Lists (None yet)

Login to create lists

Tagged (None yet)

Add Tags

Comments (None yet)

Add New Comment

1 correction by peter-macinnis - Show corrections



The examination of F. H. Dutton, Esq., continued. 321. Do you consider that the duty on sheep-<*> wash tobacco has prevented the settlers from dressing their flocks ? — I think there is no occa-

sioii lo use tobacco ia the cure of the scab. It may be cured without it. In fact, I have used to bacco myself, but it lias only been to prevent tho scab from spreading. It is not suflicient to kill tlie insect, or eradicate (lie disease. If you wish to eradicate the disease you must use mercurials. I have known ninny thousands of sheep cured in ihe other Colonies by the application of corrosive sublimate only, but then they were on distinct runs. An act, I hope, will be passed, making all persons use the violent remedy, which would pro cure its entire eradication, and that is, mercury. f think tobacco may act beneficially a short timo after sheep are dressed, By washing the sheep with tobacco, it would prevent their re-infection from the run after dressing. 325. Mr Hagen.] Is it not very common for persons having infected flocks to content them selves with palliatives, instead of actual remedies, and, when surrounded with infected flocks, has not this; been the most economical method of dressing?—ln consequence of my being surrounded with diseased flocks, I have only used remedies to keep the wool on, and such I believe to be the case with others. 32(i. Do you know any one who is growing to bacco, and do you think its culture likely to suc ceed ?—I think this Province is admirably adapted to it. 1 have hoard of its being successfully grown here, but I do not know of any particular party by whom it was grown. 327. Major O'Tlalloran.'] Wore your sheep originally clean before they were brought into this Province, and before they were moved from Mount Dispersion? —They were originally clean, but received infection in the neighbourhood of {he town. One flock of them received the infection, and they, with their increase, have been diseased ever since. 323. Are you acquainted with the provisions of the .Scab Act iv New South Wales, and, if so. will you state what arc thu penalties attached lo owners of diseased sheep who approach the runs of their neighbours who*! sheep arc; clean ? — As far as I can recollect, a person with diseased sheep encroaching upon clean .sheep is subject to a pe nalty of from £5to£lO: the same for travel ling on the road: and the magistrate has tho power to fine to the extent of £50 if satisfied that damage to that extent had been sustained; but the proprietor of cleau sheep is then precluded from taking an action at law. 329. The penalties, then, in New South Wales are qnite as heavy as those inflicted by the pre sent Scab Act of this Province ?—They are about. the same. 330. Are any of tho penalties of the present act, in your opinion, excessive, such as clauses G and 7 of the original act, and 3 and 4 of ilic amended act?— Certainly ivit ; I consider that, under such circumstances, the penalties cannot be too great. 331. Arc you, then, satisfied with tho provisions of the present Seal) Acts as they now stand, or can you suggest any improvements in any of their clauses?—l think, with the alteration of .some of the clauses of the present nets, and with tho addi tion of a few amendments, tho present .nets would be very proper acts for the purpose for which they were enacted. 332. What additional amendment, would you recommend, then ?—I would recommend that all parties feeling themselves aggrieved should not be bound to prove an affirmative, inasmuch as a person may not have an opportunity of informing himself by personal insj cctiou of the flocks of another. It should be fur (he proprietor of dis eased sheep to prove the negative, and it should be in the power of the magistrates, in the event of the defendant denying that his Hocks arc in a state of disease, for the magistrates to appoint a person to inspect his (locks. 1 (Irnk the expense of the inspection would lead him lo admit that his sheep were diseased, if they redly were so. I would also suggest that th«TC should be an appeal from their decision in all such cases. Tho appeal should be to the Court of Quarter Sessions. Fur ther, that no diseased sheep be allowed lo run within a distance! often miles of the town. That would do away with the butchers' smuggling scabby sheep into town for (he purpose of slaughter, and I would inflict a severe penalty on all butchers having diseased sheep in their poscssion. ff the diseased .sheep are kept at :i distance, il would not answer the purpose of the butchers to snuggle them. If the proprietor of clean sheep bring a portion of his flock to market, and does nnt sell them, he can never take them to his clean flocks again. I should recommend a line ef 10s per head upon every diseased sheep found in the pos session of any butcher, or within len miles of Adelaide. 333. Colonial Si'octari/.] Are thorn, in your opinion, a sufficient number of clean wethers in tho Colony for Ihe supply of Ihe market ? — I think there are suflicient. However, if this disease is lo be got rid of, persons must not look to considerations of this kind. If the act is lo be evaded by saying Ihcrc are not suflkiont clean sheep in the Tro vince, their transmission to market will bo the means of infecting all sheep en route. How ever. I think there are suflicient clear, sheep lo supply lh« town for th^ next six months. 334. You say simultaneous dressing i; abso lutely necessary : what would be the best lime of eft'ecting this? —Il .should be far Iho middle of November to lh<\ middle of December. 335. Jfr Aforphctt.] Would it not be heller to impose a fine upon all parlies who did not dress their sheep Rt the lini". of the simultaneous dressing? —I would impose a fine for ihe nou pcrfurmancp. 3:so. Would such a l:mk as you referred to fur washing contain sufiicient water for a roi!j>!c of flocks to drink at !—lt would, there Whig a well sunk in ihe neighlmuriiood from which the tank would be supplied in Ihe event of its becoming deficient. 337. Do sliopp thrive liy drinking out of troughs, supplied by a well, as v<:!l as fr.>:n surface-water?— Not from troughs, hut, if (licr.- he a tank, they will thrive equally well, Ihe rca on lieitij lhat, wijlt

