DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.68026#0073
ROYAL COMMISSION UPON DECENTRALIZATION.
need reports from Madras and Calcutta; or if
they are essential in the case of Madras and
Calcutta, do you not give an incomplete review by-
not having a report from Bombay?—The emigra-
tion from the ports of Calcutta and Madras is
colonial emigration under Act XXI. of 1893—emi-
gration to Natal, Mauritius, Fiji, and the West
Indies. As to the coolies who emigrate under
that Act and the rules thereunder, we require
these annual returns. From Bombay and
Karachi there is no coolie emigration of that
description ; I never heard of coolies being taken
from the Bombay Presidency, say, ‘for Mauritius,
under all the numerous precautions that are taken
at the port of Calcutta with regard to emigrant
ships.
43874. Why do you treat Madras and Calcutta
differently ; if the Secretary of State does not
want a report in the one case, why does he need
a report in the other case ?—I do not quite know ;
we are always getting numerous questions from
him about emigrant ships ; this is emigration in
emigrant ships under this Act to the Colonies.
43875. But the information is either unneces-
sary or, if necessary, defective?—The two places
from which emigrant ships go are Calcutta and
Madras, those are the only two ; Madras probably
sends reports home direct. From Bombay and
Karachi emigration by special emigrant ships to
my knowledge does not take place.
43876. Are the inland emigration reports en-
tirely necessary?—They deal with a matter about
which I know a good deal. Inland emigration
means emigration to the tea-gardens of Assam,
tin the past there has been a great deal of excite-
ment over this emigration, and the Government of
India called for these returns in consequence of
that. If the reasons which led to this excite-
ment die away, as I hope they will under certain
arrangements which have recently been made, the
reports might be dispensed. with; at present I
think we ought to have them.
43877. What have you to say about these two
annual reports about stationery statistics and the
Indian law reports ?—I do not quite know why
those are called for.
43878. What use are they put to? The Govern-
ments of Madras -and Bombay have their own
Stationery Offices. Why do you want them?—I
do not know why exactly. The reason, I under-
stand, is that the Controller of Stationery with
the Government of India wishes to have these
reports to keep him au fait with what is being
done in the separate offices of Bombay and
Madras, not for the purposes of control, but for
the purposes of comparison. He inspects the
stationery offices of Madras and Bombay, and the
reports are of use for his information and to
enable him to carry out his inspections in a satis-
factory manner.
43879. You think he ought to be informed on
these points ?—I presume so ; it is probably as
well that he should have this information as he is
an inspecting officer.
43880. Is he an inspecting officer?—I under-
stand he inspects and advises.
43881. Can he be called an inspecting officer?—
Perhaps he might not be called an inspecting
officer, but he is certainly an advising officer.
43882, Is there anything of that sort in con-
nection witn the Indian law reports?—In the case
of the Indian law reports, the report, I understand,
is for audit purposes ; the law reports are sup-
posed to pay their own way ; the report is called
for to see whether the sales meet the cost.
43883. Is it not entirely a provincial head of
account?-—It probably is a provincial head of
account. I understand that the reasons for the
report being called for it to see whether the pub-
lication is paying its way.
43884. Do you think it is necessary.?--! . should
say it is probably, unnecessary. - >
43885. Then the report about the Lucknow
Museum ; may we understand that that is goina
to be knocked off?—I understand so.
33383
43886. Has it been knocked off?—I do not
think so yet.
43887. You say “ Any relaxation in favour of
the Local Governments that may be considered
desirable or possible would doubtless be agreed
to.” I suppose you mean by the Government of
India?—By the Government of India.
43888. (Chairman.) What is your own opinion ;
de you think that they ought to agree to it?—My
opinion is that the Local Governments should
have such relaxations.
43889. (Sir Steyning Edgerley.) Then you deal
with telephones?—That comes under the heading
of telegraphs and telephones.
43890. Does that mean that all questions of
sanction for new telephone lines come up to you?
—Yes, under the monopoly of the Telegraph Act.
43891. I have seen several cases in which the
Bombay Government have had to go to the Gov-
ernment of India to get sanction to allow, for
instance, a Ruling Chief to put a telephone in his
stables ; would those cases come to you?—I believe
so.
43892. Are those rules under reconsideration?—
I do not think so.
