FRAUDS ON EMIGRANTS.
______
No. XIV.
So, the patron of the runners has at length come to
their rescue. His communication has a semi-official
look about it, but we are not so ungenerous as to affirm
that it is framed for the purpose of deceiving the
public. Still, it is necessary we should observe, to
prevent any misunderstanding on the point, that our
critic does not hold her Majesty's commission, nevertheless
he thinks himself a man of mark, for he says,
"I was one of the first, if not the very first, to recommend
the granting of licences." This being so, what
more natural than that he should defend the runners
in the day of their adversity? How far his benevolent
exertions on their behalf have been successful we shall
presently see; meantime, we may just remark that he
ought to be proud of the company he keeps!
Our critic comes out somewhat like the gentleman
with whom we had a bit of controversy a few weeks
ago. He also is very attractive - his motto is " Free
Trade." We suspect he has changed his political
opinions very recently, if the signature he employs is
meant to convey the principles he holds, for he was
always understood to be attached to the Tory or
monopoly party in this town, and distinguished for a
rabid adherence to it. Perhaps this may account for
the fact, if it be one, that he does not read the
Chronicle. We regret for his own sake that he does
not peruse that paper. It is altogether a matter of
taste, but if he has conscientious scruples himself that
is no valid reason why the numerous frequenters of
his establishment should not have the opportunity of
reading it if they feel so inclined. Most public-houses
and cookshops in town patronise the Liverpool press
without reference to the political bias of the writers.
"Free Trade" begins by telling us that he has only
seen the article of November 7th, which contained
what he calls "a sort of summary," and immediately
he goes to work to demolish this said "summary."
Now, we can easily understand why that particular
number of the series should have called down the
wrath of the clients of Mr. "Free Trade." The pith
of the question was there, in, shall we say, "a sort" of
concise form, calculated to convince the most sceptical
of the evils of the runner system, hence it is that
"Free Trade" and his friends think it is quite time
they should "look to their laurels; " but then, to be
honest, our critic should have gone back and found out
for himself whether we had or had not established and
proved the allegations contained in this said "sort of
summary." He did not think proper, it would seem,
to do so, therefore we take the liberty of informing our
critic that he knows literally nothing of the question
about which he has the vanity to ask the public to
believe he is thoroughly a master.
We have advanced a statement that there are 222
runners in Liverpool, who are mostly men of no reputation.
"Free Trade" says "this statement is not
correct," but adds, " that there are bad men among
them I at once admit." The question, then, between
us is only as to the relative numbers of the good and
the bad. We still assert that the "bad" largely preponderate,
that the "good" are few and far between,
and that even they are not necessary for the conducting
of the business of emigration in Liverpool any
more than they are wanted in London and Glasgow,
where such officers are altogether unknown. We
happen to know something about what we are writing,
and unhesitatingly affirm that no such aids or helps
are desired by those who conduct their business on
sound principles.
We can well afford to pass over the low vulgar scurrility
in which "Free Trade" indulges towards gentlemen
immeasurably his superiors in education, general
attainments, and social position. Still he ought to know
that personal abuse is not argument, nor is it the
method by which legitimate criticism ought to be carried
out. "Free Trade" has found a mare's nest; but for his
information we have to say that neither Mr. Sullivan
nor Mr. Murray ever wrote a line of "Frauds on Emigrants"
beyond the letter which the former gentleman
contributed, and which bore his signature. Mr. Sullivan's
position and reputation forbid that he should
enter the lists with one who shelters himself under an
anonymous signature; but if "Free Trade" feels inclined
to "come out" openly, we can promise him that
Mr. Sullivan will meet him, and discuss the question
in all its parts. Mr. Murray is three thousand
miles off, but will be on the ground again very shortly;
he has a great mission to execute, and has too high an
estimate of its importance to attach the slightest value
to the miserable attempt now made to damage him in
his absence.
The gist of "Free Trade's" observations is to show
that his friends the runners are not, after all, such a
degraded race as we have pictured then. We are great
sticklers for facts, and like to prove our case by
incontrovertible testimony, therefore, we purpose here to
introduce to our critic the evidence of a very important
witness, a gentleman who is all but one of themselves.
