Slavery in Western Australia.

Evening Star, Issue 7254, 4 July 1887, Page 2 (Supplement)

Slavery in Western Australia.

As our readers are aware, the case of Gribble v. the ‘Western Australia’ for defamatory libel, lias been occupying the Supreme Court, Perth,, for some weeks past. The alleged libel was published on the 24th August last, and was iu the following words:—“We must apologise to our readers for giving them so much Gribbliana of late, but the papers of the eastern colonies have been full of articles upon the assertions of one whom, without exaggeration, we might designate as a lying, canting humbug. ” During the course of the case the following evidence was given by a witness : Arnot Francisco said: lamof no occupation at present. I have been a pearler and a publican in the North-west. While I was in the North-west twenty-five years ago I had an opportunity of seeing how the Natives were treated. I came away from the North-west about six years ago. Mr Hensman, counsel for defendant, objected to this evidence. The defendants had not used the language concerning the plaintiff for things happening six years ago. When they wrote the libel they referred to the plaintiff’s statements cf the present state of affairs. The defendant could not challenge what happened six years ago. The Court allowed the evidence, the Chief Justice remarking that he would be ashamed of himself if he did not allow the plaintiff to give evidence of all that he knew when he wrote the paragraph. Witness, continuing, said: Ido not know the month or year I left the North-west, but to the beat of my belief it was seven years ago. Mr Haynes (counsel for Mr Gribble): Do you know of the sale of Natives of your own knowledge ? Mr Hensman : That I object to. It is assuming a state of slavery at once. Witness: The Natives are sold indirectly. _ Mr Haynes: When you left the district did you make any arrangements to sell your boat ? —I did. . Was there a'price fixed?—l sold her for L 1,300. Mr Justice Stone: Does Mr Gribble refer to this ? Mr Haynes: Ho does. He says slavery exists. If for nineteen years Natives have been handed over like cattle, I surely can show it. I can’t call persons who are now in the North selling these Natives, and I must call someone who has left the district. The plaintiff said in his pamphlet that these boats were sold with the Natives. It was to be found in Cariy’s statement. The Court thought the evidence was admissible, on the ground that the plaintiff had written in his book that slavery existed. Witness (continuing) said; I sold my boat and Natives for L 1,300. The boat cost me LSOO. It was not worth that at the date of the sale, The balance of the L 1,300 was for the good-will of the boat and the transfer of the divers. Of course the Natives did not appear on the paper. The sale fell through, * The Natives escaped, and in consequence of their escape the boat was sold for L 450, Mr Hensman objected to the evidence if the agreements for sale were not produced. The Court ruled that the question could not be put in that form, and the evidence was struck out. Mr Haynes : Did you [agree to sell the boat ? —Yes. Was that agreement carried out ?—No. Why not ?—Because the Natives escaped. Mr Hensman objected to the evidence. The Chief Justice: We admit secondary evidence of this document, because it is so contrary to law and humanity that it does not come within the laws of evidence. Mr Hensman: But how does that affect us ? The Chief Justice: That is another matter. Of course it is against the witness. We allow the evidence because it relates to an illegal transaction. Witness (continuing) said: The agreement at first was for the sale of the boat for L 1,300, The Chief Justice: Won’t you ask him what the L 1,300 was for? Mr Haynes: I think the witness should be left to me, seeing the serious nature of the evidence. The Chief Justice: Yes, I should not be sitting here if I did not draw attention to it. Mr Haynes : I had better caution him. The Chief Justice: Perhaps you had better. Mr Haynes (to witness): Did the sale fall through ? Witness: It fell through because the bills were not paid within twelve months. Mr Haynes: What was the value of the stores and equipments ? Witness: About L6OO. Mr Haynes: What is the custom existing at the sale of these boats ? Mr Hensman objected. The Chief Justice: What would be thought of this Court stopping the mouth of a witness who is speaking like this ? I for one would not do it. Witness continuing: know of several other instances where boats have been sold with the Natives. The Barrangarra, Bessie, and Waterlily were sold like this. I know the Barrangarra. Her hull and masts were worth from L9O to LIOO. Part of her was sold for LGOO to Joseph Clarkson by Alexander M‘Rae. I believe that Mr M‘Bae is a member of the Council. I believe Clarkson bought out the other half, but I don’t know the price or date of sale. The Bessie, fully equipped for a sea voyage, would be worth L3OO. She was sold for over L 1,000,1 believe. The Natives were taken awav on a pearling expedition with the craft for that amount. Clarkson bought the vessel from Whitehalland Fisher. The value of the Waterlily was LOO or LIOO. She was sold by the Government to Pead for LOO, when she was subsequently sold again for over LI,OOO. Price bought half of her. I expect he was buying half the Natives as well. I have not the slightest doubt but that the Natives were sold with the boat. Natives in many instances are sold with the boats. I have seen a Native on the Fortescue River with a disfigurement. He was branded, Mr Hensman objected to this evidence being proceeded with. The Chief Justice: This is not merely a question between A and B, but it has been made an almost national question, and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to give his ground for stating what he did. Mr Hensman: Although great questions may be involved, the question before the Court is the same between these parties. Witness: The Native had two or three brands on him. The brand was the letter T. The Court then adjourned.