The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi/Volume 2/Gandhi's Petition to Chamberlain on the Dealers' Licenses Act

by Mohandas K. Gandhi

The manner in which the Dealers’ Licenses Act was being operated in violation of the rights of Indians formed the subject of a representation to the Imperial Government which is given below. Gandhiji sent it with a covering letter addressed to the Natal Governor.

Covering Letter to Petition

DURBAN,
January 11, 1899

TO

HIS EXCELLENCY SIR WALTER FRANCIS HELY-HUTCHINSON

KNIGHT COMMANDER OF THE MOST DISTINGUISHED ORDER OF ST.

MICHAEL AND ST. GEORGE, GOVERNOR AND COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF

IN AND OVER THE COLONY OF NATAL VICE-ADMIRAL OF THE SAME,

AND SUPREME CHIEF OVER THE NATIVE POPULATION, PIETERMARITZBURG

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY,

I have the honour to send for transmission to Her Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies a memorial in triplicate signed by Mr. Abdul Kadir of Messrs. Mahomed Cassim Camroodeen and Co., and others, with reference to the Dealers’ Licenses Act No. 18 of 1897, with such remarks as Your Excellency may be pleased to make thereon.

I have, etc.,

M. K. GANDHI

Enclosure in Despatch No. 6 of 14th January 1899 from Governor of Natal to H.M’s Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies, London.

Colonial Office Records: Memorials and Petitions, 1898-99.

Petition

DURBAN,
December 31, 1898

TO

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN

HER MAJESTY’S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF STATE

FOR THE COLONIES

LONDON

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE UNDERSIGNED REPRESENTING THE

BRITISH INDIANS RESIDING IN THE COLONY OF NATAL HUMBLY SHEWETH,

That your Petitioners hereby venture to approach Her Majesty’s Government with reference to the Dealers’ Licenses^[1] Act, against which your Petitioners unsuccessfully protested last year.

Your Petitioners might have approached Her Majesty’s Government earlier, but it was their intention, first, to watch the operation of the Act patiently for some time, and to see whether the fears anticipated in the memorial submitted to Her Majesty’s Government embodying the above protest were well-founded or not; and, secondly, to exhaust all the resources available in the Colony, and to obtain a proper judicial interpretation of the Act.

It is with great regret that your Petitioners have to record that the fears expressed in the memorial above referred to have been more than realised, and that the judicial interpretation has been given against the British Indians in the Colony. In a case, herein below referred to,^[2] Their Lordships of the Privy Council have decided that, from the decisions of the Town Councils or the Town Boards, there is no appeal to the Supreme Court of the Colony, under the above Act. This decision has paralysed the Indian traders. Consternation has seized hold of them, and there prevails amongst them a feeling of insecurity and a nervous fear as to what may happen during the ensuing year.

The troubles the Indian community is passing through are numerous. The working of the Immigration Restriction Act, against which also your Petitioners ineffectually protested, is causing much vexation. Lately, the Government have passed Rules under it whereby a fee of one pound is required from each person not being able to pass the tests imposed by the Act, and wishing to sojourn for from one day up to six weeks, or to pass through the Colony for the purposes of embarkation. While a memorial was being prepared in connection with these Rules and other matters arising out of the above Act, the decision of the Privy Council came upon the Indian community like a bomb-shell, and all the other troubles dwindled into comparative insignificance in the face of the awful future awaiting the Indian traders. It has, therefore, become absolutely necessary to give the first place to the Dealers’ Licenses Act.

The only hope of the Indian traders in Natal now lies in the relief that might be granted through the intervention of Her Majesty’s Government. Your Petitioners venture to claim in all parts of Her Majesty’s dominions the same privileges and rights that are enjoyed by Her Majesty’s other subjects, in virtue of the Proclamation of 1858, and more especially in the Colony of Natal, in virtue of the following statement in your predecessor’s Despatch with reference to previous memorials, viz., “It is the desire of Her Majesty’s Government that the Queen’s Indian subjects should be treated upon a footing of equality with all Her Majesty’s other subjects.”^[3]

Moreover, your Petitioners trust that Her Majesty’s Government would be pleased to secure from the Colony of Natal, which owes its present prosperity to the indentured Indians, a fair treatment for the free Indians in the Colony.

All over the world, whenever necessary, Indian soldiers have been fighting the battles of Great Britain, and Indian labourers have been opening up fresh fields for colonisation. Only the other day, a Reuter’s cablegram stated that Indian soldiers would be requisitioned to train up the natives in Rhodesia. Can it be that the fellow-countrymen of these soldiers and labourers are not to be allowed to earn an honest living in a portion of Her Majesty’s dominions?

And yet, as will appear hereinbelow, there is an organised attempt being made in the Colony of Natal not only to deny to the Indian traders the right of earning an honest living, but also to deprive them of such right which they have been enjoying for years past in the Colony; and the instrument whereby the European Colonists in Natal hope to achieve their purpose is the above Act.

The Durban Town Council consists of eleven councillors, and is the premier Corporation in the Colony. Of these councillors, one is an avowed and out-and-out opponent of the Indians. He played a leading part in the Demonstration against the landing of the passengers on board the Courland and the Naderi early last year.^[4] He was noted for his most violent speeches. He has carried his hatred of the Indians into the portals of the Town Council, and has so far invariably, and irrespective of persons, opposed the granting of trade licences to Indians. As there are only twoclasses of Europeans—the one violently against the Indians, and the other indifferent—this councillor, as a rule, carries the day before him whenever a matter concerning the Indians comes for disposal before the Council. The Licensing Officer appointed under the Act is a permanent officer of the Corporation, and is, therefore, in your Petitioners’ humble opinion, more or less under the influence of the councillors. In a case presently to be referred to, Sir Walter Wragg, the first Puisne Judge, who was then acting for the Chief Justice, has thus observed about the danger of a permanent officer of a Town Council being appointed its Licensing Officer:

It has been suggested to the Court that an officer so appointed must have a certain amount of bias in his mind, because he was an officer permanently under the Town Council, and must be in the Council’s confidence. His lordship was not going to decide the matter on that point; but he could quite see that the Licensing Officer should be some person who was not in the Town Council service, and who was not in the confidence of the Council. (The Natal Witness, 31 March 1898.)

This Licensing Officer examines the pecuniary position of applicants for licences, asks them questions as to their stock, capital, and generally inquires into their private affairs. He has made it a rule not to grant a trading licence to any Indian who has not before held such a licence in Durban, whether the applicant has held a licence elsewhere in the Colony or not, whether he is an old resident or a new arrival, whether he is an accomplished gentleman knowing English or an ordinary trader, and whether the premises in respect of which the licence is sought are suitable in every respect and have been before licensed or not.