He is not a runner. He is one of those brokers of
whom we have so many on the list, who are, in point of
fact, not brokers, because they do not load or despatch
ships, but he is acquainted with all the "outs and ins"
of the trade. We take it for granted that his opinion will
not be repudiated. Well, let us see what he says about
the runners in his elegantly expressed business circular,
which he heads with the word "Caution," and goes on
to inform his patrons that "thousands of emigrants having
been lead astray, robbed of their substance, and in
many cases had to return home penniless, through the
imposition practised upon them by a numerous class of
idlers, called land sharks, the proprietor of the above
establishment deems it a duty he owes the unsuspecting
emigrant, to warn him or her against such characters, who
frequent steam boats, railway stations, and the docks,
soliciting custom for themselves or employers. These
men resort to every kind of falsehood and misrepresentation
to draw you away from the person you have been
recommended to, and make loud professions of friendship
and assistance provided you will follow them.
Beware of such men; I say beware! Ask them no
questions, nor answer any of theirs; for, as Vere
Foster's Guide justly remarks, 'Each one may cost
you five or ten shillings, or more.' Pay no attention
to any one who would induce you to turn away from
the person you are in want of; inquire the way of a
policeman or at some respectable shop; and if you
engage any one, see he conducts you to the right place
and no other. Make a bargain beforehand, and strictly
abide by it." adding that these land sharks of whom he
speaks "perhaps wear a yellow girdle or some badge
of distinction to make them look quite official, and
promise to ship you at least one pound cheaper than
other persons," remarking that he "crowns all by representing
himself as _______'s man, and if you want
his master he will show you to the office, and cart down
your luggage free of charge." To all of which, if the
emigrant be wise, he will reply - Words! words!!
words!!!" Here we have the evidence of one whose
personal interest should be rather to protect than
damage the reputation of his class. We cannot, therefore,
doubt that he states a part at least of what he
knows to be true.
Further, we recommend to our critic a perusal of the
opinion of another very impartial witness, we mean Mr.
Alderman Samuel Holme, who, the other day, in delivering
judgement in a case which came before him in
which a runner, named Sayers, was concerned, says:
"The conduct of Sayers was most disgraceful, and if
the case rested on his evidence the bench would certainly
dismiss it. He said Sayers had lent himself to
the plunder of passengers - he used the word 'plunder'
advisedly, as he knew no other word in the English
language to convey his meaning. Had he an opportunity
of speaking of the way in which poor emigrants
were treated, he would be obliged to say many hard
things of many parties, but, at the same time, he would
be uttering truths, no matter how unpalatable. He
was resolved, with the other magistrates, to protect
poor emigrants, and in every case that came before the
Bench the highest penalty would be inflicted." We
hope "Free Trade" will carefully study these extracts;
they are calculated to enlighten him a little.
But "Free Trade" tells us that ninety of his friends
out of the 222 have in their possession some 600 "letters
from lieutenants of counties, clergymen, &c, recommending
parties" - we suppose he means to say to the
runners for protection. Here Mr. "Free Trade" makes
a rather invidious distinction, for he does not tell us
what credentials the remaining 132 runners hold. We
don't know anything about the lieutenants, gentry, &c.,
to whom our critic refers, but as respects the clergy, we
beg to refer him to the letter of the Rev. Archbishop
recommends all Irish emigrants to eschew the services
of the Liverpool runners. We may also remind "Free
Trade" of a very important fact which we have also
already put on record, that a Roman Catholic clergyman
in this town not very long ago denounced from the
altar the runners and the system, reading at the same
time letters from his correspondents in Ireland to the
effect that his countrymen were being systematically
plundered in Liverpool.
