THE RABBIT PEST

Otago Witness, Issue 3509, 14 June 1921, Page 11

THE RABBIT PEST

PROSECUTIONS IN CENTRAL OTAGO. “FIELD DAY” AT OPIIIR. Many side lights were thrown on the whole rabbit question in Central Otago at Opliii- on Thursday, when Mr E. <J. bevvy, S.M., resumed the hearing of cases brought by Mr W. B. Manning, district stock inspector, aga nst 14 landowners in the Lauder. Ida Val.ey, Chatto Creek, and contiguous areas. When the court sat two months ago a charge against John Wilson, of Lauder, was partly heard, and then, on the application b counsel tor u.e lien-iuJunt (Mr \V . A. Bodkin) was adjourned for the ri.bmis.dori of a legal point to the Supremo Court. Tim other informations, similarly adjourned, were preferred against the following defendants Elizabeth Donnelly Alexander Kinney (Chatto Creek), Daniel Kinney (Chatto Creek), Henry Albert .Simes (Dry-bread), Robert S. Buck (Moa Creek), W iliie.m .). Foster (Auripo), .Malcolm Cook (Moulere). James M'keeman lOturoliua), Nancy M’Keeman (Oturohua), James Huddlestone (Auripo). John A. Paterson (Ida Valley). James Scott (Ida Valley), and Julia Scott (Ida Valley). At the previous hearing Mr Manning stated that the prosecution against the defendant John Wilson was in respect of defendant’s holding of about 4250 acres, agricultural and pastoral land. The property was all infested with rabbits, and defendant received written and verbal warn-

ings in addition to the statutory notice. The property was v.sited, and no signs of poisoning were seen, and no dead rabbits. A final inspecton made on March 9 showed that the rabbits were increasing, and in his (the inspector’s) opinion the necessary steps to destroy the rabbits had not been taken. At least 20,000 rabbits needed to be taken off to clear the place up thoroughly. In response to counsel, Air .Manning said that trapping was a poor system for getting rid of tiie pest.. Trapping had been carried on m the district for at least 30 years, and the district was infested still. There was a difference of opinion as to the area capable of be ng dealt with by a single trapper. Rabbit farmers said that 3000 to 2000 acres of badly infested land could be successfully trapped by- one man, while those farmers who made a genuine effort to clear their land would not let more tnan from (00 to 800 acres of badly infested land to one man. In his opinion defendants place would occupy from six to eight men trapping after the date of notice, lie out not, however, recommend trapping, i oisomng was a recognised system. At certa.n times of the year he recommended po lard poisoning (generally phosphorus). In Ins opinion to carry out the poisoning system all badly infested land should have pollard laid over it in the spring, badly infested land requiring at least a quarter oi a pound to the acre. In addition, there was a system of strychnine and oat 3. strychnine and carrots or turnips, or apples carried out dur.ng the summer and autumn, luere were also other methods of destrucuin, such as fumigating and smoking, destroying warrens, ferreting, and erecting raobit-proof fencing. He knew that a huge > number ol -‘rabbit farmers” approved oi trapping, a “rabbit farmer,” • a j i' ied ’ being one who had had rabbitinterred land for a considerable time Any person vviio made a reasonable profit could cieav his land of rabbits. A large number or the farmers m the district were, in his opinion, ‘rabbit farmers,” and approved ot flapping Sensible men opposed trapP?”-,, ln opinion the defendant, to , 1 , , rabbits on his property in the shortest possible time, should have gone in ror a system of strychnine poisoning, and have used the furnigator and destroyed warrens where possible Inspector Jiagh stared that ho inspected delencant a place on January 31 and saw that no steps were being taken to destroy ra Doits. In company with Mr Manning he mad? an inspection on February 11 and still no steps were being taken. ' He sawdefendant the following day and gave a personal warning, receiving a reply leading him to believe that defendant intended to take action. On February 16 another inspection wag made, but wliat had been done was quite inadequate. On March 9 he again made an inspection with Mr Manning, and m his (Inspector Ilaig.Vs) opinion the necessary steps to destroy rabbits had not been taken.

