Page:The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol. 1.djvu/277




 * This much, however, the Government cannot accede to, that men who contract at fair wages to assist the Colonists, should be allowed to break their contract, and remain competitors against the Colonists, those whom, and for no other purpose and no other condition, they came to serve. To do otherwise would be to destroy all distinction between right and wrong and to give tacit disavowal of the existence of law and equity. There is no desire for, nor is there any, harshness of any kind, nor is there anything to which unbiased judgment can take exception.

15. Your Memorialists have quoted the above to show what feeling exists even amongst responsible quarters against the Indians only because some very few dare to trade in the Colony, after having served as labourers, not only under and during their term of indenture, but a long time after the completion of their term.

16. The statement requiring those who are admittedly indispensable to the welfare of the Colony to remain either under perpetual bondage or to “purchase freedom”, as it is put by The Natal Advertiser, 9-5-95, by paying an annual tax of £3, “is neither harsh nor inequitable”, will not, your Memorialists feel sure, be accepted by Her Majesty's Government.

17. The injustice of the clauses seems to be so evident and strong, that even The Natal Advertiser, a paper which is by no means favourable towards the Indian, felt it, and expressed it in the following terms on the 16th May, 1895:


 * The penal clause of the Bill originally was to the effect that the Indians, failing to return to India, should pay “an annual tax to the Government”. On Tuesday, the Attorney-General moved that this be altered to read: “should take out a pass or licence to remain in the Colony”, for which £3 would be payable. This is decidedly an alteration for the better, and effects the same end under less disagreeable terms. A broad question, however, is raised by this proposal to establish a special tax on the Coolie settlers. If such a disability is to be placed on Coolies coming from another part of the Empire, surely its application should be extended to include members of other non-European races, who have no connection with the British Empire, such as Chinese, Arabs, Kaffirs from outside States, and all such visitors. To specially select the Coolies coming for attention in this way, and to allow all other aliens to settle with impunity, and without disability, is not an equitable arrangement. The practice of taxing aliens, if it is to be inaugurated at all, should surely commence with those races not under the British flag in their native land, and not with those who, whether we like the fact or not, are the subjects of the same Sovereign as ourselves. These should be the last, not the first, to be placed by us under exceptional disabilities.