CO882-(8-9) — Page 690

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TTIC.O. 882

9

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

136

disapproval than of approval. The present rule, however, prescribing the minimum distance between the two classes of taverns will probably be omitted or modified in the regulations for next year.

Dr W. A. De Silva.

I am, &c.,

B. HORSBURGH,

Excise Commissioner.

APPENDIX II.

COPY of AFFIDAVIT sworn by Mr. C. E. VICTOR S. COREA before Mr. J. CONROY, J.P.,

Assistant Government Agent, Chilaw.

1. "I am a Sinhalese, born and educated in Ceylon, and my family have lived in the Chilaw District for several generations.

2. I am an advocate of the Honourable the Supreme Court of the Island since 1900, and I am a member of the Church of England.

3.

"On the 31st May last I was present at the Office of the Assistant Government Agent (Mr. Conroy) in Chilaw, when the toddy tavern rents for the District were put up to public auction.

4.

"The District of Chilaw is divided into three sub-districts, Pitigal Korale North, Pitigal Korale Central and Pitigal Korale South.

Aware of The rents for Pitigal Korale South were first put up. the feeling in the district against the establishment of separate toddy taverns, none of the inhabitants of the district would make an offer for the rents.

6. "After some competition among renters who had come from the Colombo and Negombo Districts, the rent for the Southern Division was purchased by a person of the Negombo District, not unconnected with arrack taverns, for Rs. 24,000.

7. "The rent for Pitigal Korale Central was purchased by the same individual for Rs. 12,000.

8. "When the rent for Pitigal Korale North (in which Chilaw, the chief town of the district is situate, and where the aforesaid feeling was strongest) was put up, there was not a single bid forthcoming for some minutes, when at last Mr. J. E. Corea, Mudaliyar (Chief Headman) of the Korale, actually ordered his subordinate headman, Simeon Appu, Vidane Aratchy, to offer a bid of one hundred rupees.

9. "I immediately objected, as I did not consider this a proper bid; but the Assistant Government Agent overruled my objection, and allowed the bid. After some competition the offer of Siman Fernando, the Clerk and Manager of Mr. Wijeyaratne, the arrack renter of the district, was accepted, and the rent for the Pitigal Korale North was sold to him for some four thousand odd rupees.

10. "The rent for the Puttalam Pattu of the Puttalam District was next put up for sale; the highest bid offered for this was Rs. 210.

When the man who made this offer was asked by the Assistant Govern- ment Agent to make a better offer, he said that until the people were made accustomed to the liquor it would be a loss to him if anything more was paid for the toddy rent for that division. The actual words he used as far as I remember were, 'Rata purudu karagannakan esta vediya dheela paduvei.'

'Mr. Conroy, not being satisfied with this offer, said he would postpone the sale to some other day in Puttalam Town; and actually made an entry to that effect in his book, when one of the renters from the Colombo District came forward and offered Rs. 1,000 for the Calpentyn and Puttalam Divisions combined. Ultimately the rents for these two divisions were sold for a little over Rs. 1,000.

11. "As soon as the sales were concluded I mooted the question whether Government servants were not disqualified by their office to purchase these Government rents, but Mr. Conroy said as there was nothing in the Ordinance on the point he did not feel justified in rejecting such bids.

12. "I also at the same time pointed out to the Assistant Government Agent that although by the conditions of sale persons having interests in the arrack taverns were declared disqualified for the purchase of these toddy

44

137

rents, the rent for Pitigal Korale North had just been purchased by the Clerk and Manager of the arrack renter. To this Mr. Conroy replied that he was not aware of the fact, and the connection of the purchaser with the arrack renter would have to be established.

"

13. As far as I am aware, no steps have been taken to verify or dis- prove my statement that it was the arrack renter's Clerk and Manager who purchased the toddy rents for Pitigal Korale North.

14. "I further stated to the Assistant Government Agent at the same time and place that I was not aware of any illicit sale of toddy in Pitigal Korale North. On Mr. Conroy's questioning the Mudaliyar, the aforesaid

Mr. J. E. Corea, on the point, that gentleman said, ' No, there is no illicit sale of toddy in my korale.'

15. "I am personally aware, and I am prepared to prove, that the afore said Siman Fernando and his master, Mr. Wijeyaratne, the arrack renter, came to Chilaw, and were together at the Chilaw Rest House on the day of the sale of the toddy rents.

16. "I also saw at the said Rest House another arrack renter from the Colombo District, who actually came up to the very steps of the said Office He did not enter the of the Assistant Government Agent in his motor car. said Office, nor did he personally offer any bids for the toddy rents; but the motive for his presence there it is not difficult to conjecture.

