IMPOUNDING.

Cromwell Argus, Volume IV, Issue 207, 28 October 1873, Page 5

I M POUNDING.

To the Editor of the Cromwell Argus. Sir,—The lending article in your paper of the 21st inst. seems for many reasons to call for some remarks from me in reply. For ic deals a great deal with myself personally, and invents motives for my conduct which are truly remarkable for their originality, but which t shall content myself with characterising as " patent conjectures." But further, and this is more important, there seems to me to underlie the whole matter, as treated by you, an assumption that in this case the usual laws of property are to be set aside for the especial behoof of Cromwell stockowners, to enable them, in a word, to possess themselves of that which belongs to others without fear of consequences. It is not with a view of justifying my conduct in impounding stock for trespass that 1 now write,—that would be quite a work of supererogation ; but the vicious train of thought that you would encourage in your readers, especially those strongly interested, should be protested against. For what is to be understood as meant by you, when you blame the Commonage Committee for not having resisted to the, utmost all attempts on the part of the runholders to impound cattle, and the people of the district for not supporting them in so doing, unless we are to infer that you deny the runholder's sole right to the grass on his own run, or that you argue that the owners of the cattle impounded, or sought to lie impounded, are justified in taking that which belongs to others, while any interference by lawful owners is lint to be put up with ? If such petty thieving—(for to take what is. another's is certainly to thieve, whether pettily or extensively)— is to be encouraged, where will it end ? By-and-bye, we may perhaps see far graver offences against propei ty encouraged by an enlightened Press ! . Now, as to the facts of the present case. The Cromwell Argus knows quite well tlvt the public were warned through its advertising columns more than a month ago, that stock might be kept free oh a certain portion of the run, and without fear of being impounded, but thai

they would be considered as trespassing if not kept within those bounds. The Cromwell Argus is equally aware, as witness its own columns in the issue of 21st inst., that no stock from the above-mentioned portion of the run were driven to the pound, or meddled with in ..ny way. What, therefore, can be meant by my wishing " to get rid of an Unprofitable portion of the run," and "to get compensation for what is of no earthly use" to me,—endeavouring to effect this end by impounding stock from quite another part,—it is problematical if the writer himself understands. That all this is, at any rate, very gratuitous assertion, besides being glaringly unreasonable, if not sheer nonsense, most people will, I think, allow. What follows is very ludicrous. Equally so is the assurance of my exceeding anxiety for the granting of the commonago to the people. Really they care little indeed for this priceless boon, if it be true, as the Cromwell Argun asserts, that they are less anxious for it than I am. It is not the miner who is a trespasser in the waytherunholders have to complain of; although he usually has his horse, and often a cow or two. But the former he does not keep for breeding ; it is usually worked, and remaining near home ; while the latter yield him their milk : so there is here a return from both; and he will not grumble very much if he is called upon to pay for their grass. Yet I venture to say that few runholders will enforce their rights so fully as to tax a man for these necessities. It is the more grasping and well-to-do dweller in goldfields townships and way-side shanties,—the publican who preys upon the digger, or the storekeeper, and so on ; .but most frequently the first. He it is who aspires to be the owner of whole herds of weedy brood-mares and worse colts and fillies, and runts of cattle, and who comes into direct collision with the runholder, and raises the outcry for free grass and pasturage. Such is the case without doubt in this district. This is the man that will acquire any number of stock, so long as he can get for nothing the grass that others pay dearly for, and has no trouble or expense in herding them ; but he will raise an outcry, as of one dreadfully wronget', if the little game is interfered with. He will cultivate in this easy way animals of the most objectionable character and the most degenerate breed—(the number and quality of bulls amongst the cattle supposed to be owned by Cromwell residents is something unequalled, I should say, in the known world) ; utterly useless to himself and the country at large, —yielding him no income, and contributing nothing to the revenue, in any shape : on the contrary, doing positive damage in many ways, and not the least by consuming the food lawfully belonging to animals—and of course depriving them of it—that are a source of benefit to the whole Colony, as well as of annual profit to their owners". ■ This is the traditional " poor man" of the gold-fields, to whose existence the squatter, We are told, is an insuperable obstacle. For his benefit, all future legislation should be framed,—he who, on account of his soi-dkanl poverty forsooth, presumes to claim a j free share in the property of his more wealthy I neighbour, the odious "bloated capitalist," who j has secured and continues to maintain his right ! to the same annually, at great cost. In conclusion 1 may say that, while personally ! I care little whether the people of Cromwell ob- | tain a commonage or not, I quite agree with you [ in deprecating any personal feeling towards me, I whether favourable or otherwise, being imported ; into this matter. But I repeat that it is, and | must always be, a subject of grave concern to me, that others should take what is mine by right, without any consideration ; and should be causing serious loss over and above that of deprivation to the owners of the stock by right depasturing on the country, and much damage to the stock themselves. Any measures that I may take to prevent or lessen such damage, I consider do not require any justification. Apologising for having trespassed so very far | upon your space,—l am, fee, I. Loughnan. Mt. Pisa, 24th October, 1873.