troughs, you cannot depend upon the shepherds giving them a sufficient supply. 33"*. Is it, in your opinion, expedient to impose a penally ol £10 per day upon any owner of dis eased sheep for feeding his sheep on hi^ own run .'— It is oppressive. 3o'.f. I understood you to say that you approve of Jhe system of l.'a-ing runs .'-I do ,: it would be a very popular measure. 340. What term of lease would you think lest ? — I'"or a period of fiom seven to ten years ;say ten. i 311. Mr Ilu<ren.] Would you (impose, in the ■ new act, that any punishment should In: iillisedto: the acts of the shepherd, or \vo:ild you have the onus solely on the master: for instance, should j it be proved that (he shepherd had crossed the I boundary contrary tolhe instructions of bis master, i would you punish the mailer, or servant, or both ?- ! 1 would propose that the master should be liable! (oafiiie : aud that (lieservant, on his being brought | before the magistrates, the magistrates should I have the power to punish tlje servant, if it should be ' proved that he bad disobeyed orders. Let the j master be fined, if he had not used due diligence, and Ibe man ha imprisoned, if he has neglected his duly, or disobeyed orders. j IFcdficsdtuj, October '2 5tJt, 18 M. ' (Jeorge A. Aiitley, lCsq., recalled and examined, i 'MS. (ohiiint, ,be :rct.ary.] Does the scab pro-j vail to a greater extent in this Colony than in Van Diemeu's Land?-Decidedly n it. I speak of my experience of Van Diemen's Land when there last ; nor is there any reason why it should pro vail here more than there. 34>. WhcnlastbeforethisComniitlee, you slated that you were determined to effect a cure of (he J scab in your sheep: do you feel assured that it is ' quite possible to effect this ?— I do, but, at the same time, I would not fix any particular time ] for the cure of so large an average, as the wlulo country. 344. Do you consider any amendment necessary in tlie present act for the prevention of scab; if no, \ will you state (hem to (his Committee ?_f con- j sider that the present act is not adapted for the [ cure of the disorder at all; if if be continued in j its present slate, its o.fl'ect will drive all \he un- ■ clean sheep out of the country, airl, as (hey bear ! the porportion of nearly (en to the cloan sheep, and, moreover, as I firmly believe that the disorder : has not increased in the country, the sheep having I brought (he disease with them from Van Die- j mon's Land and New South Wales. I look upon the act as flagrantly unjust and absurd. Mri. Is it requisite, in your opinion, for (he due protection of clean (locks, that diseased sheep j should not be allowed to (ravel without restraint r roin one run to another .' — I think th re should be restriction decidedly ; and there should be an inspector appointed, a man of judgment and cha racter, who should be applied to by pai tics desirous of moving their sheep infected, and he shon'd use tlio discretionary power of granting bis pass, or withholding it,according to his idea of the extent and virulence of thedisease, and the danger arising therefrom to clean .sheep. For instance, I here are many flocks in this country in which (here are a ! lew .spots only to be detected ewn by careful j inspection :it would be absurd (o afii\ the same penally, or to throw (he same difficulty in the way of tho removal of these: sheep, as in of