CO885-(20-21) — Page 447

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 885

21 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

30

money contribution or of buildings and equipment may be left over for consideration by the new Director of Education whose appointment is proposed in my despatch, No. 70, of the 30th of March.*

6. As regards the number of prosecutions and of cases of imprisonment for offences under the Indian Immigration Ordinance, I have to point out that the com- parative figures referred to at the beginning of the first enclosure to Mr. Major's despatch did not accompany that despatch; but I observe that the figures given in Appendix G of the report enclosed in Mr. Hutson's despatch of 17th January,t when compared with the figures in previous annual reports, show some reduction in the number of informations and convictions for such offences. It appears, however, from the Criminal Returns in the Fiji Blue Book for 1909 that over 40 per cent. of all the persons sentenced to imprisonment in that year were sentenced for breaches of contract, &c., under the Indian and Polynesian Immigration Ordinances and under the Master and Servants Ordinance. I cannot regard this state of affairs as at all satisfactory, and I consider that something more must be done immediately to decrease the number of these imprisonments.

7. I am disposed to think that the above-mentioned Ordinances should be amended so as to limit the penalty of imprisonment to the more serious offences, such as cases of repeated desertion and refusal to return to work, and to substitute for other offences the penalty of a fine, recoverable by deductions from wages, in the manner prescribed in the clause which is to be adopted in the Solomon Islands Labour Regulation, in accordance with my despatch Western Pacific, No. 12, of 19th January last, and I desire these amendments to be made at once.

3014

No. 25. FIJI.

I have, &c.,

L. HARCOURT.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE to THE GOVERNOR. [Copy to India Office, 5th March, 1912. L.F.] [Answered by No. 31.]

(No. 91.) SIR,

Downing Street, 4 May, 1911. WITH reference to my despatch, No. 90, of even date,§ I have the honour to inform you that I have given careful consideration to the question of return passages for time-expired Indians, which is raised by Mr. Major in the eighth paragraph of his despatch, No. 277, of the 23rd of December, 1910.||

2. I do not feel able to accept the suggestion that the Government of India should be requested to agree to a limitation of the liability of the Fiji Government to three-fourths of the cost of return passages, leaving one-fourth and the cost of the outfit to be paid by the returning immigrant.

3. I have decided that the right of the time-expired coolie to a free return passage must remain unimpaired. But I am disposed to think that the cost of these passages, which has hitherto been defrayed by the Colonial Government, ought in future to fall upon the employers, and, subject to any observations which you may have to offer, I should wish to see such an arrangement brought into force in the case of all coolies hereafter to be introduced. Reasonable notice of the change should be given, and I shall be prepared to consider any representations on the subject, which may perhaps involve considerations which have escaped my notice, but I am anxious that there should be no undue or avoidable delay in carrying this policy into effect.

4. I understand from Sir Everard im Thurn that the provisions of Section 39 of the Indian Immigration Ordinance, relating to the commutation of the right to a return passage, have been brought into operation only to a small extent, if at all— presumably on account of the scarcity of Crown land and the consequent necessity for charging rent to Indians for native land on which they have been permitted to settle. But in any case, should the provisions of the section be applied, I do not propose to require that the cost should be borne by the employers and am willing that the Government should continue to bear it. If the practice of commutation came to be adopted with some frequency, it would, I think, be of advantage to the Colony.

I have, &c.,

L. HARCOURT.

16025

(No. 188.) SIR,

31

No. 26. TRINIDAD.

THE GOVERNOR to THE SECRETARY OF STATE. (Received May 16, 1911.)

Government House, 1st May, 1911.

I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch, No. 369, of the 5th of December, 1910,* requesting me to furnish my observations upon the report of the Committee on Emigration from India to the Crown Colonies, and especially upon that portion of it which relates to Trinidad, to particular parts of which special attention is directed in your despatch.

2. On my return to the Colony from leave of absence in November last I found that the recommendations made in the report had already been engaging the attention of the Government, and that reports on the subject by the Protector of Immigrants and by a Committee, which had been appointed to consider the suggestions made in paragraphs 292, 293, and 294 and paragraph 427, were under the consideration of the Executive Council. I enclose copies of these. The local Committee, of which the Acting Attorney-General was Chairman, consisted also of the Protector of Immigrants, the Honourable S. Henderson, the Honourable C. de Verteuil, and Mr. H. D. Huggins, Stipendiary Magistrate. Messrs Henderson and de Verteuil are respectively large employers of labour on sugar and cocoa estates, and Mr. Huggins has had a very long experience in the courts of the working of the Immigration Laws.

3. These reports were considered at a meeting of the Executive Council held on the 15th December, the Protector of Immigrants being present, when the decisions embodied in the minutes of which I enclose a copy were arrived at.

4. With regard to the frequency of prosecutions for absence, desertion, and refusal to work, which the Protector of Immigrants and the local Committee agree in regarding as excessive, it will be seen that this is to be attributed to the operation of Sections 70, 144, and 145 of the Immigration Ordinance (No. 161), that only a comparatively small number of the estates have recourse habitually to legal pro- ceedings in such cases, and that the remedy would seem to lie in the more active supervision of such estates by the Immigration Authorities. The Protector of Immigrants informed the Executive Council that he had already taken the necessary steps in this direction, but if I find that there is no appreciable result I will enquire further into the matter.

5. There was, at first, entire concurrence in the suggestion, dealt with in paragraph 292 of the report of Lord Crewe's Committee, that some separate pro- vision should be made for the imprisonment of immigrants sentenced for breaches of the Immigration Laws, and since the year 1901 the question of providing for this at the St. Augustin Estate, which, as you are aware, is the property of the Govern- ment, has been under consideration. Unfortunately the many other pressing needs of a developing Colony have compelled the Government to defer the project, and 1 fear that it may be found necessary, for the same reason, still further to postpone it. 6. In connection with this matter, however, I must call attention to the correspondencef noted in the margin. The local Committee originally reported on the 8th of November, 1910, that "they agree with the suggestions of the Protector as to establishing an immigration prison at St. Augustin, where the labour imposed would be of the same kind as the work refusing to do. The present system of detention for a short term in the Royal Gaol which the immigrant was convicted of with the labour imposed under Rule 241 of the Prison Rules is but little, if any. punishment to an agricultural labourer. The Committee think that the knowledge that the work he is set to do on the estate has to be done either there or in prison will lead the immigrant to prefer to do it on the estate." however, of the question in connection with the correspondence noted above, the On further consideration, Committee changed their views and altered their report in the manner shown therein. but the Executive Council, whom I have again consulted, adhere to their original

Governor, No. 449, 15 December, 1904. Secretary of State, No. 17, 16 January, 1905. Governor, No. 121, 2 May, 1903.

Secretary of State, No. 140, 5 June, 1905.

• No. 6.

↑ 43803 04 and draft and 16780 05 and draft: not printed.

39734'10: not printed.

† 6005 not printed.

No. 24.

‡ No. 78 in Australian No. 197.

No. 16.