484 
THE TROPICAL 
AGRICULTURIST. [Jan. 1, 1903. 
the journey. IC may be taken, I thiuk, as 
undoubted that the planter iHust make large 
advances and that he must and does lose much 
money in consequence of the fraudulent disappear- 
ance of the labourers. * * * When we remember 
that the labourers employed in the coflfee industry 
-were reliably estimated a few years ago at over 
300,000 persons of whom two-thirds were imported 
labourers, i.e., labourers under advances, and 
that a considerable number of the labourers to 
\vhom advances were made never join the estate 
and that many more desert, it will I thiuk be 
conceded that the fraudulent disappearance of the 
cooly or maistry with the advance made him is 
an evil of great magnitude, demoralising to the 
Jabonrei and crippling to the planter and one 
which it is the duty of the State to correct. In 
para. 122 and Appendix VII. of their Report, 
the Planters Enquiry Committee gives statistics 
of planters' losses which it is unnecessary to 
quote here in detail, but the returns show that 
the losses from the desertion of labourers vary 
from two-thirds of a rupee per acre cultivated in 
Madras and Coorg to li25 an acre in North 
Mysore. These figures do not include the losses 
suffered by maistries or planters outside the Asso- 
ciations making the returns, and are, therefore, 
much below the mark, * * * It is not the punish- 
ment of the cooly nor the repayment of the 
advance that the planter wants. What is essential 
in the case of that industry is to get the work 
done for which the advance is made, whether 
that work be the supply of coolies by the maistry 
or whether it be the agricultural work of the estate. 
This position has been expressed by the phrase 
that what is v/anted is specific performance. In 
the Hill this is to be attained in the two following 
ways. Following the principle of the Penal Code 
and Act V of 1866, the breach of contract is 
itself made punishable, but power is given to the 
Magistrate to release and make over the maistry 
or cooly sentenced to imprisonment to his em- 
ployer with an order to complete his contract. 
This is a provision taken from the Labour and 
Emigration Act of 1901. Specific performance is 
also recognised in the Bill in Sections 31, 32 and 
33 under which conviction and imprisonment is 
not to operate as a release, the labourer being 
compelled to return to service after his term of 
imprisonment, the period not only of his absence 
from service but also of liis imprisonment being 
added to the term for which he has contracted to 
serve. The whole term which can so be added is, 
however, limited to nine months. 
The Hon. Mr. AcwoRTH in seconding the motion 
said : — Your Excellency, — I rise to second the 
motion that the Bill be read in Council, I do 
not propose to say much at the present moment. 
As this Hon'ble Council is aware, this Bill has 
been very long under consideration and had been 
referred backwards and forwards to the Govern- 
ment of India and the Secretary of State several 
timetJ. I should, were it not for Section 3, con- 
sider the Bill on the whole a good one, but 
Section 3 has been received with little less than 
consternation in some of the planting districts. 
From Wynaad the Government has already re- 
ceived a formal protest against the Section, and 
from the Nilgiris and Mysore protests against 
this Section have reached me, and I have been 
urged to do all in my power either, to get this 
Section expunged, or so modified as to meet the 
• reijuiienaents of those who deal largely in local 
labour. Government in the notes on the clauses 
says:— "The object of this clause is to prevent 
the concurrent application of Act XIII. of 1859 
and the proposed labour law to contracts for 
work^of any kind between employers and labour- 
ers as defined in the Bill. It is, however, in- 
tended that the power which planters have of 
resorting to the provisions of Act XIII. of 1859 
in their dealings with persons, artisans or others, 
who fall entirely outside the scope of the pro- 
posed law, should be preserved." Now it is ob 
vious that under the Bill as at present con- 
structed, the planter will have no hold on the 
local labourer. •» * * » 
The Hon. Sir GEORGE Arbuthnot said that 
he was unable to follow very accurately the 
statistics given by the Hon. Member who had 
just spoken (the Hon. Mr. K Perrazu), but he 
gathered that they were to the effect generally, 
that the planting industry in South India was 
an eminently prosperous and progressive one. 
He could only assure him from a position of 
authority and from his sad experience that it 
was not by any means the case, and that un- 
less every possible help was given to the plant- 
ing industry, there was no doubt that tiiere 
would be soon no coolies, no pruners and no 
planters, and that the last of the industry would 
be seen. » * * * • 
The Hon. Mr. G Sirinivasa Rao proposed to 
point out what he considered defects in the vari- 
ous provisions of the Bill, illustrating his re- 
marks by reference to the particular sections. 
He remarked in particular that the penal pro- 
visions were harsher and severer not only as 
against the cooly but also against the planter 
and maistry, than they were in Act VI. of 1901, 
He concluded by observing that he had pointed 
out the manner in which the provisions of t,he 
Bill, if passed into law as it was, would work 
hardship not only on the coolies but maistries 
and planters also. If the defects pointed out by 
him were not taken note of and reminded, as he 
had no doubt they would be in the Select-Com- 
mittee, the employers who welcomed the measure 
now would find it affecting them immensely 
worse than now. 
The Hon'ble Mr, AcwoRTH said that he desired 
to make a correction in Mr. Perrazu's speech 
where he said that planters made coolies work 
for seven days in the week ; but, so far from this 
being the case, Sunday was always a recognised 
holiday, The difficulty planters had was to make 
coolies work six days in the week. The coolies 
always and habitually took one day in the week 
extra as a holiday, 'rhis would not appear in the 
planters' check roll, because the coolies did not 
always take the extra holiday on the same day. 
But to say that planters made coolies work for 
seven days was absolutely false. He could not 
help thinking that Mr. Perrazu had spoken with- 
out the hlightest knowledge of planters, their 
estates, or the conditions of the labour that planters 
employed on their estates. 
THE president's address. 
His Excellency the President said :— The origin 
of the Planters' Labour Bill has been fully ex- 
plained, and it has been drafted after protracted 
consultation with the Planters' Associations, the 
District Officers concerned, the Judges of the High 
Court, the Law Olficers of Government, the Grov- 
ernments of Mysore and Coorg and the Govern- 
meDb of India. The object of the Bill is twofold i 
