of the public statements made concerning him:
- (1) That he had dragged our reputations through the gutters of India, and had painted them as black and filthy as his own face.
- (2) That he might be allowed to come ashore that we might have the opportunity of spitting at him.
- (3) That some special treatment, at the word of command, should be meted out to him and that he should never be allowed to land in Natal.
- (4) That he was engaging himself, on board the quarantined ship, in getting briefs from passengers against the Government.
- (5) That when three gentlemen, representing the Committee of the Demonstration, went on board the Courland, he was in such a ‘funk’ that he was stowed away in the lowest hold; and, on another occasion, that he was seen sitting on the deck of the Courland in a most dejected mood.
These are only a few of the things stated against him, but I take them as sufficient for my purpose.
If the above charges were true, if, in other words, he was a cowardly calumniator, stabbing us when at a safe distance, and if he had acted so that he was a fit object to be spat at, and afraid to return and face the consequences, then he was unfitted to be a member of an honourable profession, or to hold the position of leader in a great political question in which his countrymen take as much interest as we do and are as much entitled to ventilate their political views as we are. Before he went to India, I had met him in business matters on several occasions, and was struck with the anxiety shown by him to avoid litigation and to put matters in dispute on a fair basis, and with the honourable manner in which he dealt with business matters, so much so that I formed a very high opinion concerning him. I say this advisedly and I have no doubt my words will be approved by the members of the profession who know Mr. Gandhi. It was once said by an eminent judge that success at the Bar was not attained by endeavouring to injure opponents at the Bar, but only by so qualifying one’s self as to be equal or superior to such opponents. So, in political matters, we must give fair play to an opponent, and answer his argument by counter argument, and not by heaving half a brick at his head. I have found Mr. Gandhi, both in legal matters and on the Asiatic question, a fair and honourable opponent, obnoxious to us as his contentions may be, who would scorn to hit below the belt. To vindicate himself before the public then, it was decided that he should not give his enemies an opportunity of saying that he was ‘funking it’ on board the Courland, where he could have stayed for a week, if he had chosen; that he should not sneak into Durban like a thief in the night, but that he should face the music like man and like a political leader, and—give me leave to say—right nobly did he do it. I accompanied him simply as a member of the Bar, to testify, by so doing, that Mr. Gandhi was an honourable member of an honourable profession, in order that I might raise my voice in protest against the way in which he had been treated, and in the hope that my presence might save
