the Honourable Mr. Fraser from the Report of the Commission of Inquiry, dated London, 25th June, 1872, I propose to confine myself to those paragraphs in which he has given his reasons in full, as other- wise it would entail a Report almost as lengthy as the original one.

Paragraph 1.-The reasons given are of such very little importance that they scarcely require serious notice; but I may state that the majority of the Members of the Commission thought it waste of time to print a correspondence that had been on the table of the Commission during its entire sitting.

Paragraph 1. 3rdly. As the case was only mentioned by one of the witnesses and not gone into by the Commission, it was not considered necessary to have it added to the already voluminous proceedings.

Paragraph 2. This is an incorrect reading of the Chairman's letter to your Excel- lency, dated 9th April, 1872; for it is therein stated that "two members of the Com- mission, Captain Blunt and Mr. Robertson, although not denying the correctness of the conclusions contained in paragraphs 245 and 248, concur with myself in dissenting from the expediency of inserting them in the terms in which they are couched." This is very different from disapproving of the paragraphs. My solo objection to Article 215 was that it drew attention to one of the stipendiary Courts by name, whereas I was of opinion that all were more or less blameable. In Article 248 the words I objected to were "in addition to the ordinary taxation;" but as Judge Gorrie was unable to attend this meeting owing to illness, and the Chairman was very anxious to present the Report, it was agreed to embody our opinion in the covering letter, with the Report, rather than delay for an indefinite time. To show your Excellency what my own views were as regards Article 245, I will quote a few extracts from my own draft Report to the Chairman. "But the chief of these complaints-the eighteen cases at the end of the Petition-arise not so much from the action of the police for they can only obey the orders of their superiors and carry out the law as the extraordinary way the stipendiary Magistrates, to whom is entrusted its working, read this Ordinance 31 of 1867, and its regulations, stringent and severe as it is in all its bearings, overbearing and tyrannical in its details, we were obliged to report that the Magistrates have, in many of its most material enactments, over- stepped its regulations, and rendered it even more harsh and arbitrary. It appears to us from the above cited cases that if they had inquired more fully into them and reported to the Inspector-General of Police that his men were putting the Indians to great inconvenience and carrying out the law in its harshest reading, such complaints could not have occurred a second time; but when one of their body in reply to a question whether "he considered himself obliged by law to punish in all cases where the offence had been technically committed although the labourer may have acted in good faith" answers, "I consider I would not be carrying out the law unless the pass system was strictly carried out, as there is a great deal of vagrancy in the colony."" It is not to be wondered at that such reports have not been made that all the Magis- trates do not consider the law harsh and that it only requires alight alterations; some even consider it "a great protection," though that protection seems to arise from the spurious documents it has called into circulation, and not the action of the law itself; and that the law has become "null and void and the police powerless." Yet we find that 14,884 Indians were arrested in 1871 for vagrancy, of which number 1,867 came before this very Magistrate, who must have a peculiar notion apparently of a law being null and void and of a powerless police. Again, "but these cases seem to be only on a par with the general idea of the Magistrates, that the Indian is guilty of all preferred against him, unless he has overwhelming proof of his innocence; also the 55 to 2262, and way the Magistrates go out of their way to read the law in favour of the master rather than the servant.” With respect to the words in Article 248, “in addition to the ordinary taxation," I was of opinion that the fees levied were allowed by law and the regulations; but I consider it was proved, to a certain extent, that bribes were taken at the depot; these could not be called fees proper.

swer 1485.

nswers 586, 1171, 171, 1478, 2188,

d 2278.

nswers 1147, 48, and 1149.

swers 1486,

75 to 2277.

Paragraph 3.-It is almost impossible to comment on this paragraph, as the Honourable Mr. Fraser cites a number of Articles he dissents from, but gives nothing but general reasons, so I will pass on to those he has entered fully upon.

Article 57, 8thly.-The cause of dissent appears to be that part of the Article which refers to hard labour. I fancy that the honourable gentleman is unaware that, although a Magistrate when sentencing a vagrant to imprisonment may not use the words "with hard labour," still all the warrants of commitment run thus,

co .... to be imprisoned in and to be kept to hard labour for the space of

The

195

word "hard" is very seldom erased; and unless vagrants were thus sentenced they could not be sent to the vagrant depôt to break stones and work on the roads. Further, from Answers 1,165, 1,168, 1,481, 1,432, 1,433, 1,486, 2,087, 2,103, 2,108, 2,114, 2,181, 2,255, it is clearly shown that hard labour is the usually and generally established punishment.

