THE Mount Ida Chronicle FRIDAY, MAY 2, 1873.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume IV, Issue 218, 2 May 1873, Page 4

THE Mount Ida Chronicle FRIDAY, MAY 2, 1873.

Tile importance of tbe question must be oar apology for again reverting to the much-disputed subject of Commonage. The Municipal Council have fairly grappled the question in the only practical way, by endeavoring to get at the real mind of the district. Their Committee appointed;to deal with the matter have drawn up a list of questions which, we understand, are to /be circulated to-morrow among all those who may. be supposed to have some knowledge of the question, and who also hold some interest at stake. These questions take a very comprehensive view.of the whole subject, including the difficulties that are in the way. First and foremost comes the plain question, Is a Commonage desirable ? Then, if so, iu what locality ? Opinions are also freely asked as to the suitability of tbe land around Naseby. for a purpose, and, failing that, the suitability of other localities. Circulars are to be forwarded to the Eyeburn Diggings, " Hill's Creek, St. Bath ana, Blacks, Hamilton, and Sowhurn, for the purpose of ascertaining tbe opinion of those as to the desirability or otherwise of endeavoring: to obtain a large block of land for the general purposes of the district—srich block to be alienated from the rune and dealt [ with under depasturing regulations. | The answers returned to these circulars will be looked for with great interest, and will be the first papers of value ever yet obtained on .this troublesome yet very necessary question. Many of our j readers' will be aware that some yearsf ago a' Coinmbnage was proclaimed at the Diinstan/aud yet no district has been so "troubled or annoyed- by the continued impounding of c.attle and horses than tbe immediate neighborhood of Clyde; nor has it been found/ practicable to keep the stock on the common. This is easily explained, /for, at the very first, this common, set aside for the public, was monopolised by owners of sheep, whose flocks ate the herbage completely bare, and constantly exasperated the runholders by mixing their mongrel flocks. This was done in a perfectly legal way. The commonage laws as at present.existing appear to give no facilities for the prevention of" a repetition of a similar mal-appropriation of the public estate. We are not aware of a single district that bas received the privileges of a Commonage—pure 7 and simple—that has reaped benefits at all 'in proportion ;to the annoyances created. In 1865, members of the Wakatip district i roused themselves to tbe necessity of some provision being made for their stock, for which then-—-as now in Naseby—no legal rights existed. They obtained, as the result of their agitation, the cancellation of a number of runs which were reserved fsr that Goldfield, and were to form a large block of country to be administered under "Depasturing Regulations." These regulations were drawn up in a somewhat J ax manner^—an unlimited right of depasturing; seems to have been allowed—and now that the - stock has so increased that, as Mr. ITallenstein said lately, " scarcely a fat beast was " to be found," a difficulty as to the curtailment of flocks and herds occurs. Indeed, matters have come to this, that a Commission has just concluded a most exhaustive inquiry as to whether the only .source left open is not to sell the runs again. This need not have been the cjtse had proper ca.re been originally taken, and.the experi-

rience of the Wakatip is now historical and for our guidance. We have not the least doubt that, if a large block of country could be alienated in this district, and placed under careful regulations, a great and incalculable boon would be conferred upon the inhabitants. There can be no question but that if the unanimous voice of the greater part of the district /were directed for the purpose of gaining such a block," it would be listened to. Directly, such a block could be Biade to return quite as good a revenue as it does at present—while indirectly the benefit reaped, would be very great—the runholders too, being properly compensated, would have no reason to complain, and would-be relieved from the necessity "that is almost laid upon them, of protecting themselves "by a resort to the Impounding Ordinance. If; the result of the enquiry now set on foot should show that the immediate neighborhood of Naseby is unsuitable for such a purpose, we do not know that" there could be much to fear in fixing upon a locality elsewhere. There can be very little doubt th at, i f the runholders in the vicinity of the township were relieved from the constant threat of losing their ground, they would enter into an agreement with the Government not to molest the cows actually in milk, and the single horses of bona 'fide residents in and around such townships. The dry stock and young ones would have to be kept on the Common or Hundred, wherever it might be, it. being the ranger's duty to see that this .was done. It is very desirable that this, question should be considered coollyj and dealt with with i reason and judgmentj rather than in | heat and passion. In obtaining the | opinion of the district, the Council pro- ! bably have seized the only practicable mode of arriving at a solutiou that will be satisfactory, and prove a law(■ ag beiiefit to the district. Our views will not, we are aware, meet the ideas of mauy who would be content to obtain a narrow strip of ground sufficient for their individual cattle to exist upon. Wo go much further than that. We say that the cattle and horses of a . large Goldfield, (returning one member to the Assembly, and two to the Provincial Council), should have every facility for grazing, not only sufficient for them to drag out a miserable, lean existence upon, but enough to enable,, any owner of a cow or two to make a little yearly profit out of the sale of his young stock to the butcher. Depend upon it, if a block cannot be obtained, on which the cattle of those who make use of it will prove profitable, the district is better without it, that is to say as' a legal right, for the vagueness of Qiir present position is a certain amount of protection; whiLe, if a Common be once defined, and that Common should prove unsuitable, no mercy would beshownto stock infringing the boundaries, and our present umbrella, of shadowy uncertainty would be destroyed —no jury could very well fail to bring in a verdict of felo cle se.