, 1872-11-30

been proposed to be heightened instead of
being shortened. "Caustic", in his COM
ments on this point in the existing regu-
l%ations, seemed to regard the yearly con-
tract as a relic of slavery, and although I
was at first inclined to adopt his p%articu-
lar view of the case, understanding the sub
.ject as | did, yet, upon closer investigation,
[ find that he only attributes certain eff
fects to this course as the cause, and these
effects, he maintains, are relics of slavery.
If, however, the yearly contracts be re-
garded from that point of view which
makes them most permanently useful to
both the planter and the labourer,-pro-
viding the one with permanent and Ger
tain employment for one year, and the
other with a certain amount of IabOur for
the same tcrm-then / must agree with
the provisions in the new Draft in this
view, and in this only, in maintaining this
point leaving it, at the same time, per-
tectIy optional to the contracting parties
to dissolve said agreement hy mutual con-
sent, according 10 the stipulations of the
Draft, and always in the presence of the
magistrate, both parties always presenting
themselves TO avoid MISUNDERSTANDING
by mIS8tatcments, the note Of the planter
should never, in such cases. be accepted
IN lieu OF his presence, except when it cor
robOratcs the statement Of the Iabourer
for in too many cases has the Iabourcr's
tight been jostIed by his coming to one
understanding with the planter about the
dlssoIvIng of their contract, and when the
latter writes to the magistrate on the sub
jcct he states something very different.
The magistrate, in turn, is generally more
inclined to believe the planters note than
the labourer'S dccIaration,-and who sut-
fers ?
That contracts should be entertained
tor more than one year-if entertained at
aIl-is preposterous If h~eart-burns, re-
grets, dlsappointments, perversion of JUS
tlce, bad service by Sinking the work on
the part of certain labourers, and other
a~nnoyances, are happening now under the
one years contract, can it reasonably be
expected that a heightened contract will
better this phase of the matter 2 | must
agree with the minority of the Commits
sion in saying that the proIonging of the
term of contract is by 10 means desirable,
and [ will add, would be, if [ know the
people at all, summariIy opposed.
That the new Draft should adopt as one
Of its leading principles, the preventing of
all persons residing in town from working
in the country without the yearly contract,
except they can prove to the Police that
they W property in town, is too great
an infringement on the common rights of
a nan. No law can exact more from any
man than that he shall by his industry and
diligence provide the means for the sup
port of himself and family, so far as labonr
is concerned, aud as long as the labourer
can prove, satisfactorily to the Police, that
he is no idler, that he has daily employ
ment, and sufficient employment to place
him above being a burthen on the COM
munlty, then that principle of law which
offers any check to his industry in this
way in any measure is unjust and oppres-
siye. That is q strange anomaly by which
one principle of law is made to obliterate
another, while both enactments entertain
ing such contradiction remain in full force.
The Vagrant Law, ) ) 1-2, expressly re-
quires, that 'perSons who are not known
to possess property, nor to have any fixed
livelihood, nor any situation in life, which
guarantees that they find their sustenance
NrI 1aHrH L n