THE NELSON EXAMINER. NELSON, JANUARY 4, 1845.

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume III, Issue 148, 4 January 1845, Page 174

THE NELSON EXAMINER. NELSON, JANUARY 4, 1845.

Journal! become more necessary as men become more •qual, and indWidualUm more to be feared. It would be to underrate their importance to suppose that they serra only lo Mcure liberty t they maintain civilisation. D« Tocqubvills. Of Democracy in America, rol. 4, p. 90S. Our readers will remember the story of a certain king of Spain, who, catching sight from his palace window of a man sitting alone by a brook-side reading, and bursting at intervals into loud fits of laughter, exclaimed " That man must either be mad or reading ' Don Quixote ';" and how he sent a courtier to inquire, and found he was right in his latter conjecture, and that the man was actually reading that singular mixture of racy humour and deep pathos. Well, in this country we believe any one, under similar circumstances to the king's, might as safely conclude of a man " laughing consumedly " over his book, that he must either be mad or reading a New Zealand ordinance. At least we find that such is the effect of these compositions upon ourselves, which must be our excuse with our readers for treating them sometimes with so much levity. For our legislators have the art of dressing up their baneful decrees with so much comic gravity, such truly Cervantic humour, that we almost forget their noxious effects in the absurdity of their outward appearance. Our lawmakers tickle us to death — titillate the colony's life out — just like that gentleman in Mrs. Jarley'a waxwork, that " Jasper Packlemerton of atrocious memory, who courted and married fourteen wives, and destroyed them all by tickling the soles of their feet when they was sleeping in the consciousness of innocence and virtue." The last act we have had recourse to for the relief of low spirits was the Dog Nuisance Ordinance. And we have chosen it for examination partly that even our newspaper, at this festive period, may show some signs of sharing in the general hilarity. The principal humour of this production lies in an admirable affectation of exceeding care and minute exactness and particularization, qualities we should often have "desiderated " in ordinances upon more important subjects, had we not seen that the authors have in these latter efforts, with the same masterly perception of the humorous, purposely contrived to produce equally ludicrous effects by a rigorous abstinence from them. But to the bill. Soon after the establishment of & government here, it was observed that dogs began to increase and multiply exceedingly over the face of these islands. The Governor (" from an elevated position ") casting his eyes around, beheld with gloomy apprehension numbers of these animals " wandering at large within or about the various towns of New Zealand." So he got his councillors about him, and they took council together. The result was the bill before us, introduced with what exulting anticipation of victory over the dogs, with what radiant triumph of denunciation, one may easily conceive. Waiving his bill over the heads of the fourfooted gentry, as Ulysses did his bow over thost of the astonished suitors, how might the legal adviser of Government have parodied that speech of the Grecian warrior beginning (mutatis mutandis)-— " Dogs I yt hate had your day! Te feared no nor* Attoxney-Graeral* from Australia's shors!" *c. &c. All this the preamble carefully and succinctly tells us, or leads us to picture to ourselves. In the first clause " the Governor of New Zealand, with the advice and content of the

Legislative Council thereof," declares that " all dogs found at large may be seized." But it is explained that such dogs must be " found Wandering at large without their owner or keeper." Mark the gentle satire implied in this, the hit at the too frequent idleness and beach-combing life led by dogowners. For it is necessarily inferred that dogs sometimes " wander at large " with their owners. This is a master-stroke ; and reminds us, indeed, that many bipeds, wandering at large " without their keepers," might be seized with considerable advantage to the public, to which we beg to call the Council's attention. The constable is to seize them, and he is to be one " lawfully acting."

The next clause directs, with minute gravity, and at length, how the dogs are to be " exposed in a public place appropriated for ths purpose ;" and how they are to be kept a day and night, if not claimed. If claimed within that time, the constable, who is bailiff, sheriff, gaoler, and judge, the Dogberry of the dog-court, is to " satisfy himself that the claimant is true owner or agent of the true owner," and deliver him up on claimant's paying five shillings ; " provided always " that if the dog has a collar, he gets free for half-a-crown.

At clause third, the ordinance becomes tragic. "If within the said night and day no such claim, &c, shall be made, &c, the person having the custody of the dog shall forthwith destroy the same by hanging."

