Correspondence.

Lyttelton Times, Volume VI, Issue 411, 11 October 1856, Page 7

Correspondence.

To the Editor of the " Lyticllon Times." Your pnp.T <«i" tlio 2-ith September, xvojch has y^{, rcwXw.a tticse parts, contnins .1 Jotter reript'ci.in.- Lh« Scab Ordinance, signed

" Fairplay." This is a most unfair signature, for instead of being anything like a fair statement, it is an utterly partial and one-sided one, considering merely the (supposed) interests of the owners of scabby sheep, and disregarding altogether the rights and interests of those who, by energy, care, and perseverance, have kept their Hocks in a healthy condition ; these constitute, fortunately, 19-20thsof ourpastoral interest. Your correspondent's real complaint is, that if he has tried to clean his sheap and failed, he is subject to a penalty,—that in fact he is not allowed to continue to possess diseased stock to the injury, perhaps ruin, of his neighbours. It is now admitted by all practical men that scabby flocks can be cleaned; that well-known remedies, properly applied,\v\\\ effectually cure them. Those flocks which at the introduction of the present law were in the worst condition, and had been so for a length of time, have, thanks to the stimulus arising out of the prospect of a fine, been effectually cleaned. The ordinance allows ample time for the proper treatment of sheep which have become infected, and if they are not cleaned within that period, the result, if all the circumstances were known, could in 19 cases out of 20 be traced to some fault or remissness on the part of the stockowner himself. If, in an extreme case, he suffers from a " single day's carelessness of a neighbour" (who, of course, can be made to pay for any mischief so done) '■'or a shepherd, or an ill-made fence, or an evildisposed wild-dog," I am very sorry for him, but that is no reasoi\ why the injury should be extended to his neighbours. It is absolutely necessary for their safety that diseased sheep should not be allowed to continue in their vicinity. Let us take the case of a district comprising say 20 stations; of 19 of these the owners are careful^ industrious, and experienced men, and have their sheep in proper condition; the other is the holder of diseased sheep, and either from carelessness, negligence, or not understanding his business, he fails to cure them. Your correspondent then thinks he ought to be allowed to keep his sheep scabby as long as he likes—what would be the consequence? Upon the whole of his neighbours would at once be imposed double care, anxiety, and expense, in the watching of their flocks; all this will not prevent sheep from occasionally straying,^ and if, therefore, a permanent source of infection is allowed to remain among them, one flock after another will become infected, until at last the entire neighbourhood is a mass of disease; 2s<?#,^ndeed, it may be impossible to clean the sheep in that locality. In other words, if the one scabby squatter is not elevated to the condition of his purer neighbours, he will inevitably drag them down to his own unclean level.

If diseased sheep are permitted to continue in undisturbed possession of a number of runs in this province, it is perfectly useless to impose penalties on the driving- or permitting diseased sheep to stray. It will not protect the sheepowner, who at a great expenditure, of money and labour has got his stock in a healthy condition ; it will not prevent mischief being dove, it merely punisJies the doer, if he can be got hold of. This is no satisfaction to the injured neighbour ; he wants prevention of the injury hanging over him, not its punishment. To the larger majority of the stoekowners it is of the last importance that they should have at least the amount of protection they now enjoy. It may be possible in a, hilly country to carry on sheepfarming with diseased sheep, but the most practical .men amongst us agree that when the open plains, devoid of boundaries, are fully stocked, and the sheep have to be managed accordingly, it will not be possible to farm them to a profit, if they are generally infected with scab. It is, therefore, really a question whether the disease shall be kept down, or whether the bulk of the pastoral property of the province shall be rendered valueless, and its owners ruined.

IP the stockowncrs throughout the province were polled, they would be as 100 to 1 in favour of the present law, and grateful for the protection it affords them. If in any of its details it can he so modified as to relieve any ease of real hardship, they-would desire to see this modification introduced; but they Avould most strongly condemn any change which shall interfere with that fair protection, against an idle, ignorant neighbour, which the painstaking aud industrious owner of clean sheep has a right to demand. AN OWNER OF CLEAN" SHEEP. —; station, 3rd Oct., ISSO.

To the Editor of the " Jjy Helton Times." Sih.— Can you tell the members of the Church at Canterbury anything of the state of their Ecclesiastical property ? Do you kno;v at all how it is managed ? Does it produce the income it outfit to do ? Does it produce any income at all ? If so, is the income collected? How has it been spent ? Who are the managing Committee ? Have they published any balance sheet. ? Will they publish any P Is not a Bishop expected next month ? What state is the Bishopric Fnnd in ? Have not two years' income accumulated to the Fund? Where is it ?- Is it forthcoming on demand ? If you cannot answer these queries, will you state who can ? QUERIST.