THE RABBIT QUESTION.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18220, 3 November 1924, Page 11

THE RABBIT QUESTION.

TO THE EDITOR. O* "THE TRESS." Sir,—la Friday's issue of your paper I notico two letters 011 tbo above subject, both attempting to reply to mine of 2Sth inst., by Mr H. L. Hiatfc and another under tho pen-name of "Ratepayer." The latter one I intend to ignore, as tho writer has not the courage to put his name In it.. If ''Ratepayer'-' will disclose publicly his identity, I will cross swords with him. Mr Hiatt in his letter maker- a very weak attempt to try and cover un tho fart that ho was'asked to read "tho petition he referred to in his motion." both hy Mr iStarVy and myself, This he was_ unablo to do. T defy Mr Hiatt to produce the petition be refers to, and to prove, that it. is tho only ono that has been in existence. I wonder if Mr Hiatt, remembers tho meeting, called by tho Farmers' Union, and the resolution parked at that meeting, revolving to support tho petition asking for the abolition of tho Board, after they had beard Messrs TTeasley and "Wright on tho subject, liien Mr Hiatt at a later meeting states that tho-peti-tion asking for the abolition of the district was the only one in existence. This kind of thine; is verv misleading for tho public. Perhaps Mr Hiatt nan clear this matter up of having voted on two separate occasions 011 two different subjects?— Tours, etc.. N. D. CAMPBELL, Glen Dhu, Motunau. TO TEE EDrtOR OF "TEE rRBSS." Sir, —It is seldom T think it advisable to answer a letter written by one who is ashamed of his name, and would not j do so in this case if my name was not 1 mentioned. "Batepaycr," the indi- | [ vidua! I allude to, states I publicly ad- \ mitted I was in the wrong. This, I state, is unt.Tue. My letter to you was, in my opinion, fair, and I stand by it. If "Ratepayer" is man enough to sign his name, I shall be ouly too pleased , to back up my words. ! Mr Campbell -was, as "Ratepayer" says, not given a good I hearing. I personally was asked a ques- I tion and was treated in the same manner. If "Ratepayer" could hear the answer he must havo topping ears—much after tho style of Balaam's ass, "long but hairy." 1 am not one to hit in t.he dark, and consider any person—l do not use word "man" advisedly—who writes over a pen-na.me should not use an opponent's name in his epistle. In conclusion, 1 may say tho Cheviot meeting was the first under F.U. Chair that. I have over seen unfair tactics used to visiting' people. I am pleased to say X am not a F.U. member. If such methods are to be employed I shall take'good caro to keep clear of Union. —Yours, etc., J, B. STABKY. Spye, October 31st.

TO .THE EDITCB Of "THE rKBSS." Sir,—With regard to tbc Hurunui Babbit question, it is indeed a pity that so much bitterness. has arisen among tho ratepayers of the district, 99 per cent, of whom after all must have the samo aim in view, namely, the destruction of rabbits. Now. T honestly belicvo that at the moment more than half of the ratepayers do not fully understand how it all arose, nor what wo of the south-eastern area asked for. Tho first start was made by landowners in this area, which is a very well defined and workable one, being bounded by two rivers and the Main North road, w>o considered that if wc woro given control of our own area wo could feiwe it -off and then clear it of rabbits., With this end in view, casting no reflection on the Hurunui Babbit Board, we applied for severance, and bad wo at that time persisted wo should, I feel sure, havo got it. Tho Board, however, though I think a good deal in sympathy with our policy, were reluctant to lose this portion of their district, and made us an offer which we could not well refuso at the time, though wo havo since had causo to regrot not doing so, namely, that -they would erect the fence. At that time I discussed the matter with many farmers and others both in and out of the district, and I was invariably told that wo were undoubtedly on . the right track, and I feel sure that had things gone on smoothly it would have been merely tho beginning, and the whole district would havo been gradually divided into smaller and more workable areas, which, I predict, will still como about in time. But there arose a small clement. which, always exists, which is.always in oppositou, which I call a destructive element (though not of rabbits). They spread it through the rest of the district that wc were getting something for nothing, for which they would have to pay. Now all we had asked for was that we might be allowed to sever, to rate ourselves," and to clear out country in our own way. All the Board had promised us"was that they would build the fenco without any increaso in rates whatever to the rest of the district. So it is indeed hard to understand tho ill-feel-ing that has arisen. The Board were on the point of commencing tho fence when tho destruetionists took a grossly misleading petition to' Wellington, which certainly has destroyed our hopes of a fenco for the present, and they are no doubt well satisfied with their efforts. But| now, having seriously hindered our forward movement, while the rabbits go on increasing, I ask them what is their policy,, if any? The electors of tho new Board will most certainly favour men who are prepared to help a forward' movement rather than to obstruct it.—Yours, etc., CHARLES CAMPBELL. Davaar, October 31st.