Somnath Maharaj, an Indian, early this year, applied for a licence to carry on a retail trade in the borough. His application was taken in. He was examined at length as to his position by the Licensing Officer. Nothing could be found against him. The Sanitary Inspector made a favourable report regarding the premises in which he intended to carry on his trade. The premises had just been vacated by an Indian storekeeper who had left for Johannesburg. The Licensing Officer, however, after having failed to find fault either with the person or with the premises, refused a licence without giving any reason for his decision. The matter was heard in appeal before the Town Council.^[5] It was proved that the applicant had served the Colony for five years under indenture, had been resident in the Colony for thirteen years as a free Indian, had by dint of perseverance raised himself to the position of a trader, had held a licence in Mooi River in the Colony over six years, had a cash capital of fifty pounds, held a piece of freehold land in the borough, had his dwelling house separate and some distance from the intended store, and had engaged the services of a European book-keeper to satisfy the requirements of the Law. Three well-known European merchants certified as to his respectability and honest dealings. He was to trade in a locality mostly inhabited by Indians, and his custom was to be entirely Indian. Counsel for the applicant asked for the Licensing-Officer’s reasons for refusal, as well as a copy of the record of the application. Both these applications were rejected, and the Licensing Officer’s decision was upheld by the Town Council. An appeal to the Supreme Court was noted against the decision —not on its merits, for, that Court had already by this time decided by a majority that, in virtue of the Dealers’ Licenses Act, it had no jurisdiction to hear licence appeals on merits, but on grounds of irregularity: viz., that reasons were refused, that a copy of the record was withheld from applicant’s counsel, and that the councillors with the Town Solicitor, the Town Clerk, and the Licensing Officer, while the appeal was being heard, retired for secret deliberation into a private room. The Supreme Court entertained the appeal, quashed the proceedings of the Town Council, with costs, in favour of the appellant, and directed a re-hearing. In giving the Court’s decision, the Acting Chief Justice remarked:

What struck one as being wrong in this case was that the copy of the record should be withheld. The application was made to the Council by the appellant for a copy of the record and reasons why the licence had been refused. There was nothing wrong in the application. It was one which, in the interests of justice, should have been granted. But it was refused. And when the appellant’s counsel came before the Council, he was in the dark as to the record, and he did not know what was operating in the mind of the Licensing Officer....It seemed to him that the action of the Town Council in this case had been oppressive.... It seemed to him that the refusal of both requests was unjudicial and an improper proceeding. (The Times of Natal, 30 March 1898.)

Mr. Justice Mason:

Considered the proceedings under appeal were a disgrace to the Town Council, and he did not hesitate to use this strong language. He considered under the circumstances that it was an abuse of words to say there had been an appeal to the Town Council. (The Times of Natal, 30 March 1898.)

The appeal was reheard before the Town Council. This time a copy of the record was given; and when called upon to give further reasons for his refusal, the Licensing Officer stated: “that the applicant had no claim whatever upon Durban, as the class of trade he was engaged in was sufficiently provided for in the town and borough.” The Officer’s decision was however upheld, a councillor moving “that it was undesirable that the licence should be granted in view of the fact that the percentage of licences already granted was in excess of the requirements of the population.” The Council took no notice of the facts that, only a few months before, there was a store-keeper in the premises sought to be licensed, that the store-keeper had left Durban, that, therefore, there was no question of increasing the number of licences, and that the landlords, who are Indians and were also represented, had, too, a claim for consideration at the hands of the Council. The premises in question, which are only suitable for a store, have to this day remained practically vacant, causing a loss to the owners of £35 to date. Your Petitioners venture to annex hereto a report of the proceedings of the first hearing of the above appeal before the Town Council, which clearly shows its spirit. (Vide Appendix A.)

Mahomed Majam & Co., applied to the Licensing Officer for a trade licence, with respect to premises belonging to an Indian gentleman who owns large pieces of freehold property in Durban, and whose principal source of income is renting of his properties to tradesmen. The Licensing Officer refused to grant the licence for reasons similar to those given in the case above referred to. The landlord appealed to the Town Council against the decision of the Licensing Officer. The Town Council dismissed the appeal. As a consequence, he, the landlord, was compelled to reduce the rent of his property, and Mahomed Majam & Co., are reduced to poverty, and have to live entirely on the work of one of their partners who is a tinsmith.

Hasam Mahomed is a hawker by profession. He has been a hawker before in Durban. He went to the Licensing Officer, and from him to the Town Council, but was denied the privilege of hawking. He told the Council that to deny him that privilege was equivalent to asking him to court starvation. He had tried to earn his bread otherwise, but had failed, and was without capital to undertake anything else. He submitted to the Council that he did not come in competition with any European, that hawking was practically a speciality of the Indians who raised no objection to his getting the licence; but all these representations were of no avail.

Mr. Dada Osman^[6] has been in the Colony for over fifteen years, has received a fairly good English education, was connected with the then premier Indian firm in South Africa, and has now a business in Umsinga in this Colony, and another in Vryheid in the Transvaal. This year he sent for his wife and children from India. As he could not find suitable society for his wife in either of the above places, and in order to meet the extra expense required owing to the arrival of his family, he intended to settle in Durban, so that he could supply his businesses upcountry with goods himself, and also do some business in Durban. So sure did he feel of securing the licence that he rented a spacious building in a principal street in Durban from a firm of Indian merchants at £11 per month, bought over £100 worth furniture, and approached the Licensing Officer who, as usual, thoroughly went into his affairs, tested his knowledge of English as well as of book-keeping, and after having required Mr. Dada Osman to appear before him thrice, declined to entertain his application. Both the landlord and he appealed against the decision. Required by the Town Council, the Licensing Officer gave the following reason:

The Act 18 of 1897, as I understand, was passed with a view of placing some check on the issue of trading licences to certain classes of people, generally regarded as undesirables. And as I believe I am right in assuming that the applicant in question is one that would be included in that class, and moreover as he has never before had a licence in Durban, I have felt it my duty to refuse his licence.

It was thus, in this case, for the first time that the real reason for the refusal of so many licences was given in all its nakedness. A principal merchant of Durban, Mr. Alexander McWilliam, said in his evidence before the Council:

I have known the applicant for a great number of years—12 or 14 years.

I have dealt very largely with the applicant. He has owed me at times as much as £500. My dealings with him have been perfectly satisfactory. I found him to be a very good business man, and respectable. I have always been able to take his word for anything he says....As a rate-payer, I should have no objection to his getting a licence. I do not know whether he is capable of keeping books, but he can express himself well in English in writing. I should imagine from the way he writes here and the way he conducts his business he would be able to keep books. (handed in a letter written by applicant.) In addition to the facts related above about the applicant’s position, the following was brought out in his (applicant’s) evidence given in English:

My private family expenses are about £20 per month, apart from the store.... I have a house apart from the store.... My house and store are lighted by electricity.... I deal with S. Butcher & Sons, Randles Brother & Hudson, H. & T. Mc Cubbin, L. Kehrmann, A. Fass & Co., M. Laurie, and others. I can write simple letters in English. I know book-keeping. I have kept books in Vryheid. I keep ledger, journal, day, cash, stock, account, and invoice books. I know the single and double entry systems.

Mr. Abdool Kadir, the landlord, said:

I am manager to the firm of M. C. Camroodeen & Co....The store (in question) was licensed before. I. Timol, had a licence there:...I own 3 or 4 properties in Durban, of the total value of about £18,000 to £20,000, on the valuation roll. Most of this property I hire out to tenants. If Dada Osman does not get his licence, I shall lose rent. He is a very good tenant.... I have known him a long time. He is living well. He has plenty of furniture in his house....I am not satisfied with the decision of the Licensing Officer.

