Correspondence.

Lyttelton Times, Volume VI, Issue 406, 24 September 1856, Page 7

Correspondence.

To the Editor of the " Injttelton Times." Sir.—Some few months ago there appeared in your columns a letter signed " Squatter " commenting on that clause of our present Scab Act, by'which it is rendered penal \ simply to possess scabby sheep. Ido not I remember that it attracted any attention, and * more is the pity; for I think that few people are aware how very unfair, and how very inefficacious this particular clause of our celebrated Scab Act really is. I do not wish to blame the squatters who " originally strove and succeeded in putting this clause into the Act, panic-stricken as they were at the imminent approach of scab ; for I believe that, had they succeeded in getting this act when they first tried, that it would have proved successful; but when verbose discussions and legal delays had lost twelve months' time, and allowed the scab to become thoroughly established "in the country, even this kill-or-cure remedy proved inadequate to extirpate it. I think I may safely say, that there are more scabby sheep and scabby stations now in the country than at the time when this Act was passed. We need not therefore be so very tender in dealing with an unsuccessful remedy." Let us try to examine the working of the clause in question. Let us suppose the squatter, to start fair with clean sheep. Sheep seldom, if ever,

become spontaneously scabby. But by a neighbour's negligence, by the travelling of scabby sheep across the run, or by the purchase of rams or other fresh stock which appeared clean, but in which scab was lurking—his sheep become scabby. Immediately, by the Act, he is prevented from selling any of them to raise funds to meet his immensely increased expenses ; and this is fair [enough. I never heard; even a sufferer complain of this part of the Act. He is reduced then to depend upon his wool alone, and with the whole of this magnificent income he fails, let us say,. to clean his flock. Immediately Government mulcts him of 50 or 60 per cent of this income, pour encourager les autres. I say 50 or 60" per cent, since the minimum penalty is Is. per head recoverable twice a year. Now, if the delinquent were tried before a competent jury, and found guilty of laziness, or culpable stinginess, I would have nothing to say for him; but no,—he is unsuccessful, and so, ipso facto, guilty. Legislative wisdom saith it, and who would dispute it ? btill, let me humbly submit, in palliation of the poor fellow's fault, that it is not the work of one individual, be he ever so energetic, to clean and keep clean a flock of sheep, especially if in a scabby neighbourhood. Many men must combine in doing their duty thoroughly and simultaneously, and it would be sanguine indeed to expect this with certainty of poor human nature as we find it. A single day's carelessness of a neighbour or a shepherd, an ill made fence, or an evil disposed wild dog, may frustrate the labour of months.

Let us contemplate once more the position of our supposititious squatter. He cannot sell increase—the Act forbids it; he can't gethiswool-monej,—the Act takes more'than half; he cannot sell out, the Act virtually prevents it; he can't abandon his sheep, the Act expressly forbids it. Driven into such a corner by this spiteful Act, would he not be more or less than flesh and blood if he did not turn and stand at bay ? I think so ; and I am sure I.speak the sentiments of all sheep-owners who have the misfortune to have their sheep scabby, in claiming at the hands of the Provincial Council the suppression of this unfair and inefficacious clause ; and I call upon the opposition, if any, to show cause why this act of justice— for so I deem it—should not be done. By publishing- the above remarks in your paper, Mr. Editor, you "will sincerely oblige, Your obedient, humble servant, Faik-Play.