sheep ■ grievously infected ; and I hold that, in the case i of (locks of sheep so lightly affected with the dis- | order as I describe, there can be no danger to (he cleanest flocks incurred from (heir passing in their immediate neighbourhood; and that the trouble i and annoyance of having (o apply to the inspector fora pass at all to move such sheep, \v< uld lie a sufficient means of punishment to their owners,! and inducement to them to clean them entirely as ! far as possible. ] 34(?. It lias been recommended lo (his Com-] mit(ee (hat a heavy penalty should be inflicted on j ull owners, whose sheep are diseased after a certain (hue given to effect their cure: what i.s your: ojiini( nof such an enactment ?—lt i.s a silly re commendation, I think. Thrrc ought to be no in terference with (he sheep of any man so long as he j confines tlicm to his run, awarded to him by (he J Government, or by the Commissioner of Crown | hands. Any such interference would, I conceive, be against all equity. .At the same lime, I (hink he .should be compciled to prove (hat he has made use of reasonable means for (heir cure. 347. It has also been suggested that all butchers should be liable (on heavy penalty, when | purchasing wet hers in a diseased state: would such a measure, in jour opinion, be productive of good. and tend to the eradication of the disease?—l think ] it would only serve the purpose of (Ik? smaller mi-1 nority of sheep-owners, who pretend that their flocks are clean, and would (hereby have a value altogether unjust affixed to (heir sheep, over the value of the sheep of nine-tenths of (he country: and I think that the penalty of moving sheep! without the pass of the inspector would be suf ficient to prevent the sending of scabby wethers to the market in such a state as to be unfit for (he I butcher. In accordance with the opinion I ex pressed of the propriety of appointing an inspector with (he discretionary power I before alluded (o. I look upon all such recommendations as arising ' from the interested motives of those who recom-! mend (hem. I 34K Would (he definition of all runs, in your I opinion, promote (he cure of diseased sheep, and i (illbid at the same time better protection than at | present lo the owners of clean sheep ?— I think that a definition of runs is very desirable, and (hiit it is more important to legislate so that (he clean sheep of the country may be least interfered I with, rat her than (o interfere with the fixing of any period of Jimc for (he cleaning of scabbed sheep, ■ and (hat thai nm would be certainly attained by the defining ol the runs, and allowing every man ; to keep his sheep clean or unclean on his own run, ■ (he unclean sheep. ,-is I said before, nol being allowed lo move over (he country, except under ; the pass of (he inspector. ' 340. Now should (he definition of runs (ake place, whether by ;ni agreement among the sheep owners themselves, by an official j«rson in nil cases, or by (he latter only where disputes may arise between (he former?—lfy an official person in all cases: and I consider thai the present system of runs ought (o be rigorously attended 10. ;is lo their general extent and position. 350. II«w uii;ny official pe;sons would be re- : quired (o define all* runs ? — That d«-ppitds on the j length of lime in which it would be requisite to defiue (hem, and a!-o on the great < r or loss:

