cuAP. Iv] IMMIGRATION OF COLOURED RACES 1097 
providing means by which any such order may be brought 
before Courts for confirmation or discharge, and that your 
Ministers will refrain from exercising this power pending 
such legislation. 
His Majesty’s Government accept with some reluctance 
provisions of s. 6, subsection ¢, but they feel sure that dis- 
crimination will be exercised by your Ministers in employ- 
ment of the powers conferred. 
If your Ministers can give the two specific assurances asked 
for His Majesty will not be advised to disallow the Act. 
The Ministry gave the assurances requested, and the Act 
became law. Since then the trouble with the Transvaal 
Indians has been lasting and difficult. There was resistance 
to the registration law, followed by a partial understanding, 
and the passing of a new Act, No. 36 of 1908, but the old 
Act remained still in existence ; then there was a demand 
for the repeal of the immigration restriction law and the 
adoption simply of a Natal Act; then there was a demand 
for the permission for the settlement in the Colony of a few 
professional persons, and difficulties arose as to wives and 
children coming from India, while the expulsion in 1909 over 
the border into Lourengo Marques of persons deported from 
the Colony has caused great difficulties, and complaints have 
been made as to the treatment of prisoners by refusing them 
leave to observe their religious practices.! 
Matters have also been complicated by misunderstandings 
of the intentions of the Government, apparently despite 
perfect good faith on both sides, Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Smuts 
taking different views of the result of these discussions. The 
question of deportation under the Act was discussed in the 
Courts, but it was held that the Crown had power under 
the Acts to deport to the country of origin of the persons de- 
ported? the provisions of the Acts as regards registration and 
right of entry were upheld as was inevitable in the Courts? 
See Parl. Pap., Cd. 4327, 4584, 5363. In the Orange River Colony 
an Act of 1890 practically prevented any immigration while Ordinance 
No. 12 of 1907 provided for the exemption of coloured persons of distinc 
tion, and the question has thus been of no consequence. 
t Hong Kong and Leung Quin v. Attorney-General, [19101 T. P. 348, 432. 
Cf. Venter v. Rex, [1907] T. S. 910. 
s Of. Randeria v. Rex, [1909] T. S. 65; Naidoo and Others v. Rex, ibid., 43;