27

H.—2

bonus system, for they had spent between £800,000 and a million for trapping. A question he would like to ask was, whether New Zealand would give M. Pasteur's representatives a trial of the chicken-cholera. He believed that Dr. Loir, M. Pasteur's nephew, was prepared, from what that gentleman had said to him, to go to any of the colonies to put his remedy to the test. Dr. Loir's view was that he had not altogether received fair-play from the Commission. He wanted another test of the chicken-cholera, and the Commission did not give him an opportunity to try it. He wished to try it in a paddock with the rabbits in a natural condition, not on Eodd Island; but the New South Wales Government would not consent. He (Mr. Bruce) would like to take back a reply as to whether such a test would be given in New Zealand. The Chaieman suggested that the question was a large one, and perhaps Mr. Eitchie would like to consult the head of his department on the subject before giving an opinion. Perhaps it could be brought forward at a later stage of the Conference. It was not exactly connected with the resolution now before them. It was a very proper thing, no doubt, to go into; but if Mr. Bruce would allow it to stand over till another day he dared to say the New Zealand Government would give him an answer. Mr. Eitchie would like to ask Mr. Bruce a question. He presumed that his own Government had refused M. Pasteur's representative the privilege. Mr. Beuce said that was so. Mr. Eitchie asked if he was to understand that Mr. Bruce was representing his Government in recommending New Zealand to try it. Mr. Bbuce would like to guard himself against that. He was asked by Dr. Loir to put the question, and he (Mr. Bruce) thought the best way after all was for Dr. Loir to make an official application to the New Zealand Government. Mr. Pack said he would support the proposal to allow Dr. Loir to try the chicken-cholera on rabbits in this colony. No harm could result from it. He knew that M. Pasteur's representatives thought they had a decided grievance against the colonies for not giving them a trial; and from his own experience of microbes he thought there was no risk whatever. If it was successful they would reap the benefit of it, and if it were a failure it would not cost the colony anything. Mr. Tabaet said that in the experiments tried at Eodd Island it was found that chickencholera was not communicable to other animals. He (Mr. Tabart) did not say so. He would ask, however, if the disease could only be distributed by broth, how could it be done over a country like this? Mr. Coleman Phillips said that, as we had the chicken-cholera here already in a great many of the hen-coops, he did not see that much harm would result in giving M. Pasteur's representatives a trial—say at Kaikoura. He would say, let the experiment be tried, for personally he did not think any harm could arise from it. The Chaieman said they could raise the question in a definite form at any time. They had another resolution before them now. Personally he did not see any harm in the proposal. He had read very carefully the reports of the proceedings at Sydney, and it appeared to him that the experiment was a very exhaustive one, and, although M. Pasteur's representatives were not satisfied, he was bound to say that he could not see they had any good reason to be otherwise. If it were desirable to consider the question it could be brought up in a definite manner. In the meantime it would be better to go on with the matter before the Conference. Motion agreed to. Consideration of resolutions continued :— " (3.) That no finality in rabbit-destruction will be obtained without making the erection of rabbit-proof fences compulsory." The Conference divided. For : Queensland, 3 ; Tasmania, 3 ; total, 6. Against: New South Wales, 3; New Zealand, 3; total, 6. The voting being equal, the Chairman gave his casting-vote with the " Ayes." Subclause (3) agreed to. " (4.) That there are very large areas of land so poor that the erection of rabbit-proof fences around individual holdings might cause financial failure. That the department administering the Eabbit Destruction Acts should be empowered to permit the fencing of such poor holdings in groups. That in dealing with land of very poor carrying-capacity the State should show special consideration to the lessees in respect of tenure." Amendment proposed: " That the whole of the first sentence be struck out; also the words ' such poor' in the second sentence." Mr. Eitchie thought power should be given to the department to group certain areas of small holdings to be enclosed by wire-netting. The farmers within the area would constitute themselves a small Eabbit Board, and would be jointly and individually responsible for any rabbits found within the enclosure. Amendment agreed to. Subclause as amended agreed to. " (5.) That in all infested country, but especially in such poor districts, simultaneous operations for the destruction of rabbits should be made compulsory." Amendment proposed: "That the words 'but especially in such poor districts' be struck out." Mr. Eitchie said that during the last session of the New Zealand Parliament the question of simultaneous poisoning was raised, and since then the Inspectors had been instructed not to compel people to poison. While poisoning was carried out in the high country, in the low country the people preferred to trap and adopt other means. Unless simultaneous poisoning were adopted, their efforts would result practically in failure. He thought that if they affirmed the principle of poisoning it should be done simultaneously. Amendment agreed to. Subclause as amended agreed to. " (6.) That netting 42in. wide (3ft. above and 6in. in the ground), with a mesh of l|in., forms a practically efficient barrier against the incursions of rabbits." Amendment proposed, "That ' mesh of ljin.' be substituted for ' mesh of ljin.' "