Untitled

Lyttelton Times, Volume II, Issue 93, 16 October 1852, Page 6

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sir, —Having read in your paper of September 25th, the resolutions passed at a public meeting of Stockowners held at Christchurch on September 16th, together with the report of the committee appointed by the meeting, and being of opinion that the conclusions arrived at are not such as will in all respects meet the views of the majority of stockowners, and are even in some respects calculated to have an injurious effect upon the pastoral interest, I forward to you for publication a few observations thereupon, should you deem them of sufficient importance to occupy a space in your journal. The Resolutions passed by the meeting are:— Ist, "That in the opinion of this meetinothe present terms of tenure for pasturage are inconvenient, and are likely to be injurious to the country at large." 2nd, "That a fourteen years' lease is the shortest term of tenure compatible with the development of the resources of the country." 3rd, " That a yearly tenancy, with an undeiv standing that the tenant should not be dispossessed except by a freehold purchaser or by a holder of pre-emptive rights "under the rules of the Canterbury Association, is preferable to any term of lease." The two first resolutions, will, 1 imagine, coincide with the views of the great majority of those interested in the matters to which they relate. As to the third resolution which is rather vag-iiely worded, it appears to me to be quite

inconsistent with the second, moreover to he in itself very objectionable. By an " understanding," I presume a written stipulation is intended, since a mere verbal assurance would be of no use whatever. This understanding or stipulation might exist under a fourteen years' lease equally as well as under a yearly tenancy, and were such the case it is obvious that the former tenure would be much the best of two. With a fourteen years' lease the stockowner would be safe against having his rent raised or his tenure altered until the expiration of his lease, or until dispossessed by freeholders, or holders of pre-emptve rights. Under a yearly tenancy the understanding or stipulation would be binding only until the end of the year, and the amount of rent to be paid would be fixed for one year only. At the end of any year what is to prevent the Association or the Provincial Council, to whom it is expected the powers of the Association will devolve, from increasing the rent of the run, or even altering the terms altogether? Moreover I contend that the stockowner should be guaranteed in the possession of his run against all persons whatever, except freehold purchasers, and that freehold purchasers should acquire the freehold only without any right of pasturage over the adjoining land. So long as he is subject to be dispossessed of portions or the whole of his run by holders of preemptive rights, he can have no real security of tenure, and consequently cannot make the improvements necessary to keep his station in good working order, since these improvements, involve the outlay of much more capital than any prudent man would expend under the circumsrances. Of course grazing must give place to agriculture,but for one grazier to make room for another is quite another thing. I am aware that all .purchasers of land in the Canterbury block are entitled to pre-emptive rights by Act of Parliament, and that to deprive them of their rights without compensation, would be not only illegal but unjust, since they purchased the rights along with the land. However, I would, venture to suggest the possibility of the Act being amended. Pre-emptive rights already exercised would not of course be interfered with. Purchasers of land who hold preemptive rights not yet exercised, might receive compensation, in the shape of grants of land, or rather land orders in scrip after the manner in which compensation was given to the claimants against the New Zealand Company. Subsequent to the amendment of the Act, purchasers of land would not of course acquire any pre-emptive rights. With respect to the report of the Committee I shall allude only to those portions of it which appear to be defective or objectionable. The Committee state that under the present circumstances they do not deem it expedient to ask for any alteration in amount of rent to be paid. The same consideration has not deterred them from suggesting that it should be collected by assessment upon head of stock instead of by assessment by average. I cannot see why they could not with equal propriety have suggested a diminution in the amount of rent fixed at present. All stockowners in the block, with the exception of a very few beginners whose opinions are founded on theory, and not upon experience, know that the rent now exacted is much too high and cannot be paid in future years, when according to the ascending scale now established, it will amount to a very large sum. The language of the Committee is liable to be construed into an acquience in the amount of rent as at present fixed, and consequently to misrepresent the opinions of the great majority of those concerned in the matter. On the very important subject of scab, it appears to me that though the Committee have made some valuable suggestions, yet that some of the details involved in them, can never be carried out effectively, and in fact would not have been required except for one measure of a very objectionable nature recommended by them, and set forth in the report, as follows:—"It is very possible that a number of sheep might be landed in the early part of the year,' which could not be maintained on the quarantine ground until the following January, the only month in which they could under the present "law be driven without penalty. The Committee think it vvyuld be advisable to repeal this part of the existing Ordinance, and it seems to be the opinion of the most competent judges that there is little or no danger of infection from scabby sheep for a few days after they have been efficiently dressed by dipping. "The Committee