17. "I am also aware, and I am prepared to prove, that Martin de Mel, ex-Police Officer of Waikkal, an employee of Mr. N. E. de Croos, the pur- chaser of the toddy rents for Pitigal Kurales South and Central, has, since the date of the said sales, been attempting to lease lands for taverns and coco- nut trees for toddy drawing in Pitigal Korale North, although the said Mr. de Croos has ostensibly no connection with the toddy rent of the said Pitigal Korale North.

18. "I am also aware, and I am prepared to prove, that the aforesaid Siman Fernando has been attempting to secure lands and coconut trees for the aforesaid purposes, in Pitigal Korale Central, although ostensibly neither he nor his master, Mr. Wijeyaratne, have any connection with the toddy rent of the said Pitigal Korale Central.

19. "I am further aware, and prepared to prove, that in certain villages, where there had been little or no consumption of toddy heretofore, the owners of lands having declined to lease their property for the erection of toddy taverns or for trees to be tapped, the Assistant Government [? Agent] has given Crown land, such as ground forming part of public highways, for the erection of toddy taverns."

C. E. VICTOR S. COREA.

"The foregoing affidavit, having been read over by the deponent in my presence.

was sworn to and signed by him this 3rd day of August, 1912.

Before me,

(No. 192.)

4

"J. CONROY, J.P.

"3rd August, 1912."

Enclosure 2 in No. 7.

Excise Department, Colombo, 14th October, 1912.

No exception can be taken to the statement of the policy and intention of Government contained in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Memorial. In paragraph 4 the Committee maintain that the pledges given by Government have not been redeemed," the suggestion presumably being that, in certain instances at least, Government has not acted in accordance with its stated policy and intention, and has actually "forced taverns on an unwilling people."

2. So far was this from being the case that, wherever there was a doubt as to whether the existing demand and consumption of toddy in any locality would justify the establishment of a tavern, no tavern was allowed there, even though it was known that there was a certain amount of consumption. The tavern lists were prepared by the Government Agents under strict instructions, which were framed in accor- dance with the declared polity and intention of Government, and every effort was

Page 690Page 691

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

CO. 882

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

133

made to place the taverns only in localities where the existing consumption justified their establishment. The leading headmen in every district were consulted, and for a considerable time before the lists were drawn up an Excise officer had been attached to each Kachcheri, one of whose chief duties was the compilation of an Excise Survey Register, the object of which is to record the conditions of each village from the Excise point of view.

3 The lists of toddy taverns were, in fact, most carefully scrutinised and considered before adoption, and it may safely be asserted that the number finally decided on is certainly no larger than the demands of the Island require. As an instance of this, it may be mentioned that the whole of the North Central Province, comprising nearly one sixth of Ceylon, was excluded from the toddy rents, and no tavern has been established there, the consumption not being sufficient to justify it. The following figures for various districts may also be quoted:

Mannar

Mullaittivn

Kurunegala

Puttalam

Distriot,

Number of Toddy Taverns.

A rea in

Square Miles.

Population.

15

943

18

1,155

25,603 17,336

35

1,845

306,807

16

800

39,965

Trincomalie

8

1,048

29,775

Anuradhapura

4,002

86,276

Nuwara Eliya Batticaloa

16

463

155,462

38

2,871

153,943

144

12,817

815,167

In these 12,817 square miles, or just half of Ceylon, there are only 144 toddy taverns approximately one tavern to 90 square miles and to 5,660 people. In the face of these figures it is not reasonable to question the bonâ fides of the action of Government, or to charge it with not adhering to its declared policy and intention.

4 Coming now to the specific statements made in the Memorial, it will be seen from paragraph 4 (a) that in the only two instances in which the names of villages had been furnished to Government where it was asserted that toddy taverns had been established "where there was no proved demand," there was satisfactory evi- dence of previous demand and consumption. It was considered impolitic to agree to the public inquiry asked for, but the facts lend no support to the charge that Government has not redeemed its pledges. The consumption of toddy in the taverns that have been opened is being carefully watched, and the tavern lists will be subject to constant scrutiny and revision, so that any tavern found to be unnecessary or undesirable can be suppressed. All future changes in the lists will be made only in accordance with the procedure that may be determined on in connection with local Advisory Committees.

