mm:' ;,;.i'; 'i'' >,■'■■ -'/' !i^:^:" '" ^lilii i| iliiii mmmm;^?^:4>m:v. CAPE (JF GOOD HOPE REPORT OF THE SCAB DISEASE COMMISSION, 1892-94. WITH MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS, MINUTES OF EVIDENCE, AND APPENDICES. :|^rrsrnt!iJ tn bntjj Bonsts nf ^.^nrlinnmit hii ronimanil of Tm €m\in^ tijr dfonFrnnr. 1894. CAPE TOWN: W A. EICHAEDS * SONS, GOVERNMENT PEINTEES, CASTLE STREET. 1894. [G. 1— '94.] CAPE OF GOOD HOPE. REPORT op THE SCAB DISEASE COMMISSTOX. 1892-94 WITH MINUTES uF PROCEEDINGS, MINUTKS OF EVIDENCE, AND APPENDICES. prrsfiitfii til lintjj Iniisfs nf ^.^nrliiininit hi] rniiiiitnnli nf lis cK.vrrllriinj tlir (l^nnrrnur. 1894. CAPE TO^VN: W. A. RICHAEDS & SONS, GOVEENMENT PRINTEES, CASTLE STEEET, 1894. [G. 1— '94.] MEMBERS OF COMMISSION. The Honourable Joiix Frost, O.M.6., M.L.A., Sefretary for Agrir-ulture. I'lio TToiinnrablo KrnoT.ni ririuiTrs BoxrrA, M.L.O. PiRrKK Jacoiu-s mi Ton, M.L.A. Arthur Francib. TiiMAfAS WiiJ.uM Smartt, L.H. O.S.I. Wii.T.iAM IIkmiv Uockly, M.L.A. Ernest F. Ivtlpin, Secretary. After taking oltioo ns :i Minister iif iho Crowu in May, 1S'.)3, Mr. Fiost, who liad until then been Clmir- ni:in of tiip (\nnniissifni, loiu^nod liis mcnihe-'ship, and Mr. Hrrckly >\;i,s .'^ubsiqnontlv iijipninttd to fill tin varaiuy. Dr. Snia; tt l>cin)f eloi-ted Cliiiirmnii. CONTEXTS. COMMISSION REPORT MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS SUBJECT INDEX TO EVIDENCE MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. I'laccs where tukcn. Aberdeen 17'J-2(JU Ali-nal North .. .. -14 7-4()() Barkly East . . .. .. oDl-lOo Beaufort West . . . . 522-5;55 Bedford 283-296 Bredasdorp . . . . . . ii()8-677 Brit's Town .. .. .. 0-16-557 Burghersdorp . . . . 439-447 Gala 376-380 Caledou .. .. .. 377-689 Calvinia . . . . . . .-w4-579 Capo Town 699-736 Carnarvou . . . . . . 592-599 Cathcart 117-146 C'olesberg . . . . . . 330-345 Cradock . . . . . . 296-314 Dordreclit .. .. 403-417 Douglas 613-027 Driver's Drift . . . . 362-367 East London . . .. .. 21-43 Fraserbiirg . . . . . . 582-592 Glen Grey . . . . • ■ 362-367 Graatf-Eeinet .. .. 147-179 Hanover . . . . . . 471-477 Hope Town 477-487 Jansenvillo 200-218 KeiEoad 100-117 Jilinci-acs fScah I/is/ircfvra uir difilinijiiixlud Inj an tis/c/is/,-.J I'A'iE. . . xiv i to xxxiii i xxxvii to Ixi 1'A(;k. Keiiliaidt . »68-574 Kimbei'ley . . 000-613 Xing William's Tow n -13- 80 Konjglui 80-100 Lady Frcre . . 367-376 Ladismitli . 638-645 Middelburg . . . 314-329 Molteuo . 428-439 Mount Stewart . 219-225 Muiraysburg . 508-5.'2 Ouidraaivlei (Prieska) . 558-561 Philip's Town . 487-497 Port J'^lizabeth . 244-258 Prieska 558-568 Prince Albert ... . 627-638 Queen's Town 3, 20 md 345-362 Eichaiond . 498-50h Eiversdale . 646-656 Eobertson 694-699 Slang Eiver . . . 380-391 Somerset East . 258-28;: Steyusburg . . . 460-471 Swellendam . . 056-068 Tarkastad . 417-428 Uitenhage . 225-244 Victoria West . 535-540 Williston . 