This might have sufficed, one would think. But our legislators are more careful of their four-footed fellow-colonists. Clause 4 directs at length how the seizing constable is to " make and keep a note " of the victims he has " worked off" or delivered up. And the note is to be " in writing "—which will be hard upon some Dogberries, who would doubtless prefer the score and tally, unless the first of the name be right when he says that " to be a well-favoured man is the gift of Fortune, but to read and write comes by nature." And the writing is to be "in a book " — mark the exactness of the ordinance — and is to contain a " description of the dog so seized," the time when, the disposal what, &c, &c. So Dogberry, who is bailiff, accuser, gaoler, sheriff, Commissioner of Dog Claims, and Jack Ketch, is also public registrar, and having killed and buried his dog, finishes the business by writing his epitaph.

But now for the disposal of the money. Clause 5 tells us " the fines are to be paid over by the constables to the police magistrate." But the constable is to deduct " sixpence a day for the keep of every " dog so seized, " together with the sum of two shillings in respect of such dog, &c, as a compensation for the trouble of such constable in respect thereof," &c, &c.

By the Courts of Requests and Imprisonment for Debt Ordinances, it is enacted that the detaining creditor shall pay four shillings a week for the maintenance of the debtor in prison. Therefore, judging by the money to be spent for his support, a debtor, in the eye of our legislators, is worth just three farthings a day more than a dog.

The constable is to have " two shillings for every dog delivered up to its owner for his trouble " — in arresting said dog, we suppose, and investigating the owner's title. Where a concise abstract of the title exists in the shape of a brass collar, we think Dogberry will be rather well paid for " his trouble " in " perusing and settling same." But our legislators, perhaps, with their clear foresight and profound knowledge of human nature, took into consideration the possibility of Dogberry's incurring a rast deal of trouble in so doing, " except as aforesaid" as to writing and reading. But if a constable is to have two shillings premium for catching dogs, how much should he have Tor catching a runaway debtor or thief ?

Clause 6th declares, with all legal pomp and circumstance, that the police magistrate shall pay over these important fines monthly " to the Colonial Treasurer, or Treasurer of the County or District (a» the case may be) ;"

and lest the Colonial Treasurer should no l know what to do with sums so vast, it particularizes that the half-crowns are to be paid " to the use of her Majesty, her heirs and successors," and lest " her Majesty or her heirs and successors" should be tempted to appropriate the tempting treasure, it further declares that it is " for the public uses of the colony, and the support of the Government thereof."

But to carry the humour of affected exactness to its acme, we have, after all this, a " Clause 7. Explanatory" in which we are told who the keeper of the dog shall be held to be, and who the agent of the keeper of the dog, &c, &c, till all the fun is extracted out of the subject. But they forgot to explain who or what is to be held to be " a dog " under the act.

Now upon this singular piece of humour our readers will probably first remark that, as the constable is only paid his enormous fee of two shillings when the dog is ransomed by its owner, every inducement is carefully offered him to seize only such dogs as are valued by their owners, the very dogs least likely to be " wandering at large," and such as are best worth preserving in the colony, while all the valueless mongrels and " curs of low degree " will go scot free.

Next, that the quietest and most harmless dogs will be sure to be those oftenest " taken up." The fierce ones, which are the greatest nuisance to the public, not having the fear of constables before their eyes, will not be meddled with. But perhaps our legislators thought that the skin of your constable is impervious to the teeth of your dog ; just as in North America they say the bite of a rattlesnake does no harm to a pig.

Then your dog, if not ransomed from the pachydermatous tipstaves " within one day and night," is to die the death. You may be out of town, and your agent, according to the act—" plain Bill," namely, or pretty Betty, may be busy, one " skying a copper," or deep in chuck-farthing, or hard at "knuckle down and no fumbling;" the other taken up with her new bonnet-trim-ming, or out gallivanting with "follower" John or sweetheart Tom, at the very time your dog is dancing upon nothing. So when you come back your only consolation is in the exercise of your new right of habeas corpus, — you may have his carcase, and gallivanting agent Betty or copper-skying agent Bill aforesaid may — go and fetch it.

But one thing about the ordinance you must admire. The works of your true men of genius, however different, generally have a sort of family likeness one to another. So have the works of our legislators. Some of them may be oracularly brief and obscure — some loose, rambling, and inconsistent — some, like the present, minutely particular and circumstantial; but there is one circumstance characteristic of all, the curious felicity with which they overlook the most important feature of the matter they treat of. However varied in other respects, all have this peculiar deficiency. Just as the Shandies, however opposite in character and general appearance, were all shortcoming in that important organ, the nose. The Courts of Requests Bill, for instance, omits the paying-by-instalment claus* ; the Property Rate Bill leaves out the property of absentees ; so this Dog Nuisance Bill overlooks all dogs but those " within and about" (that is, wandering about) " the towns," and even in the towns, as we have seen, secures the arrest of the harmless only. The greatest detriment done by dogs to the colony, however, is in the destruction of sheep and live stock in the country. This, out of all comparison the most important evil to be checked, is actually left: altogether unprovided against. There are besides no constables in the country, so therein dogs may increase and run about and worry ad libitum, as if no bill had been launched against them at all.

