KILL OR CURE?

Thames Star, Volume XX, Issue 4715, 13 September 1888, Page 2

KILL OR CURE?

(To the Editor of Evbnino Stab )

Sib,—The proceedings of that now notorious body—the Sheep Department— in its relations to the sheep farmers of this neighborhood have became perfectly intolerable. Ever since the first announcement of the infection was made, the conduct of its Inspectors has been most erratic, but now it has become wholly inexplicable, so much so that the flock-owners are left completely in oblirion as to whether they are expected to cure or kill the infected flocks. When Mr Drummond first risked the locality he served each of the owners with a statutory notice calling upon them to clean the sheep within a period of six months from the date thereof. To that end they were instructed to provide themselves with hot water dips; herd their flocks by day, and secure them at nights witbin what is technically known as sheep proof fences. There were a number of minor regulations, but these were the leading features of the curative procesß, provided for by that mandate. It is a fact, capable of being fully attested, that these instructions were complied with to the very letter, and J need not observe that the doing thereof was attended with very considerable trouble and heavy expense. At a time like this, when everything has got down to the lowest ebb of depression, trouble, and expense—more especially the latter, it becomes very oppressive. We are therefore entitled to claim that compliance with the law in this instance involved the highest personal sacrifice. Not content with this ready acquiescence, the Department in its wiidom conceived that a still greater sacrifice was demanded, and the story of the legal prosecutions is still fresh on the public memory. That the law was just and merciful enough to render these obortive, does not do away with the fact that further waste of time and money was incurred in making good- their defence. Now comes the confusion of the whole transaction, made "worse confounded." The settlers were told that instead of curing their sheep, they would have to be destroyed, and ihat under some provisionary enactment therein made and provided the value of the animals so destroyed would be assessed, and compensa* tion awarded. This, let it be understood, was merely a verbal communication, and in a strict application af the law would not supersede the written notice previously given for oleaning. Believing, however, in the bona fides of the Inspectors, certain of the settlers have destroyed their sheep, and others have partially destroyed theca. That, then, is the state of uncertaiaty to which the affair has now been brought. Some weeks have elapsed and not a syllable further on the point has been uttered by the Department, The district, previously overrun with inspectors,, has now been completely deserted by these worthies, and what they are expected to do—whether go on killing or caring,—the settlers are altogether at a loss to ksow. Meantime the period allotted by the statutory notice for effecting the cure is fast expiring, and for aught, ike settlers know \q lh,e contrary tbey

will be held amenable to the penal* ties enacted for in breach of that order. This state of things is literally intolerable. Enough has transpired to prove that .the Sheep Department if utterly disorganised. AH things considered I think we may go a. step further sod say it is thoroughly demorat* "• ised. As to how this has come about is not for me to say. The Government is principally responsible, and in view of that responsibility it is their bounden doty to see that the settlers are fairly compensated for these irregularities. If m the ! first instance the proper coarse to pursue was to have killed the sheep, then it was a blander to put the settlers to the trouble and expense of initiating the curative process. Then again, if killing was the " correct card," why not let it go on and bring matters to a head at once? In either case blunders have been wrought, and waste of time, which means money together with serious outlay, has been in* curred. At common law employers are responsible for the duly authorised acts of a servant; why then should Government be exempted from similar responsibilities ? —lam, Ac, ATirurcs.-ym