degree of particularity with which their boun daries should be defined. 351. You nre favourable to the appointment of an inspector .- was it not at one time (ho duty of an inspector to lay informations under the ant for the prevention of scab, and did that system, operate with advantage to the sheep-owners ' _ I am favourable to the appointment of an inspector, for I consider that so large a proportion of the wealth of the country, as nine-tenths of the sheep, which I believe is the proportion of those which are more or Jess diseased to those which are cl.jan, deserves c\cry protection from the Government; and [ can sec no other way of giving tin* owners of unclean sheep due justice, except by means of] an inspector armed with discretionary powers;: but I am not aware of any system of informations \ of inspectors even having been enforced ; the j present act, although now sonic years old, having ; lain till the present time a <l-?ad letter ,• its iIJ-1 contrived and unjust clauses having only been j lately brought into operation, and their effects seen in their full extent. : 352. What are the delects to which you allude ? — I object to the whole act. ! 353. Should the duties of inspectors extend to the laying of informations in all cases, or only to j decide whether the sheep of (he parties accused; are diseased or not ? — I think that is a matter of detail on which I can hardly form an opinion at once, if it be put as preparatory to the bringing in of a new act. I should consider it a detail ol much less importance, than a great many other points and principles to be considered. •554. Then what do you consider the points and principles for consideration in the formation <f a new act on ibis subject?— The cruelty and oppres sion of the present, act in the first place, and the necessity of giving due justice to the owners of unclean sheep. 355. In what way are the operations of the present act particularly oppressive to the owners of unclean sliPep? —They are ruinously oppres. sive, inasmuch as any proprietor of unclean sheep may be informed against every day for keeping his sheep on his own run, even though they never p^ss the boundaries as lixed by the Commissioner, and because, in the present state of the country, it is utterly impassible to drive them to new runs within the boundaries of the Province. It is oppressive also, because a period is fixod, and a penalty, for failing in the cure of sheep within a certain time. It is peculiarly oppressive also, from the mode in which it may be carried out to the ruin of parties, even if they have the smallest imaginable number of diseased sheep in each flock, the disease exsisiing in such a form that there can be no danger of infection, even from contact, thereby giving a tremendous power to the attacks of private pique and malice, a single spot, that is sworn to be scab, being enough to condemn a man to the highest penalties under the ! act, as I have seen lately proved in a court of jus tice. 35G. What length of time does it require to ef fect the complete cure of diseased floaks, provided proper means be taken for (hat object ?-That de pends upon circumstances. 357. Will you state your opinion generally ? — It depends in the first place on the degree of vi rulence of the disease. 35 5. Say a flock in a very bad state ? — There are many results found to ensure from the appli cation of proper remedies very different from each \ other as to the immediate efficacy of the cure. Some sheep are instantly cured, and others would be many months before (hey would he entirely cured. I have no reason to believe (hat the dis ease is increasing in the country or has increased ; on (he contrary, I believe that many flocks are now clean, which came originally to the country in a scabby state. 359. You stated, I think, the other day, that your sheep have never been in so good a condition ! as they are now :to what cause do you attribute ! that improvement ?— To the great care I have taken of them within the last tw.;lve months. 3GO. Have you ever paid attention to the cul ture of tobacco, and do you know whether it can he produced with success in this Colony?—I have no doubt of it. 3GI. Is it as good for the purpose of sheep-dres sing as any other tobacco ? — I should imagine it is ; I have no reason to doubt it. But it would take a year to produce it from the present time. I am not aware of any having been grown in Ihe country, by anyone, from my own observation. 3152. It has been submitted to this Committee, that a country in which no surface-water exists can readily be made available for sheep runs, by the building of tanks: are you of the same opinion f— I (hink it is very possible, but it would be an ex pensive operation, which our present prolit on sheep would not allow us to undertake. 3G3. Do you think there is a sufficient availa ble country for a change of runs after dressing, without interfering with that at present occupied ? — As the sheep said to be unclean bear so tre mendous a proportion to the clean ones, I consider it altogether out of the question, that there can be any country sufficient for them, or anything at all like it, I am not aware of any place to which I couud move the fifth part of my own sheep, though I were ever so desirous of doing so, or, indeed, any portion of (hem. 3(ii. Caftuin Slurl.] Has your experience led you to the conviction, that, if settlers with dis eased sheep are left to themselves, they will adopt measures to clean their sheep ? — I can answer for myself, decidedly, that I have every inducement to clean my sheep, independent ot penal enact ments, but I think that the owners of unclean sheep should lie under some disabilities to which the owners of dean sheep arc not subject. 36.5. What distance do you think ought to in tervene between the nius of clean and unclean flocks ? — 1 consider a strip of ground, one hun dred yards wide, if maikcd by a plough furrow, or any other mark easily seen, would be quite enough to prevent any chance of contamination between the sheep, if the shepherds did their duty, in the worst stages of Ihe scab. 300. Why. then, do you consider the definition of tuns so necessary f — I consider that is already replied to in my foregoing answer. j 3G7. Then you would have no apprehension if a clean fioi-k of yours were to depasture near a flock slightly diseased ? — Decidedly not. if they were kept within their boundaries, and I saw no (ear of their mingling with mine. 3GS. Do you think the flocks might accident

