5. Autobiography, 92.
6. Ibid., 94.
7. Ibid., 96.
8. The court likely was the Small Cause Court for Bombay, established under the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act of 1882. See Jois, Legal and Constitutional History of India, Vol. 2 (Bombay: Fred B. Rothman, 1984), 215–216.
9. Autobiography, 39.
10. Ibid., 42.
11. Ibid., 47.
12. Ibid., 60.
13. Ibid., 61.
14. Ibid.
15. 24 & 25 Vict. C. 104. See Jois, Legal and Constitutional History, 2:199; and Bhansali, Legal System in India (Jaipur, India: University Book House, 1992), 13–14.
16. Fawcett, The First Century of British Justice in India (1934), quoted in Schmitthener, “Development of the Legal Profession,” 57.
17. Schmitthener, “Development of the Legal Profession,” 358, 363. See also Paul, Legal Profession in Colonial South India (Bombay: Oxford University Press, 1991), 13.
18. Barristers’ fees in 1862 were as much as seven times those charged in England. Their practices during this period and afterward were very lucrative. Schmitthener, “Development of the Legal Profession,” 345–346, 370.
19. Ibid., 345.
20. Gandhi understood this dynamic. “Barristers,” he observed, “are at a discount.” CWMG 1:101.
21. Washbrook, “Law, State and Agrarian Society in Colonial India,” 15 Modern Asian Studies 649 (1981), 650.
22. Ibid., 692–693.
23. Schmitthener, “Development of the Legal Profession,” 367–368.
24. Autobiography, 89.
25. Ibid., 95.
26. Ibid.
27. Gandhi was aware of the mismatch between his personality and his profession, wondering whether he “should be able even to earn a living by the profession.” Comparing himself to Mehta, “a lion in the law courts,” he felt quite inadequate. Autobiography, 81.
28. Touting was considered “underhanded and unprofessional” and in violation of professional rules. Paul, “Vakils of Madras” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1986), 147, 331.
29. Autobiography, 97.
30. Ibid., 98.
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid., 99.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid.
35. Ibid., 101.
36. Ibid., 102.
37. Ibid.
38. Ibid.
CHAPTER THREE
Epigraph, page 31: J. F. Hofmeyr (a member of the Economic Research Unit of the University of Natal), quoted in Brookes and Webb, A History of Natal (Pietermaritzburg, South Africa: University of Natal Press, 1965), 85.
1. “A certain vagueness . . . is associated with the Republic of Natalia. Its beginning may well be dated before 1840.” Brookes and Webb, History of Natal, 35–36.
2. Hattersley, The British Settlement of Natal (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950), 224.
3. Brookes and Webb, History of Natal, 179. The responsible government model has the executive immediately responsible to the parliament rather than the Crown.
4. Hattersley, British Settlement of Natal, 235. Tea was also grown; see “The Curse of Natal,” RDM, March 9, 1910.
5. A bold governmental official, Theophilus Shepstone, helped protect natives from exploitation. Palmer, The History of the Indians in the Natal (Cape Town: Oxford University Press, 1957), 11.
6. NM, June 6, 1855.
7. Calpin, Indians in South Africa (Pietermaritzburg, South Africa: Shuter & Shooter, 1949), 3.
8. Gandhi would call indentured servitude “slavery-tainted labour.” CWMG 10 (1963 edition): 145.
9. Calpin, Indians in South Africa, 6. Maureen Swan, in Gandhi: The South African Experience (Johannesburg: Ravan Press, 1985), 1, notes that the land offer expired in 1890. By the time Gandhi set up his Durban practice in 1894, the period of indenture had grown to five years.
10. Palmer, History of the Indians in the Natal, 20. Palmer argues that the depression was the real cause for immigration’s suspension.
11. Quoted in Calpin, Indians in South Africa, 7.
12. By 1894, conditions of indenture had changed little. Report of the Natal Indian Commission, “The Indian Commission,” NW, April 20, 1894.
13. Konczacki, Public Finance and Economic Development of Natal, 1893–1910 (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1967), 4 (citing Natal Blue Books, Statistical Year Books, and Census Reports of 1891 and 1904); Fair, The Distribution of Population in Natal (Cape Town: Oxford University Press for University of Natal, 1955), 11–12.
14. Many Indians found it easy to enter market-gardening after their indentured servitude. Fair, Distribution of Population in Natal, 17.
