, 1873-02-15

able to which 1t Will be SUFFICIENT that the la
bourer alone coroborates the agreement before
the P%olicemaster. In the English text
the word Magistrate " is here, and whenever
it occurs, exchanged with " Policemaster."
B. Notwithstanding the term " BY order of a
Magistrate" lin the Danish text, given in a
Note attached to the Ordinance of 22nd Febru-
airy 1855 the wording is -" Politimesterens
Kiendelse' ian award from the Policemaster),
it has been held that a formal sentence of the
Court is required in order to dissolve a
contract contrary to the will of one of the par
ties. 1t has therefore, and partly in view of
the difference in the wording of the English and
Danish text, been considered correct and right
to state expressly that a demand for the annul-
ment of the Contract must be made (see the
enactment in reference to Immigrants in the
Ordinance of End October 1862 s 10 and S I5j.
c.. In framing the clause relating to- marriage
being legal grounds for the annulment of a con
tract, the authentic Interpretation of S 2 of the
Regulations contained in the Ordinance of 22nd
February 1866, has been adopted, so that it
will only be marriages contracted in the course
of the year contracted for, that will give the
right Of having q contract annulled. But the
stipulation that 3 months notice shall be given
before the marriage, is omitted, as it appears to
be oppressive at times to the labOurer and
instead Of that it is proposed that the Iabourers
be allowed a time Of 4 weeks utter the mar
riaGe, during which time the parties will have
had sufficient opportunity to judge what ar
rangement will suit them best A clause has
furthermore been added providing against a
newly married couple being forced, as it we're,
to live separately, for instance when the Estate
where the husband is located will not receive.
the wife, or vice versa, when the Estate whore
the wife is located will not receive the husband.
For, it can not be Ignored, that there may be
cases where an estate could from very good
reasons object to. receiving the one or other of
the couple, tor Instance because Of the party
being known as a bad subject, whose influence
on the other lab0urers might turn out preiudi-
cial; and in such casesit won't do to exercise
cOmpulsion. 1t is therefore proposed that in
such instances both parties are at liberty to re-
move wherever they like.
In connection with this point it came under
consideration in the Commission if it would not
be recommendable, for the better preservation
Of matrimonial relations on the whole among
The rural population, to have a clause providing
as a general rule that every married person,
man or woman, who after having had his abode
on an Estate is turned away from it, shall have
buO lIPAU VI JANUS u 6pOuoO dlOuR Will anu
attention was, in support of that, directed es-
p%ocially towards the frequent recurrence of in
stances where the one party has his or her
spouse under the same roof, but without the
latter being otherwise connected with the E9-
tate. But it was argued, that the manager
might by such a clause as that alluded to b.
prevented from turning away the unemployed
labourer when disagreement occurs between
the couple, or from getting rid, with or without
cause, if the unemployed labourer, who might
perhaps have been living there a long time,
even for several years undisturbedy it was
urged that it would be rather hard, if ia that
way the wife should be driven from her hus-
band, or the husband from his wife; and it can.
not be denied that instances of astonishing
harsbness in that respect have occurred. I'm
der such circumstances the labourer employed
in the service of the Estate should have the
right of getting his contract annulled-But to
this has, a gain, been objected that such a right,
if expressly established, would be exceedingly
often mis-used, and that it would be so tempt
ing to the labOurer to try to give it the ap-
pearance of his or her spouse having permits
sion to reside on the Estate, that the Manager
would have to be very particular as to who
besides the Estates own labOurer, were per-
mitted to reside there. Such an enactment
would therefore act against the labourers them ,
selves, or, still more, against the non-emyloy6 cd
spouse, who under existing circumstances can
now find a ready refuge on the one estate
while occupied elsewhere during the day so
that it would be far from beneficial to the mar
riage-life but on the contrary tend to counte-
ract or repress it. And besides that. in all sucb