CORRESPONDENCE.

Waikato Times, Volume V, Issue 290, 21 March 1874, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

[We do not necessarily endorae tha opinionß expressed by our oocreipondenta.]

(To the Editor of the Waikato Times). Sib, — The remarks on fencing in the accompanying letter from the Cahfornian oorreipondent of the London Times, dited November 6th, give me the idea of addressing you as the edit^fof the journal of the principal agricultural district j>H)ie njovinos of Auckland, in the hope that you will oblige ,fa«> byCrepriotitg that portion of the letter on fencing, and ■>bmis remarks on the state to which agriculture and horti,cultu»i£»ro ieJu.eJ in ill a district, by the Fencing Acts of ,the A^fckl'tnd Provincial Council. It la probable that this wilU.be «ie last session of th« Council, now, therefore i» the time Horepeal those Acts. For some yean after the colonization of this province, agriculture was almost exclusively practised by the Maoris, who largely supplied Auckland With potatoes and, subsequently with wheat; they were excluded from the operation of the Fencing Acts/besidoe they wore able to take care of themselves. Cattle and sheep were imported from Sydney, and the Actt were passed to protect the comparatively wealthy grazier from being accountable for the injury he might inflict on the struggling agriculturist ; the leaven of these unjust laws is still working and agriculture and horticulture are an impossibility in some portions of the province. Twenty years ago, when I became a resident here, the Maoris largely exported wheat and built a flour mill, but now that the greater portion of the district has been in European possession for so many years, and most of the Maoris have left, a bushel of grain is seldom obtainable, and for the last six months not a bushel of wheat, maize, or oats has been purchasable for the poulty yard without sending to Auckland. The Fencing Acts so favourable to the stockholder have banished agriculture and thrown the district into the hands of a few monopolists, who, not content with the occupation of their own lands and of those of absentees, consider themselves injured by any of their neighbours who object to cattle tind sheep spreading gorse seed everywhere* and breaking into gardens and cultivations. Last summer I fenced in a small bend of the Waitetuna river, containing about four acres, and forming as charming a natural site for a garden, 01 chard, and hop-garden as can be conceived. A eouthern exposure, surrounded by email hills protecting it from every wind, the southern hill sloping down to terraces formed by former channels of the river is a site to rejoice the heart, and reward the exertions of an enthusiastic horticulturist. In September how different was the scene to what it had appeared in January, large beds of young trees had taken the place of fiax, ti-tree, and fern, while beds of holly seed, imported from England, promised at some future day to be a benefit not only to myself but to otlieri, for I have no hesitation in saying that the holly will prove the best hedge plant for New Zealand. One morning I found all this changed ; four of a neighbour's cattle had broken in, and the damage done may be conceived. My neighbour came at my request, looked at it, said that it nas very annoying, and promised to keep away his cattle. He did so for a fortnight, when they again broke in and finished the young cabages, broccoli, &c> and again trampled over the holly beds. I was again told that it was very annoying, but as I expressed the hope of some portion of the damage being paid for, I unpardonably offended my neighbour. Twice within the last month my neighbour* bull has broken in, on the second occasion doing sad damage to my young trees, &c. On my asking ray neighbour to look at the destruction, lie assumed an air of injured virtue, and telling me to leave the district was the mildest thing he said. I ought to have mentioned that in September my fence was not lcgollj perfect, ono portion being' sufficiently protected by a hill, but I immediately afterwards completed * legal fence. lam besides separated from my neighbour by a river, a sufficient boundary except for starving cattle. Under th» the preient laws my only remedy is to follow my- neighbour'* advice and leave, or by abandoning my garden again allow him to run his cattle free of charge on my land. Two of the first that broke in were bred upon and rarely been off my land. No doubt there is or was a pound m Eaglan, built at a time a military officer in Her Majesty's service was acting Hesident Magistrate, for the pound-keeper finding Jthat ht bad no custom has pulled it down. In truth no one dares to pound. At the time of the erection of the pound I had a conversation with one of the old identities who monopolised the country, occupied the land of absentees, objected to a road being lr.ndo to connect Kaglan with Waikato — winch means with Auckland — and owned ten times as much stock as he could feed were they confined to his own land. He said : "If any parson pounds my cattle I shall get two good witnesses and- go round his fence, and I have no doubt find a broken rail or some other legal flaw, and then he will find that he has made a mistake in pounding cattle. And so beyond adoubt he would, as Mr McDonald found when b» had the temerity to fey an information against W. Harsant, Esq., R.M., Raglan, for allowing his bull to be at large. The R.M. on the Bench dismissed the case because the age of the bull was not stnted in the complaint. A few weeks ago a writer in the Weekly Herald, when upon the subjoct of Highway Boards, gave some sound advcie against going to law when you think that the sympathies of the Bench against you, for tho loss of a cattle case in a Resident Magistrate's Court is like the loss of Trmculo's bottle, not only a disgrace but an infinite loss j it not only puts money into the pookets of the agressor and his friends (witnesses), but it gives them thelaugh against you. It is a. reproach to the province of Auckland that it is obliged to import its fruit from Nelson and Tasmania, a soil singularly adapted to the growth of the strawberry anables the suburban gardens to grow an abundance of this fruit, but shows theie are no stray cattle. Nor can Auckland eat Auckland -grown fruit while the fencing Act makes it impossible to make an orchard. Where sheep are dying of starvation, as they were here last winter and will be again this, how can people keep cattle except at their neighbour's expense? In- a few words the Auckland Fencing Acts have turned Raglan into an exclusively pastoral district, for which it is too small and not adapted. It must be nearly time to try the effect of an Aot to make people fence in or otherwise look after their cattle, if for no other reason than that the present Acts have caused the destruction of nearly all the available hard wood in the country for the purpose of making legal fences. I have been tedious in giving my own experience of the Fencing Act, because I believe that actual cases of hardship, combined with injury done to agriculture and horticulture, will do more to hasten the inevitable coming day when those Acts wiJl be abolished (perhaps by the General Assembly) than any amount of argument. - I am, &c, _ „ J. C. JOHNBTONE. To Haroto, Raglan.