THE STANDARD. SATURDAY, MARCH 22, 1873.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 37, 22 March 1873, Page 2

THE STANDARD.

SATURDAY, MARCH 22, 1873.

“ We shall sell to no man justice or right: We shall deny to no man justice or right: We shall defer to no man justice or right.”

If the flockowners of Poverty Bay, and the surrounding district are wise, they will not confine the object of the meeting, called for next Saturday, to merely “ discussing the question of Sheep Inspectorship.” That, no doubt, in the altered circumstances of the place, and the peculiar conditions under which the duties belonging to that office have hitherto been performed, —is an important matter, but we suggest that there are others still more so. The employment of a good cook is an equally important matter with some, but that important functionary must not be expected to perform the proverbial feat of making soup from a stone, with more success than others. A cook is useless if there’s nothing for him to cook with. If his utepsils are leaky or otherwise unserviceable, his labors are in vain. It boots us little to set watch and ward for the coming of the thief, unless all the ways of his approach are guarded, and even then a prudent man w ill neither charge with blank cartridge nor damp powder. But these idle precautions, taken by those who localize their ideas too much, represent pretty fairly the position of the Mieep-farmers here under the Provincial Sheep Act,

as it stands at the present moment ; and from causes arising from' their own inertness. ’ ; These remarks are 'peculiarly pertinent just now, as the Inspector’s hands are completely tied; and the action he should take, and dqubtless will, must necessarily be nullified by the insufficiency of th< means at his command. It is our purpose now to point out what that insufficiency is. - The framers of the existing Acts had 'Gut one idea, and that tras the “ land- “ ing” of sheep imported-from some place “ without the: province of Auckland,” by sea-borne traffic. The province ” of A twkland had not then, as now, well-,, stoeked sheep-runs, .at the extremity of its boundary, bordering on other provinces ; the foot-rot disease was not so wide spread as now. But, as during the p'a*t year, stock has been pretty freely driven across the border, from Hawke’s Bay, to the Waikato and the Thames —knowing, as we do, that His Honor the Superintendent has given his opipion, that, while foot-rot sheep require permission to be “ landed,” they not only require no such permission to be driven by land, but that if they be diseased, there is no authority to either stay their progress, or to enforce a penalty on entering a district —we confess to’no little surprise that the G-overn-ment have not amended the law dealing with so important a subject. Yet so it is. The “ Sheep Act, 1363 ” provides a penalty for either landing or 'driving without authority, but confines itself entirely to scab! The “ Sheep Amend- “ ment Act. 1871 ” includes “ scab, footrot, and other infectious diseases,” in the penalty clauses, but is silent about the driving ! The most learned casuists differ, and as one lawyer has expressed himself adversely to the Superintendent’s opinion, it may be useful to quote the difficulty under consideration-. The Amendment Act says : —“ No sheep, in “ course of transmission from without “ the province of Auckland, shall be “ landed in any place within the province “ without permission, &e.” An idea throughout all the clauses in the Amendment Act prevails, that only one means of transmission was likely to bring sheep into the province, and that was by water ; and the difficulty is cer-. tainly not decreased by finding that the two Acts are to be read and construed togethei’ as part of, and in connection with, each other. But, right or wrong, the Inspector here is fortified by His Honor’s opinion ; and in the meantime sheep infected with foot-rot can be driven overland without let or hindrance. That’s one leaky side of the Act. The other has been demonstrated here within the last few days. One of the vessels,, recently arrived, brought a cargo of sheep, under a clean certificate from the Inspector at Napier. They were landed at Gisborne before Mr. Scott’s arrival in town, in contravention of the Act; and, on inspection, he declares them diseased with foot-rot. This, course, very clearly, lays, not only the owner but all engaged in landing the sheep open to a heavy penalty; but the leak, the blank cartridge, the damp powder, are observable, in so far as our Inspector would have been in a maze of dilemma had he seen them before lauding. It was impossible for him to give permission to land the sheep because they were unclean; and he could not quarantine them, there being no quarantine ground appointed under the Act, thus throwing it on the owners to do, as they have done, —land them and trust to Providence for the consequences. But here we fall foul of another hitch. The Act of 1863 provides only for “ sheep infected with the disease called Scab,” being quarantined ; so that, as the law is at present interpreted, and carried out, foot-rot sheep may be driven overland into the province without redress; and may be water-borne, with this ludicrous alternative, that as the Inspector can neither give a clean certificate, nor quarantine them, the owner can return whence he came, of disembark his flock and iriciir a possible penalty of £lO0 * Are we wrong in drawing attention to this matter? Is it not time that the doubts which clog the free interpretation and effective working - of our sheep laws, wejfe cleared up ? And again we interrogate,—ls not the dinner of greater consideration than the cook ? Are. not the principles

■ spr —r of the laws/'upoiyr* hie h the sheep traffic of th® country is regulated, of more importance than the subsidiary question of who 1 is to administer them ? We pause for a reply. '