ally meet on the boundaries, or that accident might not drive one or more of the diseased sheep into your flocks in the course of twelve months ?— I would anticipate any such contingency, by fix [ ing a penalty in the new act lor such an accident, . if it happened through the fault of (lie owner, or j shepherd of the uncle3n sheep : the extent of the i penalty io depend o? the discretionary power of hhe inspector, as to the danger accruing to the I clean flocks from such a contact from the greater or Jess disease of tin: scab in the sheep. 309. Do you really mean to say, that there is no danger of a scabby sheep, though slightly dis j eased, communicating it to clean sheep, nud is | there no danger of the disease becoming more ; virulent by neglect or unintentional oversight? — I I do not believe thn( sheep slightly affected with I 1 he disease would be dangerous neighbours to the I clean sheep, if the boundaries were kept up as ) before described. j 370. Major O'Halloran.] Shepherds will diso-' j bey orders, and, in spite of every precaution, en : croach on a neighbour's run for the purpose of .gossiping: how can this be prevented when the ! clean and dirty flocks are located near each other ? — I think, in a matter of such importance, j all hough the master is answerable more or less for ; the acts of his shepherd, that there should be a I punishment (o be inflicted on the shepherd for his remissness, which would have the effect of ren dering such an accident from his carelessness very improbable indeed. 371. You have explained how the present acts are oppressive: will you likewise state in what way they are absurd ? — I have described a por tion of the operation only generally. I look upon them as absurd in their operation; for the real wealth of the country consists very mainly in its sheep ; and, as I believe nine-tenths of the sheep in the country are subject to the imputation of being more or less unclean, I look upon any act which operates unjustly on so important a pro prietary as the owners of these sheep, as manifestly absurd. 372. You appear of opinion that the scab is not on the increase among the flocks, but that, on the contrary, there is less of that disease in the Pro vince than formerly : how, then, can nine-tenths of tha sheep of the Colony be unclean, which has been stated by you in a former part of your evi dence ? — Because I believe that more than that proportion came originally unclean to the country, from Van Diemen's Laud and New South Wnles, and, moreover, I have not said, nor do I think, that any very considerable number of the unclean sheep have been thoroughly cured. I look upon the decrease of the scab as more shown in its as suming n milder form, and I am aware also of the very great desire of a large number of the sheep owners to cure their sheep entirely, and of their now being on the point of taking the most effec jtual means for securing the fulfilment of that object; and I include in the proportion of nine tcnths of the sheep of the country, a groat number of flocks of sheep, which, I think, would be pro nounced to be clean in any other country but this, where there exist such incitements under the present act to call all flocks of sheep scabby, if a single spot of doubtful scab may be pretended to exist, even though it proceed from the effect of grass-seed or any other irritant. 373. What number of sheep may you be owner of/ —Something under 15,000. ] 374. How often in each year do you dress your flocks?— They have been dressed hitherto as they have been seen rubbing; but lam now dipping, for the first time, all the sheep in my possession in a strong solution of corrosive subli mate alter shearing. 375. May not tobacco be dispensed with in dressing diseased sheep, and the cure altogether be more certainly effective by the use of mercurial preparations ?— I replied to that before, when I ! said it was a very useful auxiliary — the more use | ful as a local application when the fleece is on the back —as a palliative rather than a cure. 370. I believe you have used wattle-bark in the dressing of your sheep: will you state with what success, and in what proportion with other in gredients?—l have seen it used a great many years ago, but I have little opinion of its utility. It might do some little good. 377. If a simultaneous dressing was to take place, and the owners were restricted by stringent laws to their own runs, could not the scab be eradicated within six months ? — I think it would prove very oppressive to fix any specified period of time in which it should be compulsory lor the sheep-owners to clean their sheep, although I hope to cure my own entirely within that period. 378. Does the present high price of sheep-wash tobacco preclude sheep-owners from using that ingredient in the dressing of their flocks ? — It has precluded them from using it. 379. How long does ground remain infected after sheep hare run over it?— Not at all, unless they are very bad with the disease, and then only until rain falls, or some short time has elapsed. I am not alluding to sheep-yards, or places where sheep are in the habit of lying. .?BO. Are you not singular in that opinion ?— I have had a great deal of experience in the manage ment of sheep, and as to the nature of that disease, and I think that many owners of clean sheep, from their very natural fear of having the trouble and expense of dressing their own through infection, and from their own want of experience as to the real nature of (he scab, have aggravated the danger of infection from any other means except from actual contact, unless sheep are in a very bad state of scab indeed. Thursday, October 26rft, 1843. Joseph Johnstone, Esq., called in and examined. 381. Colonial Secretary.] Are you a sheep proprietor in this Colony ? — Yes, I am. 382. How long have you been so?— About two years and a half. 383. Mr Morphett.] Are any of your sheep diseased ? — None that I have iv my own hand?. Some that I have in the hands of other persons arc diseased. :W4. Those that are in your own hands, have they been diseased within the last three or four months ? — Within the last six ibonths they ! have. 385. Have you lately dressed those shrep that were diseased sir mouths ago? —Yes. 3*G. Do you consider that they are now clean ? — Yes. 387. What dressing did you use ? — Corrosive sublimate, tobacco water, and turpentine.