We are quite aware the runners have influence in
Ireland. Let us see how it is obtained. The following is
the substance of a letter received from a gentleman in
that country, for whose veracity we pledge ourselves: -
"The mancatchers, who are generally lodging-house
keepers, come over here and make themselves
acquainted with certain parties who act as a sort of
agent for them; they persuade emigrants to write to
tuch [such?] a man in Liverpool, giving them the address, and
selling them they can get a passage 20 or 30s less than
through a respectable agent in Ireland; and not on
any account agree till they get to Liverpool. But the
dupes find out when they go to Liverpool that they
have been deceived. Another practice is - suppose a
passenger books in Ireland - for these runners to write
home in the name of some of the emigrants, complaining
of the usage they got, and begging of their friends
not to book till they come to Liverpool." We make
this extract for the purpose of showing that these
friends of "Free Trade" are in the habit of violating
the Act of Parliament: for by the 3rd section of it a
runner has no right to ply his vocation, except within
five miles of the town where his licence hails from.
Does our critic mean to tell us that men of reputation
would be guilty of such practices as are described by
our correspondent. But if "Free Trade" has changed
his political faith, he has not forgotten the tactics
of the party he has left. He is endeavouring to
throw into the question the apple of discord, for
he talks something about "proselytising." We
have not interfered with the religious opinions of the
friends of our critic. We don't apprehend they are
very sound theologians; but that is their own business -
they are citizens of a free country, and, with all
their faults, entitled to hold any religious opinions they
think proper. But "Free Trade" will, perhaps, be so
good, in any future effusion, to stick to the question,
and not travel so far out of the record.
"Free Trade" proves, or rather tries to prove, a little
too much, for he tells us that emigrants are lodged by
his friends for 4d. per night, and that the runners wait
at the boats and railway stations, no matter what the
state of the weather, so that they may generously conduct
and guide the poor bewildered emigrant to a haven of
refuge and protection.
"Free Trade" wishes his readers to believe that 4d
per night is the pecuniary inducement which prompts
his friends to this so-called care for the emigrant. Now,
whatever may be his opinion on that point, we know
that 4d per night does not remunerate the runner, and
that his great attention to the emigrant is brought
about because there is in prospect the commission on his
passage fare, on his outfit, from the money changer - if
the poor fellow has any left after the mancatcher has
been satisfied - the publican, &c., &c. These constitute
the motives which influence the runner in looking out
so carefully for the emigrant.
Among other things our critic treats us to a dissertation
upon the results of a change in the system, telling
us that a certain percentage would fall into the pockets
of the American shipowner. If he were a sincere free
trader he would not murmur about that; but as we have
in these papers disposed of the question of monopoly,
we decline to enter upon it here. If he will look back
he will find our views fully expressed; but we may just
say in passing, that if "Free Trade" has much time at
his disposal, he could not do better than employ it in
instructing his clients, if he can, in the A B C of political
economy, for we do not believe they have a very profound
knowledge of the principles of Adam Smith.
But we must inform our critic - for he seems to be
ignorant of the fact - that this is not a money question
at all. Money may be his Alpha and Omega. We, and
those who act with us, are not discussing it upon such
miserable and unworthy considerations. "Free Trade"
may sneer at the philanthropist; he is quite welcome
to do so. He may know the meaning of the word, but
we doubt if he realises it in practice, for we have never
yet seen his name in connection with any philanthropic
movement. As to "Free Trade's" opinion who should,
and who should not have licences, it is worth nothing.
He knows nothing of the business practically, and
should not insult those who do, by venturing upon
their instruction. His remarks about centralisation
and monopoly may be dismissed, because they are put
forth by one who evidently intrudes his opinions, such
as they are, to suit the party whose tool he is for the
moment. His friends are not remarkable for sobriety;
they may patronise his establishment, and possibly
recompense their patron in a more substantial form.
"Free Trade" says - "The days of monopoly and restriction
on trade, of all sorts, are fast fading away, and
fair and open competition in this, as in other trades,
is its life-blood." In this we quite agree with him; but
the sentiment is singularly at variance with his views as
expressed in a previous paragraph of his letter, that beginning
with "The ships taking passengers, &c." But
we wish him to distinguish between legitimate trade,
whether free or under monopoly, and imposition. If he
will refer to the early numbers of this series, he will
find some, to him, instructive disclosures in respect to
inland railway conveyance in the States of America,
wherein it was shewn that certain parties in Liverpool
were doing business upon a basis which enabled
them to allow the runner 15 per cent. commission.