To Mr Bodkin : He had a large district to work. they aimed at getting the land wRaA !° *^ e u r itod action, and if all «m>.cd together that was, in his opinion. To Mr Manning: He knew many people m the district who had done satisfactory work, and these suffered for these who had been remiss. Defendant, for whom Mr Bodkin appealed admitted getting the statutory nonce t 0 get r.d of rabbits. lie knew of effective methods of getting rid of rabbits and that being so did not require the inspector to enlighten him. If the inspector ad told him of better methods than his own he would have adopted them. He understood from the notice that the inspector was not. satisfied. He did not inquire from the inspector what the inspector wanted done, but he went to work to the best or hu ability. He knew that strychnine poisoning was being used with good Jesuits, ana he had a good “smoker.” ' He h.-n! been using traps on the place for 30 years, but had not cleared his place by that moans and never would. After receiving nonce he out six men on the work of poisoning.

Mr bx’dk-n raised a legal point that no offence was committed till the work to be A™ 6 f w To ’ nd,cated ’°y the inspector, the Act of 1903 turning at imUormitv of control and joint action. Tie asked leave to apolv for a Supreme Court ruling and the ;r e ’ A pr ?.Y ,0 "-?’v stated, was adjourned tnf» others Itkfw’sp. RABBIT BOARDS. When tiie court resumed on Thursday Mr Bodkin said that he had had the opportunity ol going into the matter at greater and was satisfied there were no grounds tor appeal. Tie had decided to withdraw the previous plea of not o-uiltv it oerng useless to plead other than guilty’ He there, ore entered a formal plea of guilty, but asked leave to all whence mitigation of the penalty. Ho also* asked the magistrale to .oilow th e policy he hid laid down at Roxburgh, the circumstances ““S. practically identical. Since the ca e tlm dtvet e *Ti i lhe COUrt ,he People in m clisnnt nad been very energetic, and M e v f n , ou f. jitter than the people of tne R xburgn dist.ict. They were providing raboit-proof fencing boards, the hill eoumry being separated’ from the' low country, no less than five boards being contemplated. they were only waiting for plans irorn the depariment ' otherw A areas w ould have been duly’proclaimed counsel went on io piead emu mn/idam was a nrst offender. He had taken up bis land 40 years ago when it was a barren wilderness infested with rabbits, and he uad been ligating the pest ever since, and had aiways met the requirements of the Department. He had done more than almost any other settler in Central Oiawo to light the rabbits and improve his pvij perty, having erected over 60 miles of rab-bit-proof fencing and gone in for extensive irrigation work, converting a barren

waste into litre meadows laid down in Eng lish grass. It was wed known that rabbits simply “followed the feed,” and an irrigated area in a dry country sucli as that about the defendant’s plate attracted She rabbits in thousands, and there was practically no help for it but wire netting. Uounsei went oil to point, out that ihe proposed board covering the property embraces many leading settlors. It was a movement full of great promise and deserving of consideration, and Uounsei suggested that the question of penalty should be held over in (he meantime, as had been done at Roxburgh, till the result of the board movement had been put, to the test. The inspector would Lie a member of the board and would be a considerable factor in (ho administration of its policy. 'The farmers would get the benefit of his knowledge from moving around a large district. Individual action had proved a failure. Uounsei urged the magistrate to extend the same leniency as lie had extended

at Roxburgh; it would, he said put the people on their mettle to make good. 'lhe Magistrate here remarked that the whole point of (lie prosecution was rather being missed. While this might be the first charge against the present defendant, it was a good many months since the original statutory notice had be°n served. Mr Bodkin replied that immediately the nonce was served defendant t-.-ek men cut ot the harvest field and set them to work on the rabbits poisoning with strychnine. Afterwards he continued his efforts by trapping, digging in the warrens, and flooding them with water. The evidence was •onclusive that defendant did not disregard the notice, but, on the contrary, had done everything he could according to his lights. He had satisfied the Department in the past. Defendant recognised that the inspectors were anxious to assist the farmers and lie in his turn wanted to join hands with them. The Magistrate interjected that if everything said at these prosecutions were true there would not lie a single rabbit in Central Otago. Air Bodkin: “The fact that the farmers are taking up the board question proves that is the only solution. Unanimity of action is absolutely essential if success is to be achieved against the rabbit, and surely

