be countenanced. There is no reason to suppose present regulations inadequate to prohibit the entry of undesirable persons. The Governors of Kenya and Uganda will be instructed to submit proposals for giving effect to that amount of control of immigration which the economic interests of the natives of both dependencies require. BRITISH FEELING IN KENYA It must be recognised that the Colonial Office has shown an intelligent sympathy with the case for the white settlers, and has endeavoured conscientiously to do justice to their claim for fair treatment, in the face of really formidable difficulties involving Imperial issues of grave importance. There is natural disappointment at the decision against segregation in townships. Europeans who understand the conditions in Africa realise the importance of segregation of residential quarters for reasons which have been fully discussed in the May number of this Review, and it is worthy of note that the Government of the Union of South Africa has only quite recently adopted complete segregation as an absolute necessity. It is stated in the Colonial Office Memorandum that it is now the view of the most competent medical authorities that, as a sanitation measure, segregation of Europeans and Asiatics is not absolutely essential for the preservation of the health of the community. This may be so, but no one can have two opinions about the eminent desirability of segregation on every ground so far as the interests of the white population are concerned. The Colonial Office Memorandum believes that the rigid enforcement of sanitary, police, and building regulations without any racial discrimination by the colonial and municipal authorities will suffice. . . . It may well prove that in practice the different races will, by a national affinity, keep together in separate quarters. The settlers might reply that it may well prove in practice, on political grounds, that Indians will make a point of residing in European quarters, to demonstrate their equality with white to effect segregation by legislative enactment, except on the strongest sanitary grounds, would not, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, be justifiable. They have therefore decided that the policy of segregation as between Europeans and Asiatics in the townships must be abandoned. There will be some disappointment among British settlers in regard to the indefinite postponement of responsible government. His Majesty's Government cannot but regard the grant of responsible self-government as out of the question for any period of time which need now be taken into consideration. Nor, indeed, would they contemplate yet the possibility of substituting an unofficial majority in the Council for the Government official majority. Hasty action is to be strongly deprecated, and it will be necessary to see how matters develop, especially in regard to African representation, before proposals for so fundamental a change in the constitution of the colony can be entertained. But, after full reflection, it may well be that the Kenya settlers will feel no bitterness on this score, provided that the immigration question is properly handled. The decision of the Government with regard to Indian immigration is the one which will cause the greatest misgiving. The Indian in a British African colony or dominion is a parasite: the prosperity of the community is created by the enterprise, intelligence, and capital of the white settlers who make their homes there. The advancement of the natives depends on the British genius for governing backward races, which has been demonstrated in every quarter of the globe. The African natives in Kenya regard the white man with respect, but have an unconcealed contempt for the Indian. Failure to safeguard the position of the white settlers, upon whom the well-being of the natives depends, will produce disastrous reactions throughout British Africa, the end of which can be clearly foreseen. On this most controversial question, over which feeling runs high throughout South Africa, Rhodesia, East Africa and political native circles in India, it is necessary to study the full text of the Colonial Office Memorandum : Immigration. It may be stated definitely that only in extreme circumstances could His Majesty's Government contemplate legislation designed to exclude from a British colony immigrants from any other part of the British Empire. Such racial discrimination in immigration regulations, whether specific or implied, would not be in accord with the general policy of His Majesty's Government, and they cannot countenance the introduction of any such legislation in Kenya. The existing immigration regulations of the colony are of quite general application. It is clearly as important in the general interests of Kenya to prohibit the entry of undesirable persons from Europe or America as from Asia. There is no reason to suppose that the regulations in present circumstances are inadequate for this general purpose. But the consideration which must govern immigration policy in Kenya is purely economic, and strict regard must be paid to the interests of the African. In course of time, as the natives progress intellectually, they will no doubt take the place which Africans hold in other parts of British Tropical Africa in mechanical and subordinate clerical work and in small trade, and it must be the aim of the British Administration to further this development by all possible means. With this object the Colonial Government must weigh, so far as may be practicable, the effect on native interests of the admission to the colony of would-be immigrants of any race. No information is yet available to show what number of immigrants following a particular occupation the colony can absorb. The problem is complicated by the position of the separate dependency of Uganda, to which the normal access lies through Mombasa and the Kenya Colony, and this necessitates careful consideration before any scheme is definitely decided upon. Further, some arrangement must be devised for securing a strictly impartial examination of applications for entry into Kenya, possibly by a board on which the various communities, including the natives, would be represented. It will, therefore, be an instruction to the Governor of Kenya to explore the matter further on his return to the colony, and, in concert with the Governor of Uganda, to submit proposals to the Secretary of State for the Colonies for giving effect to that amount of control of immigration which the economic interests of the natives of both dependencies require. THE INDIAN DELEGATION AND THE LEGISLATIVE The Indian Delegation in England received the decision of the British Government with sentiments which are clearly expressed in the following cabled message to the Government of India: Imperial Government's