, 1891-06-10

April 1910, which His Excellency quoted, will
be sufficient to shew, that while this Ordinance
has for its object enactments concerning thefts.
it deals at the same time with quite a large
number of other matters, such as Insurance
swindles, fraudulent or selfproduced bankrupt
cy, forging Of the Kings name, Removing cf
Bound Posts, False Weights, False Stamps or
Trade Marks etc.-Then again, we have the
Law Of 25th March 1872, concerning IDsolvent
Estates, but containing besides these enact
meuts. also clauses concerning Mortgages, con-
corning Execution on judgments or Reconcile
atoms. and concerning Arrest on person.
Furthermore the Law of 2nd November 1885.
dealing with penalties fer encouragement to
crimes, for libellous productions in print. and
for the sale etc Of firearms in Denmark.
These are but a few instances, where the Legis-
lature. when aiming at the suppression of a GER
tain general evil, passes the several measures
requisite to that end, under one Jdao and in
deed it seems to ne to be quite a correct prin-
ciple. worthy Of emulation to depart from
this method seems all the more striking, when
we bear in mind how carefully studious the
law celebrating power here has hitherto been
to have the local enactments in keeping with
the enactments of the Mother Country, even
where weighty objections could be raised on
the score of disparagement between the cir
cumstances and requirements of both places. It
is good for those administering the laws as
we'll as those governed by the laws, to have
these latter as far as possible collected all un-
der one. instead Of being scattered and casuis-
tic. Hence it is no objection to this Draft, if
these matters are dealt with under one.
His Excellency proceeded to object to the
clause of the Draft which proposes that own
ers Of $50 acres Of land are to be exempt from
having for the fre-arm-tIcket and i%ts.annual re-
newal; all should be made to pay and His
Fxcellencv names 81 or SO as a tax on every
GUN. In passing His Excellency remarked
that there might perhaps be reason to prohi-
bit the Importation Of fire arms; but, His Ex-
cellencv is aware that such importation is
alreadg noac so to speak prohibited, but still
it takes place; moreover, nuSkets ana rites are
openly sold by other parties besides importers;
why then does His Excellency not preyentthat
which is prohibited and that which he is pleas
ed to consider as being suited for prohibition
Rut the acting Vice Governor would still have
to contend with a very large number OF such
weapons that has already been imported and
disposed of anonga all sorts OF the community
he admits. thatland owners suffer a greatdeal by
the illegal practices, originating from the free
and unlimited possession and use OF firearms,
and as the greatest possible amount OF VI9our
in observing the prohibition herein before al
luded to, if it were more possible and feasible
in future could not help to arrest the evil aris~
inc from the numberless firearms already on
the Island, His Excellency is by the force of his
own arguments under the necessity to have
some other measures, beyond the prohibition,
taken to prevent the evil.-As regards the 100
acres, it is generally admitted that the posses
sion of property is always to a certain extent a
guarantee for the responsibility and response
bility of the owner; and although it would
perhaps be more consistent and more simple
if the rule had for its object to make 1T obIiga-
? tory on all without exception to pay for the
permission to have firearms, still 1T must not
be forgotten that it is not the intention to
prevent owners of $50 acres of land from hunt
ing on their own land and shooting their own
game, nor is it natural or allowable to appre-
bend from that portion of the community such
ageressions as those that form the burthen of
our complaint, and if inadvertently damage
arises from their use Of fire arms, they can be
held responsible and the responsibility can as
sumo a tangible form on occasions occurring.
Nor is it SINGULAR to see laws, even fiscal laws;
given for one part of the community, and not
for another why, for instance, are dogs IN the
country districts here exempt from Dog tax;
why are labourers' houses on estates not taxed
like other similar houses? But after all, this
question is not Of any Importance, for am
perfectly convinced, that every landowner