it is worth giving t-he board a trial.” Even assuming the very worst, counsel continued, the fact that the defendants were first offenders, and that they had failed owing to what after all was only an error ot judgment should influence the magistrate to take a lenient view. Counsel was onlyasking that the question of penalty should be held over. If after four months’ time the. inspector could sat’ that the work was not satisfactory, then the defendants would have to take their penalty, and in all probability a greater penalty- than would be imposed now. The Magistrate suggested that the proposed boards might be used as a cloak to defeat the object of the prosecutions. He would not lend himself to anything that would give rise to that possibility. Mr Bodkin said that such a thing was hardly possible with men like the defendants —men of character and reputation. He thought that with such men as he had indicated on the board, settlers of long standing and repute who wanted their holdings to be a success, the magistrate would be sufficiently safeguarded. The point would, in any ease, be settled before four months had expired, and the defendants would still be liable to punishment. Mr G. V. Iveddell, who represented several of the defendants, pointed out that the whole question was receiving a great deal of publicity. The offence was a statutory one, and the magistrate had no option but to convict. At the same time he was given absolute discretion in the question of penalty. Counsel proceeded to refer to the position the farmers were in to-day in consequence of the drop in prices, but the magistrate intimated that, counsel could “leave that out,” as it was not, going to weigh with him. Counsel then enlarged on the wisdom of holding over the auestion of penalty, supporting Mr Bodkin’s application on behalf of all the defendants. Air J. Ira Fraser. representing other dents, also addressed the court, taking similar ground to preceding counsel. INSPECTOR IN ARMS. Mr Manning said it appeared to him that it would be a most extraordinary state of affaii-3 if the administration of the Act were he.d up in the manner suggested by counsel. If the oases were not decided at once it would mean that the Rabbit Nuisance Act was a dead fetter in the district. It would also lesult in the undoing ot the whole of the work done in bringing the rabbit pest, under control. He reminded the court of the circumstances in which the cases were previously adjourned. The adjournment was not granted to enable counsel to bring further evidence or lay fresh matter before the court, but. was granted because counsel stated that he wished to test a point of law in the Supreme Court. That point had not been taken to the Supreme Court, and the administration of the Act had been held up for two months for absolutely no reason. Counsel had taken advantage of the two mo ths gamed to pre 1 ar the statement he had laid before the court. Flo (Mr Afanning) wished to raise an objection to that. Ho submitted that this fresh matter was not admissible, because it was not relevant to the case

The Magistrate pointed out that defendant. had pleaded guilty. All counsel was asking was to hold over the question of penalty. Mr Manning contended that the rabbit | board proposal was being engineered by people who had defied the law for years past, and who were systematically farming rabbits. Some of them lied lieen convicted and fined several times, and some : had openly stated that they were forming ; the board to light the inspector. It had j also been stated that now there was a i proposal to form a board there would be no j penalties in these eases. lie wished to | make it. dear that it was the policy of his | department to encourage the formation of I rabbit boards, but not for the purpose of figin.ng the inspector. He submitted that ; tiie present time was the time farmers killed their rabbits, but it was not the fear of a penalty that made them do so; it was simply- the value of the skins and carcases during the winter months. An adjournment would merely assist the defendants to evade being penalised for the offence? they had committed. Counsel had stated that the defendants were first offenders, and that, their offerees were not wilful. He wished to say something about the cases and about the records of the defendants Counsel had stated that Mr Mil son had always complied with th“ Rabbit Nuisance Act, and had always due wliat the in spcclor asked him to do. and had assisted the department. That statement was not correct. For years past Mr Wilson hail r l (]. i ii-*> ba>- and h.T 1 nrumni.d several times, but never convn ted. These prosecutions wejga laid under the 1938 Act, and it was impossible under that Act to deal with n man of Air Wilson’s type It was impossible in many glaring cases of rabbit farming to secure convictions, and it was mainly the result of failure : n the eases against Mr Wilson that the Act was amended in 1918 The arm—drum! was known to many of the department officers as the “John W'lsori Am-ndmenl.” Air Manning asked the magistrate to note that Air Bodkin h'd asked him (the magistrate! to make a personal inspection, hut he had not asked that two months previously. Air .Manning went on to say that he had anj pronehed Air Wilson two veins ago suggesting a rabbit, board, and Mr Wilson turned the suggestion down, but now that