What does our critic think of that? Our time is valuable,
perhaps as much so as that of "Free Trade," still,
if he feels disposed to enter upon the question, beginning
at the beginning, we might condescend to go over
the ground anew with him; but he must come to points,
and not deal in generalities. On no other terms can we
have more to say to him, except that we regret there is not
in Liverpool a second "Mansion House," from whence,
in public meeting assembled, the injured runner might,
through a free press, have the opportunity of sending,
over the length and breadth of the land, a history of his
grievances and the infamous attempts now being made
to deprive him of his privileges!!!
One word as to the Government officers at this port.
We have said nothing disrespectful of them. We have
no desire to do so. We respect them in their private
capacity, but, as we are discussing a public question,
personal feeling must not be permitted to influence
us. The Act of Parliament is doubtless defective;
for that they are not responsible; but we do affirm it was
their duty to apply to the proper quarter, call for an
alteration, and throw the responsibility on those whose
duty it is to frame a measure suitable to the requirements
of the emigration trade.
But it has been left to us to expose the defects and
evils of the system. We shall continue to do so till
a remedy is provided, no matter what our local authorities
may determine upon. In case of need we shall
be prepared to go to Parliament next session, an alternative
we would prefer, in order that the question may
be fully opened up, and the incapacity of the commissioners
exhibited.
To show the necessity, were further proof wanting,
for such a step, we take leave to append copies of two
authenticated affidavits just received from New York.
The speak for themselves, and, we admit, will not be
relished by "Free Trade" and his clients, but possibly
their perusal by our Government officials may convince
them that the estimate we form of the inferior staff is,
after all, not very far wide of the truth: -
CITY AND COUNTY OF NEW YORK, S.S.
________ _____, being duly sworn, does depose and says that
she arrived from Liverpool this 2nd day of November, 1857, in
the ship _______, from the said port. Deponent further says,
that after paying for her transatlantic passage in Liverpool,
she had no more than six shillings sterling in money, but was in
no distress on that account, as her husband had written to her
from Boston, in Massachusetts, that he would cause her to be
taken care of on landing in New York. She was then told by
a man named _______ whose name she found, on landing
in New York, to be enumerated under No. - in the British
parliamentary return of licensed passenger brokers in Liverpool,
that she could not go on board of the ship without paying
for her passage from New York to Boston, as she had a child
with her; and no women with children could be landed in New
York unless they had inland passage tickets. Deponent told
said ______ that she had no money then, but would have
enough, on landing in New York, to pay her way to Boston.
Said ______ pretended to speak to the captain of the Australia,
leaving the office for some time for that alleged purpose. When
he came back he said the captain refused to take her,
and upon he demanding to see the captain herself, she
was told that it could not be done. She was prevented
from making the attempt by intimidation on the part of said
_____, who told her that she would be very roughly handled
if she dared approach the ship without a New York and Boston
passage contract. Deponent, not having any money to procure
such a contract with said _______, persuaded a girl, by the
name of _____ _____, to lend the necessary amount to deponent,
as said _____ could get it back on landing in New York. Said
_____ then lent deponent 16s. sterling, which, together with
5s. 10 1/2d, which deponent had made up the sum of œ1 1s. 10
1/2d,
exacted by said ______ , and then paid by this deponent to
him for a passage for herself and child, which then was less
than four years old, from New York to Boston. The ticket he
gave her was an order on _____, agent of the New York
and Erie R.R. Co., in New York, and bore the number __.
