Page:The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol. 2.djvu/173

 special instructions.


 * This action on your part, and your letters now under reply, show that you are aware of the intense feeling throughout the Colony against the landing of the Indians, and they certainly should be informed of the existence and strength of that feeling. (App. S.)

Your Memorialists here cannot help regretting that the Government should have made the concluding remarks in that letter.

Instead of giving an assurance of protection when it is asked, the Government advise the owners, in so many words, to induce the passengers to return. This letter, more than anything else, in your Memorialists’ humble opinion, shows that the Government indirectly countenanced the agitation, and betrayed their weakness, where a strong expression of opinion might have stifled it and produced a healthy confidence in their just intentions in the minds of the Indian community, apart from their policy with regard to the unrestricted immigration of Her Majesty’s Indian subjects. On the 10th January, the Honourable Mr. Harry Escombe being in Durban, Mr. Laughton, of the firm of Messrs Goodricke, Laughton & Cooke, the owners’ solicitors, took the opportunity to interview him, and wrote a letter to the honourable gentleman, embodying the substance of their conference. (App. T.) From that letter it would appear that Mr. Escombe repudiated the statement attributed to him by Mr. Wylie and referred to above. It would also appear that the following propositions were recognized by the Government:


 * That upon the requirements of the quarantine being carried out, pratique must be granted to the steamers Courland and Naderi; that upon pratique being granted, the steamers were entitled to discharge their passengers and cargo at the wharf, either by the steamers being brought inside, or by means of tugs and lighters; that the Government is responsible for the protection of passengers and cargo from the violence of rioters.

The reply to the letter dated the 11th January (App. U) said that the interview referred to therein was, it was understood, to be regarded as a private meeting, and did not accept as correct Mr. Laughton’s record of what was said by the Honourable Mr. Escombe and Mr. Laughton. On the 12th January, Messrs Goodricke, Laughton and Cooke wrote in reply, explaining how the interview came to be regarded as not private by Mr. Laughton, and in order to avoid misunderstanding, applied for the correction of the alleged inaccuracies committed by Mr. Laughton in recording the interview. (App. V.) So far as your Memorialists are aware, no reply was returned thereto. On the