THE INJUSTICE OF THE RABBIT ACT.

Otago Witness, Issue 1652, 21 July 1883, Page 13

THE INJUSTICE OF THE RABBIT ACT.

TO TUB EDITOR. Sir,— Tho Waste Lands Board have declared their inability in some cases to deal with the Wakatipu runs which have boon surrendered, as no one will h.ive them at any rental. Is this to be wondered at ? Who is likely to take up one of these runs at even nominal rent when he may, under tho present Rabbit Act, be required to spend hundreds of pounds in efforts, whether effectual or not, to reduce the rabbit pest at the desire of the inspector. I have no wish to decry the Rabbit Act now in force, but I must emphatically Bay that though 'its operation may be both necessary and effectual in the low country and agricultural districts, to carry it out in its stringent form in this rugged and mountainous country involves ii justice and hardship to lessees amounting almost to ruination. A letter in your last issue, over the signature of an " All-but-ruined Settler," bears mo out in my assertion.

I will detail an instanco of one form of injustice the working of the Act takes. About three months a«-o 1, on behalf of Mr Trotter, lebscc of the runs of whii-h I was niuuagcr, called tenders for rabbit destruction tor a period of about nine months. Tho t-.endeis ihat cane in varied in amount from £900 to £1000. Thin - anil only for nine months' work, remember— trebled thu annual lental of thos,e run*. Now comes tho exiremeinj istii oof expecting— in this ca,oc, ut 1 ast an owner to go to all this expense. Ar, the sale of runH, l'Bt February, Mr Trottur lost all the country in question, the majority of it g ring to a new lessee another part beii.g purchased by myself, and the remainder being comprised in a piece of rugt ed country which Mr Trotter had again and again asked the Government to take off his hands, it being useless for stock, while it would cost a fortune to reduce the rabbits on it : I say reduce, for extermination or anything approaching to it, is impossible. A'fow

years will suffice to show the absurdity of the Governmint throwing away money on rabbit d-^tructionjin thoso almoit inaccessible mountains. The request of Mr Trotter to surrender, a< above referrel to, has been in every ca*e curtly refused except once, when tho Government offered r,o take the run if tho other was also surrendered. Tni3, after con-ideration, Mr Trotter agreed i,o do. The Government then refused to ratify their proiiiNc, which must be considered a strangis midu of deiliny, as in every other ca->e of application to nurrendei by lessees within my knowledge, they have not only neon accepted, but. in tome c-ii'-etj coinp?ns;ition for improvcm"nts gianted also. Kince then, though a staff of rabbiters commensurate with tho circumstance 1 ) and tenure of the lease has been ko;>t up, I, au reprcscnta'ive of Mr Trotter, have been summoned and fined repeatedly under the Rabbic Act, became hi 1 didn't chooae to expend £900 or £1000 in dciU'oymg rabbits in country the greater portion of which, as 1 havo btatal, in a few months passes into the new lessees' possession.

I think after this, Sir, it is hardly necessary to go aa far us Ireland to lind cas°s in which a certain ph'ise of landlordism is developod— even in Ireland not so common, pe.haps, as some would infer. — I am, &c,

William S. 1). TacrrEß, Orccnvalc Station, Kingston, July 11.