15. Palmer, History of the Indians in the Natal, 43, 46.
16. Konczacki, Public Finance and Economic Development of Natal, 198.
17. Swan, South African Experience, 26 (citations omitted).
CHAPTER FOUR
Epigraph, page 36: Autobiography, 121.
1. NM, May 26, 1893; Autobiography, 106.
2. NA, June 9, 1893.
3. NA, May 9, 1893.
4. NM, May 26, 1893.
5. NM, May 27, 1893.
6. Autobiography, 105.
7. NM, May 30, 1893.
8. Autobiography, 109.
9. Autobiography, 111–117. For Gandhi’s other recountings of the incident, see CWMG 68 (1977 edition): 165 and Satyagraha, 42–43.
10. The £4,000 figure is cited in “An Indian Case,” TP, June 9, 1894.
11. Autobiography, 119.
12. Given the modern ethical stricture against communicating with a represented opponent, few lawyers today would feel comfortable with Gandhi’s seeking out, and collaborating with, Mohamed.
13. Autobiography, 125–127.
14. Baker was conducting these services in the midst of his Abdulla work. “Local and General: Cape General Mission,” TP, May 7, 1894.
15. “Mr. Attorney Baker’s Arrest,” NA, June 11, 1894.
16. “A Big Arbitration Case,” TP, May 16, 1894.
17. Autobiography, 132–133.
18. Gandhi’s memory is imprecise. This was the purchase price, not the sum owed. “Natal: A Pretoria Case,” TP, January 9, 1894.
19. Autobiography, 133–134.
20. Swan, South African Experience, 48.
21. Ibid., 41 (quoting sources).
CHAPTER FIVE
1. “The Asiatic Franchise Question,” NM, September 15, 1894.
2. With fewer than three hundred Indian voters enrolled at the time of the Franchise Amendment Bill, the “real significance of the franchise question lay in the fact that it reflected the hostility of the ruling white minority towards Indians.” Swan, South African Experience, 45.
3. The other chamber was the Legislative Council.
4. CWMG 1:105.
5. Autobiography, 143. Citing Colonial Office records, Swan puts this figure at “some 9,000.” Swan, South African Experience, 61, n. 103.
6. Autobiography, 142–143.
7. The home government eventually took the position that it would agree to a bill only if it did not mention Asiatics (as colonists then called Indians) and if the legislation did not disenfranchise the few current Indian voters. Finding this acceptable, the Natal legislature passed a revised bill that accomplished the same end as the previous bill. The Colonial Office approved the bill in the summer of 1896. See Swan, South African Experience, 67.
8. Autobiography, 143.
9. Ibid., 144.
10. Ibid., 145.
11. Ibid., 144, 162.
12. I am indebted to Burnett Britton for Paul’s full name.
13. While Coakes advocated as an lawyer for the Indian community, he was not prepared to be politically identified with the movement. CWMG, Supplementary Vol. 1 (1989), p. 11.
14. See “Advocates of the Supreme Court (Corrected to 31st December, 1894)” and “Attorneys of the Supreme Court (Corrected to 31st December, 1894),” XV NLR, fo
llowing p. 375 (1894).
15. “Durban Circuit Court,” NM, October 11, 1894.
16. CWMG, Supplementary Vol. 1, p. 7.
17. Autobiography, 145. Escombe was indebted to the Indians. Prior to the Franchise Bill, Indian merchants had registered to vote to help Escombe win election. Ibid., 139.
18. On July 21, 1894. CWMG, Supplementary Vol. 1, p. 6. The Durban Circuit Court clerk also expressed support. Ibid., p. 10.
19. Gandhi did so sometime between August 7 and 17. “An Indian Barrister,” NM, August 7, 1894; “Indian Barrister,” NM, August 18, 1894. On August 16, the Supreme Court posted this notice: “Notice is hereby given that application will be made on behalf of Mohandas Karamchorra [sic] Gandhi, on the first day of September, 1894, for admission as an advo[ca]te of the Supreme Court, and that all objections in respect thereof must be lodged . . . before that date.” “A Novel Application,” NW, August 17, 1894.
20. Whites feared Gandhi was the first of a “tide” of Indian barristers. “Indians in Natal,” NM, September 26, 1894. Gandhi would, in fact, later call for more Indian barristers. “The Natal Indian Congress,” NA, October 2, 1895.
21. Editorial, NW, September 5, 1894. The Natal Mercury had a different view: “We question if the Natal Law Society would have troubled itself . . . if Mr. Ghandi [sic] had been . . . European.” “An Indian Barrister,” NM, September 6, 1894.
