COMMONAGE FOR NASEBY.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume IV, Issue 217, 25 April 1873, Page 5

COMMONAGE FOR NASEBY.

(To the Editor of the Mount Ida Cheonicee.) Sib, —In your issue of-the 11th instant I observe a letter signed "Pro Bono Publico," in reply to one of mine addressed to you some time ago, on the subject of commonage for JSTaseby. " P. B. P." is evidently, very much annoyed at what he is pleased to term my " insulting and inaccurate production," but the fact is my production contained arguments which are accurate, and as he cannot refute them", he only snaps and snarls. You undoubtedly have observed, Mr. Editor, that here in our " mountain city," where one would expect to find harmony and unanimity of opinion, the greatest difference prevails. <-' Whenever any great question is raised, there are always some firebrands to bake it up, who, instead of discussing the matter impartially and. deliberately, jump at false conclusions, and probably finish up with a free indulgence in personalities. " P. B. P." is, however, in error as to whom " Miner " is, as he also is in stating that only two parties refused to sign the petition for a commonage. What he says about- a dairyman having to pay two separate squatters 18s. 6d. per head for the same mob of cattle in one year, conveys an impression which is not quite correct. . I understand the facts are —a certain dairyman took a mob of his cattle to a run outside the district, and paid in advance 15s. per head to have them grazed there for a year, but the cattle did not take time to find that they were put upon luxuriant pasturage, but followed back in the steps of their lord I and master to Naseby, where, upon one of jthe neighboring runs, they continued to I graze, and where, of course, they should be paid for. " Pro Bono Publico," finishes up by throwing out what he considers a tempting bait to our Superintendent, but Mr. Macandrew is too old a fish to be caught with anything so very fishy. I find I am ' occupying too much of your space in commenting on a letter which gives no evi-dence-as to whether a commonage should or should not be ; but, please permit me to comment a little on the wise and deliberative suggestions you made in your issue of the 11th instant, on the subject. You imply "that though JNaseby is unfortunately situated in a locality around which for many miles the land is unsu.it-1 able for the grazing of great cattle, yet that should not debar us from having grazing land elsewhere. If the JNaseby and St.' Bathans districts united and applied for a piece of good ground between them, they would no doubt get it. The Government would, however, be justified in refusing to grant a common where the land is unsuitable, as it would only become a grievance at a future date. We do not want a common on the bare dry flats of Maniototo, where, for a considerable part of the year, our cattle and horses could not get water to drink. : Neither do we want one where for another very considerable portion of the year all vegetation is deeply immersed in snow. So, since we cannot have one hi our immediate neighborhood, let us go in for a really good bit of country. If the districts of St. Bathans and Naseby join their forces and agitate for a commonage between them } the most suitable and central locality would ■ be Ida Valley—-a great part of which is only adapted for the grazing of great cattle. There grass and water are abundant all the year round,.and there snow never lies for many days. A commonage in this locality —extending down Ida Yalley for a certain distance, and taking in the township "of Hills Creek, would certainly be most beneficial to both districts. I am yours, &c, Mineb. [We never said—or implied rather —

tl-.at the country around TTascby was unsuitable for grazing great entile.' j\ r o doubt it is not hrst rate for such a purpose. Our idea was rather that a block of country of a greater extent and of better qualitywould be more easily obtained, if it satisfied the requirements of Naseby, St. Bathans, Rough Ridgo, and Hills Creelr. - Ed. M.I.C.]