humanitarian calculation that his land was in a better position, more fertile than theirs, and that therefore it would reward their labour more liberally?
Besides, where is the European official to get witnesses who will have the courage to make a declaration against their lord, the dreaded Regent? And, were he to risk a charge without being able to prove it, what then would become of the relation of an elder brother, who in that case would, without apparent cause, have reflected on the honour of his younger brother? What would become of the good opinions of the Government, which gives him bread for his service, but which would deny him that bread, dismissing him as incapable, if he had lightly suspected or accused a person so highly placed as a Tommongong, Adhipatti or Pangerang?
No, certainly, that duty is not an easy one! This is plainly evidenced by the fact that the tendency of the native Chiefs to overstep the limit of permissible disposal of labour and property of their subjects is everywhere frankly admitted . . . that all Assistant-Residents take the oath that they will oppose this criminal malpractice, and . . . that, nevertheless, but very rarely, a Regent is charged with arbitrary coercion or abuse of power.
It appears, then, that an almost insurmountable difficulty prevents the carrying into effect of the oath that the official shall protect the native population against exploitation and extortion.