The Council was reminded of the definition given by you to the Colonial Premiers, of “an undesirable person”, viz., “It is not because a man is of a different colour from ourselves that he is necessarily an undesirable immigrant. But it is because he is dirty, or immoral, or a pauper, or has some other objection which could be defined by an Act of Parliament.” But all this proved to be a mere cry in the wilderness. The Councillor, who had borne the Demonstration Committee’s flag in 1897, and was ready to return “by force, if necessary” the Indian passengers on board the Courland and the Naderi, “failed to be convinced” that the action of the Licensing Officer was an error, and moved that his decision be confirmed. No one would rise to second the motion, and for a moment it seemed as if the Town Council was ready to do justice. But Mr. Collins, another Councillor, came to the rescue, and seconded the motion in the following speech:

He was not surprised that there was a great deal of reluctance on the part of the Council to refuse the licence. But he believed that the licence would be refused, and the reason was not because the applicant or the premises were unsuitable but because the applicant was an Indian. What Mr. Gandhi had said was perfectly true, and he (Mr. Collins) felt some relief in saying that most of these licences had been refused principally on the ground of the applicants

being Indians. The Council was placed in a very unhappy position in having to carry out a policy which in the discretion of Parliament was considered necessary. Parliament, representing the community of Natal, had come to the conclusion that it was undesirable that the Indians should increase their hold on the trade of Durban. And it was on that account that they were practically called upon to refuse the licences which were not otherwise objectionable.

Personally, he considered the refusal of the licence a grievance to the applicant who was a most suitable person to appear before the Council to ask for a licence. But it had been found expedient as a matter of Colonial policy, that these licences should not be increased. (The Natal Advertiser, 13 September, 1891.)^[7]

It may be here remarked that Mr. Collins holds a prominent position among the public men of Natal. He has often occupied the position of the Deputy Mayor, and has more than once acted for the Mayor. Coming as it did from such a source, the pronouncement was most painful, if also equally important. It is respectfully submitted that the Natal Legislature, if the then Prime Minister correctly voiced its feeling, never meant, as it would appear later, to go the length Mr. Collins did. The intention of the Legislature was to prevent new comers—by no means all new comers —being Indians, from obtaining licences; and your Petitioners venture to feel certain that, had the view taken by Mr. Collins of the Act been placed before Her Majesty’s Government, it would never have received the Royal assent.

Mr. Collins evidently seems to think that the Parliament represents only the European community of Natal. Your Petitioners can only say that it is lamentable, if it is true. The Indians were told differently when the attempt was made to disfranchise them entirely. Again, Mr. Collins thought the granting of the licence in question would mean an increase; as a matter of fact, the premises sought to be licensed had been licensed for the year; they had become vacant as the licence holder had suffered misfortune and stopped business. The present applicant, therefore, would not have added to the number of licence-holders in the borough.

Mr. Labistour, another Councillor, and a prominent local Advocate, was so disgusted with the whole procedure that he thus gave vent to his sentiments:

He had purposely refrained from attending the meeting owing to the anomalous policy pursued in appeals of that kind. He disagreed with the dirty work they (councillors) were called upon to do. If the burgesses wished all such licences stopped, there was a clean way of going about the matter: viz., getting the Legislative Assembly to enact a measure against the granting of licences to the Indian community. But, sitting as a Court of Appeal, unless there were good grounds to the contrary, the licence should be granted. (ibid.)

Mr. Labistour having, as he said, come purposely late could not vote, and the motion was carried unanimously, and the appeal dismissed.

In your Petitioners’ humble opinion, it is almost impossible to imagine a stronger case than the above, or greater injustice than that done by the Durban Town Council—a Town Council of a British Colony—sitting in appeal as a judicial body. It has put a premium upon insanitation and questionable trade practices. What incentives could your Petitioners hold out to the weaker members of the Indian community? They, the weaker members, might say: “You ask us to adopt the modern sanitary methods, and live better; and you promise that the Government should deal fairly by us: we don’t believe this. Does not your Dada Osman live as well as any European on the same platform? Has that meant anything to the Town Council? No; whether we live well or live ill, we would fare neither better nor worse.” The European Colonists have been proclaiming that they would have no objection to respectable Indians living in the modern style. Your Petitioners have always contended that the objection on the ground of alleged insanitation is a fiction, and the Durban Town Council, it would appear, has proved the contention.

The Newcastle Town Council has, however, gone one better than the Durban body. Its Licensing Officer, apparently acting under orders, refused to grant the licences this year, under the Act, to each and every one of the eight Indian store-keepers that had held the licence last year. Such a wholesale refusal struck terror in the hearts of the Indian traders in the Colony. Suspension of the trade of these store-keepers would have not only ruined them and their dependants, but would also have resulted in the collapse of some houses in Durban which support them. The assets of these men were then estimated at over ten thousand pounds, and hands directly dependent on them were over forty. At great expense, therefore, Mr.Laughton, a leading Advocate, was engaged to carry the appeal to the Town Council; and, as a result, six licences out of nine (held by eight storekeepers) were granted. The remaining three, having been refused, the three holders thereof appealed to the Supreme Court which, by a majority, threw out the appeal on the ground that, in virtue of Section 5 of the Act, it had no jurisdiction to entertain it. As the matter was very important, and as the Chief Justice dissented from the other two Judges and favoured the contention of the appellants, the matter was taken to the Privy Council. A cablegram from the appellants’ Solicitors in London states that the appeal has been lost. It must in justice be said that the Newcastle Town Council has been gracious enough to allow the three storekeepers, pending the appeal, to continue their trade. Its policy, however, is unmistakable. It would have wiped out the Indian from Newcastle if it could have done so with decency, and without stir, regardless of the consequence to the parties affected. The reasons given by the Licensing Officer for his refusal were the same with reference to all the above licences: viz., “The report framed by the Sanitary Inspector in terms of Sec. 4 of the’ Rules under Act 18 of 1897, in connection with this application being of an unfavourable nature, and the premises not being fit for the intended trade, as required by Sec. 8 of the Act referred to, the application was refused by me.” None of the applicants knew anything about the Sanitary Inspector’s report, or the Licensing Officer’s reasons before their licences were refused; nor were they asked to make any improvements or alterations in their premises. The reasons were furnished by the Licensing Officer only after he was required so to do by the Town Council when the matter came before it in appeal. After the three applicants were refused their licences, and they came to know why the licences were refused, they offered at once to make such alterations in their premises as the Sanitary Inspector may suggest; but the Licensing Officer would not hear of it, and declined to entertain their applications on the ground that the Town Council had already decided to sustain his previous decision. (Vide Appendix B.) It may be here remarked that the applicants never admitted that their premises were in an insanitary condition, and had produced medical evidence to prove that the premises were in a satisfactory condition. Your Petitioners attach hereto (vide Appendix C) an extract from the Record of Proceedings before the Town Council, which would show more fully the case for the three applicants. The Newcastle Town Council consists of 8 councillors—a medical practitioner, a solicitor, a carpenter, a canteen keeper, a miner, a bookseller and two storekeepers. The Licensing Officer is also the Town Clerk who would be the Clerk of the Court when the Town Council sits in appeal against the decision of the Licensing Officer.

The Dundee Local Board, however, promises to outdo both the Durban and the Newcastle Town Councils. In November last, a trade licence was granted by the Licensing Officer to a Chinaman, and a majority of the rate-payers appealed against the decision of that officer. The Local Board, by a majority of 3 to 2, cancelled the licence solely on the ground that the applicant belonged to the Chinese nationality. The applicant’s solicitor, in his notice to the Local Board of Appeal against its decision, recited the following grounds of appeal:

(1) That your Board, by reason of certain of the members on it being merchants and storekeepers and holders of retail licences, was unable and could not possibly deal with the subject matter of appeal without prejudice to Hoi-Lee & Co.’s interests.

(2) That the constitution of your Board was such that several of the members of it were personally and directly interested pecuniarily in the refusal of the retail licence to Hoi-Lee & Co., and should not therefore have sat on your Board and voted on the question.

(3) That certain members of your Board who sat showed personal animus and bias against the firm of Hoi-Lee & Co., on account of the members being natives of China, and one in particular stated: “I would not even give a Chinaman the chance of a dog.”

