63

1.—5

1494. Would you insist on lime and sulphur ?—No; many of the patent dips would be sufficient for that. 1495. Have you used any of those dips ?—I have used glycerine as an experiment, some time ago. I was well satisfied with it. In one instance that we used it there was a sheep that was very bad : it effected a perfect cure. 1496. Hon. Mr. Williamson.) What was the dip ?—Glycerine. After some time we examined three sheep which were dipped and were not cured : we dipped the whole of them again. 1497. Were you satisfied then?—l was satisfied on account of the wool. 1498. Captain Russell.) Have you known lime and sulphur to cure in one dipping?—l have known it. lam opposed to patent dips for another reason. You never know how soon you may get from those who sell it spurious stuff, which may fail of having any virtue in it whatever. Lime and sulphur is admitted to be a cure upon which you may rely; arsenic is also a very good dip. 1499. Do you think tho arsenical dips are preferable to the carbolic-acid dips ?—Carbolic is one of the best dips there is, but it is dangerous to use it so as to have any great effect. As for the other compositions I do not wish to express any opinion. 1500. Would you make it arbitrary, the power you would give to the Inspector ?—I think it is sometimes necessary the Inspector should have large powers, provided he is an intelligent man. 1501. Is it possible for you to be always wise in your selection of a person to fill the office of Inspector ?—I believe it is a mistake to leave the appointment of Inspectors in the hands of men in the Government Buildings. Men so appointed may or may not be practical men. I think there should be some sort of examination before a man who wished to become an Inspector should be appointed. I am myself strongly in favour of this Act being worked more or less locally ; that is by Boards representing large areas, the Board to bo elected by the ratepayers. I would let the Government have a voice in it by appointing one or two members. I think such an authority would work the Sheep Act. It would be a Board of advice for the Inspectors and the head of the department. 1502. Has scab always been in your district ?—Yes ; but it was very low under the Provincial Act: at one time almost as low as it is now. Under that Act we had a right to flock. I never saw any bad results from it. 1503. Hon. the Chairman.) You mean separate flocks ?—Yes ; separate flocks. 1504. Captain Russell.) Will you give me concisely the cases in which you wish a good deal of discretion to be left to the Inspector. You have said in your evidence that you thought it absurd that different flocks should not be treated separately? —I qualified the statement by saying "under proper precautions." I should say that, in every separate part of the run which he desires to form into a separate subdivision of his flock or run, there should be a dipping apparatus. We w-ant to get away our sheep, hedged round, however, with proper precautions. 1505. Is it not necessary on a run to shift your sheep from paddock to paddock : through that, would not a great source of danger arise ?—I do not think so. Ido not think that in all cases it is necessary. You might divivide your flock or run into many divisions. 1506. Have you two classes of country ?—We keep crossbreds and longwools on one part, we keep merinos on another. The working is different for each. There is nothing to prevent us drafting. 1507. But, practically, when you come to draft, you find the merinos among the longwools?— Yes ; but we make up the matter in this way : by giving the right to separate flocks, you stimulate owners to keep their fences in good order so as to obviate that. If I were to have two separate flocks, one clean and the other not so, if I allowed any mixture, I would lose my certificate for the clean. 1508. Mr. Buchanan.) That is, when you were detected ?—Yes. 1509. Do you not think that if you have separate flocks you ought to have separate yards and separate woolsheds ? —I do not say as to woolsheds. Ido not see a necessity for separate sheds. It would be a good thing to have separate dips and separate yards. 1510. Mr. Walker.] Will you turn to clause 33 of the Act. With reference to the power there given, I understood you to say that a reasonable power should be given to the Inspector. What do you say to the exercise of the powers given in this section ?—I think, in regard to clause 33, good would have resulted if he exercised those powers. 1511. Did you ever know a case where that power has been exercised?—No; I do not know a "case where it has been exercised. 1512. But supposing the Crown lands surrounding, and you fenced, but the adjoining owners did not, would it not rather complicate the state of things for the Inspector to take possession ? —lt would in some cases ; but it would be a very difficult matter for the Inspector to do. There is a case mentioned where there were a thousand sheep, on an easily-mustered run, endangering a number of owners. 1513. Would not that section give power to stipulate the kind of dip to be used : could not the "Inspector, under that clause, tell a man that if he did not use lime and sulphur he would take possession?—No doubt the Inspector could take that course ; but if he came to me and told me so I would laugh at him. He could take that course, but he would not take it in hand. Ido not think that large owners of flocks are likely to run any risk. If inspection failed, if scab broke out, there would be a difficulty. If the whole thing could be stamped out at once, this is the case where the fit man should be brought in. I have been told of cases in Australia where small lots became infected. They wej=e--*at once destroyed. It is like fire, if it once gets a head, all the water you can get will not do any good. It is the same with scab. In New South Wales, when scab appeared, they destroyed the flock in which it appeared. The great thing would be to destroy the whole lot, paying reasonable compensation. Mr. Dodson: That was in New South Wales. They destroyed the sheep, but they did not pay compensation.