; 388. Shallyoudressthosesheepagainaftershear i ing ? — They are shorn and dressed. The dressing • was after shearing. They were dressed about five months ago, and they are now shorn and dressed , again. I <lo not dress them because there is ' scab in them, but thinking that it might break '■ out again. r 359. Would you consider it possible to cure ! any diseased sheep with one dressing.' — Any one sheep I might, but 1 doubt almost if they were very l?ad, if it ever would be done, if there ' were a hundred or two together. j 390. To effect the cure of diseased sheep, is the greater care required in the dressing, or in the applying of that dressing—in Ihe character of the dressing itself, or in the efficient application of the dressing ? — In the first place, the dressing must be a proper one, but the greater care is re qaired in the application. Of course, v proper kind of dressing must be provided. 391. Do you consider that sufficient care is generally paid in the application of the dressing to diseased sheep? — Scarcely ever. 392. Would you inform the Committee of the process yod adopted? —The process I adopted was to dress the sheep all over with the prepara tion, and where the sheep were very had, that is, wh«n the scab appeared in longer blotches, (o scratch them with a bit of serrated iron hoop, but not so as to cut deeply into the skin. My opinion is, that all that is necessary is, so to loosen or break the skin as to apply the medicine close to the live skin. 393. You prefer thitf. course to dipping the sheep ? — If they are very bad you must scarify; if not very bad, 1 prefer dipping when they are shorn. 394. Do you consider the process of dipping can he advantageously had recourse to, when cor rosive suMimateis the ingredient used for dressing, seeing that corrosive sublimate is apt to preci pitate itself ?—I imagine that, with a little soft soap, the corrosive sublimate can be held in solu tion sufficiently. In my opinion, if pounded fine, and dissolved effectually with warm water, it does not precipitate itself. 395. Do you consider it necessary to shift sheep that have been dressed to a fresh/run after dressing? — It certainly is much better to do it, although I believe it possible to clean sheep on the same run. 396. Would your remark apply to a run that had been used for a long time by scabby sheep f — For fi very long time, I am inclined to think it would not. 397 Would you say about the time ?—A man's place that has been scabby for twelve mouths, is so dirty that it would be difficult; but still, I think that, if he would use half his run a month previous to his dressing, have new hnrdles, fresh folding grounds, and then use the other half, he might clean them ; and he would not injure his run by doing so; for if half the run would not keep his sheep for a mouth, the whole would not keep them for twelve months. 398. What do you consider the relative pro portion of clean and scabby sheep in the country ? — I am hardly able to give an opinion. 399. Are the greater proportion of the sheep diseased ? — Much the greater proportion. 400. To effect a cure of all the diseased sheep in the Colony, would it be advantageous that at simultaneous dressing should take place ?—I should say it would be advantageous to have al' the un clean sheep dressed. 401. Would the latter part of November and the beginning of December be a good period for this purpose —I imagine some time within the months of October, November, and December. 402. Supposing this simultaneous dressing ef fected, what time, from that period, would you fix for a fine to be levied on all sheep that were diseased ? — I imagine those that had not been cured at the first dressing, might dress them again in January or February, and with due care that six mouths would be ample time. 403. Do you know the provisions of the Scab Act ? — Not sufficiently to discuss them separately. 404. From what you have seen and heard, do yon consider it a good working act ? — From the manner in which it has been worked I should imagine it is not, although, I believe, if it had been conducted by a proper inspector, and he had been compelled to act, it would have done a great deal more good. 405. If an inspector had been acting, would you have ventured to have removed your sheep after they were dressed ? — Not without a warrant of removal. 406. Do you think it advisable to pay the in spectors by allowing them a portion of the fine upon convictions on their informations ? — No, [ do not. 407. What is your objection? —In the first place, I imagine it is an improper way of paying them, and, in the second place, they might be in duced to declare scab where there was none. 408. Would you prefer that the informations under a new act should be laid by an inspector, or by the owners ?—Generally, the inspector, I think, ought to lay the informations, but it would te almost wrong to debar an injured individual from laying an information. 409. Then you think it advisable under the new act, that it should be compulsory with the in spectors, but optional to the sheep-owners ?—Yes. 410. Do you approve of the definition and leasing of runs?— Decidedly. I think the defi nition of runs would be very advantageous. 411. Could a holder of clean sheep ever be se cure on the present system of granting runs ? — In thickly populated districts, I think he could not. 412. Do you think the definition and leasing of runs would give reasonable security to the holders of clean sheep ? — That partly depends on the de finition of the runs. I think, if they were defined well, it might; but so much after all depends on the shepherds. 413. If a space were left between two runs as neutral ground, would that obviate the difficulty you see in respect of shepherds f— In a great measure I think it would. 414. Considering the proportion of unclean sheep in the Colony, would you think it advisable that a very heavy fine 6hould be imposed upon all sheep that were diseased at the period named by you for their being clean, that is, six months after] the simultaneous dressing f — Moderately heavy I should think. The sheep in the Colony are now so scabbed, that many inexperienced and indolent persons might suflfer too hardly if the fine was too