(4) That no evidence or legal proof was adduced by the appellant rate-payers that Hoi-Lee & Co. were undesirable persons to have in the community.

(5) That no evidence or legal proof was adduced by the appellant rate-payers that the premises that had been licensed by the Licensing Officer were totally unfit and unsuitable for business purposes, pending erection of the premises agreed to be erected by the landlord under his lease with the said Hoi-Lee & Co.

(6) That the decision and resolution of the Board was inequitable and unjust both in Equity and Law.

What happened to the Chinaman who appears, from the record of the case, to be a British subject, is not unlikely to happen in the case of the Indians. The Supreme Court refused to entertain the appeal in the above case in virtue of the decision in the Newcastle case referred to above.

In November last, a meeting was convened by the Chairman of the Dundee Local Board at the request of the rate-payers “to discuss the advisability of allowing Asiatics to trade in the township”. There are at present about ten Indian stores in Dundee. The following extract from the proceedings of the meeting would show how the Local Board proposes to deal with them next year:

Mr. C. G. Wilson (the Chairman of the Local Board) made a very good impression with his remarks. He defended the action of the Board in all matters, and said it was their endeavour, if possible, to rid the town of the Asiatic curse. They were not only a curse here, but to the whole Colony of Natal. He assured the meeting that their actions in the case of the Chinaman were disinterested and unbiased, and they honestly did what they thought to be their duty to the towns, by cancelling the licence. He hoped they (the rate-payers) would show, by strongly expressing their opinions, that they meant to abolish this curse.

Mr. W. L. Oldacre (a member of the Board) said that he and other members of the Board did what they thought to be right; and assured the meeting that there was no bias attached to its proceedings, and they could depend upon him doing his duty as a member of the Board.

Mr. S. Jones then proposed that the Local Board do all in its power to prevent the granting of further licences to undesirables; that the Licensing Officer also be instructed to this effect; and that steps be taken to cancel as many of these licences as possible. This proposition was unanimously carried, amidst cheers.

Mr. C. G. Wilson wished to thank the meeting for the decision arrived at, as it had greatly strengthened the hands of the Board, who would act upon the decision of the meeting.

Several other gentlemen having spoken, Mr. Hastings proposed that the Town Clerk and Licensing Officer should be two separate persons. Mr. Wilson said he was of opinion that it would be far better to have the of officers remain as at present; then if the Licensing Officer did not act as the Board did in matters such as these, they had their remedy. (The Natal Witness, 26 November 1898.)

The undesirables referred to in the preceding extract are, of course, the British Indian traders of Dundee. Here there is a frank avowal of the policy the Dundee Local Board, intend to pursue. The Licensing Officer has received, and is still further to receive, from the appellate body created by the Act, instructions as to what he is to do; and thus, the aggrieved parties are to be deprived of the right of placing their case before two tribunals contemplated by the Act: viz., the Licensing Officer and the Town Council or the Local Board, as the case may be. These are only some of the instances that have come under your Petitioners’ notice which conclusively indicate the policy the various Town Councils and Local Boards would pursue if unchecked.

Your Petitioners are free to acknowledge that the other Town Councils and Local Boards do not appear as yet to have shown any desire to act in an oppressive manner; though there, too, it is practically impossible to obtain new licences even for old established Indians. The power, your Petitioners were almost going to say, the despotic power, given to them under the Act is there, and there is no guarantee that they will not copy the example set them by Durban, Newcastle, and Dundee.

In order to ascertain the views of the solicitors who have had anything to do with the working of the Act, a letter^[8] was addressed to them asking them to be good enough to give their experience of its working. Three out of the four gentlemen to whom the communication was sent, have returned their replies which are hereto attached. (Vide App. D, E, F.) Mr. Laughton, who dealt with the Newcastle and the Chinaman’s cases, as also with that of Somnath Maharaj referred to above, remarks:

I regard the Dealers’ Licenses Act a very discreditable and dishonest piece of legislation. Dishonest and discreditable, because no secret was made that it was intended to apply to Indians and to them alone. Indeed, it was passed at a session of Parliament called about a month earlier than otherwise it would have been, as a concession to an anti-Indian mob and yet, in order to gain the approval of the Secretary of State, the Act is made to apply to all. The effect of the Act is to place in the hands of the declared enemies of Indian traders the power to grant or refuse trade licences; the consequence is as might be expected, and we all feel humiliated at what we see, whether we admit it or not.

Mr. O’Hea, another gentleman, who is also the Honorary Secretary of the Colonial Patriotic Union, whose avowed object is to prevent the further influx of Asiatics, says:

I do not think that this Law is being administered in accordance with the spirit of the Legislature. The then Prime Minister who introduced the Bill said its main object was to affect those persons dealt with under the Immigration Bill. Ships would not bring those persons if they knew they would not be landed; and the people would not come here to trade if they could not get licences.

I had a case in point not long ago. A man of Chinese nationality, who had been thirteen years in the Colony, was refused a licence for no other reason, I am convinced, than because he was a Chinaman. The statistics of Durban show that the town has more than doubled in extent and population within the past ten years; and’ yet, this man who had linked his fortunes with the Colony, a man of unblemished character—who arrived when there were only about 40 human beings for every 100 there are today—this man’s character and long residence were ignored, and a means of earning an honest living in Durban was denied him. In like manner, I have seen that in Newcastle an Indian, who had been 15 years resident in Natal, was refused a licence which would have been granted to a European if he had been the applicant. This is not as it ought to be.

Messrs. Renaud & Robinson say, among other things:

But to our mind the principal defect in the present Act is that, no appeal being allowed from the Town Council’s decision, injustice has been done and is likely to be done to applicants for licences.

While this was in print, Mr. C. A. de R. Labistour’s opinion was received, which is annexed hereto (vide Appendix G).^[9]

“Consistency”, a correspondent of The Times of Natal (believed to be the Government organ), who, it would appear from his letter (vide Appendix H), is a Colonist of over 20 years’ standing, and a merchant, says:

By all means make them (Indian traders) adhere to the strictest sanitary regulations, keep their books in English, and otherwise do as English traders do: but when they have met these demands, give them justice. No honest thinking man can say that the new Bill gives these people justice, or the community justice, be cause it puts into the hands of interested parties the power to push out competition which is beneficial to the multitude and enables these interested parties to fill their own pockets....I saw in one of your contemporaries, the other day, that the Dundee Local Board had resolved not to renew any Arab licences for the coming year, and had instructed the Licensing Officer accordingly. These men are the English merchants, and wish all the business to themselves, when the public will have to pay them any prices they ask. Surely it is time the Government gave these men the limit.