22. Gandhi recognized the subterfuge. “One of their objections was that the original English certificate was not attached to my application. But the main objection was that, when the regulations regarding admission . . . were made, the possibility of a coloured man applying could not have been contemplated.” Autobiography, 146.
23. Ibid., 365.
24. Dold and Joubert, The Union of South Africa: The Development of its Laws and Constitution (London: Stevens & Sons Ltd., 1955), 190.
25. “In . . . Roman law the division of legal practitioners into advocates and attorneys . . . was recognized . . . early . . . and this division persisted in the Roman-Dutch law.” Ibid., 189.
26. Satyagraha, 45.
27. Gandhi’s admission was scheduled for September 1 but was postponed because of Escombe’s absence. “Supreme Court.—Saturday,” NA, September 3, 1894; “New Advocates,” NW, September 3, 1894. At this first hearing Gandhi learned of objections to his application. “An Indian Advocate,” NA, September 4, 1894.
28. “Indian Advocate of the Supreme Court,” NM, September 3, 1894.
29. Gandhi was familiar with the Rules. CWMG, Supplementary Vol. 1, pp. 7, 12.
30. “An Indian Barrister,” NM, August 7, 1894; “The Indian Barrister,” NA, August 7, 1894. See also CWMG, Supplementary Vol. 1, p. 12.
31. The Natal Witness stated that “the Law Society endeavoured to make it appear that it was the chance of informalities creeping in that raised the opposition, but the public is not to be taken in by such . . . pretences.” Editorial, NW, September 5, 1894.
32. “An Indian Advocate,” NA, September 4, 1894.
33. Autobiography, 147–148; “Indian Advocate of the Supreme Court,” NM, September 5, 1894; In re Gandhi, XV NLR 263 (September 3, 1894). Gandhi later wrote, “I wanted to reserve my strength for fighting bigger battles.” Autobiography, 147.
34. Bird, Annals of Natal, 2:470, quoted in Roberts, “Natal, 1830–1909,” in Mellet, Scott, and van Warmelo (eds.), Our Legal Heritage (Durban, South Africa: Buttersworth, 1982), 79.
35. “Roman-Dutch law is the . . . system which applied in Holland during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It was the product of . . . two elements: medieval Dutch law . . . and the Roman law of Justinian.” Hahlo and Kahn, The South African Legal System and Its Background (Cape Town: Juta & Co., 1968), 329.
36. Professor Ellison Kahn provides several reasons for the turn to British law, including the fact that “the expansion of economic activity in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries could not be met by the Roman-Dutch legal system that had died long before in the land of its birth.” Kahn, “The Development of South African Substantive Law,” in Mellet, Scott, and van Warmelo, Our Legal Heritage, 117.
37. Spiller, A History of the District and Supreme Courts of Natal (1846–1910) (Durban, South Africa: Butterworth, 1986), 56.
38. Morice, English and Roman-Dutch Law: Being a Statement of the Differences Between the Law of England and the Roman-Dutch Law as Prevailing in South Africa and Some Other of the British Colonies (Grahamstown, South Africa: African Book Company, 1905), 2.
39. Spiller, History of the District and Supreme Courts, 57 (citing XIV NLR 20 [1893]).
40. Women were not admitted to practice.
41. As late as 1895 the Natal Advertiser editorialized that “the calibre of the Natal lawyer is not as a rule very high.” NA, March 30, 1895. The quality of the bench was no better. Hahlo and Kahn, The Union of South Africa: The Development of Its Laws and Constitution (London: Stevens & Sons, 1960), 222.
42. Editorial, NW, September 5, 1894.
43. “An Unpleasant Atmosphere,” NW, August 14, 1894.
44. “Durban Circuit Court,” NA, October 13, 1894. Shortly after Gandhi’s admission, the Law Society moved to correct this deficiency. See “Natal Law Society,” NM, September 5, 1894.
45. “Civil Court Witnesses,” NA, June 9, 1893. See also “The Indian in Natal,” NW, December 29, 1894; “Indians,” NM, January 22, 1895.
46. CWMG, Supplementary Vol. 1, pp. 5–9.
47. The case was first with Coakes before he passed it to Gandhi. CWMG, Supplementary Vol. 1, p. 13.
48. “The Indian Barrister,” NA, September 14, 1894; “The Indian Barrister,” NM, September 15, 1894. Gandhi mistakenly records that he won the case on September 19. CWMG Supplementary Vol. 1, p. 15.
