, 1884-07-02

0AN" Va AOAiNA NV NOlhS OON " III paw
POI ton with all others who enjoy the bene-
fit of exemption, were to be deprived Of the
same benefit as those others.
End Member for ChristianSted'S Country
District (Con'teI) would only say, that it
has not been decided what quantity Of land
is to be owned in order to make the owner
liable to road work, and, as His E>cellency
ON a former occasion observed, the time
might not be far Oft. when entire estates
might disappear, and the land be divided
into very small portions; in that way a
man owning Z acres will be exempted from
this tax. He thought that should not be
40, but that the estates proper should be
allotted the general road work, and then
leave 1t to agreement to be made between
the owners or the renters OF the small por-
lions Of the estate how the road work is to
fall on them thereby VT would avoid all
appearances OF unfairneSS.
The Chairman would observe, that an
enactment in that respect would naturally
be in the Road Ordinance itself.
3rd Member for Christiansted (Nassard)
said that in the Road Ordinance permission
is given to the Road Authorities to make
re-allOtmtnt, bnt as long as no such
re-allotment had been made under the cir
cumStances to which the honorable 2nd
Member for Christiansted'S Country Dis.
trict (Coulter) had referred, the owners of
the smaller pieces of land would not enjoy
the benefit Of the exemption as long as no
road-wOrk has been specially allotted to
any owner, the conditions tor the applica.
ton OF this Ordinance will be wanting.
2nd Member for ChiStiansted'S Country
District (COulterl found the wording of the
clause not quite clear, particularly when
noticing the terms except that properties
having less than 81 acres of land in sugar
cultivation or less than 800 acres of land in
other cultivation only pntitle the owner to
exemption for one horse"
The Governor thought that the transla.
tion as it is now, is quite clear, at all events
the Danish text would explain the matter
sufficiently.
4th Member for Christiansted's Country
District (RdphdeO considered that the pro-
portion OF exemption between the two
classes of properties is not correct; while
the large proprietor may have up to 800
horses, or no limit, the smaller proprietor
would have but one, entitled to the exemp-
ton a man with J acre will get one horse
free the man with 60 also one.
9th Crownmember (KdImerl observed
that when his matter was lastly under dis
cussion and he had taken the liberty to show
up the UDSUIllCy OI UIe law, Tue uOHOuTdDlO
Member who had just spoken (Raphael)
seemed not to nave shared his (Kalmer's)
opinion; to day, however, his views have
been corrObOrated by the remarks that had
fallen from the said Member as well as
others; it is certainly so that an estate
proprietor would under this law be entitled
to keep as many as 300 horses and to claim
exemption for them all, though his work
on the roads might be very tritling indeed,
or not more than his neighbour who gets
an exemption only for ! horse. This shows
that the law is not fair. And to further
prove the abSurdjty Of the draft, what does
the honorable Member say Of the absen
tees, who have to mend the road, but get
no compensation whateverf
3rd Member for Christiansted (Wassard)
remarked that the honorable 9Th Crown.
member (Kalmer) had used a strong ex-
pre- ssion in reference to this Draft; he
(WaSsard) differed very much from the
opinion OF the honorable Member, and this
being so, he would have been inclined to
return the same expression to the honOura.
BILE Member; but he would refrain. II,
however, the honorable Member and
others with him view the provisions of the
Draft, as a real compensation, then there
might be something i'll the observations
from the 4th Member for Christiansted's
Country District Raphael, but then only
from this view that the Draft allows the
exemption not only for the owners of small
H. H. g. 1~o 80. H.