he found lie could no longer evade the lav. he proposed forming a board, and advanced that in mitigation of a penalty v. Inch by years of neglect, he justly deem vrd. Mr Manning went on to make references to the records of each of the other defendants, several of win rn had beep previously prosecuted an.l convicted. Another, he <•• had sold his propeitv at the time the statutory notice was served, taking no eV ps to destroy the rabbits when he knew the sale would be affected. The defendant had since left the district, and he (Mr Manning) said it would be hard to suggest that the proposal to form a rabbit board should be taken as a reason to hold over his penalty. In another case Mr Manning baldly suggested there was rabbit farming, ami stated that in the case of yet another defendant the defendant openly advocated the formation of a rabbit board to fight the inspector. Mr Manning concluded his address by referring to the situation at Roxburgh and that revaeled at Ophir. It was, he pointed out, despite what counsel had said, entirely different, there being nothing whatever of a definite character in the Ophir district, none of the legal steps having been taken to form a board. Till; CASES PROCEED. The Magistrate intimated that he would proceed with tho oases, and the defendant John Wilson was called. Mr Bodkin asked defendant to step into tho witness box and proceeded to question him as in a case where he had not previously given evidence. Mr Manning strongly 'injected, saying that there was no ueed lo call ori the evidence again. The hlagisi i:»ie, however, pointed out that the inspector would again have the to c r»>«« » xamine, and he permitted c ou'u-ol to take his own course. The defendant intimated that after receiving notice he took •even* measure?, by poisoning, trapping, etc.. io m* et the inspector’s wish, taking men even from tho harvest liold and keep ing them almost constantly on the work. A large amount of eorroboralivo evidence was also tendered, quite a number of the defendant's employees, professional rabfciter.s, and ordinary farm hands being placed in the box. At the cl< the Magistrate intimated that ho reserved his d cision pending the hearing of the other case®. Counsel in the other cafes all entered a plea of guilty, and in all eases defendant ira* called t-o gi\e evidence as to iho measures taken to cop-* with the rabbits after fhe fctatutory notice had been received. Most of the cases were of the usual type. In the cibfco of Malcolm (Aook, Mr Man

ning explained that defendant was a discharged soldier, who had only taken up I his holding 12 months ago; he did not I wish to press for a penalty, only desiring to make it clear that action must be taken, | and the Act cniorced. inis dciendant was | accordingly dealt with at once, being oonI victed and order .-d to pay costs, the JVlagisI trate remarking that defendant would no longer be able to advance the plea of first offence. In the other cases decision was reserved. In the ease against R. S. Black, defendant stated that he did not personally conduct the run; it was under management. Defendant gave all necessary instructions to clear the rabbits and was not aware that- work had not been done to tire inspector’s satisfaction, the manager receiving the summons. Crossexamined by Mr Manning, defendant quite recognised Iris responsibility for lus manager. Mr Manning asked defendant if lie had ever paid the fines of any settlers in cases of previous conviction. Mr Keddell (for defendant strongly objected to the question, and the Magistrate, while not. ruling it out, intimated that the defendant con'd please himself whether ho answered it, or not. Defendant said he knew what the inspector was referring to; he referred to Mount Pisa, and defendant wished to answer the question. He had paid one fine in one previous ease, a fine of £IOO. That was because ho hail undertaken to do the work, and it was the only line he had ever paid. The cases concluded, the Magistrate gave counsel the opportunity of again addressing the Court generally if they so desired. Counsel intimated that they thought, they had covered the ground fully. Mr Manning. however, took the opportunity. He drew attention to sub-section 2 of section 2 of the Act and submitted that it would serve no good purpose to adjourn the matter of penalty. He did not- wish to press the cases against the first offenders, but he submitted that old offenders and those people who had not made it reasonable attempt, to meet the requirements should be convinced that the law must be complied with. There was also the neighbours of these people to consider, and if the cases were adjourned he submitted that their interests would be prejudiced. With rega.nl to the formation of a rabbit board in the district there was nothing definite; nothing had been said to show that the boundaries had been defined. As a matter of fact, none of the witnesses seemed to know very much about the matter. Tho legal and necessary steps to form a board had not been taken, lit.- oulv thing that had been done being

