CO885-(19-20) — Page 253

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 885

20 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

78

It was not introduced as an ordinary measure of law, nor could it be considered as such. It was an extraordinary measure due to the large population living in a communal condition. There might be instances where stock thefts could be traced to the tribal head; so far he had not been able to find any cases in which he could do so. Recently, in talking over this matter with the chiefs-and he impressed upon them very strongly their responsibility as regards their people and stock thefts they said: Sir, we have recently gone outside our reserves into forest country and brought in some five or six men.

Some of them have been absent two years. Is it right that we should be punished for the crimes of those people?

If it could be definitely traced that the cattle were He could not give any answer. going direct into the hands of the natives, which must be within the knowledge of the chiefs, then came an opportunity of applying the Ordinance, but not other- wise. With regard to cattle, it was fairly safe if they were branded. Sheep were nearly always, he believed, disposed of immediately.

He would now propose to take up these matters one by one-what he considered

to be the main contributory causes-and ask their opinion upon them.

Mr. Anderson asked whether the meeting was to be public or private.

His Excellency replied that he had no objection to its being considered a public meeting.

Mr. Anderson thought that, before discussing the various points which had been brought up, they should first hear the views of people who had experience of

losses.

His Excellency did not know whether the gentlemen would like to give their experiences.

Mr. Anderson, continuing, said he had upon his mind that there was a feeling that the judicial side of Government thought these stock thefts were not numerous in proportion to other countries. He was rather inclined to think that these stock thefts were excessive, taking all things into consideration.

His Excellency asked Mr. Anderson whether he would regard them as excessive, considering the age and civilisation of the native tribes here as compared with native tribes which had been in contact with civilisation over 90 years.

Mr. Anderson contended that they were excessive, considering the number of stock held by settlers.

His Excellency did not think the number could be considered excessive, compared

with other countries.

Mr. Anderson was of opinion that the number to-day, in proportion, was greater than it was a year or two ago.

Contributory Causes: (1) Squatting.-Mr. Watkins thought that they should proceed in the order suggested by His Excellency. With regard to the matter of squatting, he thought it was very objectionable as far as the settlers were con- cerned. He himself understood that the objections generally were that the labour was not free to the extent that should be, and that it was a means by which the native helped to isolate himself from the control of the police, because the police probably had not the same control on private farms. He considered it most desir- able that as few natives as possible should remain on private farms, and that all beyond those required by the owner of the farm should be placed in reserves. He thought some law might be devised-similar to that of South Africa-for the regulation of squatting.

Mr. Anderson agreed with what Mr. Watkins had said. He regarded it as dishonest for a man to take up land and leave it alone, and he thought this should be put a stop to.

(2) Trespass and ragrancy.-His Excellency said he would like to hear any remarks with regard to the trespass laws at present existing. He did not know whether the gentlemen quite understood the provisions of the trespass law.

Mr. Notley briefly explained the provisions of the trespass law and the difficulties in obtaining convictions for trespass.

Mr. Watkins was of opinion that the trespass and pass law went together. If a native was found on property without his being in possession of a pass he considered that that native should be arrested as a vagrant and a trespasser. He thought the application of the pass law would meet that case very well indeed if the pass law was efficiently carried out.

His Excellency asked whether it would not be difficult to prove trespass with a pass law.

79

Mr. Notley said there were separate trespass and pass laws in South Africa. Any person could be arrested who could not explain why he was on the property.

His Excellency said there were precedents in other Colonies for making more stringent pass laws.

Mr. Anderson said that did not appeal to him, as he did not see that it would help them very much. Natives in going about the country were bound to cross privately-owned farms. How would these natives know when they were on private property?

Mr. Hill said that the vagrancy law could take the place of the pass law. It was suggested to him by Judge Hamilton and Mr. Porter that trespassers really These were really were vagrants, and he had obtained six convictions that month. vagrancy, not trespass, cases.

Mr. Notley stated that in so far as vagrancy was concerned it was necessary to secure some evidence as to the general habits and character of the person charged with vagrancy, and the mere fact of a man's being on private property and being caught was not evidence that he was a bad character, or that his habits were such that he could be considered a habitual criminal, which under the existing law it would be necessary to prove to secure a conviction under vagrancy.

His Excellency asked how the law of this country differed from that of the Orange River Colony.

Mr. Notley explained that any man in the Orange River Colony who was found without a pass could be arrested by any burgher (European inhabitant) or land- owner and brought before a J.P. or magistrate, and he had to explain to the magistrate how he gained his livelihood. If the magistrate was not satisfied he could either fine him or sentence him to imprisonment, or he could bind him over to any European inhabitant. In this country the onus of proof was on the prosecu- tion and not upon the person charged.

His Excellency asked whether, if the onus of proof were put on the person charged, Mr. Notley thought it would improve matters.

Mr. Notley said that it would get over the difficulty to a very large extent.

In reply to a question by His Excellency, Mr. Notley said that the law here did not deal with fenced enclosures.

His Excellency said a native knew a fence, when he saw it, perfectly well, and he understood the Orange River Colony laws dealt with that. The onus of proof was, then, not upon the prosecution but upon the accused. If the functions of justices of the peace were extended, there would be a means at their disposal, but with fenced enclosures it was more awkward. That was quite apart from the pass law, which he would propose to discuss afterwards.

Mr. Tarlton thought it would be a very great help to them if the vagrancy law could be made more stringent. He did not think it would affect the labour supply, because an employer would not wish to enforce the law with every native that came on the place.

In reply to a question by Mr. Tarlton as to what the position would be if a boy were found in one of the houses on a farm, His Excellency said that he presumed it would be considered an offence.

Mr. Notley said that it would be house trespass.

His Excellency said that in changing the pass law he presumed they could

deal with a house as a fenced enclosure.

Mr. Tarlton thought it would be of very great assistance to them if they could deal with natives wandering over their farms.

He had some six cases

Mr. Hill said his convictions fully bore that out. where the boys were found simply wandering about, although the boys said they were looking for water. He had another case which was rather complicated. They could not take up the boys under the pass law, nor under the vagrancy law. They were carrying "tembo" for sale, and therefore they could not be considered

tembo

"round the vagrants. It was a custom in his district for natives to carry district and make the head boy drunk and then steal the sheep.

"C

His Excellency said that this should be stopped. Mr. Hollis mentioned that under the existing law no native could sell liquor District Commis- without his being in possession of a licence, which cost Rs. 30.

sioners used their own discretion as to the issue of licences.

His Excellency enquired how Mr. Hill would propose to stop these natives. Mr. Hollis thought that probably none of the natives would have licences. Mr. Hill: Not only no licences but no passes.