On arriving this day in New York this deponent was told by
the Commissioners of Emigration, in the Emigrant Landing
Depot of Castle Gardens, and believes, that the New York and
Erie R.R. does not connect New York with Boston, but runs in
opposite direction, connecting New York with Dunkirk, situate
on Lake Erie. She was also informed, and believes that the
proper way for emigrants to go to Boston is by steam-boat,
either to Stonington, in Rhode Island, nor to Fall River, in
Massachusetts, or to Norwich, in Connecticut, and from either
of these places by railroad to Boston, and that the price
actually charged for the emigrant passage from New York to
Boston was 2 1/2 dollars for an adult, and 1 1/4 dollars for a
child between 4 and 12 years of age, and that, therefore, her
passage for herself and child was $3 75c., or 15s. 9d. sterling.
Said _____ has therefore defrauded her in the amount of
6s. 1 1/2d., even if his representations were true, that she
could not land without a passage contract, which they were not
as she is informed by the Commissioners of Emigration in New
York.
Deponent further says that, on arriving in Castle Garden, she
was told by the superintendent of this landing depot that he
had received for her, from her husband in Boston, a passage
ticket by the Norwich line to Boston, and one dollar to pay for
provisions. This deponent is therefore provided for by her
husband, as she expected to be, but is unable to refund the
money borrowed from _____ _____, who, in consequence, is
delayed in New York until this deponent can go to Boston and
send on the money from that city. And further deponent says
not. _______ ______
Sworn before me, this 2nd } RUDOLPH GARRIGUE,
day of November, 1857, } Commissioner of Emigration.
_________
CITY AND COUNTY OF NEW YORK, S.S.
______ _____, being duly sworn, does depose and say,
that he arrived in port of New York in the ship ______
______, from Liverpool, this 19th day of October, 1857.
Deponent further says that he had a passage contract from
the commission house of _____ & Co., in Hamburg, for a
passage from Hamburg to New York, and by section 5th of
said contract was directed to report himself to ____, of ____,
Liverpool, who would give this deponent free board and lodging
in Liverpool until the sailing of the ship. The same section
also states that complaints for non-fulfilment of contract could
be made to the Hamburg Consul in Liverpool, whose decisions
would be binding upon the contractors. And deponent says that up
to the time of embarkation in Liverpool there was no cause of
making any such complaint.
Deponent further says that said _____, of ______, Liverpool,
induced this deponent to purchase, of a man named
_____, an agent of _____ & Co., of Liverpool, a contract
for passages for this deponent and his family from New
York to Toronto, in Canada. Deponent, when said _____
offered him such a passage contract, refused to purchase it,
when said _____ urged him to buy it, alleging, as a reason,
that he (_____) knew said ____ & Co. to be a very honourable
house, and that the possession of such a contract on
landing in New York would materially facilitate his continuing
his journey to Canada, and he would run no risk of being
swindled in New York, where all emigrants who had no contract
ticket were subjected to the grossest impositions in a
place called Castle Garden, where they had to land. On these
representations this deponent was induced to give up his
aversion
against buying any ticket previous to arriving in New
York, and he bought a contract of said _____ for himself
and family, making 2 1/2 full passengers from New York to
Toronto, and paid therefor [therefore?] one American gold coin
of
the value of twenty dollars. The ticket thus bought and paid for
is dated the _____ September, 1857, numbered __, addressed to
_______ of _____ street, New York, and signed for _______ & Co.,
by said ______, whose initials are illegible, the bank in which
the contract is filled in being printed in the German language.
Deponent further says that after he had been thus booked in
Liverpool, he embarked in said ship, ______ _______,
which lay at anchor in the river, and after he had been on board
of the ship for seventy-four hours a man came on board
distributing cards among the passengers, on which a caution was
printed against buying any contract for inland passages in
America before arriving there, and recommending the Landing
Depot at Castle Garden, in New York, as a government
institution.
This deponent as well as a number of other passengers
received this caution when they were unable to profit by it
any longer.
