DAIRY REGULATIONS.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXXII, Issue 12429, 31 March 1908, Page 2

DAIRY REGULATIONS.

A Protest from Ra.pa.nui

The following communications have passed between the Rapanui dairymen and the Hon. R. McNab • — Rapanui, March 16th, 1908. The Hon.' Minister for Agriculture, Wellington. v Dear J>ir, — At a meeting of dairymen in the Rapanui dißcrict held on March 9th, we were instructed to point out to you what constitutes in our, minds one or two very serious defects in the Dairy Regulations. We cheerfully accept inspection, as we quite recognise that we have everything to gain and nothing to lose by the industry being conducted in a cleanly, wholesome, manner, but we object moat strenuously tb~ the unrestricted powers placed' in the Inspectors' hands. Almost everyone of the Dairy Regulations must be carried out "to che satisfaction of the Dairy Inspector." Apparently should an Inspector lodge a complaint a conviction must follow automatically, the Magistrate having no option. We maintain this is not just, and that with bo much power an Inspector of tyrannical disposition could hound and worry dairymen beyond endurance. At the meeting referred to instances were given where successive Inspectors' demands were contradictory, that is to say, th# succeeding Inspector ■ (ordered the removal of piggeried from a site chosen by 'one of his predecessors. Two instances were given, and they can if necessary be detailed to you. One of the Inspectors must be wrong, perhaps both, but the unfortunate dairyman had to obey both. Such cases as this bring ridicule on the Dairy Department, and should be quite impossible. All buildings, sheds, etc., once passed and approved by an Inspector should, whilst kept reasonably clean and sweet, be sufficient for all time or until unlit for use by reason of decay. Dairymen should have the right to appeal' against am. Inspector, and the right to prove if necessary that an Inspector's demands were unreasonable and wrong. If an Inspector should insist on expensive undertakings considered by a dairyman unnecessary, he should not have the right to condemn the Dairyman's pro- ' diice (except in the case of infectious diseases) pending the settlement of such dis-, pute in Court or by arbitration. We believe the right of appeai would be very -rarely used in the case of a fair inspector, but the knowledge of its existence would be a check on an Inspector who was inclined to be unfair or immoderate. Provision .»hould be made for compensating tenants for improvements carried out at the instance of or by order of the Dairy Department. If the regulation referring to cooling milk by water be enforced it should be made universal, but in many Oases this means considerable ■ expense, and will be ruinous to some tenants with short leases, many of whom are already paying heavy rents. Such compensation should take the form of valuation, at the expiry of the lease, for such, improvements as the Dairy Department or its Inspector enforces, payment to be made of such valuation by the owner to the tenant. We consider that as the Dairy industry has been the means of taking many men off the labo\ir market and starting them on the land, and it is desirable for this proces9'to continue, the regulations should be enforced with very great care in newly settled districts, and" with as much regard as possible for the financial position of the new settler.

In urging that these points should not be lost sight of when the new regulations are being framed,, or that the existing regulations should be amended in the direction indicated, we consider we are assisting in obtaining the end we all desire, viz., the continued success of the industry, and we feel therefore that no apology is necessary for addressing you on the matter. We are, air, Yours obediently, JAMES HODGES, Chairman. WALTER PARK, Hon. Sec.