heavy on them. Still I think a considerable fine would be necessary. 415. Do you consider the present price of to bacco has prevented parties from dressing their sheep ?-1 do not know, hut I believe sheep may he cured without tobacco. Still, where a person can grow it himself, or buy it cheaply, I think it is a good ingredient. 416. Then you do not. think it absolutely ne cessary that tobacco should be used in sheep diessing.'-In expressing my present opinion, it is, I believe, m opposition to the opinion of many experienced parties, but 1 am satisfied that cor rosive sublimate and a little soft soap, or mercu rial ointment, will either of them effect a cure 417. Do you think that a heavy fine should be imposed upon the owners of all diseased sheep brought into the market ?_ Yes, in six months atter the simultaneous dressing. 418. Then I presume there are not clean wethers enough in the Colony for the supply of the market f?r,£ e «e, xt ,s! x months ?-1 believe there are not. 419. Would it not be a lesser evil that the mar ket should be rather bare of mutton, than that a premium should be given to scabby sheep by al lowing them to be sold in the market ?-Ithinkit would. 420. Do you consider that, as long as scabby sheep are allowed to travel along the road, or to be removed from their runs, the disease can ever be eradicated ? _ JNo. 421. Colonial Secretary.] How many inspec tors would be necessary, in your opinion, to super vise all the flocks in the Colony?-1 think two could do it, supposing all aggrieved parties are allowed to inform themselves. It might so happen, if there were but two, that they might be em p, • y<s J"* 611 inJured parties required them; but this difficulty would be got over if parties were allowed to lay informations themselves. 422 Why should not parties aggrieved always lay informations under the Scab Act ?—I think it would have a tendency to cause dissension among neighbours. 423. Registrar-General] Do you think that, it the settlers were left to ihemselves they would take measures to clean their flocks? —I do not think they would. 424. Then, for their individual interests, and for the welfare of the Province, you think coer cive measures ought to be adopted by the Go vernment? -Yes, and all the sheep-proprietors, I think, ought to be thankful for them. 425. What distance do you think ought to separate clean and diseased flocks on their runs, so as to ensure the safety of the clean flocks ? — I think, with good shepherds, half-a-mile would be sufficient. 426. If a penalty on the owners, and punish ment on the shepherds in charge of the diseased sheep, were fixed, do you think that similar pe nalties ought to attach to the owners and shep herds of clean flocks also for going on the neutral ground?— Yes. 427. Has scab increased in the Colony for the last twelve months ? — It has. 428. Can you state whether it has increased generally, or in proportion to the increase of 8n ?r l ■ ImaSine tnat >t has increased gene rally, that is to say, there is a greater percentage of diseased sheep in the Colony at the present, than there was a year ago. 429. Several instances of informations have occurred for the trespass of scabby sheep, have you ever heard of any party having abandoned his run in consequence of the approach ot scabby flocks ?-1 do not know of any one, but I have heard that such has taken place. 430. Mr Hagen.] Do you not consider that, after a bush fire had taken place on a run, it would, however previously infected, become per fectly clean ?— I have never 6een a scabby run that would burn; you cannot burn where the sheep lie. 431. But, as respects country that will burn, supposing it was previously infected, would it not become purified from infection, wherever the fire had taken place ?— Yes, it would, in my opinion. 432. Then are you of opinion, that when bush- fires are taking place in the country generally, such is an important and favourable time for any fresh adjustment of the runs of clean and in- fected sheep? — Yes, I think it is. 433. Colonial Secretary.] From what has fallen from you, I think you are of opinion, when sheep long continue in a diseased state, that it must be owing to the neglect and careles? ma nagement of their owners ;is that so ? — Yes.

