Untitled

Lyttelton Times, Volume VI, Issue 416, 29 October 1856, Page 5

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sir, —Since I last wrote to you, there have appeared several letters upon the subject of the Scab Ordinance; upon one of them I ask your permission to make a few observations, "An Tnexpei-ienced Owner of Clean Sheep," treats the subject in a creditable spirit of moderation, but proposes what: appears to me an utterly impracticable remedy. His proposal really amounts to this, that a society of sheepowners should be called upon to furnish to the inexperienced owner of scabby sheep the funds, i the materials, ;a,nd the experience required for 5 cleaning his flock. I venture to suggest^that I these are all weapons with which the individual I sheepowner himself is bound to be provided. If | from want of these, he is visited with penalties, I he must blame, not the law, but the imprudence -J which induced him to undertake the management of sheep, without'sufficient capital or suffi- | cient knowledge of the business. ISTor can he I reasonably expect that the misfortunes resulting | from this imprudence should be laid on the. I shoulders of his neighbours instead of on his I own; But money, materials, experience, are of Ino avail, without unceasing -energy; and care; Iyour correspondent seems to recognize this, I when he says, " such flocks also to be under the I inspection or direction of the committee." Let I me ask him to consider whether this would not I virtually be taking the management of the sheep I out of the owner's hands, and entail upon the committee every responsibility connected with them, including the fines and penalties. Would it encourage individual exertion, or would it not rather be a premium to the idle or incompetent manager, who, as soon as his sheep were found \to be diseased, would throw all further trouble i upon the committee ? Could any committee ; whom we are likely to get, efficiently perform 1 the duties proposed to bo assigned to it? These are a few among very many reasons why the plan proposed by "An Inexperienced Owner &c." would never work. The same coi-respondent complains that I draw no line between culpability and misfortune. Will he tell mo how this is to be done ? Everj man threatened with a penalty sets down his failure to inisfoHun". ; whereas, in 99 cases out of 100, it is really owing to some negligence or mistake in the manngement of the shoop. This, however, the Magistrates have no satisfactory means of ascertaining, and they can, therefore, only judge of the stockowner's conduct by its result; in nearly every case this is a fair test. One more reference and I drop.the subject, I trust for good. The writer I have before, alluded to says "it can hardly bei'ight to bring certain and doionrigM ruin upon A, because there is a chance of A injuring B. This is not putting tho case as it really stands; thovo is nothing like certain ruin to A, and a great deal more than a chance of his injuring B. Ample time is given to A to clean his sheep, and, if he does not do so, he has to pay a heavy penalty.

Does tills ruin him ? Let us see ! Until within the last month, the penalty had been inflicted in two cases in thisi province, and in neither of them has there been any occasion to repeat it; in both instances the sheep are now clean ! It is, of course, possible to imagine a case in which the present law may be productive of great hardship; but it has' been in operation for upwards of two years, and has done much good, without, so far as I can hear, producing any such case. The real alternative is,—notthat suggested above, but it is this—whether, in a possible case, great hardship shall be inflicted upon A, or whether B and all his neighbours shall be exposed to the certainty of almost incalculable mischief.

I quite agree with the opinion expressed in your leading article, that this question is one which must be left to the decisions of the stockowners themselves. " They are generally satisfied with thelaw'as it is, and, therefore, like most persons so situated, we hear little of them as a body. When an opportuity, however, does arise, (as the meeting at the Royal Hotel), for eliciting this opinion, it is given in an unmistakeable manner. It is also well known that the oldest, and perhaps the most extensive sheepowner in the "province has repeatedly expressed his'determination to sell out immediately, if the protection afforded by the existing law w.ere withdrawn. ; "■ I am, Sir, Your obedient servant, Ax Owner of Clean Sheep. 25th Oct., 1856.