Manamatu Herald. SATURDAY, JUNE 24,i 1893. The Stock Bill.

Manawatu Herald, 24 June 1893, Page 2

Manamatu Herald. SATURDAY, JUNE 24,i 1893. The Stock Bill.

Last Saturday a meeting of the general committee of the Egmont A. & P. Association was held to receive the report of the sub-com-mittee on the Stock Bill proposed to be passed at the ensuing session of Parliament. The sub-committee reported against levying any further tax, pointing out, as we have done before, that it having been originally imposed for the eradication of scab, and this disease did not now exist, the tax for that purpose is not required ; and moreover any tax on stock is a class tax, and therefore unjust. Thej also showed that the proposal as to branding was practically impossible. After a long conversation, reported in the Hawera Stari it was decided to lay the report' aside, as the whole thing was absurd from beginning to end. Mr Maorea, a well-known farmer, put the questhus :~The question was whether the bill was required at all or not, and in his opinion it was not Some of its proposals were harmless and as useless as they were harmless ; others were of a different character and interfered in a very arbitrary manner with the rights of the people, so that he did not believe the Act would be workable at all, ' He specially objected to the provisions that restricted people's rights to usa the roads within specified hours. He for one objected to any such restriction being put upon him, and claimed the right to use a road whenever it suited his convenience. He did not believe that people in New Zealand would submit to that, and at anyrate he hoped the meeting would declare emphatically against it. Hitherto laws have been passed for the protection of rogues ; but this bill seemed to be aimed at the convenience of honest men. If legislation were required to put down cattle-stealing it should be in the direction of making the punishment for such offence of a more deterrent character. For instance, if flogging were added to the punishment he made bold to say that cattle-scealing would not be heard much more of. Another thing was that it was the duty of the Government to give the settlers whatever proteotion^thiiy' required. The Government took taxes from them and raised money for the purpose of providing' paeans to meet all demands made on the public purse for the maintenance of law and order, and for the protection of their lives and property,* and J therefore fcbey had a right to look ' t to j IU« ttevwnmsat fov proueUon. If

necessary the police force should be' increased by men specially fitted to j deal -with this particular class of crimes , The President followed and showed there was already sufficient provision in the existing law ; and an auctioneer could not keep a registry of "brands.- ■ It wag- ■ the height of absurdity. There were, .many defects in the bill, which Was quite unsuitable to this part of the colony". You* could not muster or move cattle without giving your neighbours 'notice; /and -:i he objected to the many proposed interferences with individual rights. We were living'in. the age of Socialism and we would soon be ordered by law to go to bed [at seven o'clock at night. As to branding, the limit of ten miles was purely arbitary. He agreed that more police protection was required. The present cattle cases would cost the Government ,£BOOO. Interest on that money would have paid a man who would have prevented the need for , the expenditure and would have saved the settlers their cattle. . We have, in this Bill, a capital illustration of the one-sided way settlers are. treated. A tradesman in a town has confidence that every care will be taken that his property is secured and that,' without being called upon to pay any other poundage on the value or number of the articles of which he is possessed. The farmer is treated very differently, the Government by this Bill informing them that if they want their property looked after they must be prepared not only too pay increased taxes but must also place themselves under very harassing restrictions even in the moving about from place to place of their own property. The Bill shows how little inclined the Government are to mete out even-handed justice to country settlers, but unfortunately it has been shown in so many other ways before that we cannot sav we are surprised at it. To reasonable persons it would appear not to be an extra-ordinary use of their powers, if, in the districts in which stock stealing is going on,. a few detectives were specially employed to aid the settlers. We are not in Ireland and we are not, from any unlawful acts of our own, called upon to pay a special police tax, as even now the most of the time of the. police is employed in the towns, yet, when an occassioa arises that some police are wanted in the country, settlers are informed, " oh !you mustpayfor this." It is not the country settlers who make the criminals, many may possibly have come over in that 11 returning tide"*; about which the Government" have been pluming themselves over for so long. To see the matter in the light that a country settler does, a Bill should be introduced into Parliament calling upon every retailer to pay so much on every pound weight of heavy goods he sold, and a percentage on the lighter and more valuable stock, that every article should be legible branded before leaving his store, that every purchaser should give a detailed account of his income, and should be searched before he left the store, 'and: that he should not purchase anything after an hour which would prevent him from reaching home before it got dark. And that no storekeeper should be allowed to despatch agaarcel after dark, or at any time until the nearest constable had placed his brand upon, and entered up particulars of its contents , and value. Of course this would fee extremely vexations and foolish, bufc.it is very much how the Government wants to treat the country settler; rather than 'provisionally increase the police force.