DESTROYING OF-WILD SHEEP.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 5, Issue 1520, 27 October 1883, Page 2

DESTROYING OF-WILD SHEEP.

(to the edueor.) ■':; Sir,—A copy of correspondence on the matter of destroying wild sheep tho Star o'f Ihe 20th inst. Seeing theio arc nearly 100,000 sheep in this district entirely shut out of the market it must be generally admitted to bo a serious draw-back to the dis- •* trictgenerally. that scab exists for some months out of sheep, If this bo the case it is doubly necessary that it be disposed of at any expense, so as to keep it, out of the reach of spiteful individuals, It is already a puzzle how this disease seems to be found in certain places, I glean that steps were taken about two years ago by Mr Sutton, and that.ia February last a bonus of ss' .per- head was > added for all sheep killed. But we have no idea if these sheep' have been workedregukly or otherwise: whether in the end to increase the number or diminish thorn. As'..we know, jliese sheep. JM-faat.". We do not hear how many men are at work: we hear no particulars whatever. "Who is to say if this is taken in hand systematically? or if some one, jutt whn ajit taheshm, combines a little pleasure of hunting - with'profitl Who.is to say that »■-■ good thing, is not made' of it by receiving 5s per head, for killing sheep, with heavy fleeces. My own idea is that"six months should have sufficed for destroying all the wild sheep if it had been done In a proper manner, Persons so occupied should have a tent and remove their oamp from time to.time, and it would be strange to me if three men with dogs would not destroy every sheep in three months, It is quite time play should: cease, and work, in earnest, take its place, laa,k, 0.

(to THE KDITon.) Sir,—l was much surprised on read ing yeiu- report of th,e last meeting of, the Borough Council, in noticing the peculiar ruling of His Worship the Mayor. The interpretation he puts on Clause 75 of the Municipal Cor- • porations Act seems to me to be entirely wrong, and if so it is evident to my mind that the resolution carried by a then minority of the Counqil, should be reconsidered. I am of course referring to that portion of the Council's proceedings which relates to the forming, metalling, and 1 makbwof---footpaths in Villa-street. Cr Xo» as a property holder on this particular street, is forbidden to vote on th» question, or rather cautioned against so doing, on the ground of violating this particular, clause, and subjecting himself to the penalty, in consequence of which certain works whuih it 'was desirable should have been gone on with, were negatived.- '• I would point out that if Cr Lowes, in voting upon this question violated.., the Act then it has been violated times innumerable,, |Did Cr'.Gapper vote on the question or making Victoria and Albert-streets'? \Did Or McCardle vote on the question of making Nursery-street? Did Or Rubsell vote on tho; question of making Sigh-street footpath and drain 1 Kd Cr Renall vote on the. question of making Chapel-street? Have'not all Councillors whoße interest is more .immediately in Queetatreet, from time to time voted upon the question of repairing Ac. of this street for their better business convenience, as well as for the general good. I say this is quite proper, too. If Cr Lowes was voting upon a question as between bis own private property and the; Council, then I could'understand % objeotjon, but under the present he, (Cr. to appear not to havejie sljhis r'eprfr sent.the.peMons whoisvjp eloctod him to.be their fopreWaflvft--<-'The r<Ssvs ;in quMoads a road : and of! genera%tility.: I trust '' principle;-will open the question. again i, for the satisfaction of the ritepayejs generally,—l am, &&,