5. As regards paragraph 4 (b), no such complaints have been received by Government or by me, and to the best of my recollection the only case of a village being named as a place in which a tavern had been established "where no illicit sale existed, and where there was no legitimate demand" was that of Munagama, in the Kalutara District, regarding which Mr. C. E. A. Dias, a planter, wrote a letter to the newspapers. In this case it was found that not only had there been three places of illicit sale in the locality, but that Mr. Dias had himself, a year previously, written a letter of complaint to the Assistant Agent about one of them.

6. With reference to paragraph 4 (c), it is true that in a certain number of cases --not "in many," as stated by the Memorial-Crown land was leased to toddy renters for the erection of taverns. In some parts of the country an organised oppo- sition was encountered which took the form of persuading or compelling people to refuse to lease their trees for toddy or their land for tavern sites. As a result of this campaign several taverns already established were burned down, and persons who had leased sites to the renters withdrew from their undertakings. This opposition was strongest in the Chilaw District, where, as is proved both by the revenue returns and by the figures of actual consumption, the population is more addicted to liquor than in any other part of the Island. It would have been most undesirable to yield to

139

this opposition, because there was no doubt regarding the existing consumption, and to give way would have meant loss of control and increased illicit sales.

7. A categorical denial, however, must be given to the statement that the Government Agent "alienated a portion of the village burial ground" at Kalliliya, Only two in the Colombo District, in order that a tavern might be erected on it. pieces of Crown land in the Colombo District vere leased for this purpose, as the renters were unable to obtain sites on account of the opposition referred to, though the practice of drinking toddy existed. No tavern, however, was erected on the burial ground at Kalliliya, and the statement in the Memorial in this respect is untrue. A site on Crown land at Pambala, in the Chilaw District of the North- Western Province, was allowed, as the renter found it impossible to secure a site on private land, but Pambala is a village where fermented toddy has always been in good demand.

แ

"}

8. The statements made in the Memorial regarding the toddy rent sales in the Ratnapura District are not quite correct. It is not true, for instance, that 'originally the toddy rents in this district were sold by Korales or Pattus, giving nor is it true that the licensees the right to establish taverns in every wasam," "originally over 100 were sold." There has been a certain amount of difficulty in disposing of the toddy rents in the Ratnapura District, but that is now mostly overcome. Toddy consumption is very prevalent in this district, though no toddy was formerly sold in the taverns, the consumption was illicit, and the people in many cases seem to have regarded the establishment of places of licit supply as an interference with their long-established custom of tapping trees and drawing toddy as they pleased. There is also some reason to believe that the arrack renter has been responsible for some of the difficulty that has been encountered. authors of the Memorial have not been particularly happy in selecting the case of the Kukulu Korale renter to illustrate their point. This man was strongly sus pected of being a mere creature of the arrack renter, and the earliest opportunity was taken to get rid of him.

The

9. With regard to paragraph 5 of the Memorial, it is not impossible that people interested in the arrack rents may have tampered with the toddy tavern renters. There have been a few instances in which there were grounds for sus- picion that this had been done. Government was quite prepared to, enforce the penalty for breach of the conditions of either a toddy or arrack rents in this respect, had even a single clear case been made out. To have done so would have involved a legal action for breach of contract, but this would not have deterred the Govern- ment if reliable evidence had been obtained on which it could have proceeded. No such evidence was forthcoming in any instance. If the Memorialists possessed such evidence they had only to produce it for steps against the renters to be taken. They have produced none. One gentleman, who professed in public to have such evidence, declined to place it at the disposal of Government when asked to do so, on the ground that his information was confidential. In other words, his witnesses would not come forward for examination.

10. The Memorial states it to be a fact "that in several cases in which toddy licences were purchased and two months' rent paid in advance, the licensees have not made any effort to establish taverns," but it quotes no specific instances. It is just possible that there are a few such cases in the list of over 1,100 taverns; it would be strange, in view of the agitation and opposition in certain quarters, if But this would not there were no cases of a licensee finding it hopeless to go on.

It is a fact that prove that there was no consumption of toddy in his rent area.

in various places where there is, and has long been, a well known and substantial consumption of toddy, there has been marked opposition to the establishment of a licensed tavern under proper control.

11. The Committee state that the affidavit of Mr. Corea "makes quite clear the This matter has connection between the arrack renters and the toddy licences." already been discussed above, but if Mr. Corea's affidavit be read carefully, it will be found to prove nothing. It contains no evidence which would secure a verdict for the Government in an action brought by a renter for being ejected from his rent. The Committee speak as if the arrack renters had an interest in all the toddy rents of the Island, but, as a matter of fact, with the exception of the few suspicious cases already referred to, there is every reason to believe that the arrack and toddy renters are quite independent of each other, and next year such steps will be taken as to make combination between them practically impossible.