Much confusion arises in grazing countries such as Australia, from the defective mode of branding stock—some employing the initial letters of their Christian and surnames, and others using private marks, such as an arrow, anchor, Bee, &c.; but as the initials of different names are often the same, though the names themselves be different, and as several people unknown to each other, may use the same private mark, it is evident that branding conducted in this way, can never answer well the end intended. By having, however, a registry of brands, in the Colony, where all the brands should be given out as well as registered, this confusion would be avoided, the register being arranged alphabetically according to the initial letters of surnames, with different numeral figures attached lo each initial letter, so that no two brands would be the same. Thus the three first sur names, commencing with a, wonld have their brands respectively f.:f ' 3 ! a"d thus onward with that letter, as well as all others; co that, by publishing a pocket register of brands, given out afterwards from the registry office, in the public newspapers, for the purpose of insertion in the blank left in the pocket register, every person could at once tell to whom stray stock belonged, by comparing his brand with the re gister, thus saving much anxiety and trouble of the owner, besides the expense of keep and advertising. The branding-irons require to be thin-edged, other wise the branded part is apt to run, and destroy the letters or figures. Sheep might be marked in a similar way under the tail, by letters and figures formed of sharp steel points dipped in marking ink.— Cunningham's Hints to Emigrants. The Colonists at New Zealand are said to be very anxious to leave that settlement The Sir John Franktin brought away seventy-eight, and was obliged to leave sixty, not having accommodation for them.

ADELAtDB« PriMvd aod pabOdnd by the pttfUOstrUwx*- «WF% e*«7 WediMdir mat Salanhy, at the PHihW Office, comer of Kiag WHB«i «nt BnttMUecia, «fete CMenaad MmiULtiM, —i «M

CtMMMftifiMfMM tA the KiOl—■ mM !■■> fcM^aaaJ BhbMk. >M# iHHBMa #1 !?., to bepM ia minmt. IHwHuimi «* Wll«< «** «bm, ««^ urf M. to t?m «Mf««wl Hk.