The Manawatu Herald. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER120, 1890. The Rabbit Nuissance Act.

Manawatu Herald, Volume III, Issue III, 20 November 1890, Page 2

The Manawatu Herald. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1 20, 1890. The Rabbit Nuissance Act.

I • -J-Vf j The. minority m, Parliament who voted against the third reading of the I above mentioned Aot, did so more as a popular .tbjng, in ,view/ of the approaching- election, under ,fche plea thati-the y. were championing I the cause, of the small settler. A calm perusal of the Act and the debate in the House j will show, that though the' .-.lS';'

Act is very stringent in its provisions against the spread of rabbits, it is a great improvement upon the one superseded, and scoured the smaller landowner against the infliction of ft fine out of proportion to the area of land he holds. The clause dealing with penalties directs the convicting Justices to *' ' take into consideration the area of land on which the defendant has failed to destroy the rabbits, and make the penalty to be inflicted proportionate to such area." That hardly bears out the assertion that the, large. landowners framed the Act;. in protection of their own pockets. Intheir own, and every settler's interests, the large landowners have supported the Act, as it must be a matter /known to all that the depredations of the rabbits seriously affects 1 the great wool export. One member, with a knowledge of the subject, mentioned the annual loss to amount to a million pounds sterling. It must be patent to every thinking person that a million loss of revenue must mean a heavy decrease in expenditure on labour. The taxpayers have also a direct interest in this question, as they are "large land-owners-through holding unsold land, and that to protect the settlers, the Government have been at a great expense in erecting a rabbit proof boundary fence.;, Now if people are lost to all sense of honesty and consideration to others, and, as it has ieen shown, deliberately remove rabbits from infested districts to clean districts, and break down fences erected against these animals, so as to cause loss to the adjoining owners, they deserve to be punished, and this is what the act provides for. The farmers in the South Island have presented many petitions to Parliament for an Act of this nature, and ■it will be clearly understood by any practical man, how much more mischief rabbits can do to crops than they can inflict on grass. The farmers are therefore bound to feel very strongly about this, nuisance. The Act is therefore of much value to them, as it gives, the Inspector I more power, and throws the onus of proof upon the landowner, thus making him show that he has no rabbits, instead, of the small man having to prove that the rabbits are upon his property. It also permits him being able to call iipdn his neighbour to share half the cost of erecting a rabbit proof fence-for the protection of his crops. The Act is not near the selfish measure it has-been represented to be, and it -appears to be qne—ver^. much needed *ih the other Island. But in- whatever way the Act is viewed the mere, fact whether Mi 1 J . G. Wilson vdted\foiv orl against it* would not have affected its .becoming law, as 43 voted fo^itlalid only 38 against it. As a' master 'of fact, Mr "Wilson, owing/ to •^indisposition,; did not vote at all. ' '■ ~ '