In Nelson the effect has been what might hare been anticipated. But one circumstance could probably not have been foreseen ; Government having no money, and

the knocking up of a dog-gaol and a doggallows requiring some, there appeared every chance of this splendid piece of cynical legislation being left to lie dormant. It could not be put into operation. The Executive was at a dead-lock.

The case was piteous indeed. But constables have bowels. The hearts of policemen are not always as tough as their staves ; and griesly tears will sometimes roll down even Pluto's iron cheek. The softestsouled among the Nelson Dogberries met met together and agreed to invest certain portions of constabulary capital in the erection of a dog-gaol in the ditch of the Fort. Constabulary eye, too, winked intelligence in answer to winking constabulary eye, as before it rose a glittering prospect of ample dividends to be got out of the pockets of owners of inoffensive dogs. So the thing was done. We have not heard what name the company is to go by ; whether by that of the " Constabulary Association for the Promotion of Cruelty to Animals," or the "Anti-letting-the-Dog-Nuisance-Bill-die-a-Natural-Death Company," or the " Patriotic Pachydermatous Policeman's Society for the Relief of the Destitute Government," — but either will do.

We warn our fellow-settlers, therefore, not to let their dogs, if quiet ones, leave their houses alone. Dogs, especially those of a confiding and social temperament may be taking a constitutional in the most innocent way in front of their houses, or have left their kennels a moment, as dogs of the utmost gravity and propriety of character occasionally do to exchange an inquisitive sniff, a bark of recognition, or a congratulatory wag of the tail with a passing stranger or acquaintance, and all on a sudden find themselves snapped up by the watchful executors of arbitrary power, and hurried away (like the Duke D'Eaghien) to the horrors of a dungeon, and too possibly in the short space of thirty-six hours be tried, sentenced, and executed (like the unfortunate duke aforesaid), in the ditch of a fort, " unhouseled— disappointed — unaneled."

As with the progress of " enlightenment" the bloodiness of English laws is being got rid of, our legislators, in their profound experiments on the moral nature of dogs, will probably ere long see fit to try tlie •• solitary system," or some other, for this sudden death one. We wish heartily, however, they would endeavour to establish the " silent system" among their canine captives, as the midnight wailings of the prisoners over their sad reverse and untimely fate are apt to be very destructive of the sleep of all within hearing.

We might have recommended a petition to the Legislature against this bill, but as probably a Maori dog will be seized ere long, the whole breed of which are, we suppose, of course exempt — though no Exemption Bill has yet been passed, and the fact is not mentioned in the present bill, which, however, is no argument against the intention of the framers, — it is likely we may save ourselves the trouble, as the bark of a Maori dog will go much further with our Government than the remonstrance of an English man. And the Maori dogs being let go, the English ones will be so too, for shame's sake. Witness Johnny Heki's case.

A Tax upon Dogs, as at first proposed, would have done the thing effectually and simply.

Flax Machines. — The success of Smith and Stallard's hand-machines has induced several mechanics to direct their attention to the production of others, some of which are completed and, we believe, are being experimented upon. At the Motuaka, we are told, some men. are getting up an excellent one, and in town there are several engaged in constructing others. Hickton and Robinson, whose machine we spoke of some weeks ago, have just completed another, somewhat on the principle of Smith and Stallard's, but which, it is supposed, will turn out a larger quantity of flax with the same number of hands in a given time. It is also supposed that this new machine will employ more hands' than the other, with a corresponding increase in its produce. Besides these advantages, it has that of being more portable, weighing only twelve pounds, and can be readily screwed to a post or even the stump of a tree. We are unwilling to express any opinion on the respective merits of these machines, until they shall have been tested by public trial. The Ffite Committee, by offering a premium for the best machine, might easily bring this about, and by the trial coming off on the anniversary, an opportunity would be afforded to the majority of the settlers of

witnessing tho results of these interesting experiments in the preparation for export of this really important article. Accident. — A serious accident happened at theWaimea, on Tuesday last, to a young man named Thomas Magarey, whilst leading his horse down the hill near Mr. Duppa's. Holding the rein in a loose manner, the horse, by a jerk of his head, threw him off his feet, and the wheel of the cart passed over his head. He was very seriously injured, but we are happy to say considerable hopes are entertained of his recovery,