prising if they had not helped themselves to sheep. At the same time losses from drought and the ravages of native dogs were patently included in the list imputed to native depredations. Mr. Fairbairn collated individual cases where the losses were very heavy, and gave one example where the settler refused to allow any of his white men to keep a native woman, nor did he employ a native shepherd—he had never suffered from their depredations. Other settlers testified that by firmness and courage there was little to fear from the aborigines, and advised that the police be withdrawn so that they could manage affairs themselves. Natives complained that their young men could not get wives because all the young women were living with the whites. In commenting on this report, Governor Broome is credited with—"If a man entrusts his watch to a family of thieves and allows it to be dangled through the thieves' quarter of the town, he has no right to be surprised if he never sees it again."
From the Upper Murchison Mr. Fairbairn proceeded to the Gascoyne district. On 16th August he reported on the recent murders of two white men by natives. From the evidence he collected, one, a teamster, was murdered because he took away a woman belonging to a relative of the murderer; the murder of the other, a shepherd, was avenged by his employer, who while attempting to arrest the culprit shot him, "also five or six others." Doubtless, Mr. Fairbairn said, the settlers on the Gascoyne had lost a large number of sheep by the natives, but they were not taken forcibly. Here, also, the native women were taken from their countrymen by shepherds and settlers. Said one sheep farmer:—"I think it a bad thing for settlers to keep native women; in the first place, it sets a loose example all through the stations; secondly, the women's friends must be fed or they will steal; they always hang about where women are kept." The settlers argued that sheep farming on the Gascoyne would not pay unless the natives were utilised as shepherds. A white man cost £50 a year and his food; a native did the work for his food and an occasional shirt, and was cheaper in other respects. The pastoralists preferred to be allowed to deal with the natives themselves without the intervention of police and magistrates. If they had the power to shoot the ringleaders, the natives would in a short time become so terrified that they would mind the sheep more carefully so as not to lose any, and would not run away and leave the flock untended in the bush. One thought that if the Government would shut its eyes for six months, and leave the settlers a free hand, there would be no more depredations at the end of that period.
Colonial Secretary Gifford complimented Mr. Fairbairn on his fearlessness in exposing the treatment native women were subjected to at the hands of many of the settlers; that treatment it seemed to him was the cause of the reprisals. Governor Broome wrote the Colonial Secretary expressing approbation of his statement. Of the natives he writes:—"Their women are surely as valuable to them as are flocks and herds are to us, and so long as we outrage those feelings which human nature has placed in a greater or less degree in even the most savage breast, what right have we to expect that they will respect the property of the aggressor? What right have we to be surprised when we hear that a native, "sulky" with a shepherd for taking his woman away, has put the white man to death? Let us set them a good example, and then, perhaps, we may talk about the iniquity of their proceedings—proceedings which, after all, considering the utter savages we are dealing with, have not been so black as they are painted." The Inquirer, in referring to Mr. Fairbairn's report, says:—"The settlers have much to answer for, and we consider that they are morally responsible for much that has occurred. Not only have they left their flocks in charge of natives—they have in many instances encouraged the detention of women, and approved of every white man keeping them. We cannot at all be surprised that in their own country they consider themselves entitled to a share of the flocks and herds which feed upon their lands, which are in charge and—as they think—in possession of their people."
It was deemed expedient to put a stop to these practices, but how, was a difficult problem. The Government seemed to consider that the settlers were greatly to blame for the state of affairs, and police and magistracy control was provided. In 1883 it appeared doubtful whether Mr. Foss, specially appointed "Itinerant Magistrate," who travelled through the Gascoyne district and heard numerous cases against natives, could legally sentence offenders brought before him. During his term of office he had made sixty-three convictions, and thirty-six prisoners were (in April) undergoing punishment for their crimes. To validate his convictions the Natives Convictions Validity Bill was passed by the Legislative Council, and reposed powers in Mr. Foss similar to those held by a resident or police magistrate.
A commotion was caused in January, 1886, by the Rev. J.B. Gribble, F.C.S., who published an article in the Inquirer, and delivered a lecture in Perth, on the ill-treatment and cruelty meted out to the natives in the Gascoyne district. Mr. Gribble, an enthusiast, went to the district as a missionary to the blacks, and travelled from place to place as the guest of settlers. According to him, the treatment of the blacks by the whites had not improved, and he made strong, and perhaps indiscreet, accusations against what he termed the "system" among the squatters. Condemnatory references to his statements were made in the Legislative Council, and letters defending the squatters were published in the newspapers, asking how, during a flying trip (three months), it was possible for Mr. Gribble to form an unbiassed opinion. It is doubtful whether the somewhat hasty utterances of the enthusiastic minister did much good; they certainly stirred up a great deal of ill-feeling, and lifted a veil which it was considered best to keep over the Gascoyne. A Bill for the protection of aborigines was, however introduced into the Legislative Council in 1885, and carried. Its policy was a watchful protection of the natives, and of punishment, without respect of persons, of any illegal act committed to their detriment. It was not wholly successful in putting down objectionable practices, and Governor Broome, in 1887, wished to improve the law, but did not exactly know where to begin.
Mr. Gribble was not easily dismissed, and continued to abide by and reiterate his views in various places. The West Australian newspaper published an editorial reflecting on the character of Gribble, terming him a liar and a canting humbug, and the latter, in 1887, instituted proceedings for damages against the proprietors, Messrs. Harper and Hackett. Extraordinary interest was excited, and strong counsel was engaged when the case came before the Chief Justice (Mr. Alexander Onslow) and Judge Stone, sitting in banco. In delivering judgment, the Chief Justice gave it as his opinion that although there had been cases of cruelty and ill-treatment, the evidence adduced was insufficient to justify the wholesale and sweeping charges brought by Mr. Gribble against the settlers. He admitted that he believed that much good would accrue from Mr. Gribble's action in connection with these matters; but it was to be deplored that he had allowed his imagination to run riot, and his passions to obscure his judgment. A verdict was given in favour of the defendants.
