, 1872-12-04

luO lCPlODSALSO " ~ oOAS OO0&ON u
idle labourer will generally show itself
in this, that he negIects his w~orking-days,
consequently fails to earn his pay and not
that his work is 'ess when engaged in it,"
What is TO be understood by this Ian
guage? I must confess that fail to per-
ceive the real meaning of this combination
of words. All | can understand is, that
because the trainers of the Labour Act con-
ceived the idea that one or other party
among the labourers would at times evince
signs of l~aziness at his work, that the
worth ola days labour in cash payment
should be set down at its highest rate as
Is cts. and its lowest at 10 cts. This, how
ever, in no way alters the position OF at
fairs for the weak and the strong still
work side by si1e of each other for the
same wages, and this view taken by Gov
ernour Bile, THAT in a gang Of say 20
hands turned out to work in the field, tie
amount of work delivered, will in all cases,
be in proportion to the performance OF the
S weakest Or LATEST hands, and not to that
of the Is strongest and most INDUSTRIOUS.
In fact, it would seem, from the reasons
given by the Commission for retaining the
system Of a uniform rate of wages, that the
plan found its origin in the idea of paying
d taDourer for the least possible amount
of work he could perform in a day, rather
than TO reward the industrious according
to his merit,
Now. I am ready to acknowledge, that
tue so-called privileges which are enjoyed
by the labourers amount to something con
siderable, WHEN viewed as n whole but
that something would never benefit the
planter one title more if the Iabourer sdid
Lot enjoy the said privileges unless he
would institute a perfectly different sys-
tenn of management to that now carried on
on the estates, %forbidding with rigid exact
ness the appropriation of the smallest item
of his property by the labourerS. But
place the employer in the labourer's
place, would he be satisfied to receive
Is or 10 cents a day with the additional
supper alluded to, for a hard days work
in the field
But to say the least of the practice Of
allowing the labourer to regard the so
called privileges as a means of enhancing
his stipulated wages, it is a practice which
demora ICES the labourer to an extent not
duly considered; for it causes him to
think little of those tri1iog acts of appro-
priation at first, which subsequently SO
gradually faint the moral perceptions,
that they advance in time to licensed
actions of petty thefts, which is no small
oversight. And, besides, if the educating
of the people is to really benefit them,
then their children must be trained to re-
gard such trifing acts, even the use of a
cocoanut, or other fruit, or avial of liquor,
without special permission or as a gift, as
a vioI ltion of their moral obligations.
And how and where will you be able to
check this practice in its injurious tendon
cy, if you argue that these are privileges
Already the employer sees an evil in the
allowance of liquor in the crop season
which he would wish to check in its
growth, gigantic as it has become /; but,
alas not all his powers of watchfulness
can avail ought, and he has had to resort to
means Of staying the growth Of this evil
to say the least of which is Inconsistent and
oppressive. Let the employer have full
command Of every item of his property,
and the now dependent labourer-kept SO
for wise purposes under the plea Of benefit
ting him-have full freedom to- agree for
the amount which his labour is worth, and
let every other matter follow in it's natural
oorrz6 TTntif +bic. ic ,dono tho nooDIa's