the holding of two meetings and the result being that the proposal was still in the air. 1 ‘ EX Al/11ES IMI >( >SED. 'J he Mag's!rate said that rabbit cases had been before the court before. Over and over again warnings had been issued ; indeed, .the penalties were known and should have operated as warnings. Still, In spite of everything funnels would set their personal opinions against that of the department. With their long standing knowledge— to quote their own expressions—of the district, and their knowledge of the pest, they would not be guided by the department, nor indeed, would they trouble even to ask for guidance from the department. The result that there was an enormous amount- of “chaff’ in the shape ot evidence; there was a quantity of evidence that would be overwhelming if there were anything in it. 1 1 really amounted, however, to mere generalities, but one or two grains of truth emerged. Nothing had been done in most casts until the statutory notices had been served, or nothing had been done until the force of the law was placed upon them; then they came along on the plea that they were first offenders. They were not. in the position of ordinary first offenders coming before the court. In every ease there had been written notices, statutory notices, visits by the inspectors, and warnings. The inspectors could not very well do more than they had done, and yet the warnings and notices had been disregarded, and now an urgent plea was put to the court to treat the defendants as first offenders. lie had better say now, once for all. that the plea carried very little weight with him when it was considered that the warnings, notices, and visits took place in many eases three, four, and even live or six months before the prosecutions were actually instituted. The question was what was he to do with the first offenders before him. On one hand he had counsel asking him to follow the practice at Roxburgh. but there he had a different set. of facts before him. On the other hand the department asked that, in order that it might have a better control over “these wrongdoers” a conviction, even with a small penalty, should be imposed, in order that if they did not comply with tho provisions of the law they would come before the court, no longer on the plea that they were first offenders. After weighing the matter over, he thought in view of the department’s request that it would be well to close the eases. It might he in the nature of an experiment, but he was going to let. these people have a fresh, start. Hitherto he had been taking a severe view and he was afraid that leniency now might

increase the rabbit pest. However, the bona tides of the defendants were in question, and he ■would treat the first offenders as first offenders. The case of John Wilson, Mr Bevvy remarked, was quite an ordinary one, despite the amount of evidence that had been tendered. he did not know whv. Defendant would be fined £lO. with costs. The next case, that of H. A. Simes. he could not treat so lightly, defendant being a second offender. A fine of £3O and costs would be imposed. The MTveemans’ case was “an oasis in a barren desert of specious excuses”; each defendant would bo fined 20ts and costs. Foster’s case was not serious and would be met with a fine of £6 and costs. Tn the case of Elizabeth Donnelly the Magistrate ignored the conviction of five years ago, treating defendant as a first offender, and imposing a fine of £7 and costs. Alexander Kenttv's ease. Mr bevvy said, was a. bad one. Defendanr hart been previously convicted (lie would regard him as only once previously convicted), and would be fined £SO and costs ; be eon':? not make it less. Daniel Kenny was similarly dealt with. R. S. Black’s ease was quite an ordinary one, and would lie met with a fine of £lO and costs. -T. Huddle-store would be convicted and fined £5 and rests. With regard to ,T. A. Peterson the Magistrate remarked that defendant was certainly not in the same position as the others, being a new-come- to the district. However, he had got to learn, and had better learn at. once and qincklv. that the inspector was the man he had to satisfy, not himcclf. A fine of £3 and costs tvs' imposed. Janie c-oH was fined £SO and costs, and Mrs S-ott £5 and costs.

A NATIONAL CO - OPERATIVE MARKETING SCHEME PQR THE PRINCIPAL PRIMARY PRODUCTS.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —As your paper is essentially a country paper, and therfore commands a largo audience of farmers, I am taking the opportunity of bringing the following remit, passed by the Sounds and District Provincial Conference and which will be discussed at the Dominion Conference of the Farmers Union at the end of July, before your readers. “A National Co-operative Marketing scheme for wool, meat, and dairy produce to be controlled bv producers through boards, on which the Government have representation, to be financed by special tttxes ear-marked for the above purpose, the balance to be used for sinking fund, etc., for a Government loan to provide a Dominion shipping line, the sail line to be controlled by representatives of the above industries together with representatives nominated by the Government.”

