Monday, June 25, 1849.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume V, Issue 407, 27 June 1849, Page 2

Monday, June 25, 1849.

The Council met at 2 p.m. ' The Lieutenant- Governor laid on the' table a copy of the Blue Book 'fo'r*the'year

1848. His Excellency said the reason of bis doing 1 so at so late a period of the s.'tsion was, that the printed forms were o ily deceived in April last, and many of the returns had to be procured from distant settlements. His Excellency also laid on the table the account of the total revenue for 1848, having received from Otago the returns relative to that settlement. His Excellency observed that the revenue .was upwards of £18,000, and, therefore, he thought that in estimating it for the current year at j£l 9,000 he had not exceeded the probability. In the absence of Dr. Monro, Mr. Seymour moved the second reading of the Dog Nuisance Bill. Dr. Greenwood said that the Bill having been brought in at so late a period in the session, he thought that some reason ought r to have been given for its introduction, especially as there was already one Bill on the subject. The principal objection which had been urged against that Bill, was, that the -Police did not do then duty, and only took small and inoffensive dogs. He thought the sheep owners would take care to kill all dogs in the" country which were likely to be injurious to them, and the Bill did not affect dogs belonging to the Maories, which were the most troublesome. Another objection to it was that it was the first internal tax in this country, and on general principles he should oppose a tax which was not to be applied by the parties who paid it. The Colonial Secretary said that the best answer to the hon. member's first objection was, that the present bill had now been four years in existence, and had been attempted to be put in force but without success. He thought the fault could not always rest with the police. It was certainly a fault of the bill that it lempted the police to take up harmless dogs in order to make money for themselves, the consequence of which was that the public became disgusted with the bill. With regard to the country, the only law there was club law, and if that was found to act well it was a reason for legalizing it, and not allowing a thing which was beneficial to the community to be contrary to the law. With respect to Maori dogs, also, that objeciion could be discussed in committee, and in the towns he believed the Maoris must be liable if the bill was to be put in operation at all. It was only on Saturday last -that that he and the Attorney General were accosted by a gentleman who had lost several sheep by dogs, and who charged them (the Colonial Secretary and the Attorney General) with great dereliction of duty in not putting a stop to the nuisance. With regard to the objection to internal taxation, this could only be considered in the light of a penalty, as it was not for the purpose of raising money but of abating a nuisance. He hoped the bill would go through the second reading and it could then be discussed in committee Mr. Ludlam thought it would be well if the bill was subject to the same restrictions as the road bill, that, at the request of a majority of Magistrates, it could be put in force, but not otherwise. He considered the loss caused by Maori dogs to be enormous, and he thought the Government could do a great deal to abate the nuisance by representing to the Maories the damage which was caused by their keeping so many dogs. - The Lieutenant-Governor said that with regard to the taxation ofmaori'dogs, he was bound to state that the Government could not, and would not, sanction it. He would remind the Council that the recent insurrection in Ceylon arose from the imposition of a, dog tax, and he thought such a tax on Mauri dogs would be very objectionable heie, where the Maories had been accustomed to .keep several dogs for so many years. -.-,-, - Mr. Moore said that with regard to what his Excellency had said respecting Maori dogs, he thought such an exemption would render the bill almost useless. There was a great deal in the bill he did not approve of.' , For instance, every dog might be killed which-was not registered ; now, how could it be ■ ascertained whether a dog was registered on not, was the dog to carry the register about 1 with him ? He thought the sum of ten shillings Would be a very heavy tax, on many poor persons who kept dogs for useful purposes, such as for Watch dogs, or^for driving, cattle. He did not think the bill would work well in its present form. The Attorney-General thought there was no difficulty as to the registration, as a person cpuld easily ascertain if a dog was registered ; if not, he might kill it. With regard to the. Dog Nuisance Bill at present in operation, the Maori police thought they were executing their duty by enticing dogs into the street with pieces of meat ; he re-, membered one day seeing a little dog in Mrs. Miller's garden; a Maori policeman was trying to entice it oat, and a little boy

was protecting the dog, and calling on the bystanders, who drove away the policeman. ; As for the Maori dogs, they were only wanted for the purpose of driving pigs, andthey were not required for that purpose in the town. He thought it would be very easy to persuade the Maories that if they have the advantage of living in the town, they must be subject to the laws. He had spoken to several persons on the subject who spoke the Maori language, and had been living with Maories, and who expressed their opinion that the law would not be objectionable. He thought it would be a great triumph for that Council to break through the custom of excepting Maories from all law, as if they were an inferior people, whereas in all other cases there was much said about their sagacity and superiority to all other savages. He was of opinion that the Jaw might be made both simple and effective. His Excellency said he understood the Attorney- General to confine his remarks to the Maories in the neighbourhood of the town, but he understood the original proposition to include Maories everywhere. As far as he had time to consider the subject, he did not object to include the Maories living in the town, but with regard to the country districts, where the natives kept a great many dogs for the purposes of hunting pigs ; he thought it would be a positive injustice to tax them, and for this reason, he did not think the Government ought to put such a bill in operation. Dr. Greenwood moved that the bill be read again that day three months. He said he would lake that opportunity of answering a few of the remarks which had been made on it. In the first place, with regard to what his Excellency had said, he observed that in the old dog' ordinance there was no distinction between dogs belonging to the natives in the town and those belonging to the European population. If he thought the bill wh eh was objected to had been in operation four or five years, and that it was found impossible to enforce it, that would be an objection to it; but he believed it was the great amount of ridicule which prevented the police from putting it in force. If, as the Attorney- General had stated, a Maori policeman had endeavoured to entice an eld 1 >dy's dog out of her garden, it would only be necessary to instruct them better in their duty. He thought if a man found a dog worrying his sheep that he would destroy the animal, even if the law made it penal to do k>. With regard to the Maories, he happened to know that the Maories in his neighbourhood, when it was explained to them that they would have to pay five shillings for each of their dogs, replied, that in that case they should kill all their dogs, thus shewing that they had no objection to the law. Indeed, some Maories had come to him the other day, and said that they wished to be under British law just the same as Europeans ; that they could not understand the distinctions which were made. Mr. Hickson seconded the amendment. He objected to there being one law for the natives and another for the Europeans. The bill itself was objectionable on account of its arbitrary provisions. The report of the sub- committee on the bill concluded with these -words :—": — " We are aware that the method we suggest is contrary to the law of England as it at present stands, but we suggest that it is precisely one of those cases in which the peculiar circumstances of the colony warrant such a departure." He could not understand how those gentlemen (among whom, he believed, was the Attor-ney-General), could propose a law which was contrary to the law of England. The amendment was put and lost, and the original question being carried, the bill was read a second time, and the Council resolved itself into Committee upoD it. The Committee having considered the clauses of the bill, the Council resumed, and adjourned until Thursday next.