, 1882-04-01

repeat, that it will be very difficult to
detect and to prove offences or tranSgreS-
sions Of this prohibition.
End Member for Frederiksted (BrOUR)
was still of the opinion that the limit
should be 100 gallons, especially when
we bear in mind the suggestion made in
the memorial from the majority of the
planting proprietOrs here. 1t was difficult
to see why the Majority, in the face OF
that, should stick with such tenacity to
the low limit of 5 gallons. He could not
suppose that the Majority would be better
able than the planters themselves, to know
what is to the benefit of planters. But
any how a limit of 3 gallons would be
quite useless, as there could never be
exercised any control.
2nd CroWnmember (WdSSdrd) would,
in reference to the suggestion from 3rd
Crownmember (Faber) about the limit
being fixed at 80 or 50 gallons, beg to
state that be for his part-he could not
speak for the other Members of the Com
mittee, as he had not consulted with them
was not inclined to accept a restriction
of 1876 gallons, because he could not
see any possibility of the more effectively
suppreSSing the evil in question by a
restriction beyond that proposed by the
Majority. He must repeat that the abuses
do not consist i'll the selling OF Rum to la
bourerS by planters but by the illegal sale OF
that article to labOurerS by other labOurerS.
He could not see why in town the r%eStrlc-
ton should be 5 gallons, but in the cOun-
try it shall be 100 gallons; while as mat
tiers now stand, planters are perfectly free
but merchants are limited to the ) gallons.
He should consider it unjust to put such
a very heavy restriction on those who are
quite free now he could only agree to 1T,
if a real public benefit could be secured
tuereby; but here it is, he thinks, that, as
already stated, no good Will be derived
from such a restriction III the direction it
is needed. With regard to the remark
from His Honor the President, that only
merchants would reap benefit from the
restriction, he would say, that the holders
of Rum licenses would be benefited too,
as well as every body selling rum.
3rd Member for Frederiksted Country
District WILSON, said he had heard a
good deal on this matter in the Council
and outside too but his opinion is this,
that if the honorable SpeakerO OF the Commit.
tee had the experience to be gained by
being in a village on an estate on Sunday
afternoon, and by seeing the drunkenness
carried on he WaSsard would hardly
recommend that the limit of rum sale on
estates be fixed at 5 gallons. This low
limit would beyond a doubt do great harm;
the RumShopkeeperS do enough evil we
see it before us; it is almost the rule
generally that on Monday no work can be
got from the people on estates. The per
mission to sell 5 gallons Of rum will in
crease the evil. Planters can sell the rum
in a stronger state, it is easier for the
people to buy on estates than for them
to go to town ; and even if all planters
won't sell, there will be some who will sell
by 3 gallons or SO the labOurerS will if
possible consume more rum, and the evil
complained of will become greater. Plan
ters have not been aware of their privilege
to sell rum on Estates in any quantity,
except by the drink for immediate cOnSump-
ton this Draft purportS to restrict that
privilege; but if you make the limit 5
gallons, there are those who will by that
get a legal stamp to sell, and they will sell
even smaller quantities, no matter what
the fines are.
The Acting President would, in reference
to the remarks from the honorable 2nd
C~rownmember (WassardJ, that it would
appear unjust if planters who are now
perfectly free to dispose of their rum to
the best advantage should by this ordi-
nance come under a higher restriction
than that to which the traders in town are
subject, beg to observe, that the honorable
member considers for granted what is
the very question, whether planters are
really free in that respect. The laws on
this subject are not SO clear; some may in
terpret them to that ~effect-others may in
fornret them difprant1V.it has of all events