, 1884-08-16
P R O. E E D I N GS
OF THE
FOR ST. CROIX.

4AS NOGOFW W ~ OANS va WV
ment would state that the Government ac-
cepts the amendments proposed by the
Committee, but would add, that in conSe.
guence of the amendment to s 6, it would
be necessary, if said amendment be adopt
ed, to make an alte alton in s 10, 2nd part;
and he would propose that the words sin
the neighbourhood" be substituted for the
words .'along the side"
The Speaker said the Committee had
overlooked those points, but it could have
no objections to the sub-amendment.
1st Member for Frederiksted's Country
District (Latimsr) said, with regard to the
Committee's proposal to 6, he was unable
to see how the rule could be practically
carried out, to crush the stones before they
are brought on the road When estates
having the repairs Of the roads have to
collect the stones 2 miles or more away, on
grass pieces or elsewhere, On lands belong
ing to other parties, it would not do to
crush those stones there too; the party
would thereby be committing a treSpasS
on the lands; nor would it be fair to exact
that the party after collecting the stones as
stated, shall cart them home to his own
estate to have them crushed and then cart
them back again to the spot. Another es.
tate might even have to take material at
the seaside; cartmen though told not to
take the larger stones, will still take them
but it would not do to crush those stones
on other peoples lands by the seashore.
This crushing has hitherto been done along
the roadside. He would like to hear how
the Committee had thought that the rule
would be carried out.
The Speaker would, in reply to the 1st
Member for Frederiksted's Country Dis
trict (Latimer). beg to say that the Com
mittee was under the impression that as a
rule, where the parties repairing roads
have access to take stones for that pur-
pose, there they have also the right to get
them crushed on the spot when necessary.
The objection of the Committee against the
crushing being made on the roads them
selves is, that it causes great inconvenience
to the traffic.
LIST Member for Frederiksted's Country
District (LGtmerJ said it would be all very
well if the stones were in heaps and could
at once be removed to SOms convenient
spot TO be crushed but the fact is they
have to be gathered all over the fields and
wherever else they can be had; in West
end Quarter particularly, they must be
gathered in the grass pieces round about;
of course it would be a case of trespasSing
to crush them on your neighbours land.
It's unreasonable to expect that parties
should, tor instance, get the rocks even out
IN the water at times, cart them home to
De crushed and then return with them to
the spot on the roads
(Wassard: but they would be crushed on
the sea shore) ......the sea shore is soft;
stones cannot be crushed there and more
over this is individual property. 1t is GER
tain that there are places where the crush
ing can be done away from the road, but
there are other places where it cannot be
done.
The Speaker said he believed it is a gene
raj rule that q space of Is feet from The
water mark does not belong to adjoining
estates; on such spaces there would be
room to allow of the stones being crushed
IN the cases where the beech-pebbleS nave
to be taken for use on the roads. In other
places there might be some little difficulty;
but when this matter was under considera-
ton in the Committee, it was considered
preferable to make the general rule as it
is now proposed, and it was not expected
that any inconvenience would arise.
The Governor stated that it appeared to
him that the remarks from the homo
rable 1st Member for Frederiksted's Coun-
try District (Latimer) were we'll founded;
but the honorable Members objection could
be easily overcome by merely making an
addition to the Committees amendment to
the effect that the Road Commission may
IN exceptional cases grant permission to
crush such stones on the roads them.