THE GOVERNMENT AND HORSEBREEDING.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8583, 3 June 1891, Page 3

THE GOVERNMENT AND HORSEBREEDING.

TO THK EDITOR. Sir,—lt appears from a report, in your issue of Saturday ?last) that it is suggested that the Government < should impose j s i tax; upon entire horses, and that the Auckland 5 Cattle Board have recommended the imposition of such a tax. 'This proposal sho 1 id bo objected to on two grounds—viz., increase in taxation, and . interference with individual , liberty. Surely, the country settler rJready i pays enough iii taxation without being called upon to pay a direct tax upon the horses that he breeds. Take; the case of a farmer with half a-dozen mares, and a stallion which he keeps to work and to serve these mares. The probable foal produce will bo four, and the Auckland Cattle Board would recommend that on . each of these ho must pay a tax of one pound and live shillings. Or take the case of an owner of a 1 iksly two-year old colt. It may be considered desirable Jto prove ;the; capacity of this colt Sanv' a£ stock-getter, * and half ; a-dozen wares we £ served by hitn, and he must also contribute his J: £5, equal to £1 '5a per foal. ■•No, sir; this is a matter in which, the ■.vtoyeenment have no more -right' to interfere than it has in how a merchant shall■; conduct his bysiijsss. The Government should only interfere i", a matter of this kind when » nation;*! i^so-sfit. is to' be obtained by such interfere?}'.:^ .if a : national benefit from which all caffU . .pun, . then the public purse -: should pay, <iv} ,;>ot, a particular class. If Government i>itwft.cence is necessary, give premiums for. kvpr&pd. stallions to travel al limited fees. : Ihe «xp6iience of other countries seems to prove thsi there is no necessity for State interference. . H>.<jt of the Continental Governments &«<>." feifosr directly en» gaged , in .horse breeding or supervise the choice of stud animals. The reason given is that they require to : draw Istvsrely on - the horse ; supply for army purposes. "in Great Britain the breeding is unhampered by State ' interference. It is left to individual effort and ability, to men like Mr. Walter GSlcey, Burdett Contts, . the Duke of Westminster, and. others, and many of the finest stud* animals on the Continent have been drawn from these private i! studs. Mr. Clifton thinks that it would be desirable s to promote a sweepstakes for i the owners of I stallions. One would think that if. stallion. owners thought so, they would have adopted - the proposition without any prompting from a Government official, and without paying away. a considerable portion *in official, inspection. Mr. Lawry's reason for interference with individual - liberty is <a : poor one, when in effect he 5 says that all owners shall pay a premium to one of ; their business competitors. No one will deny that the production of first-class animals is desirable, but is the stallion alone responsible for the production of good horses? If the Government is to* interfere, should they not also approve of the mares to ibe used, and * when the foals are produced see that ; they; are well nourished 1;. When weaned, proportion their daily rations, and continue this grandmotherly care untill they reach maturity?" Surely, breeders know; best what will suit their ; requirements, the choice of ; stallions depending .> on their ; pur-'; pose in breeding. The remedy sought lies with horse-breedors themselves. Let 'them ' adopt the Scotch system : appoint a committee of competent men to choose a good horse, guarantee a specified sum with a limited fee for service, and have none of this interference with a matter that is; outside the functions of a Government. —I am, etc., ' W. W. PHILLIPP3, Paeroa, June Ist, 1891, ,