43893. What is the object of requiring anybody
to come up for sanction for a telephone communi-
cation which does not connect with the general
system?—It is because of the 'State monopoly in
telegraphs, and to ensure that no concession is
given which may at some future date prove incon-
venient.
43894. Even if a gentleman put up a telephone
between his house and stables ?—There may be
some orders which allow the disposal of cases in
which a telephone is required for purely private
purposes ; I think the matter would still have to
come to the Director-General of Telegraphs.
43895. Is it not entirely unnecessary ; could not
the Local Government be allowed to discriminate?
—Yes, you might allow the Local Government to-
come in there. It is difficult of course to exactly
schedule the cases in which the State monopoly
has to be safeguarded.
43896. I suppose any line which is under the
control of the Director-General is periodically in-
spected by some officer of the department?—Yes,
the lines that are under his control.
43897. Would you not have a sufficient voice to-
protect your monopoly if it was his duty to com-
plain of any infringement in his circle?—I think
on the whole you have to be very careful about
not allowing any installation to be set up which
might in the future prove inconvenient.
43898. Does not the present system look solely
to your monopoly and not at all to the conveni-
ence of the Chiefs?—It looks to the monopoly
entirely ; the first point that is considered is the
keeping of the monopoly, and allowing no possible
chance of the monopoly being infringed, or the
thin end of the wedge to come in.
43899. How it affects the Chiefs is a small
matter?—That is a small matter.
43900. From the point of view of the Chiefs?—■
That is rather another question. .
43901. In other words it is departmentalism?—
It is departmentalism intended to secure the
absolute monopoly to the Government of India,
and to see that that monopoly is not in any way
infringed.
43902. (Chairman.) Are you aware that the-
Telegraph Department in England does not at-
tempt to interfere in the case of telephones on
private property?—I do not know what the rule
is in England.
43903. Would it alter your opinion if that were
the fact, telegraphs and telephones being quite
as great a monopoly there as in India?—I should
not like to answer that at once without further
consideration. The view I hold is that in India
we require to be very careful about an infringe-
ment of a monopoly, from the'. cases that I have
actually seen come up ; I have seen cases in which
views were put forward which, when one fully
I 2
J/r. B.
Bobertson.
3 Apr., 1908.
need reports from Madras and Calcutta; or if
they are essential in the case of Madras and
Calcutta, do you not give an incomplete review by-
not having a report from Bombay?—The emigra-
tion from the ports of Calcutta and Madras is
colonial emigration under Act XXI. of 1893—emi-
gration to Natal, Mauritius, Fiji, and the West
Indies. As to the coolies who emigrate under
that Act and the rules thereunder, we require
these annual returns. From Bombay and
Karachi there is no coolie emigration of that
description ; I never heard of coolies being taken
from the Bombay Presidency, say, ‘for Mauritius,
under all the numerous precautions that are taken
at the port of Calcutta with regard to emigrant
ships.
43874. Why do you treat Madras and Calcutta
differently ; if the Secretary of State does not
want a report in the one case, why does he need
a report in the other case ?—I do not quite know ;
we are always getting numerous questions from
him about emigrant ships ; this is emigration in
emigrant ships under this Act to the Colonies.
43875. But the information is either unneces-
sary or, if necessary, defective?—The two places
from which emigrant ships go are Calcutta and
Madras, those are the only two ; Madras probably
sends reports home direct. From Bombay and
Karachi emigration by special emigrant ships to
my knowledge does not take place.
43876. Are the inland emigration reports en-
tirely necessary?—They deal with a matter about
which I know a good deal. Inland emigration
means emigration to the tea-gardens of Assam,
tin the past there has been a great deal of excite-
ment over this emigration, and the Government of
India called for these returns in consequence of
that. If the reasons which led to this excite-
ment die away, as I hope they will under certain
arrangements which have recently been made, the
reports might be dispensed. with; at present I
think we ought to have them.
43877. What have you to say about these two
annual reports about stationery statistics and the
Indian law reports ?—I do not quite know why
those are called for.
43878. What use are they put to? The Govern-
ments of Madras -and Bombay have their own
Stationery Offices. Why do you want them?—I
do not know why exactly. The reason, I under-
stand, is that the Controller of Stationery with
the Government of India wishes to have these
reports to keep him au fait with what is being
done in the separate offices of Bombay and
Madras, not for the purposes of control, but for
the purposes of comparison. He inspects the
stationery offices of Madras and Bombay, and the
reports are of use for his information and to
enable him to carry out his inspections in a satis-
factory manner.