"

Article 118.-In this Article I cannot find anything that refers to "*'Mooblah' having spent one day and probably more under arrest." It is mentioned of one "Dookeet" that he did so, and nothing was more probable, for it has been the custom for stipendiary Magistrates in country districts not to sit on Saturdays, and most generally only three or four times a week; and when a "chasse" or other amusement intervened other days have been missed. Vagrants also were continually referred back to the police for inquiries from day to day. As to the words objected to, “probable and probably," the former word does not occur once in the Article; and, whilst on the subject, I cannot refrain from remarking that Mr. Fraser enters into "probabilities' himself, while accusing the members who signed the Report of "insinuations." Had the text of the evidence been consulted it would have been seen that, with regard to this case at Answer 2,131, it was not a "police constable," but a "police corporal," to whom "Mooblah was stated to have told quite a different story; so that the " bility of the constable being an Indian" falls to the ground, as we have only one non- Commissioned officer-the Sirdar-in the force of that nationality, and although they "proba- both might have talked Creole, as we have only four or five Creole corporals in the police, it is hardly likely he was of that race. against the constable," I cannot discover any in either the text of the evidence or the As to the "covert accusation of perjury letter of the Article.

Art. 157. This dissent is of the same character as the preceding one, for had Mr. Fraser read Artiole 156, he would have seen that this was only a sequel to it, and that the "occasions" referred to are "vagrant hunts." disprove the statement is that of Inspector O'Connor, A. 326 to 382; but the hunt The evidence relied on to there mentioned took place in 1869, whereas Dilloo's complaint arose from one which took place in July 1868. It is the fact that Creole children have been so arrested-for want of their "actes de naissance "-there being a large number at the Reformatory at present, and at 4. 1185 and 1424, we find that magistrates consider that areoles of Indian parents are liable to the Labour Laws; the General Order quoted at page 23 also clearly points out to the police how they can arrest on the very grounds complained of by Dilloo; so that the mere "assumptions" mentioned by Mr. Fraser become matters of fact. "That the evidence that the sergeants were drunk along with some of the men, while the corporal was sober, is tortured into an assertion that the serjeants were drunk and the men also." I cannot understand what has been "tortured," for at

4. 1816, we are told by an independent witness, that the police made it a "practice to come at night;" and at 4. 1320, the reason for their doing so is stated to be "that he is informed they go to the dram shops." It was hardly necessary to mention in a Report that the sergeants and constables who were reported and proved to have been drunk were punished. That arrests only occurred once, on account of the undefined boundaries, seems almost ridiculous to infer from the evidence, for Ramluckun, Budha, and eleven others, not examined. Aubeeluck and four others refer to at least two different occasions; A. 1174 and A. 1811 speak of "continual annoyance" being com- plained of. Mr. Didier St. Amand only speaks of those particular men as not having returned, and not having been re-arrested; and on reference I find that he has only been in the position of magistrate at Moka since April 1869; how many cases may have occurred previously, or in other districts, does not appear; but all the police agree that great difficulty is experienced owing to the boundaries being so ill-defined.

Arts. 74 and 76.-I cannot discover what insinuations can be arrived at by making use of the word "if" in Article 76. Budha's statement was signed by eleven others besides himself, and the “if” alluded to rofers to them and their arrest. reader of the Report not understand what is meant by Article 44, I fear he would be Should any no wiser were he to road section 55 of Ordinance 31 of 1867.

"the

Arta. 135 and 252.-This subject of dissent is hardly worth touching on, except that if as the Honourable Mr. Fraser says the plan proposed would "increase motives and facilities of bribery," I presume that he allows that there are at present "facilities and motives," and the word "increase" presupposes such things at present as taking place, for they could hardly increase unless already commenced.

Art. 160.-If the framers of the law never contemplated any hardships from Ordinance 81 of 1867, they must have had different opinions from those of Her Majesty's Land Emigration Commissioners in England, whose opinion of it is at the