1.—5

23

639. If they were isolated where they would not be disturbed, and where cairns and stones were thrown together for their shelter—which they like—and proper food supplied to them, how do you think that would answer ? —They would do very well on an island. lam of opinion that, if we could get trappers, we could catch a few weasels on this lake peninsula, if we could find men similar to the men who brought them out. 640. Hon. the Chairman.'] Supposing there were no rabbits to deal with at the present time, I imagine you would be able to reduce the staff in connection with the Sheep Act ?—Decidedly. 641. If the control of the rabbit nuisance were handed to trustees who should have the power to levy rates for the purpose of carrying out the Act, there will be a great reduction in the rate for the Sheep Act if that Act were not actually handed over to the trustees to deal with ?—There would be a great reduction in the staff required, especially now that the colony is almost, if not quite, free from scab. 642. But you would have to keep up a certain staff for the Sheep Act if the Eabbits Department were handed over to another department ? —Yes; a certain number would be required, but nothing like the number now in existence. 643. You would then have two independent staffs?— Quite so. 644. Hon. Mr. Walker.'] How many Sheep Inspectors would it take for the whole of the two Islands ? Not more than a dozen, I should think?—lt would take more than that to protect flockowners against lice alone. You would also require port inspectors. 645. It seems to me that the Inspectors have easy times of it nowadays ?—We could certainly do with far less than there have been necessary to work both Acts. Geobge S. Coopee, Under-Secretary, examined. 646. Hon. the Chairman.] Has there been any change in the department since the former Committee, similar to the present, was held two years ago ?—Not much. There has been a good deal of change of locality amongst the Inspectors—they have been shifted from one district to another ; but there has been no material change of any other kind. 647. Mr. Bayly's position is the same? —It is precisely the same. 648. If I understand rightly, Mr. Bayly is not the person to whom matters are referred finally for decision ?—No ; the Minister is the final authority in every case. 649. Are there any matters over which he has the entire control, or is everything referred to the head of the department ?—Everything comes through me in the first instance. I refer anything to Mr. Bayly on which the Minister is likely to require a report. 650. That applies to the appointment and dismissal of officers ?—Yes; and authorizing expenditure. 651. Have you had many complaints forwarded of the way in which Inspectors have been carrying out their work?— Yes, several. 652. To what districts do they relate ? —There were some complaints from the Waihemo District, in the north of Otago, and also from Lawrence, in the Tuapeka District. Ido not think there have been any substantial complaints from any other place. 653. What was the nature of those complaints ?—Chiefly of partiality on the part of the Inspectors in the carrying-out of the Act. 654. Partial action ?—Yes. That is to say, that they enforced the Act stringently and severely in some cases, whilst in others they were not so strict; and, speaking generally, the charge was that they let off the large proprietors, and were " down " upon the small holders. 655. Did you make inquiries into those complaints?—l did into some of them which were referred to me for the purpose. 656. Was there good ground for them?—l think not. I made a report, which is now in type, and I can put it into the hands of the Committee this afternoon if desired. 657. You think, on the whole, they acted with impartiality?—l do. That is the conclusion I came to. 658. Were there complaints that the Inspectors were not sufficiently careful about compelling persons to kill rabbits on runs generally ?—Yes. 659. From what part ? —The same district—about Palmerston. 660. Was there any general expression of opinion that the Inspectors did not require persons to kill rabbits generally ?—No, Ido not understand that to be the case in a general way; it was in these two particular districts. 661. For instance, in the Marlborough District had you any complaints that the department was not taking proper steps on lands over which they had control, or were failing to request owners to kill?— No. 662. Was there no complaint in regard to the Clarence runs ?—There have been cqmplaints lately; but the increase of rabbits took place before the department took charge of them. Since then there has been a heavy expenditure going on in tackling the rabbits. Hon. the Chairman: The complaint was that the department did not step in and undertake the destruction of rabbits as early as it should have done. Hon. Mr. Buckley : Under the Sheep Act the department has power to enter upon a run for the purpose of curing scab ; but we had no power to interfere with rabbits. We took possession of the sheep for the purpose of cleaning them. That is the difficulty we encountered there. 663. Hon. the Chairman.] But surely, if you knew there were rabbits on the land in large numbers, the department was authorized by the Act to undertake their destruction ? Hon. Mr. Buckley : No. 664. Hon. the Chairman.] Not if the occupier or owner neglects to do so ? Hon. Mr. Buckley: In this case we could not find the actual owner or occupier. That was the difficulty.