43879. You think he ought to be informed on
these points ?—I presume so ; it is probably as
well that he should have this information as he is
an inspecting officer.
43880. Is he an inspecting officer?—I under-
stand he inspects and advises.
43881. Can he be called an inspecting officer?—
Perhaps he might not be called an inspecting
officer, but he is certainly an advising officer.
43882, Is there anything of that sort in con-
nection witn the Indian law reports?—In the case
of the Indian law reports, the report, I understand,
is for audit purposes ; the law reports are sup-
posed to pay their own way ; the report is called
for to see whether the sales meet the cost.
43883. Is it not entirely a provincial head of
account?-—It probably is a provincial head of
account. I understand that the reasons for the
report being called for it to see whether the pub-
lication is paying its way.
43884. Do you think it is necessary.?--! . should
say it is probably, unnecessary. - >
43885. Then the report about the Lucknow
Museum ; may we understand that that is goina
to be knocked off?—I understand so.
33383
43886. Has it been knocked off?—I do not
think so yet.
43887. You say “ Any relaxation in favour of
the Local Governments that may be considered
desirable or possible would doubtless be agreed
to.” I suppose you mean by the Government of
India?—By the Government of India.
43888. (Chairman.) What is your own opinion ;
de you think that they ought to agree to it?—My
opinion is that the Local Governments should
have such relaxations.
43889. (Sir Steyning Edgerley.) Then you deal
with telephones?—That comes under the heading
of telegraphs and telephones.
43890. Does that mean that all questions of
sanction for new telephone lines come up to you?
—Yes, under the monopoly of the Telegraph Act.
43891. I have seen several cases in which the
Bombay Government have had to go to the Gov-
ernment of India to get sanction to allow, for
instance, a Ruling Chief to put a telephone in his
stables ; would those cases come to you?—I believe
so.
43892. Are those rules under reconsideration?—
I do not think so.
43893. What is the object of requiring anybody
to come up for sanction for a telephone communi-
cation which does not connect with the general
system?—It is because of the 'State monopoly in
telegraphs, and to ensure that no concession is
given which may at some future date prove incon-
venient.
43894. Even if a gentleman put up a telephone
between his house and stables ?—There may be
some orders which allow the disposal of cases in
which a telephone is required for purely private
purposes ; I think the matter would still have to
come to the Director-General of Telegraphs.
43895. Is it not entirely unnecessary ; could not
the Local Government be allowed to discriminate?
—Yes, you might allow the Local Government to-
come in there. It is difficult of course to exactly
schedule the cases in which the State monopoly
has to be safeguarded.
43896. I suppose any line which is under the
control of the Director-General is periodically in-
spected by some officer of the department?—Yes,
the lines that are under his control.
43897. Would you not have a sufficient voice to-
protect your monopoly if it was his duty to com-
plain of any infringement in his circle?—I think
on the whole you have to be very careful about
not allowing any installation to be set up which
might in the future prove inconvenient.
43898. Does not the present system look solely
to your monopoly and not at all to the conveni-
ence of the Chiefs?—It looks to the monopoly
entirely ; the first point that is considered is the
keeping of the monopoly, and allowing no possible
chance of the monopoly being infringed, or the
thin end of the wedge to come in.
43899. How it affects the Chiefs is a small
matter?—That is a small matter.
43900. From the point of view of the Chiefs?—■
That is rather another question. .
43901. In other words it is departmentalism?—
It is departmentalism intended to secure the
absolute monopoly to the Government of India,
and to see that that monopoly is not in any way
infringed.
43902. (Chairman.) Are you aware that the-
Telegraph Department in England does not at-
tempt to interfere in the case of telephones on
private property?—I do not know what the rule
is in England.
43903. Would it alter your opinion if that were
the fact, telegraphs and telephones being quite
as great a monopoly there as in India?—I should
not like to answer that at once without further
consideration. The view I hold is that in India
we require to be very careful about an infringe-
ment of a monopoly, from the'. cases that I have
actually seen come up ; I have seen cases in which
views were put forward which, when one fully
I 2
J/r. B.
Bobertson.
3 Apr., 1908.