decision unacceptable all points except segregation. Involves subjection Indian to permanent status inferiority violating constitutional pledges equality within Empire and resolutions Imperial Conference and Joint Parliamentary Committee. Sovereign's pledges treated as scraps of paper. Such breach of faith cannot restore co-operation and goodwill, but must perpetuate and aggravate racial bitterness and hostility. This definitely anti-Indian settlement made under threat of violence by white settlers places premium on methods of violence. Decision combined with Smuts' provocative proposal segregation couched in language grossly offensive. Indians inevitably create impression white races determined reduce Indians in Africa to position utter humiliation. Nothing but strongest immediate action by Government India can save situation. Strongly urge recall delegates to Imperial Conference. Futile and humiliating sending delegates if Imperial Government flouts decisions Conference. India should also refuse participation Empire Exhibition and proceed institute all possible measures retaliation. Indians otherwise left without least hope ever establishing equality status without which they can have no place in commonwealth. The language is characteristic of the source from which it comes, and needs no further comment. On July 27, in the Indian Legislative Assembly, a heated debate took place on Dr. Gour's Bill for regulating the entry into India of British subjects domiciled in other parts of the Empire. In vain Mr. Montagu Butler pointed out that India had gained much by the Kenya settlement. Sir Malcolm Hailey deprecated the Bill as one which could only be regarded as the first of the retaliatory measures against the Dominions whose goodwill was essential to India. Sir B. N. Sarma (Hindu) warned the Assembly that, having regard to the peculiar nature of Indian customs, it was unwise of India to make too much of equality outside India, for many of their countrymen were not received on a footing of equality within India. 1 1 See remarks on caste, P. 431. Notwithstanding these warnings, the Assembly passed the Bill, the Government not challenging a division. The prorogation of the Assembly took place the next day, when the Viceroy took the opportunity to express his disappointment at the decision of the British Government on the Kenya question, and declared that if the Government had to submit to the decision, its submission was, with due respect to His Majesty's Government, under protest.' 2 The Indian members declared that the Viceroy's speech would receive a warm welcome in the country, and be regarded as indicating that the Assembly had not gone far wrong in passing yesterday's Bill and as identifying the Viceroy and his Government with the views of the Indian people. In other words, the Viceroy has given a lead to the renewal of the fanatical Swaraj (Home Rule) campaign, which, under Gandhi's leadership, produced such disastrous results, and fomented race hatred to an extent never known before in India. Mr. P. N. Ramaswami, who is well known and much liked at Cambridge and in lawn tennis circles, has written a thoroughly sane letter on the Kenya decision (The Times, August 7), in which he comments on the arguments for equal status as follows: The tirades against inequalities become absolutely grotesque when they proceed from the Right Hon. V. S. Srinivasa Sastri, who is, like myself, a member of the South Indian Brahmin hierarchy, which has done everything in the past to degrade the lower classes, and is at present doing nothing to elevate them. In parts of South India millions of Indians are regarded as untouchable and unapproachable. They are not allowed to enter the village temples or use the village wells. Similar conditions embracing a population of nearly fifty million Hindus exist all over India. We who live in glass houses ought not to throw stones at others. Mr. Ramaswami shows the hollowness and unwisdom of the tirade against communal representation, which was deliberately adopted in the Indian Constitution to ensure fair play to all. On the other hand, he protests against the reservation of the Highlands. If Kenya can be rescued from the embittered atmosphere of political strife born of the inordinate pretensions of Mr. Sastri and his friends, and cease to be a pawn in their game of Indian Colonial Empire, hopes may be entertained that good results will flow from the carefully considered decision to which the British Government has now pledged itself. 2 Times correspondent at Simla. F. G. STONE. THE DRINK PROBLEM IN THE UNITED STATES THE United States is a very big country. Commonplace though it be, this is a statement which can hardly be too often repeated, for few Englishmen, and by no means all Americans, understand all that it implies. The width of the country from east to west (from New York to San Francisco) is roughly equivalent to the distance from London to Teheran; and the physical features of the land, with the consequent differences in the avocations and interests of the peoples, are about as diversified in the one case as in the other. It is almost as if we had the whole British Empire conjoined into one single continuous continent, all under one flag, one Ministry, one Parliament. Here are Canadian prairies, Australian backwoods, South African mining areas, Himalayan mountain ranges, congested manufacturing centres like those of the British Isles, and great seacoast cities; arctic cold and tropical heat. An English friend whom I knew many years ago in one of the Western States, in reply to the familiar question' And what do you think of our country, Mr. Blank?' kept ready for use the answer I don't; I can think of some spots in it, but only several men working together could think of it all at once.' And the converse of this is true-namely, that you cannot expect the people of all parts of the huge country to think alike, unless, indeed, on some point of patriotism, some international matter involving the honour of the flag. It is not reasonable to suppose that any economic tendency or any social regulation could produce the same reaction among the peoples of the Dakota prairies and the Florida swamps, among the business men of New York and the men of the Arizona desert or Idaho mining camps. That we get every kind of contradictory evidence from the United States of the effects of Prohibition, then, is not to be wondered at. The gentleman who tells us that it has decreased crime, swelled bank accounts, emptied hospitals and produced healthier babies is as convinced that he is telling the truth as is the other who assures us that it has fostered vice, ruined the public health through the secret drinking of vile liquors, and undermined the nation's respect for law. Each is voicing his conviction as shaped, partly, by his |