49. Autobiography, 81.
50. Ibid., 153–154.
51. “More Recognition,” NM, June 5, 1896.
CHAPTER SIX
Epigraph, page 67: CWMG 1:266.
1. He wore a notary’s hat, too, as well as others. See “Trust Transfer of 1895,” SN 709 (1895).
2. “Death of Deacon Coakes,” NM, October 1, 1894. Coakes’s father died on September 29; he buried him that afternoon with hardly a word to anyone.
3. “Ex parte Russell, In re Coakes,” XVI NLR 98 (March 26, 1895). See also “Supreme Court—Tuesday, An Attorney Suspended,” NW, March 27, 1895.
4. The defendant had borrowed £10 from Coakes. Is this connection how Gandhi came to represent him? “Alleged Theft,” NM, February 14, 1895.
5. “In re Intestate Estate of Hassan Dawjee,” XVI NLR 95 (March 21, 1895).
6. “One for Mr. Ghandhi [sic],” NW, March 22, 1895.
7. Wragg was known to be vindictive. When a court employee accidentally spilled water from a window on Wragg and his silk hat below, Wragg imprisoned him in one of the court’s rooms for an afternoon. “The Judge and His Hat,” NA, August 14, 1895.
8. CWMG 1:193.
9. The auctioneer would testify that the clothing was taken as security for the debt. “Sequel to a Market Dispute,” NA, March 28, 1895.
10. “Action against Constable Tuohy,” NM, March 27, 1895. Three other Indians corroborated Ismail’s story.
11. “Action against the Market Constable,” NM, April 6, 1895. An Advertiser columnist editorialized on a similar case Gandhi brought in July 1895, revealing the popular anti-Indian sentiment in such cases and validating Gandhi’s judgment in settling the Tuohy case: “It is to be hoped that the experience of the plaintiff . . . will put a stop to the assumptions of . . . these Indians. . . . [I]f only one were to recover damages the time of the court . . . would be occupied with nothing else.” “City Notes,” NA, July 24, 1895.
12. See CWMG 1:199–222, 229–244.
13. “The Indian Drum,” NM, July 26, 1895.
14. Gandhi’s client wanted a divorce on desertion grounds. To receive a divorce on this basis, the parties were required to first live apart for twelve months. When the m
agistrate pointed this out, Gandhi was forced to withdraw his petition; the parties had, as the magistrate also had to point out to him, not been married even a year. “Application for Divorce,” NM, September 14, 1895.
15. Swan, South African Experience, 27.
16. “Coolies Thrash Police,” NA, May 20, 1895.
17. CWMG 1:228–229; “The Railway Indians,” NA, May 22, 1895.
18. It is believed that the Congress took a leading role in this case; it claimed the litigation as one of its significant 1895 activities. CWMG 1:245, 249. The Congress, whose purpose was to work for Indian rights, was founded in August 1894. Gandhi almost surely was instrumental in its founding. Swan, South African Experience, 49.
19. Cases of this nature could be brought in the Supreme Court. Spiller, History of the District and Supreme Courts, 78. Little documentation exists to tell us what happened when the case was tried before the full bench of the Court. Cassim Abdulla v. Bennett, XVI NLR 159 (July 16, 1895); “‘Injury of Body and Mind,’” NW, July 17, 1895.
20. CWMG 1:245, 249.
21. In re Regina v. Camroodeen, XV NLR 335–336 (November 8, 1894).
22. CWMG 1:245, 249.
23. Because of the European view that Indian witnesses were untruthful, it was difficult for Indians to prevail in fact-based disputes with Europeans.
24. CWMG 1:262.
25. “Rungasamy Padiachy v. The Clerk of the Peace, Durban,” XVI NLR 244 (November 25, 1895).
26. CWMG 1:261. As with Padiachy, Lucas’s decision in Poonsamy was overturned by the Supreme Court.
27. Britton, Gandhi Arrives in South Africa (Canton: Greenleaf Books, 1999), provides a detailed description of Padiachy.
28. NA, October 1, 1895.
29. “S.M. Bedat v. S.M. Akoom,” NA, December 11, 1895.
30. “S.M. Bedat v. S.M. Akoom: A Difficulty,” NM, December 12, 1895.
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid.; “S.M. Bedat v. S.M. Akoom,” NA, December 11, 1895.
33. “Mr. Ghandhi [sic] as Translator,” NW, January 24, 1896.
34. CWMG 1:297, n. 2.
35. A washerman.
M.K. Gandhi, Attorney at Law Page 38