Correspondence.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume X, Issue 3324, 2 October 1889, Page 3

Correspondence.

-. THE RABBIT MEETING, $ Not All Bosh.

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—Of the two hundred persons, mostly runholders and farmers, who constituted the meeting at the Theatre Koyal on the 25th ult, yon informed your readers that tliero was one individual from Iho country wlio ( «Ji'«ctcriscd the proceedings as " all wsh," I gather from the tone of your article under that heading that your sympathies lie in the direction of that neatly expressed sentiment rather than with the one hundred and ninety nino who supported the resolutions, a circumstance to bo regretted,inasmuch os every resolution makes a direct appeal to that love of justice and fair play by which most Englishmen pride themselves upon being animated, and should, I think, find its warmest support in tho press. It is to the press of the colony that the settlers look to see (hat such an Act as the Babbit Nuisanco Act, with such enormous powers, and possibilities for evil, is not abused. I take it, that certain prosecatiotis,whic'n savored very much of persecutions, coupled with other

~ indications as foreshadowed by your wnrticlo of 2nd September, pointed * directly to a reign of terror under tho regime of the Board about to bo elected, and these indications lnvc their confirmation in Mr W. Beetham'a /Jgltcr in your issue of 28th ultimo, iST'Olifton having been brought from a distance and appointed chief inspector, we bavo n right to suppose that ho lias been selected for his special fitness to be entrusted with the drastic powers placed at his command, and until he has had lime to justify or disprove by bis administration tho wisdom or otherwiso of the Govern, ment in his appointment, no steps should have been taken to supplant by a Babbit Board his local control of the Act in North Wairarapa. He should bavo had a fair trial, and to my mind a Board should havo been the alternative subject to bis administration resulting in failure. Ho acccptod a most onerous and invidious task, and should have had a freo hand to grapple with it. I am confident that ut very large majority of the settlers wero prepared to support him by vigorous action in any well concerted scheme for the suppression of the pest. Out before ho has had time to develop bis Diid show what ho is mado of, wa'tepa were taken, having for their |p object to deprive him of local control, ' which is to be transferred to an irresponsible Board, under whose rule it would appear from your article of 2nd Septembor that a raid upon the settlors had been pre-arranged, The recent inconsistent and indiscriminate prosecutions may be regarded as a foretaste of what is in reserve. In your artijlc so appropriately headed " All Bosh" you are pleased to say " givo Messrs Andrew, Meredith and Hogg all they demand and the process of exterminating the rabbit would bo arrested. Such a sentence as that I have just quoted may mean ' anything or nothing. If Messrs Andrew and Hogg have not made thomselves clear, and havo not justified their remarks in tho eyes of tho public and their fellow settlers, it is to be hoped they will supply the omission. For myself I do not wish to give out auy uncertain sound, and will therefore stato what I feel 1 Jj.'avo a right to "demand" for myself llnd my fellow-settlor at the hands of the Habbit Department: 1. That tho Department formulate apian ot combined action, which, il carried rigor- ®, ou6ly iuto citation, promises a fair prosJ- pcctotnltiKite success. v 2. That the settlers bo taken into the confidence of the department, as to the nature ol the such combined action, 3, That the department accept the same responsibilities ami obligations in its treatment of the Crown lands as it seeks to iujpoco on tho settlers.

■J. That tho Ilabbit Nuisance Act bo MB|k!jjpsl«rcd intelligently, impartially, and M'jßP&uc discrimination between those ••' P'faUoribrfho successfully nmke oil reasonable exertions to keep the rabbits in check, and thoso who are negligent and indiflcr-

cue. Jt 5. That tho subordinate officers shall not be incited to take action against settlors by fear of loss of office. 0, That some proper rules be laid down to guide Inspectors, and protect settlers against tho elasticity of Ik opinion of tk /njyjMfor—what constitutes iiwiiows-and as it has been admitted that extermination is impracticable,—what staff of rabbitcrs is to be maintained to a given area, or some other standard, that shall operate between the energetic settler and the penal clauses mi the Act, '9 r 1. 1 claim that the Act be so administered that it shall inspiro confidence by accomplishing tho largest amelioration of evil at the smallest infliction of individual injury, and this I venture to hope will be attained by recognising the strenuous exertions which a large majority of tho run holders have made and art making, an immunity from persecutions, and that the penal clauses of the Act bo only put in force against thoso whose persistent negligence imperils their own interests and those of their neighbours. . And now a word in criticism of Mr

Beßtham's letter of 28th September. ,Wv * i )ass . ovcr ll)C p° nion °f jt w i iicll deals with tho dato for a Mmultaneout, poisoning as a matter for direwion,

which may with advantage lm relegated to tlio Embryo lioard. It is ut mallei' of vital consequence as upon the suitability or othenviso of (he season, will depend the success or failure of that concerted action, which, including operations upon the infested Crown Lands, strikes at tho root of the evil. A poisoning which resulted in tho survival of 25 per cent of the rabbits would bo disastrous, as it is p'ovuil beyond controversion that. rabbits once scared by poison will not afterwords take it the sanio season. If your readers will refer to the slh find Otli consecutivo verses, ?nd nguin to tho 20th and 21st verses of the 119ih Psalm of our Church of England Uoolc of Common Prayer, they will observe a marked parallel i;i tinwidespread denunciations ol the Psalmist, winding up in verses 20 and 21, with a supplication fur treatment for No 1, and the admitted action of Mr Beetham in " having pokeil up tho inspectors because be believed it to bo for the good of the district," Hut list the inspectors should take too general a view of what Mr Bcethain " believes is good for the district," bo soft soaps them down a little, thus, " Mako friends of the inspectors; I hav6 a great respect for them all," Wo don't know how David's enemies got on under his amiablo invocations, nor do wo know to what extent bo roceived the favorable treatment lor which lie pleaded so fervently, but judging from the crop of indiscriminate prosecutions under the Rabbit Act it may be assumed that inspectors are acessiblei to denunciations, and possibly Rabbit Boards and their officers to prayer, or praise as the caso may be. Rabbit inspectors aro human, they and their families rcquirefoodandclothing,and if they have reason to believo that they bold thoir offices at the good will of any particular man, or men rather than in recognition of capability and integrity in tho discbargo of thoir duties, the department will be demoralised and paralysed for all good. Mr Beetham admits there was an error in judgment in prosecuting Mr McGregor, for not having any rabbits at all, but I think the prosecutors of Mrs Armstrong through her manager was equally reprehensible, and thoso of Messrs Maunsell, Elder and Levin have sounded tho note of alarm and distrust throughout the district.— Yours, Edwin Meredith,