THE GISBORNE POUND.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 257, 7 February 1889, Page 2

THE GISBORNE POUND.

From the numerous complaints we have received with regard to the Gisborne Pound, we are convinced that it is time something were done to give more satisfaction to the public. It is only natural that neither the pound nor those who are connected with it should always retain favor with the public—the institution is under any condition an unpopular one, though of course absolutely necessary, and those Controlling it are at all times liable io incur the displeasure of individuals wh,<? havp had to pay heavily for the wanderings of their stock. But it is impossiblo that complaints should be continually made unless there was at least some justification for them. Who is to blame we know not, but the fsorqugh Council morally if not legally responsible for any cause there may be for dissatisfaction. Apts last meeting, a letter was read from Mr Reswick, who made specific charges. If there was any damage being done to the tree, the ranger was certainly right in taking the horse, or he might have gone to the troubl? of warning th* per-

son in charge ; but there was no such damage being done, and the ranger acted with a sharpness that was not required by his duty. As to the legal points involved, nothing need be said, because we understand that something further will come of that part of the question. What we wish mainly to point out is that the present arrangements with regard to the pound are not satisfactory. Whether rightly or wrongly, many opinions are held which do not inspire confidence in the present control. We make no reflection upon Mr Cannon, who is really in no way to blame in the matter, and as to the fees complained of, we suppose he himself feels satisfied that he is entitled to make them. It is the system that is most to be found fault with. Within the past few months, a most annoying practice has prevailed of opening paddock gates at night, and letting horses and cattle out. There is plenty of proof that this has been done, and in their vexation, owners of horses at once point the finger of suspicion at those employees whose profit it would be to do such a thing, but it is very difficult to obtain proof to convict the offenders, and so the annoyance and expense has to be submitted to. Why cannot all this suspicion be avoided ? The Borough Councillors themselves do not appear to have any idea in what position they stand with regard to the pound, and the result of a law case, with its incidental expense, is hopefully waited for to define that position. The pound ought to be made a source of revenue to the Council, and we believe that some scheme for the purpose might easily be devised. At present the public are not satisfied with the arrangements, and it is the duty of the Council to go a step further than they have hitherto done—viz., simply referring complainants back to the poundkeeper or to the law courts—and endeavor to devise some new arrangements that will not lead people to consider the pound as (to use the Mayor’s expression) " an engine of oppression.’