therefore propose that it shall be enacted that diseased sheep may be driven across the country any time within ten days after they have been properly dressed, of which a certificate must be obtained from the inspector of sheep." Assuming that the Sheep really have been properly dressed—(an assumption not likely to be well founded in all cases), and that they are travelled within the time specified, this will merely secure the Stockowners, over or near whose runs they pass, against the ground being infected, but will not secure them against the much greater risk of some of the newly dressed sheep straying from the flock and being left behind, and afterwards joining other healthy flocks to which they may communicate disease ; for no one pretends that even an efficient dressing is a certain remedy so that scab may not break out again after the elapse of a few weeks, when the effects of the dressing have worn off. As a proof that this risk is not an imaginary one, I may mention that in every instance in which sheep have been driven across the country, between Christchurch and the Kaikoras, some have been lost on the line of travel, and have been afterwards found amongst other flocks. Owing to the rugged nature'of the country to be passed over, and the difficulty of keeping the sheep together during the night, this will in all probability always occur even under good management. -Yarding the Sheep by night, as suggested by the Committee, is quite out of the question, for many parts of the country are quite impracticable for drays, so that no hurdles, or even sheep nets and stakes could be carried for that purpose, and brush yards could not be made for want of materials. There is also the risk of a general scattering of the flock by wild dogs. Newly imported diseased sheep being allowed to travel, I suppose all other scabby sheep would also be allowed to travel, and it must be borne in mind that New Zealand bred sheep are much more difficult to keep together than Australian sheep, which have always been followed by day and yarded by night. With respect to the Sheep being "efficiently dressed, unless the Inspector has been present during the whole time of dressing, and seen that each individual sheep has been properly attended to, his certificate will not be of much value. Dressing scabby sheep is a laborious and tedious process, requiring much patience, and consequently is often hurried over instead of being thoroughly well done. I conceive that it would be impossible for the Inspector to give up as great an amount of time and attention as he ought to do, in order to ensure against risk from the neglect of those who are employed to" dress the sheep. Supposing, however, that the Inspector could accomplish all that the Committee expect of him, there is another risk which requires to be guarded against. When the sheep are collected for dressing, it is very possible, that a few may be overlooked and not be brought into the yard. Afterwards they may join the flock, and being discoloured by previous dressings, may escape observation, and be travelled along with the rest, leaving infection on the cabbage trees and rocks, or even on the ground along the line of travel. Other contingencies which do not occur to me, might also operate to prevent the flock from being got into a safe state for travelling, but I have said enough to show that after all is done that can be done, diseased sheep cannot be travelled without eminent risk of infecting clean flocks throughout the line of country travelled over, so much so, that it appears to me that any Ordinance which legalises the travelling of diseased sheep, instead of being entitled " An Act for the prevention of Scab, &c," should rather be designated " An Act for the extension of Scab, &c." Under no circumstances whatever, therefore, should scabby sheep be allowed to travel at any time of the year. In case of scab breaking out upon a sheep run, the owner has facilities for cleaning his sheep, without travelling them. As to newly-, landed sheep, if the penalty of two shillings'a head on scabby sheep was properly enforced, importers would take care to select clean sheep in Australia, instead of scabby sheep in Van Diemen's Land, from which "Colony all the diseased sheep, hitherto landed at Port Lyttelton, have been imported—with the exception of some from Wellington. Though it is possible for scab to break out during the voyage amongst sheep shipped perfectly clean, no instance ""of this has yet! occurred, so far as lam aware. It is. not verylikcly, therefore, that more than one ship load of scabby sheep would be upon the

quarantine ground at the same time, so that the risk of sheep being starved there for want of pasturage is not very great. Should this ever actually occur, it would be a much less evil than that the disease should be conveyed all over the country through these being' allowed to travel. Some might consider this to be a haul case for the importer, but in this as in other matters, private interests must not be allowed to interfere with the public good. This view of the case may, I think, be sustained by analogy with the quarantine laws enforced against ships arriving with highly infectious and contagious diseases on board, by which laws many unfortunate sufferers are restricted to very narrow bounds at the great risk of their lives, in order that the lives of the public may not be endangered. If the arguments made use of against the travelling of scabby sheep do not appear satisfactory, I would suggest whether it would not be expedient for the Stockowners to submit to an assessment, for the purpose of establishing a fund to buy up diseased sheep at a low figure, and destroy*them. If a legal enactment for this purpose could not be got, or should be considered unadvisable, perhaps a voluntary Association might be formed in the same way that Associations have been formed in Port Philip, to purchase and destroy sheep affected with Catarrh. My object in writing the above, is to endeavour to direct the attention of Stockowners to the matters alluded to, so that at the next public meeting they may come together all the better prepared to entertain tbesubjects to be brought under their notice. In conclusion, let it be borne in mind that until scab is eradicated from the settlement, no sheepowner is safe against serious loss, or even complete ruin, and that our great object must be to get rid of scab by all fair means, and at any cost. I am, Sir, Your's &c, A Sheepowner.