That Infamous Rabbit Act.—No. 11. TO THE EDITOR.

Otago Witness, Issue 2250, 15 April 1897, Page 7

That Infamous Rabbit Act.— No. 11. TO THE EDITOR.

?ir, — The thanks of all who suffer from the effects of the rabbit pest and from the ahortsightednesß of inspectors arc due to Mr Buckland for his excellent advice and clear instructions re pollard poisoning, and I doubt nob that many will benefit therefrom, and in so doing will hold Mr Backland in remembrance as a benefactor, I have laken thesfcondpartof Mrßuckland's letter firat, aad shall next endeavour to deal with the first nart Will Mr B'ickland kindly cite a case (or case*) that has come under hi 3 notice in which a defendant was saved by "reliable details of proper steps taken " being given ? Suoh information with dates and names of magistrates (one ot more) before whom the ce.se (or cases) was tried, will greatly oblige the writer, who is merely a »»eker after " truth and justice." Let me hera say that in the cases dpalt with in my laafc, the defendants were informed by a leading Dunedin lawyer that neither he nor any ot-her lawyer culd save them from the infliction of penalties if the inspector swore that hs sjiw rabbi's on the lands in question; f uriher, than witnesses could do •• no good," for if the inspector swore that "he saw rabbits," no matter what steps wfra being taken to destroy them, the magistrate was bound by the act to convict and impose penalties. This ndvice w«s corroborated by the prosecuting counsel (Mr J. F. M Fraser) before tho casss were called for hearing. In one case the <Ipfendant produced as evidence in court receipt? and voucoers for poison purchased by him tor the destruction of rabbits during a number of years ; also six toxa tins, the contents of which had been laid in the space of as many weeks on his traall holding of 30 acres, but all to no purpose. As to the inspector in question being "actuated by a high sense of duty," and being "the la*t man to allow political leanings to influence his conduct," all I can Bay is opinions differ, and the opinion of the general public in this district anent the said inspector is entirely different from that held by Mr Buckland. Apropos, an incident related by the agent of the local inspector may be c'.ted. It waa to the effect that the inspector was about to lodge au information B gainst n certain farmer who ia known to be of the proper " political colour," but before his arrangements were completed he received a letter from headquarters instructing him (l to relax." I think this will suffice to show ■what was meant by my allusions to political leanings. As to rabbit inspectors not being invested with "the tyrannical powers" attributed to them in my former letter, I think the opinions of the lawyers quoted above and the reading of the act itself will be sufficient answer. And now I shall endeavour to deal with your leaderette in to-day's issue, from the reading of which it is plainly evident that you only had your own published report to work upon. Now, Sir, the report of the ca^es dealt with under the Rabbit Act on the 27th ult. was both inaccurate and misleading. I had not seen it at i the time of penning my letter of the 29th or should have deemed it my duty to at once I correct the nrsstatements contained therein. As a matter of fact, only two of the properties complained of by the inspector ate bounded by

the .'anje ettats mentioned, and only ov.a of Ihsso two defendants made tha forma'i flt\lement from tha witness stand that tho rabbits on his land came troni that estate. Tho other defendant stated that his property was bounded by sis oMier properties, all with one exception larger tbon his own. Tais defendant further gave ib as his opinion th&t the oilier of the estate in question had sob the inspectors on to his neighbour and himself. The other two properties roaip'aiued of beiug in a different part of tho district, several miles &wny trom tbe estate in question, could not be materially affected by it, bnt were more likely to suffer in consequence of their proximity to the Goverumeut estate several hundred acres in exceut, which is described by thoeo who visit it as a huge "r*bbit warren " I hope I have succeeded m sonwwhwi modifying ytmc bslieE that " the settlors sued with ova accord laid ail the blame ' upoa one individual. A"< to the inspector giving reasons for his opinion that insufficient steps hid beeu taken, the only reason given by him was that "the rabbits still were there." You further say that you can see vo proof from the report " that iv thi3 case the arbit>xry powers of the inspector have bseu exercised." I reoeat that your report was "inaccurate," and that, therefore, you were unable to form a correct opinion as to the merits of the cases. — I am, &c, Peninsula, April 3. A.L.O.S. [Our reporter contends that the report was a fair report of what transpired in court aa far as the bad acoustic properties oE tbe couvb room permitted. — Ed.]