14. Evidence of MR. G. STEVENSON, Magistrate and Collector of Cuttack.

Oral evidence.

I have been in the service since 1872, and in this district as Collector since November 1890. I have no concern with the Tributary Mahals All Collectors in this division are ex-officio Assistant Superintendents of the Gurjat States; but the Commissioner being here, I have nothing to do with them.

I have ordered a copy of Mr. Kanti Bhusan Sen's report on the ganja across the Gurjat Border to be sent to the Commission with my forwarding letter. I have no knowledge of the cultivation across the border such as would enable me to give evidence that would be of use to the Commission. The plant grows—an odd plant here and there—in this district, principally towards the hills. I believe that these plants are sometimes found in this district apart from habitations; but the cases that come to light are cases of plants grown in the enclosures. The amount grown in this district may be left out of account in regard to any measures taken in respect to ganja, it is so small. An order requiring that it should cease could easily be carried out. But there is much jungle land to the north of Cuttack along the frontier in this district, and there the cultivation of a few plants would be difficult of detection.

I know the manufactured Gurjat ganja. It is simply the plant dried. It is grown everywhere in the Guijat States for consumption. I believe it is more grown near the border to supply our territory. It is also grown in detached G-urjat villages surrounded by our territory. This has also been waved in the face of our excise officers since the three-mile prohibition was withdrawn by the Board. I think the limit of three miles from the border was taken from the old three-mile rule for excise shops. Of course the difficulty is in enforcing the prohibition. The arrangement was political. The Rajas have neither the will nor the power to enforce prohibition in their wild tracts. I believe the three-mile limit was chosen tbat we might have our eye on the matter and enforce the prohibition ; but this had to be by reference to the Superintendent and the Raja. I have never had to do with any Tributary State myself ; but I make this statement regarding their will and power to enforce prohibition from what I know of this part of the country.

I think the three-mile rule was imposed in Vide No. 165-T., dated 19th 1878* / No E dated 6th september 1889 pass 10 and abolished in 1889. So far as I remember, the rule was abolished September 1889, para. 10. (1) because of the difficulty of enforcing it, and (2) because it was believed by the Government that Gurjat ganja was drunk, not smoked, and was less deleterious than the Rajshahi ganja. It was thought to be better not to discourage the Gurjat ganja. It was a mistake to suppose that Gurjat ganja was not smoked. It is smoked. I believe the Government have admitted this. So far as I hear, there is no systematic cultivation of ffanja across the border. I have heard that the male plants are not exterminated, nor are the flowering tops separately collected. The part of the plant used is only the upper part of the plant. I should say that the statement made in answer 9 by Kanti Bhusan Sen is quite correct. This upper part of the plant is the Gurjat ganja that is smoked. This is distinct from the siddhi or bhang, which is licitly imported from Gurjat. As to the comparative effects of Gurjat and Rajshahi ganja, I am not in a position to give an opinion. I believe, however, that the Government of Bengal has reconsidered its view that the Gurjat is less deleterious than the Rajshahi. I have not sufficient ground for any opinion of my own.

Mr. Kanti Bhusan Sen's statement regarding the licit use of Gurjat ganja in this district is no doubt correct. He has the figures. But it may be noted that the 8 maunds minimum referred to by him was only in force from 1891 to August 1893. Importation of Gurjat ganja was entirely prohibited by Government order at page 546 of Calcutta Gazette, dated 21st June 1882. It was again allowed (1) in the case of siddhi by order at page 756 of Calcutta Gazette, dated 23rd July 1890; (2) in the case of Gurjat ganja by order at page 1200 of Calcutta Gazette, dated 17th December 1890. From this time to 1892 the maximum amount that could legally be possessed without license was 20 tolas. By Board's orders of 13th April 1892, this was reduced to 5 toles. As to illicit use, it is impossible to give accurate information. Nothing is known, except from the cases that come to light. There are no data on which we can estimate the illicit consumption, except that the consumption of licit ganja is on the decrease. Unless ganja is being given up for any reason, that would indicate that illicit consumption was on the increase. I know of no reason why people should give up ganja. The price of liquor is higher, and caste prejudices are against liquor. Although the price of ganja has recently been considerably raised by taxation, it is still much cheaper as an intoxicant than liquor, i. e., having regard to its intoxicating quality. Unless we are to encourage smuggling, I think that in this district the rate for Rajshalai ganja, though lower than in other divisions of the province, is as high as can be. It has reached the limit, unless pressure can be put on Native States to control their own ganja effectively, or we can do it for them. If they could do this, there would be no reason for differentia rates. These States constitute the difficulty. I have recently, in my report above referred to, made proposals on this matter, to which, I understand, the Commissioner has taken objection on political grounds.

We have been trying in vain to ascertain the cause of the falling off in the consumption of excise ganja. We have failed ta find out the reason of this or what the people have taken to instead. The consumption of liquor was falling off too. We have re-established outstills along the frontier, because we found Gurjat liquor was competing successfully with ours.