M.K. Gandhi, Attorney at Law by DiSalvo Charles R

Author:DiSalvo, Charles R.
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9780520280151
Publisher: University of California Press

ASIATIC TRADING COMMISSION

The locations issue arose with full force when the infamous “Bazaar Notice,” requiring compliance by the end of the year, was published in April 1903. It angered Europeans as well as Indians. Indians were upset because the notice represented a mortal threat to their very livelihoods. Europeans were upset because the policy contained exceptions. It essentially exempted “those Asiatics who were trading outside Bazaars at the commencement of the late hostilities.” It also allowed higher-class Indians an exemption for out-of-location residences. Emotional, rhetoric-filled protest meetings of white colonists occurred all over the colony, with commercial interests demanding strict enforcement of the notice. The British colonial secretary resisted, expressing reservations about dispossessing Indian merchants who had traded before the war with either tacit or explicit governmental approval.

When the Legislative Council met in December, this argument came to a head. Some members wanted to allow Indians who had traded before the war without permits to continue to do so, while other members feared that allowing these Indians to resume their businesses would lead to a flood of Indian traders.30 This difference was papered over by a decision of the Legislative Council “to appoint a Commission to investigate the cases of those Asiatics who traded in towns before the war without licenses, and to report what vested rights or interests they may reasonably claim in respect to such trade.”31 This compromise did not resolve the question of how harshly the Indians were to be treated; rather it simply passed the question on to the commission—and it did so in a way that failed to clearly articulate the commission’s charge.32

When the Asiatic Trading Commission held its opening meeting at the Royal Courts of Justice in Pretoria on March 15, 1904, Gandhi was present with an immediate and pressing question for the commission. The notice appointing the commission spoke in terms of Indian merchants “who were trading in the Transvaal in towns outside locations without licenses at and immediately before the outbreak of hostilities”33 (emphasis supplied). Substituting “or” for “and,” Gandhi asked for a ruling on the meaning of the phrase “at or immediately before the outbreak of hostilities.” The chair, J. W. Honey, dodged the question and replied that “a concise ruling could not be given on that point at the present moment.”34 When the commission’s proceedings resumed on March 17, not only were the body’s purpose and scope unclear, but so was its procedure. Present were three commissioners, a secretary to the commission, a representative of the Pretoria Chamber of Commerce, and two lawyers for Indian claimants—a Mr. Rees, who represented one claimant, and Gandhi, who appeared on behalf of twenty Indian merchants who had traded in the Transvaal before the war.

After the commission heard and rejected Rees’ argument on behalf of his client, Gandhi brought on the case of Joosub Hajee Valee, an Indian merchant who had traded on his own until 1896 and who then went to work for another merchant. Chairman Honey, who earlier had refused to give

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.