The Times of Natal, dated the 21st December, 1898, after dealing with the above letter, and justifying its opposition to the Indian traders on the ground of self-preservation, observes:

At the same time, we are far from desiring that these Indian traders should be treated harshly....We do not believe, however, that any considerable number of Colonists wish to see the powers given under these laws used oppressively. If it be true, as reported, that the Dundee Local Board has resolved not to renew any Indian licences for the coming year, we would strongly urge upon the Board, in the interests of its own rate-payers and in the interests of the Colony generally, to rescind that resolution forthwith. The Board has power to refuse the renewal of these licenses, but it was never contemplated for a moment that this power would be exercised in this wholesale manner. Mr. Escombe was responsible for the Traders’ Licenses Act, and he never dreamt that the power it confers would be used in this way. The Act was passed, not so much with a view to enabling the licensing bodies to deal with the Indians already trading in the Colony, as to prevent others coming here to trade. In moving the second reading of the measure, Mr. Escombe explained that it was introduced at the request of the Town Councils, and said:

“There is no hesitation on their part in saying what their object is, and there is no objection on the part of the Government in admitting their proposal, to prevent certain persons coming to this country to compete with Europeans on unequal terms, and getting the licences to trade which are required by the Europeans.” Again, “No people will come here to trade if they think there is a doubt as to their having a license. So that, if the law is in the book, it will answer without much application.” It will thus be seen that while the Act gives extensive powers, the Minister responsible for it relied on the moral effect its existence would have, rather than upon the application of its provisions, to effect his purpose. This purpose was not to deprive traders already here of their licenses, but to prevent others coming here and getting licences. It was not expected that the Boards and Councils, which were appointed courts of appeal under this Act, would misuse their powers as the Dundee Board threatens to do. Said Mr. Escombe, in replying to the debate on the second reading: “I have got no doubt that this Bill in principle can only be warranted by the serious danger threatening this land. But 1 have got that belief in the fairness of the municipal authorities and of the Colony that I believe this Bill will be administered with what I call justice and moderation.” The Dundee Board will do well to note those words, for so sure as it exercises its powers in the wholesale manner now proposed, so sure will it defeat the end we all have in view. By all means let the undesirables be weeded out, bat the process must be very gradual, so as to accomplish what is desired without inflicting any great injustice. It may be said: “There is the Act, and we will enforce it.” Yes, there is the Act, but how long will the Act be there if injustice is inflicted under it? The fact that a very large number of voters draw on India for their labour supply must not belost sight of, for in it the Indian Government have the means of screwing a good deal more out of this Colony than many realise. Suppose the Indian Government were to say, “You cannot have more labour until you repeal that Act under which our people have been grossly ill-treated,” what would be the result? We do not care to speculate on this. If Local Boards, Town Councils and Licensing Boards are wise, they will never do anything to put the employers of Indian labour to such a trial.

Your Petitioners offer no apology for having given the long extract, as it is very important, not only because of its source, but also because of the manner in which the subject has been dealt with. The good intentions of the Legislature are not in the Act itself, though they might have been reproduced therein, which would have spared the Indian traders the anxiety as to their bread being suddenly snatched from their mouths. The Government organ has betrayed itself into an admission which is entirely inconsistent with its own admonition to the Dundee Local Board, and seems to be an insidious hint to the Board as to how they can achieve their end without attracting notice; for it too would have the undesirables “weeded out” by a “very gradual process”. How can this attitude be compatible with the desire not to touch those that are already established? What the Dundee Board may fail to accomplish owing, to use the expression of the then Prime Minister, to their “brutal frankness,” The Times would have them accomplish indirectly and diplomatically so as to keep the real aim in the background.

A correspondent of The Natal Mercury (14 December, 1898) signing himself ‘A Colonist of close upon 20 years’, thus writes:

Sir: I notice in your paper of today a letter from Newcastle, stating that the mighty Corporation of that town had won their case brought against them by one Vawda, to whom they had refused a licence, and giving the information that the result will be welcome throughout the Colony. Vawda is an Indian who has been trading in Newcastle for the past 15 years, during which time he has been a good citizen; but, unfortunately for him, he has also been a successful merchant, a fact which evidently the members of the Licensing Board in Newcastle, who are merchants themselves, don’t like. That the Corporation can be congratulated upon such a miserable misconstruction of their powers, or that the decision of the Privy Council will be welcomed by fair-minded people in Natal, is questionable.
—I am etc.
A Colonial of close upon 20 years.

The Transvaal Government has been trying to remove the Indians to Locations; but even they are willing to give some time, however inadequate, to the Indians in order to enable them to remove their businesses without in their view incurring loss. Her Majesty’s Government are naturally not satisfied with such a meagre concession, and it is within your Petitioners’ knowledge that an attempt is being made to induce that Government not to interfere with those that are already established. The Government of the Orange Free State, though quite independent, gave a year’s notice to the Indian traders to close their businesses. The Colony of Natal which boasts of its being the most British Colony in South Africa, has acquired the power to deprive the Indian traders abruptly of the right of trading, and has attempted and threatens to exercise that power. The Natal Advertiser (dated 13 December, 18983 thus notices the anomaly:

...We can only say that we deeply regret the decision (of the Privy Council) ....It is an Act which might have been expected from the Transvaal Raad. That body, in the Aliens Expulsion Law, has ousted the jurisdiction of the High Court, and our readers will remember the outcry raised about it in the Colonies. But it is not one whit worse than this Act; indeed, if there is any difference, ours is the worse, because it is likely to be much more frequently enforced. It is absurd to say that the Act would not have been effective if right of appeal to the Supreme Court had been allowed; surely, that body could be trusted to exercise common sense....Far better, indeed, that in one or two cases the latter (the desire of the municipalities) should have been overruled than that the principle should be laid down in a self-governing community under representative institutions that, in any case affecting the rights of the citizen, recourse to the highest judicial body in the State should be deliberately barred.

Your Petitioners very much fear that the Government of the Colony are not likely to help your Petitioners. The Rules (vide Appendix I) that have been passed under the Act, regulating the mode of obtaining licences and appeals from the Licensing Officer have, in your Petitioners’ humble opinion, been framed in a manner to strengthen the Licensing Officer and the appellate body in the arbitrary powers given to them. It is but fair to state here that they were passed in September 1897; your Petitioners, however, had hoped that the Colony having been invested with powers of exceptional severity, the Indian community could be allowed to have some rest, and that, in isolated cases of hardship, they would be able to obtain redress without the necessity of approaching Her Majesty’s Government. That belief was strengthened by a speech made by the late Premier after his return from London, expressing the hope that those powers would be judiciously and moderately exercised.

Unfortunately, this had not been the case. It is for that reason that your Petitioners raise objections to the Rules over a year after their publication. Be that, however, as it may, your Petitioners submit that the absence of any provision made in the Rules as to requiring the Licensing Officer to furnish reasons for his decision to the applicant, has worked much mischief. So it struck Mr. Collins also (Appendix A).

What your Petitioners fear most is the process of gradual weeding out referred to above. Those on the spot understand the process only too well. Many small storekeepers have been weeded out this year: some because they, having hardly a gross out-turn of ten pounds per month, buying cash and selling cash, could not afford to keep any books at all, as is not unoften done even among small European storekeepers; and some because they could not afford to comply with the requirements of the Sanitary Inspector having connection, not with the cleanliness of the premises, but with their structural arrangements. If the Licensing autho- rities were, year by year, to wipe out some small Indian storekeepers, it would not require many years to bring down the larger houses without their having to refuse their licences. Messrs. Mahomed Cassim Camroodeen &c Co., the first signatories hereto for instance, have outstanding debts among nearly 400 Indian storekeepers and hawkers in Natal, to the extent of over£25,000; and own landed property in Durban tenanted by Indian storekeepers. If one-eighth of these storekeepers were to be refused their licences, the firm’s position would be damaged. They have already felt the pinch. They had to suffer owing to the refusal of the licence to Mr. Dada Osman (above referred to). Mr. Amod Jeewa owns properties in Estcourt, Dundee, Newcastle and Durban, which are almost entirely tenanted by Indian storekeepers, and most of which can be used for no other purpose. The shutting up of only a few of the businesses would mean practical ruin. These are but typical instances which can be multiplied.

