, 1882-03-29

agreed to, adding that the Memorial of the
Planters shews plainly that it would be
no injury or loss to the planter if the limit
We're fixed at 10C gallons, or even if an
entire full prohibition were given; while
the other method recommended by the
Majority in their Report would materially
iniure the interests of the Licenseholders.
The Chairman said it was not advisable
that Members Of a Committee should in
the Council disclose what had TRANSFERRED
in the Committee; he would point it out
now, in order that other Members should
not follow the example of the last
speaker.
md Member for Frederiksted (Br0lCnJ
thanked for the information he had not
been aware that it was any harm to men
ton that transaction in the Committee,
else he would not have done so.
2nd Member for ChriStianSted (WildrdJ
said that this discussion on the matter
Of the Draft appears to have been brought
about from . different standpoints; Firstly
with the view 10 prevent Drunkenness on
the estates, and now we see the second
view, that Of protection for the interests Of
Rumshopkeepers. In the tirstnamcd re-
spect it was and is the sole object of the
Draft to fine some means or way to put
an end to the increasing drunken habits
of laborreIS on estates and to that end it
was deemed fit to provide for the better
enforcement Of the existing laws i'll the
country district. He never for one mo-
ment thought that the Draft was to be a
protection for RumSh0ph0lderS those par
ties knew beforehand what they had to
pay for the license to sell liquor; their
rights and privileges are defined by law,
and this Draft had never been intended as
a means to curtail any Of those rights or
privileges. In regard to the disputed
point as to the quantity to be sold by
manufacturers, it had been brought t0rci-
bly, to his mind, that as long as any mer-
chant or other trader in town has the right
TO sell as low as ) gallons of ram, it would
not be right to prevent others in c0un-
try who manufacture the article to sell the
same quantity. He could not see that any
thing would be gained by rumshopkeepers
by opposing this; for it must be admitted
that if, for instance, labourers from the
country, if when prevented from getting
their r~um-supply on estates, can get it to
buy at the head OF the town, they viii do
SO, and not visit the rumShops in town.
He did not believe that planters are in
clined to sell rum 10y 5 gallons. 1T APP
peared to him, however, that the chief
preventive against the abuses in question
will be the incentive to detect and report
cases Of traHSgreSsion, which is afforded by
the division Of the fines between the fund
and the inf0Tmer: therefore he Would re-
commend the proposal that the half Of the
fines shall go to the intormer.-AS for the
fines, he would say, if YOU make it so that
the P0licemaStcr can not fine any one in
a less sum than 500, the result would be
that the fines would almost al be served
out in Richmond Jail. And it is evident
that il 4 person able to pay a fine Of $50
t~ranSgreSSeS the law even the first time,
he should be fined accordingly but if a
man for whom SO would be a heavy sum
t~ranSgreSses the law, the PolicemaSter
should have the power to inflict a penalty
Of this smaller sum; this would certainly
be a better way to carry out the law. But
he must disclaim all intention on the part
OF the Draft Of putting restrictions on any
llcenseholder III the exercise Of his business
within his license.
2nd Member for FrederikSted (BY0acnJ
was of the decided opinion, that if You
make SO the minimum of the fines, and
the half of that sum is to go to the inform
er, it wonld be better that the Draft had
never been brought up. The fines should
be high in order to prevent parties from at
tempting breaches of the law. And as
regards the question OF imposing higher
fines than the prescribed minimum, in
cases Of first offence, he thought that facts
bore him out, when he stated, that it was
the general belief and practice here, that
in all cases of transgression, the minimum
OF the fine has always to be applied for