The Standard. (PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY, AND SATURDAY.) TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1874.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume II, Issue 148, 17 March 1874, Page 2

The Standard. (PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY, AND SATURDAY.)

TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1874.

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

On Saturday, the 28th of March, J. Woodbine Johnson, Esq. wishes those of the settlers, who are interested in the agitation, relative to the Fencing Act, which has been occupying the public mind for a long time, to meet him in the Court House at Gisborne, to explain their views. We have taken opportunity before this to commend the activity displayed by our new member in his praiseworthy endeavour to become acquainted with the wishes and wants of the electors, and this last appeal for tile mutual consideration of a question which must, in the nature of things, contain elements of disagreement, should meet with a cordial and general response. Anv proposed alteration that may be desired to be effected in the Fencing Act, as it stands at present, should be well discussed previous to the meeting, L r the furtherance of which we need not say that our columns are always open. It is a matter that, perhaps, on the whole, interests country settlers more than town residents, although the necessities of the latter, admittedly differ from those of the former. The varying features of a country settler’s avocations necessarily require that concessions shall be made to suit the particular circumstances of each. The primitive Fencing Act (1855) now in force is far behind the present circumstances of the province, and should be repealed as a whole, or the patching of so old a garment will prove a troublesome job. Thus, we notice a wire fence, —so necessary for sheepfarmers —is not catalogued amongst the “ substantial fences” under clause 21. This, we opine, will be the prime difficulty to get over, and Mr. Johnson deserves well of the settlers in bringing it forward in time, so that any line of action he may be compelled to to take in the Council may not be misinterpreted. Whichever side his vote is cast on, he can hardly escape the suspicion of “ class ” voting, because the runholding interest—with which he is intimately connected, and which he will naturally uphold — clashes (as far as the ftneing question is concerned) with the small farming and grazing interest, of which he is the political representative. Holders of large tracts of land, occupied by sheep, may require an eight or nine wire sheep-proof fence, comparatively costly as against what his neighbours’ want, who have, perhaps, only large cattle, or crops to fence in, and it would seem to be obviously unfair to make the lesser pay for the greater. Again, it would be hard on a cattle grazier, with long boundary fences, to make him pay for the extra security required for his neighbours’ sheep, for we hold it to be right that the onus of fencing should fall on the settler who has to keep stock in, and not call ou his neighbour to fence his stock out, which he would virtually do if compelled to divide the cost of a fence beyond his requirements. Runholders are, at present, subject to the conditions of the Fencing Act; and, as a protective clause, exempting them from the necessity to fence against a number of small holders, will be brought under consideration, it will require much legislative tact and judgment to avoid a collision. A good deal of time might be saved if preliminary meetings were held in each convenient centre, for the purpose of electing one or two gentlemen to draft such alterations as he or they might deem fit; and for the whole to "meet and agree as to what alterations should be recommended for support at the general meeting. The time is certainly short, but we feel confident Mr. Johnson will bend to the wishes of the settlers, if a postponement is considered necessary.