Your Petitioners have been taught to believe from their infancy that in all Her Majesty’s dominions there is absolute security of life and property. So far as the latter is concerned, that belief has received a rude shaking in this Colony: for, to be deprived of the means of making the only use available of one’s property is, your Petitioners humbly submit, little less than total deprivation thereof.

It has been suggested that in self-governing Colonies Her Majesty’s power of interference is very limited. However limited it may be, your Petitioners venture to think that it is not less for the self-governing Colonies than for the Transvaal. Unfortunately, your Petitioners have to face an Act which has already been approved of by Her Majesty. But your Petitioners apprehend that, when Her Majesty was advised not to exercise the power of disallowing the Act, it was little thought that the powers given thereby would be so abused as, it is submitted, they have been.

Your Petitioners submit, with the greatest deference, that sufficient has been shown above to justify a strong remonstrance and advice to the Government of the Colony to so amend the Act as to render a recurrence of the injustice described above impossible, and thus to bring the Act in harmony with the noble British traditions.

But if this be not possible, your Petitioners humbly venture to submit that the Colony should no longer be allowed to enjoy the privilege of using Indian labour which is acknowledged to be indispensable for its advancement. The Times of Natal, in the extract quoted above, anticipates a withdrawal of the supply of the indentured labour from India in the event of injustice being done by Licensing authorities. The Times (London), the East India Association, Sir Lepel Griffin,^[10] Dr. Gust, the prominent bodies in India, and the entire Anglo-Indian and Indian Press have already suggested that remedy; but so far Her Majesty’s Government do not appear to have been pleased to accept it. Your Petitioners humbly submit that it is impossible to make out a stronger case than herein for such withdrawal, failing redress of acknowledged grievances.

How the next year will open for the Indian traders your Petitioners do not know. Every storekeeper is, however, in a state of feverish anxiety. The suspense is dreadful. The larger houses, fearing that their customers (small storekeepers) might be refused their licences, and having the only hope that they had of securing some check on the Licensing authorities taken away from them by their lordships of the Privy Council, have become despondent and hesitate to clear their goods.

Your Petitioners, therefore, respectfully venture to hope that your Petitioners’ prayer will receive the early attention of Her Majesty’s Government.

And for this act of justice and mercy, your Petitioners, as in duty bound, shall ever pray, etc., etc., etc.

MOHAMMED CASSIM CAMROODEEN & CO.
AND OTHERS

1↑ The word licence is being spelt as in the original printed copy, sometimes with ‘c’ and sometimes with ‘s’. Both the spellings were current at that time.

2↑ Vide “Petition to Chamberlain”, 31-12-1898, infra.

3↑ Vide “Petition to Lord Rippon”, before 5-5-1895.

4↑ Vide “Memorial to Secretary of State for the Colonies”, 15-5-1897, et seq.

5↑ Vide “Somnath Maharaj Case”, March 2, 1898.

6↑ Vide “Dada Osman’s Case”, September 14, 1898.

7↑ The date appears to be a misprint in the original printed copy. Vide “Dada Osman’s Case”, September 14, 1898.

8↑ This is not available.

9↑ Vide “Petition to Chamberlain”, 31-12-1898, Appendix-G, infra.

10↑ 1838-1908; Indian Civil servant and administrator; Chairman of the East India Association from 1891 till his death.

APPENDIX A

This was a report of the proceedings of the Somnath Maharaj Case as published in The Natal Mercury of 3-3-1898, which has been given in its chronological sequence, at p. 2, supra.

APPENDIX B

(Copy) NEWCASTLE,

January 11th, 1898

THE TOWN CLERK
NEWCASTLE

DEAR SIR:

I am instructed to forward to you the enclosed Applications for Retail Shop Licenses on behalf of Suleiman Ebrahim, Sajad Meajan, and Abdool Rassool. These Licenses were refused by you last month, on the ground, as I understand, that you did not consider the Report of the Sanitary Inspector to be sufficiently favourable, and I am now directed to inform you that, with the object of obtaining renewal of the Licenses, my Clients will use every endeavour to meet the objection by carrying out such alterations as may be recommended by the Sanitary Inspector. In the case of Sajad Meajan, I understand that alterations have been made since the inspection by the Sanitary Inspector in December, and these alterations will, I believe, remove any objection which previously existed. In the other two cases, I desire, if it should meet with your approval, to accompany the Sanitary Inspector on his visit, and to take a note of any objections he may make, with the object of rectifying any deficiency.

I trust that my Clients will be able to satisfy you, as the refusal of Licenses is of very serious consequence to them.

I am,
Sir,
your obedient servant
(Sd.) W. A. VANDERPLANK,
ATTORNEY FOR SULEMAN EBRAHIM,
SAJAD MEAJAN, & ABDOOL RASSOOL.

A reply similar to the following was returned in each case.

The application of S. E. Vavda under date 15th December 1897, for a Retail shop License in name of Suleiman Ebrahim for premises at Erf 37, Murchison St. . . having been refused by me, and my decision thereon upheld by the Town Council on Appeal, on the 8th January 1898, the annexed application is refused.

(SD.) T. MACKILHCAN
LICENSING OFFICER
BOROUGH OF NEWCASTLE

APPENDIX C

Extract from a certified copy of the minutes of special meeting of the Town Council of the Borough of Newcastle held in the Council Chamber on Saturday, January [8], 1898, to hear the appeals against the decisions of the borough Licensing Officer appointed under Act No. 18 of 1897, with reference to the applications of S. E. Vavda (two licenses), Abdool Rassool and Sajad Meajan—license to Vavda with reference to Erf 37, Murchison Street, and the licenses to Abdool Rassool and Sajad Meajan refused both by the Licensing Officer and the Town Council on appeal:

At the outset Mr. Laughton desires that his protest should be recorded against any officer of the council being appointed to fill the position of Licensing Officer under Act 18 of 1897, and addresses the council in support thereof.

APPEALS

Suleiman Essop Vavda, Applications Nos. 20, 21—1898.

Mr. Laughton reads notice to applicant from Licensing Officer dated the 23rd December 1897, and Sanitary Inspector’s report, viz.:

SANITARY REPORT

I inspected the premises at 37 Marchison Street sought to be licensed as a Retail Shop, and like all Arab’s premises are badly ventilated, otherwise the building is in fairly good condition; found them busily fitting up bedroom but communication at present between store and bedroom direct. Great efforts have been made to make the building look clean and fit in view of anticipated inspection, one good resulting from the provisions of the Licensing Law.

(Signed) JAS MACDONALD
SANITARY INSPECTOR

and, Licensing Officer’s decision, and reasons on application for license for premises at Erf 37, Murchison Street and contended that the Sanitary Inspector’s report was satisfactory and that, if not, the license might be issued conditionally. Mr. Laughton further read notice to applicant dated 23rd December, 1897, Sanitary Inspector’s Report, viz.,:

SANITARY REPORT
SULEIMAN ESSOP VAVDA

The premises sought to be licensed in this case are situated at the corner of Scott and Allan Street, a conspicuous part of the town. The bedroom for assistants is the small store adjoining. The Applicant himself is living behind the large store. The store premises are commodious but like others badly ventilated. The yard premises are small and cramped where it is crowded by kitchen, bathroom and closet. Three of the assistants now sleep on the premises recently acquired by Applicant at 36 Scott Street. Otherwise, the bedroom accommodation attached to the store would be insufficient and unsanitary.