Deponent further says that on arriving at the Emigrant Landing
Depot, in New York, he observed that those who held no
European contracts could provide themselves with railroad
tickets in the very building in which they were landed, and
that they were dispatched to the railroads from the very landing
dock. On seeking information from the officers of the
Commissioners of Emigration, at the depot, this deponent learned
that the proper charge from New York to Toronto was $5 50
(five and one-half dollars) for every adult, and half of this
amount for every child from 4 to 12 years of age, and that
$13 75 (thirteen and three-quarter dollars) was the proper
charge for his family, being 2 1/2 adults. This deponent has
therefore been defrauded in the sum of $6 25 (six and
one-quarter dollars) or œ1 6s 6d, by the very honourable house
recommended to him so strongly by said ______, of ______,
Liverpool. And this deponent has moreover to leave the Landing
Depot to get his contract fulfilled by the addressee, whilst
those passengers who have no European contracts can remain
quietly in the depot until they are taken directly from the same
to the point of departure of the railroads. And further deponent
says not.
Sworn before me, this 19th } RUDOLPH GARRIGUE,
day of October, 1857, } Commissioner of Emigration.
In our judgement Mr. "Free Trade" travels out of
the legitimate domain of criticism, because he interferes
with private interests; but as has thought
proper to do this it gives us the opportunity of saying
that we feel pleased there are even two houses in the
trade who, he says, give only 5 per cent. commission.
We are told that these two houses, nevertheless, do the
largest business, and we have a strong suspicion if their
opinion was known we should find that their business
can be conducted without the paying commissions at all;
but at the same time we regret to find other houses so
respectable as those named encouraging the runners
by paying 7 1/2 per cent. We are aware that 10, 12 1/2,
and 15 per cent. have been paid to runners on passage
money, but we did not expect to find the principle
recognised in the quarters he names. Perhaps our
critic will tell us what benefit results to the passenger
by this operation.
Mr. " Free Trade" treats us to another effusion in the
Northern Times of the 25th inst. In it, like the former,
he displays extraordinary ignorance of his subject. We
are not surprised at that; but if he cannot advance
argument he should endeavour to stick to the truth.
He has departed from it in several instances in this, his
second attempt, to defend imposition. He tells us that
we are agreeable to a compromise, and that we said so
last week. That is not true. What we did say was
this, - "We have no objections to a compromise at the
moment, conditionally, and till such time as proper
accommodation can be provided for the emigrant." We
repeat that sentiment, but whatever course his friends
may adopt we shall not stop till this question has been
adjudicated upon by the highest tribunal in the nation.
"Free Trade" is a little indignant with the magistrate
for applying the word "plunder" in connection
with the case reported last week, and gives a definition
of it to show that Mr. Alderman Holme was wrong.
Now, we think it was exactly the right word in the
right place. He says his definition of the term is that
given by one of our "latest lexicographers." We have
not looked into the authorities, and therefore cannot
say whether the definition of our critic is anything like
that of "Walker" or "Johnson;" but we think it more
than probable it is from one who interrupts the word
somewhat after the fashion of the former author. But
however that may be, we feel quite convinced that Mr.
Holme will be fully confirmed in the fitness of the word
to the circumstances, when he peruses the affidavits we
publish this day, notwithstanding the conclusion at
which "Free Trade" has arrived in reference to the
particular point at issue. If the impositions therein set
forth be not "plunder," then the word should be set
down in our dictionaries as meaning nothing.
We have great pleasure in referring our readers to
the remarks made by the Rev. V. M. White, at a meeting
of the Emigrants' Friends Society and Bethel
Union, on this subject; they will be found at length
below. We hope the gentlemen associated with him
in this institution participate in his views and sentiments,
and that they will afford us their valuable aid in
the direction pointed out by Mr. White.
The harbour-masters' sub-committee invited certain
brokers, and a deputation from the runners, to meet
them on Wednesday. We believe an interview did
take place, but the proceedings of the Dock Committee,
on Thursday, give us no insight as to the decision at
which the sub-committee had arrived. We hope they
will consider well the entire question before committing
themselves to any course of action whatever.
"Hibernicus," whose letter appears in the Northern
Times of yesterday, will have our intention, in his
turn; meantime, we may just say, for his comfort and
consolation, that the eggs in the "mare's nest" he has
discovered are all addled, without a single exception.
