, 1909-06-02

l Apr. to 80 June 1907 FIR. 100.
l July 1907 to 81 March l9O} " las.
/ Apr. 1908 to 81 March 1909 " 100.
l Apr. 1909 to 81 March 1910 " 200.
We shall presently return to the discus
sion Of these proposals which took place at
that meeting, but will now only notice that the
Council at its meeting on the 29th Of March
this year, after the receipt Of q letter from
the Government, reopened for consideration
the fourth item of the above r~ecommenda-
ton, and after a full discussion, voted, by 8
to 8, that the duty as above fixed for 1909
10 should be maintained,
Our editor is not u toetotaller, but he
believes in keeping the distribution Of alcohol
tic liquors under strict control, and was th re-
fore 50 far interested as TO attend that meet
ing as an Onlooker from q seat below the red
rope, and consequently was able t. give in
the 4UjS for March 31st a sketch OF what
had taken place. Iu that sketch it was re-
marked in regard to the Rum Excise que5-
ton; CATER a good deal of discussion it
was decided by q narrow majority Of
9 to 8 that the duty Of 2 francs al
ready fixed for the period from 15t April
to 31st March 1910 should remain unaltered.
Two member who were rumshopkeepers
were permitted to take part in the discussion
and to vote. Yet, Notwithstanding this
curious fact, it surprises US that there should
be SO narrow a majority for maintaining the
two francs duty"
Why did we say "~cWrj0ms fact ?" It was
because S Is of theCouncil's Rules of Business
provides that members who may have q per-
sonal interest in any question are not to take
part in the discussion and the voting.
In the official report of the Councils Pro-
ceedings in the meeting of 29th March (A0js
of 18th Apri) nothing is said of the permits
sion given the two interested parties to join
in the discussion and votiug That something
had passed in regard to it we can gather from
Mr.. T. Coulter's speech but that is all we can
learn. The official Report after a correction
being made according to a memorandum
sent us later by the Councils Assistant, and
published in the AUjs Of 28th April, reads
thus
"lst Member for Frederiksted (CouZter)
would say that he had to thank the honour
able Council $3.50. (phe Chairman and the
Chairman ...... Coulter: Yes, and the
Chairman, for the privilege of addressing
them on this question although a rumshop-
keeper"
1t is plain then that something bad pass
ed for which the honourable member thank
ed the Council and for which the Chairman
also claimed thanks. What was it Look
ing back over the previous part of the re-
port OF the nanuunR OF UAls quesIlOn we
find instructive speeches by the Chairman
and by members Blackwood and Lunney,
but nothing more-nothing about how the
question of the privilege had arisen nor
how it had been settled.
AS already said. our editor was present,
below the red line, and can tell in outline
what passed. TheChairman said in substance,
that he had no intention to apply section Is
of the Rules of Business in this case, be-
cause it was not easy to say who were per-
sonally interested, some were interested as
sellers, others as manufacturers, and others
possibly, though of course to a very small
extent, as consumers.
Captain BlackwO0d thought the Council
should decide the matter by vote, aud asked
the Chairman to put it to the vote.
The Chairman replied that he had al
ready decided not to do so. but it was open
to the honorable member to say whom he
wished excluded.
Captain BIacbe0ood declined to mention
names, to which the Chairman remarked
that il was not necessary to mention names;
but Captain Blackwood declined to proceed
further with the matter.
Mr.. Coulter, then, with the Chairman's
$500 -. .IoJ H. (i,-~o:I l. I'LL l.. H.