(Signed) JAS MACDONALD
SANITARY INSPECTOR
December 15, 1897.

and Licensing Officer’s reasons on the application for licence for premises at Erf 33, Scott Street, and called Suleiman Ebrahim Vavda, who, duly sworn, stated:

I am the applicant for licenses for premises at 37 Murchison Street, and 33 Scott Street, where I carry on business. I held three licenses last year, but only apply for two this year. I have been in Natal about 17 years and in Newcastle 10 years. I have held a license for 37 Murchison Street for seven years and for 33 Scott Street for about five years. The value of the stock in the two stores is about £4,500; the value of the outstanding liabilities due to the firm is about £700. I hold 37 Murchison Street on monthly tenancy and the lease of 33 Scott Street expires in six months’ time [Questioned] By the Mayor: I and Mahomed Essop Tomor are in partnership and have separately conducted the business in the same name.

APPEAL

Abdool Rassool. Application No. 9—1898.

Mr. Laughton read letter to applicant from Licensing Officer dated 23rd December 1897, Licensing Officer’s decision and reasons and sanitary report, viz:

SANITARY REPORT

I examined the premises referred to in application which is a small store in decayed condition. No direct communication with bedroom, occupied solely by Applicant—and is kept fairly clean. Applicant is in the fruit trade which would probably form part of his business at this store—a feature that might have a different bearing on the sanitary condition of the premises under consideration a month hence. Formerly the Applicant occupied a small store next to Mahomed Saffee’s as a fruit shop.

(Signed) JAS. MACDONALD
SANITARY INSPECTOR

and quoting section 8 of Act No. 18 of 1897, contended that the sanitary report did not show that the premises were unfit for the intended trade. He called Abdool Rassool who, being duly sworn, stated:

I am the applicant for the license. I have been in the Colony about ten years and in Newcastle about 8 years. I have held a license for three years, two years at the fruit shop, 42 Scott Street, and one year at the present store. Neither the inspecting officer nor any other officer of the borough has pointed out any objection to the premises to me. I do not know why my license was refused. The Licensing Officer has never been inside my premises. I have made no alterations since the inspecting officer visited my premises. The value of my stock is about £400.

[Questioned] By Councillor Hastie: I have occupied the present premises for about one year.

APPEAL

Sajad Meajan. Application No. 10—1898,

Mr. Laughton read Sanitary Inspector’s report, viz.,:

SANITARY REPORT

I examined the premises sought to be licensed as a Retail Shop at 36 Murchison Street. The premises are in a most unsanitary and filthy condition and have direct communication with bedroom occupied by himself, wife, daughter, and assistant.

(Signed) JAS. MACDONALD
SANITARY INSPECTOR

and submits Licensing Officer’s decision and reasons and letter from the Licensing Officer to the applicant dated 23rd December 1897. He further calls Sajad Meajan who, being duly sworn, stated:

I am the applicant for the license. I have been in Natal seven years and in Newcastle seven years. I have held a corporation license for five years for the same premises.

Since making the application for my license the sanitary inspector or other officer of the corporation has not pointed out to me why a license was refused to me. I do not know why the license was refused. Since making my application the Licensing Officer has not inspected my premises. The value of my stock is about £600. I, my wife, my daughter, and assistant do not occupy one bedroom as stated in the Sanitary Inspector’s Report, nor did they at the date of the report. The assistant occupies a separate room. I have made alterations in the premises since the date of the report. The closet has been removed to the far corner of my plot of ground. I was not aware that the premises were in a filthy condition at the date of the report and was not informed so at the time by the inspector.

[Questioned] By Councillor Kemp: I made alterations myself without being told to do so.

Charles O’Grady Gubbins on further oath states: I inspected Sajad Meajan’s premises today and found them in a satisfactory condition. There are two bedrooms very clean, and boarded, lined and ceiled.

From a sanitary point of view I do not think the license should be refused. [Questioned] By Councillor Hastie: I do not know how many occupy the bedrooms. The measurements of the rooms are 17’X12’ and the second 11’X12’ and 10’ high.

Note:—The reasons of the Licensing Officer appear in the body of the memorial. Sajad Meajan has since, the creditors having stopped custom, become insolvent.

APPENDIX D

DURBAN,: 24 Dec. 1898
M. K. GANDHI, ESQ.

DEAR SIR,

I have your letter^[11] of yesterday. I regard the “Dealers’ Licenses Act” as a very discreditable and dishonest piece of legislation. Dishonest and discreditable because no secret was made that it was intended to apply to Indians and to them alone; indeed it was passed at a session of Parliament called about a month earlier than otherwise it would have been as a concession to an anti-Indian. mob, and yet, in order to gain the approval of the Secretary of State, the Act is made to apply to all.

The effect of the Act is to place in the hands of the declared enemies of Indian traders the power to grant or refuse trade licences; the consequence is as might be expected and we all feel humiliated at what we see, whether we admit it or not.

Yours very truly,

F. A. LAUGHTON

11↑ This letter is not available.

APPENDIX E

39 GARDINER STREET,
DURBAN,
December 23rd 1898

M. K. GANDHI, ESQ.
14 MERCURY LANE
DURBAN

DEAR SIR,

RE: DEALERS’ LICENSES ACT

In reply to your letter of this day’s date, I do not think that this Law is being administered in accordance with the spirit of the Legislature. The then Prime Minister who introduced the Bill said: “Its main object was to affect those persons dealt with under the Immigration Bill. Ships would not bring those persons if they knew they would not be landed; and the people would not come here to trade if they knew they could not get Licences.”

I had a case in point not long ago. A man of Chinese nationality who had been thirteen years in the Colony was refused a Licence for no other reason, I am convinced, than because he was a Chinaman. The statistics of Durban show that the Town has more than doubled in extent and population within the past ten years; and yet this man who had linked his fortunes with the Colony—a man of unblemished character— who arrived when there were only about 40 human beings for every 100 there are today: this man’s character and long residence were ignored, and a means of earning an honest living in Durban denied him. In like manner, I have seen that in Newcastle an Indian, who had been 15 years resident in Natal, was refused a Licence which would have been granted to a European if he had been the applicant. This is not as it ought to be.

Yours faithfully,

P. O’HEA

APPENDIX F

3, 4, AND 5, POYNTON’S BUILDINGS,
GARDINER STREET,
DURBAN,
31st Dcc. 1898

M. K. GANDHI, ESQ.
ADVOCATE

DEAR SIR,

In reply to your letter of the 23rd inst. re. Dealers’ Licenses Act.

We prefer to say nothing on the political aspect of the question.

We are of opinion that the Licensing Officer should be appointed from outside the permanent staff of the Town Councils or the Local Boards, as the case may be. There should be an Appeal from his decision to the Town Council and from theirs to the Supreme Court.

We think that compensation should be awarded to landlords who by reason of the operation of the Act have lost their tenants.

There are several matters of minor importance which we think might be improved, but to our mind the principal defect in the present Act is that, no appeal being allowed from the Town Council’s decision, injustice has been done and is likely to be done to applicants for licences.

Yours faithfully,
RENAUD & ROBINSON

APPENDIX G

23 FIELD ST. BUILDINGS,
DURBAN, NATAL
4th Jany. 1899

M. K. GANDHI, ESQ.
DURBAN

DEAR SIR,

Referring to our interview of this date on the subject of the Licensing Act 18/97, I can only state that, from my experience, the same, although not so expressed, is only intended to apply to Indians and Chinese—at any rate, it appears to me to be so.

I have made several applications to the Licensing Officer for new licences which have been rejected without reasons being given therefor, and on appeals to the Town Council I have invariably found that body uphold the Licensing Officer’s decision, without previously calling upon him to furnish his reasons for such refusal. I have not tried to ascertain the number of licenses refused to Europeans, but I am inclined to believe they were only refused to those whose character, &c. did not justify them holding one.

