, 1884-07-02

thaC 1t would be recOmmendable to have a
limit downward for the exemption, and it
was mentioned that a person owning less
than 10 acres III cane cultivation should
not enjoy any exemption of taxes. This
restriction had, however. been done away
with in the Governments amendments at
End discussion on the Draft, and us the
matter stands now any person owning up
10 6O acres of lane i'll cane is to he exempt.
Ell from paying taxes on all his convey
ancrS and on one horse, when road work is
allotted to him.
4tl Member for ChriStiansted's Country
District Raphael said he always under
stood, that it was intended that a man to
be exempted from carriage and horSe-tax,
should b. owner of 60 acres Of land i'll came,
or is equivalent in other cultivation. But
as it is now, any man having l acre or less,
any patch of land in cane, shall have eX-
emptiOn from tx on his C~0nveyauceS and
one horse this he did not consider TO be
in accordance with what had been agreed
on between the Government and the Com.
mittce.
The Governor said in the Committee it
was agreed that all persons having above
60 acres Of land in cane or 800 in other cul-
tivatiOn, and being assessed for road
should be exempted from taxes on all their
horses and carriages, provided they are on
the estates; further, that owners OF land
between 10 and go acres OF cane, or 5 times
as large an area i'll other cultivation, should
be exempted from paying tax on their con
VeYanCeS and but | horse. lie had, how
ever, on close consideration. found that
when owners OF large properties should
have exemption for all th,ir horses, then
it was only fair AMI just that owners of
c,,.l ,r .,,.rtiAS +h1f ~ OcSaSCnI tnp HnnH-
work should have some advantage 100,
consequently the Government had proposed
that TIL. owners Of 60 acres should be cy-
enp,ed for / horse, besides the cOnyeyan-
crS. He had struck out the minimum limit
of 10 acres, suggested by the Committee;
AMI a3 th4 proposal is WOgdrd now, all
parties assessed in rOad-work will have the
ttll benefit of the Ordinance III question,
and hence also al small owners when as
seSsrd for road-wOrk shall be exempted
from paying IaX on their ConveyanccS and
on one horse. 1t would be too hard when
all the great land owners are exempted,
that then the smaller ones should have no
benefit although they partOok III the work
on the public roads.
3rd Member for FrederikstcdS Country
District III. Wilson, said that as far as his
memory served him, the opinion he had eX.
pressed now was what llau Dtel SUdlcu Ill
The Committees last m, citing, and the re-
marks from 3rl Member fDr hriStianSted'S
Country District (RaphaeD had confirmed
his view. AS the Draft is worded now
after that meeting, it is not right, nor is it
what it should be; what is now proposed
would not be to the interest of the C0mmu-
nifty or of the Treasury.
2nd Member for ChriStilnSted'S Country
District C0ulter} said as the matter stands
now, amy man having the smallest plot of
sugar cultivation would be eXempt,O of taxes
on one horse and on his c%Onveyances, while
the rest Of the TAXATION wOuld......
The Governor: If the owner of such a
plot Of land had road-w0rk to perform, he
would enjoy that exemption under this
Draft.
2nL Member for ChristianSted'S Country
District (C0uLter) thought that should not
be So moreover there is something vague
in the terms used.
3rd Member for ChristiAnSted WGSSdrd)
said the two honorable Members Coulter
and j. Wilson, do not remember we'll what
transpired in the Committees last meeting,
and this will be clear from this circum-
stance, that there we're two limits proposed,
the lowest one, 10 acres, should be that
below which no exemption whatever should
be admitted, the other one, 60 acres, being
that, by which the exemption in as far us
the horse tax is concerned, should be res
tric5cd TO one horse only. The present
~.4,>-l o0A40;- n111y @hiN A0,..n1iAn fnA1o