I make no apology for giving the utmost publicity to a matter of such vital importance to every farmer, be, he large or small 1 Before proceeding further it would be as well to po’nt out that it is the exporting end of the business this scheme is intended to cover, the local market (with the exception of wool, which would be controlled at the local sales by the Dominion Board acting in conjunction with the Board in London), would be as free ns at present for b-t!i meat and dairy produce, although it would be favourably affected by the prices arranged in London. I would also point out that the vexed quest-ton of tare on wool (which already costs the woolgrower £OO.OOO per annum), recovering the cost of wool packs and the strike clause in buyers contracts. would be practically in the growers’ hands to settle. 'iho idea is not new and has been successfully carried out in Denmark lor many years by the dairy producers of that country with such well-known results that it is unnecessary to enlarge upon them, except to say that Danish butter has toped the market for years. The farming community is the largest rnanufactur.ng body of primary products iti the Dominion, and yet they are the only body of manufacturers who do not fix a price for their product, but go cap in hand to the buyer and ask what Oc will he pleased to give. What has given the Trust its grip on both producer and consumer.' Nothing but its power of concentrating many resources under one control. thus being able to influence the market m its favour either .as buyer or seller. It is impossible for tt defenceless m :n to fight an armed one, and the reinedv is to meet trust, methods with co-operative . mini: tion, fight pokon gas with a more potent one. V oluntary methods ■ \ . -- uac only compulsion will bring till the farmers into line, and to be successful the movement must be national. Ate the farmers of this Dominion satisfied with the existing methods of marketing their produce and being at the mercy of trusts, and shipping combines? If they are. I can only say God help the farmer and New Zealand, i'or he wi ! soon share the fate of his American brother. If not. what are thev proposing to put in its place? Personally, I think we should follow Denmark’s example and apply the same principle to our wool. meat, and dairy produce and also control the bridge between ou’’selves and our market—viz., the shipping. 1 he whole question of produce prices tint! freights are so interdependent that it is vital to any scheme they should be considered together, although the proposed “Board of Mercatiti’e Shipping” is a step in the tight direction, its financial position is dependent upon tho voluntary principle, which seems to me a fatal weakness in a national scheme. 1 have always been a strong opponent of State control of any industry, but I am a firm believer in State co-operation; it is essentia] in this case ns we require legislation and taxation to finance the scheme. The issues are very simple. Are the majority of the farmers in this Dominion prepared to adopt a scheme to market their produce as a whole and own their own shipping, tinder a system of boards, controlled bv themselves? If so, thev cannot logically refuse to submit to special taxation, ear-marked to benefit themselves. T do not propose to interfere in anv wav with the position as between the farmer anil tho mercantile firms who finance him. the system worked smoothly under the commandeer, and would do so under the new conditions, ff the Dominion Conference adopts the idea. 1 shall move that the details. such as the constitution of and appointments to boards, finance. taxation, shipping, etc., be referred to the R, . /.■ea/ Committee to work out before submitting the matter to the Government. Tn conclusion, 1 would ask my fellowfarmers to weigh the question thorium hlv, and if they consider the principle of the scheme sound, to help me bv supporting it through their local unions. Tt is an honest attomt to safeguard nut interests, both now and in the future, and if ever our industry is faced with such abnormal conditioqj

again we may he in a sound position to meet them. —I am, etc., Grimsdale Anderson. Mahau, Pelorus Sound, June 3, 1921. [The writer, after all, is modest in his suggested project, considering the issues involved. A “National Co-operative Marketing Scheme for wool, meat, and dairy produue, ) vo,| U seem tt happy way out of our difficulties. r I he scheme embraces the, hand tug of our main primary products at this end of the world on lines very similar to these adopted so successfully in Denmark iii handling their dairy produce. r ! rtto the scheme involves compulsory taxation, and a willingness of farmers to submit to same for purposes of financing the necessary shipping, etc. What of that? If something on the lines suggested is not attempted by producers shortly, this country may a 6 well be snowed under for “keeps.” With tho State co-operating it is reasonable enough t» anticipate that the whole Dominion —producers in part cular—would bo greatly benefited bv the marketing of products with the minimum of handing charges. The Dominion Conference might well adopt the idea, and with other suggestions refer the matter to the Producers' Committee, which at the moment are, we believe, “thrashing out the shipping of produce'* question, ere subrn tting the matter to the Government. After all, it is a small matter which producers in the meantime are asked to consider viz., to discuss tho subject at their local unions, and voice their considered opinion per media of their delegates at the V. ell ngton Conference next month. Farmers must for their own salvation seize upon any legitimate means of lessening the gigantic charges and incurred in handling their goods ere the consumers get them. It is reasonable enough to suppose that on y by controlling the disnos >1 of their surplus products through their own co-opted agents, will they rout their enemies.—Ag. Ed."]