Yours faithfully,

C. A. DE R. LABISTOUR

P.S. The most inequitable part of the Act is that which precludes an appeal from the Town Council to the Supreme Court.

C.A.R.L.

APPENDIX H

TO
THE EDITOR
THE TIMES OF NATAL

SIR,

I have to thank you for your attention to my letter in The Times of Natal of the 16th instant under the heading “An Important Decision,” and for your remarks in reply thereto. You say: “As to the butchers’ ring, it is only necessary to point out that through it the cost of living has been very materially increased, and meat, we have been told, put beyond the means of the poorer classes of the community. It is, therefore, a menace to the welfare of the community.”

I entirely agree with you. All combinations of this kind are morally wrong, and a menace, because the few benefit while the multitude suffer. Further on you say: “In the other case the Indian traders have also become a menace, in that, by reason of the fact that they can live so much cheaper than Europeans, they are driving the latter out of trade, and out of the Golony.” It is one of our axioms that competition is the life of trade, and while admitting that all competition is a menace, I have to submit that the Indian traders are not a menace in the same way as the butchers’ ring.

The Indian storekeepers, by causing strong competition among storekeepers, are reducing the cost of all necessaries of life. In other words, they are benefiting the many at the expense of the few, which is exactly the opposite of the butchers’ ring.

I well remember, twenty years ago, when I came to the Colony, we got 20 per cent. more profit than we get now—then the few benefited and the many suffered; but competition, and principally Indian competition, has brought prices down all over the country; and now the many benefit while the few suffer, and this is how it should be.

You push these people out, and the multitude will again suffer by having to pay much larger prices for all they consume.

I remember, some sixteen years ago, falling out with an up-country townsman because I declined to join a ring of other storekeepers to charge 5s. a bag profit on flour. In those days such a combination, detrimental to the public, but beneficial to the pockets of the storekeepers, could have been carried out, but such a combination today would be utterly impossible, and if you could get such competition into the butchery business, you would shortly hear less about the price of meat.

You appear to complain that these people can live cheaply. Yes, they can live cheaply—don’t drink, give the authorities little trouble, and are, in fact; law-abiding subjects, and if they can sell cheaply by living cheaply, the benefit is surely the public’s. By all means make them adhere to the strictest sanitary regulations, keep their books in English, and otherwise do as English traders do; but when they have met these demands, give them justice. No honest thinking man can say that the new Bill gives these people justice, or the community justice, because it puts into the hands of interested parties the power to push out a competition, which is beneficial to the multitude, and enables these interested parties to fill their own pockets. We have now sufficient rings —insurance rings and butchers’—and goodness knows where we will stop if the diffusers of knowledge and learning, like the newspapers, are on the wrong side.

I saw in one of your contemporaries the other day that the Dundee Local Board had resolved not to renew any Arab licenses for the coming year, and had instructed the Licensing Officer accordingly.

These men are the English merchants, and wish all the business to themselves, when the public will have to pay them any prices they ask.

Surely it is time the Government gave these men the limit.

We have entrusted you with great powers, but if you are to use them unjustly, we will take them away from you.—Yours, &c.

CONSISTENCY
DURBAN
19th December

(This letter is dealt with in our leading article, Ed. T. of N.)

APPENDIX I

GOVERNMENT NOTICE NO. 517,
1897

The following Rules passed by His Excellency the Governor-in-Council, under Section 11 of Act No. 18, 1897, are published for general information.

C. BIRD,
PRINCIPAL UNDER SECRETARY,
COLONIAL SECRETARY’S OFFICE, NATAL,
16th September, 1897

Rules under Act 18, 1897, for regulating the mode of obtaining licenses, and for regulating appeals from the decisions of Licensing Officers.

1. In these Rules “Licenses”, unless otherwise specified, means either a wholesale or a retail license. “New License” means a license in respect of premises for which there is not at the date of application an existing license similar to that applied for.

“Board or Council” means, as the case may be, the Licensing Board of the Division or the Town Council of a Borough, or the Local Board of a Township.

I. APPLICATIONS FOR LICENSES

2. Every person desiring to obtain a new license or a renewal of an existing license shall make application in writing to the Licensing Officer of the division, borough or township. The application shall contain the particulars set forth in Schedule A.

3. An applicant for a new license shall attach to his application a ground plan, drawn to scale, of the premises sought to be licensed.

4. Upon receipt of an application for a license, the Licensing Officer shall be at liberty to obtain from the sanitary or other officer of the division, borough or township, a report for his guidance in respect to the sanitary arrangements of the premises proposed to be licensed.

5. The applicant shall, if thereto required, appeal personally and produce to the Licensing Officer his books of account or such other documents or evidence as may be necessary to show to the satisfaction of that officer that he is able to fulfil the conditions laid down by section 7 of the Act, in regard to keeping his books of account in the English language.

6. The Licensing Officer shall endorse upon each application for a license his decision as regards the issue or refusal of a license.

7. The application, with the report of the sanitary or other officer and the remarks and decision of the Licensing Officer, shall form the complete record of proceedings in each case.

8. A license shall not be issued until the necessary stamps are tendered or the money paid.

II. APPEALS

9. The applicant or any person interested may, within two weeks of the decision, give notices in the form of Schedule B, to the Clerk of the Board or Council of his intention to appeal against the decision of the Licensing Officer.

10. A notice of the day fixed for the hearing of appeals, together with a list of the appeals, in the form of Schedule C, shall be fixed to the door of the Court House or Town Office for at least five days before the appointed date.

11. The Clerk, immediately upon receiving notice of appeal, shall require the Licensing Officer to forward to him the minutes of proceedings, and documents, or copies thereof.

12. The proceedings of the Board or Council shall be open to the public.

13. The Clerk shall keep minutes of the proceedings.

14. The record of the application shall be read before the Board or Council.

15. The appellant and any person interested shall be entitled to be heard upon the appeal, by himself or by any person acting under his written authority.

16. The Board or Council may require the Licensing Officer to state in writing the reason of his decision upon any application. If in the opinion of the Board or Council further evidence is necessary, such evidence may be taken by the Board or Council on the same day or on any other day to which the hearing may be adjourned.

SCHEDULE A

To the Licensing Officer of the division of

.............................................

(or borough or township of

........................................................................)

I (or we) hereby apply for a license as follows:

Name of person or firm to be inserted in the license..................................

Nature of the license (whether wholesale or retail) ................................

Period for which license is sought........................................................

Premises sought to be licensed..........................................................

(If the application is for a new license, then add: I attach hereto a ground plan of the premises.)

(Date) ..............................189—

Signature .................................... Applicant

SCHEDULE B

To the Clerk of the Licensing Board for the Division of ............................. (or) to the Clerk to the Local Board of ............................................................

(Date) ..............................189—

Sir,

I (or we) hereby give notice that it is my (our) intention to appeal against the decision of the Licensing Officer upon the application of ............................ for a (wholesale or retail) .............................................................. license for the premises known as.........................................................

SCHEDULE C

Division (borough or township) of..................................................

Notice is given that an appeal has been lodged against the decision of the Licensing Officer upon the undermentioned applications for licenses.

The appeal will be heard by the Licensing Board (or Town Council or Town Board) at the .........................on .............................. the ............ day of....................................... 189—

Name of person Name of applicant Nature of license Premises appealing for license applied for Clerk to the Licensing Board (or) Town Clerk

From the photostat of an original printed copy, printed at the International Printing Press, Grey Street, Durban: S. N. 2894.2903.