11

1.—5

162. The Chairman.] It is a rate for the destruction of rabbits only where the destruction is necessary ? —I understood that it was to apply to the whole colony. I think I heard mentioned also something about the introduction of ferrets. I think it has never been found that they interfere very much with the increase of rabbits, and I do not think you will ever get rid of the nuisance in that way. Tou will have to set men to work to dig them out, trap them, and destroy them. Tou might use long nets ; I know that is the way they catch them on the warrens. They use these nets in the first instance, drive them in, and so collect them wholesale. When they get thinner you will have to dig them out and trap them ; then, perhaps, when they become still thinner, it will be necessary to shoot them. 163. With regard to agricultural districts, do you think it is desirable to have compulsory legislation, so as to compel the farmers to kill the rabbits ?—No ; I think their own interests would dictate to them the best means of getting rid of them. 164. But in such a case, for instance, as where the owners of the land did not kill the rabbits, which therefore became a nuisance to the neighbours, what would you do then ? I know there are such cases. —Then I should give the neighbours the privilege of going on the land and doing what they liked to destroy them. In the case of a piece of land lying idle, with no occupant, I certainly think the owners of neighbouring property should have the privilege of entering the land and destroying the rabbits. 165. Mr. Andrew.] Do you not think a provision enabling them to take action at lavv for damages would be sufficient remedy ?—Tes; there is no doubt of that. The law steps between landlord and tenant at home. 166. The Chairman.] I think it is questionable which would waste the most—the lawyers or the rabbits. —That would be for the tenant's consideration, whether he should commence proceedings or not. There is no doubt in the world that if you have a large tract of country in the hands of one person, and if there are only two or three shepherds running over it, you will not be able to get rid of the nuisance unless by some such means as I have shown. I think probably if these holdings were reduced in size, there would be much greater probability of getting rid of the rabbits. 167. My experience has shown me that small farmers will not destroy the rabbits, but leave the work to their neighbours.—l rather think compulsory legislation on this point would be interfering with the liberty of the subject, as thus: A man might say, " I will have a rabbit warren on my land," and fence it in to keep others out. But if you had a law passed compelling all persons to kill rabbits, he could not keep his warren, and that would be interfering with the liberty of the subject. 168. Is it not the same in the case of the Scab Act ? —No ; Ido not think that. As to the introduction of vermin to destroy the rabbits, I think there would be a very great objection to that; because they might increase to a very large extent, and destroy other sorts of game which it is desirable to preserve —quail and pheasants, for example. 169. Then you do not think it would be desirable to import weasels?—l think there would be great danger in doing so ; and I feel sure they would not succeed in getting rid of the rabbits. 170. Do you know anything of the Tasmanian rabbit legislation ? —-No, Ido not. There were no cases in Victoria where the rabbits were as numerous as they are ever likely to be here, and they were got rid of. 171. Mr. Larnach.] I think there are one or two eases where the rabbits have been got rid of?— But that is over a very large district. 172. It refers chiefly to the property of one individual ? —I know it has been the custom to speak of Colac as Mr. Robertson's property; but the rabbits extend far beyond that. 173. The Chairman.] They are all through the Stoney Rises ?—Tes ; that is the district I refer to. 174. I may ask you again, are you iv favour of compulsory legislation ?—To this extent: that an Act might be passed, and then it should be left to the majority of the ratepayers of any district to bring it into operation. I have no doubt that those people suffering from this nuisance would be much more likely to determine something for the benefit of all parties than those who had not suffered from the nuisance at all, because they would necessarily turn their attention to the subject, and think it well out; and, as I have said before, I think the bringing into operation a compulsory Act should be left to the ratepayers of the district. If the majority of them will have it, then of course it may become law, and they would have to submit to it. The Hon. G. M. Wateehouse, M.L.C., attended, and was examined as follows:— 175. The Chairman.] Do you live in a rabbit district ?—Unfortunately I do. The rabbits have made their appearance on my land within the last five years, and now they are beginning to increase rapidly. I may state that the first rabbit I saw upon my property appeared in a paddock by the side of the River Ruamahunga, about five years ago, and I have reason to believe that it had been brought down in the stream on the occasion of a flood. In that part of my property there are numerous cats, which I think has prevented them increasing in number about the river bank, although the soil there is favourable to their increase. But in the back part of my property, on the hill tops and hard country, they have made their appearance in considerable numbers, and are increasing rapidly at the present time. 176. Is this a pastoral run or a freehold ?—Freehold. 177. Is it a large property ?—-Tes, a large property. But the nuisance has only occurred at one end of it as yet. A day or two ago, however, I heard they were appearing on another part of the property where I scarcely expected to meet them. In the Wairarapa the rabbits are increasing very rapidly. I have heard of them being seen on the coast thirty miles from my property. 178. What is the name of your district ? —The Wairarapa. 179. Are those wild or tame rabbits you speak of? —It is a tame rabbit, and appears to have been turned out by Mr. Carter a few years back. He denies the soft impeachment, but the people there maintain that he did turn them out. For the last four or five years the rabbits have increased with