579-582 Worcester 689-694 Xalanga 380-391 Adam^, Charles Allen, Cliarles Lolli^- Puce Amos, David Anderson, Peter Frederick * Atkins, Henry James, jr. * Atmore, William Aucamp, Christian Daniel Aucamp, Jan Diederick Aucamp, Jan Willem Aucamp, Piet Auret, C. J. Badenhorst, Bareud Hans Jacob Badeuhorst, Coinelis Janse Badenhorst, Johannes I^rbanus Badenhorst, Nicolaas Badenliorst, Piet Badenliorst, Piet Badenhorst, Eoelf . . Bailey, Hon. Tin mas, M.L.C . Barber, Hilton * Barnes. George * Barnes, Joseph HoUis Burger, Barend Jacobus Johannes Beadon, William Frederick Bekkci', Gerhardus . . Bekkcr, Heinrich AN^illulm TAiiE. Tarkastad 422 Steyusburg 467 East London 3(J . . Dordiccht 410 . . East Loudon 25 . . Somerset East 277 . . Cala 377 Molteuo . . . 437 ..do 436 . . Dordrecht 407 Aberdeen 186 . . H(jpe Town 482 . . Swellendam 064 Hope Town 482 do. 480 . . Colesberg 343 . . Hope Town . 487 Colesberg 340 Queen's Town 361 Cradock . . 307 Queen's Tciwn 360 do. 356 Murraysburg 517 .. Cala 378 Steyusburg 4 00 . . LadismitL 644 ±C963G7 b2 Bokker'. Honnauus TheoJorus. , Bekker, Jan Heudrik Nicolaas Bekki,'!', Ste])li!inus . . Belliugain, Floiis Noah Bennett, George Benson, Henry Berriugton, William Hobson . . Beurm.m, nL;iiJrik CliristoJM. . * Bircli, Complin Seath Blenuei'hasset, Juste Eagar Blouiirus, Arie Blouierus, Cornelia Hendrik . . Blumer, Ludwig Bornian, Juliaunea Gerliardus. . Botha, ALraham Botha, JacoLus Ludoviciis Botha, Jacobus Ludovicus Botha, J"lin Samuel Frederick Botha, Philip BotJia, Filter Willem Marthinus Botha, Thtninis Christoffel Botha, Theunis ChriKtoffel Bonder, Jeromias Jofias Bowell, ,Jc)hu * Bowkcr, JaiiK^s Frederick Fleischer Boyce, IJobcrt John . . Bremmer. Diederick Joliannos Biggs, Alfred Ross . . Biggs, James * Brown, Jlenry William * Brown, ITeury Francis Brown, ?>atJianiel Edward Brown, Oliver Austin Bruwer, Gert Hermanns Benjamin Bryan, Sydney ISteynsliurg Aliwal North do. Janaenville Bedford . . Barkly East Janseuville Moltcno . . Janscnville •Somerset East Brit's L'own do. . . King WiUiam's Town Prieska . . Barkly East Ciadock . . do. do. Dordrecht Kimberlov Bedford ". . Barkly- ]']a.-t Bedford . . Port Elizabeth Someiset East Lady Frcio Qraa H:- Eeinot Aberdeen Janseuville Cathcart . . King William's Town Cathcart . . Cala Ladi-mith Port Elizabeth Cawood, Eichard Chamber^, James Eowland ( hickeu, Henry William ' 'liritli cu, George Bellamy (Jilliors, Andries Charl Cil'.iers, Johannes Claas.siti, Joliannes Hendrik . . Clark, William Thomas Cloetc, Coruelius Willem Cloote, fJoruclius Willem Cloete, Jiin . . Cloetc. Johannes Manz Cloetc, John, sen. Cloete, Peter Jacobus Cloetc, Pieter Wouter Cloete, Stephuuus Abraham . . Coetzee, Abraham Coetzeo, Gabriel Coetzee, Gert Coetzee, Hans Coetzee, Bernardus . . Coetzee, Jacob Coetzee, Jan Friederick Coetzee, Jo.^eph Adriaau Jacobus (^oetzee, Martin us Jacobu.s Coetzer, David CoUctt, Herbert Joseph (.iolb'er, Aubrey Cook, Edward Boyer. . Cowper, Hydney Cronje. Daniel Cron- Wright, Samuel Cion Cro(-s. Ecuben Ernest Crowe, Itohcrt Joseph ; ('rump, Joseph ]Iollaud Cradock . . liichmoud T'ape Town King AVilliam's Town Carnarvon Robertson Victoria West ] >ordrecht I'larkly East Aliwal North ])ordrecht Carnarvon Dordrecht Cradock . . Worcester Molteno . . Bedford . . Aliwal North Ladj- Frere Stevusburg do. . . Queen's Town Biu'ghersdorp do. Steyn.«burg Lady Frere Cradock . . King William's Town Douglas . . Cape Town Eiveredale Cradock . . Lad^' Frere King William'.s Town Hope Town Cruywageii, Gert Albertus Cuniiiiing', William Biownlee . . Currey, Charles Cwama Damkwaitz. Berthold Vii tor . . Dauokwertz, Eustace Arp. Dargip, Georgu *• lUvisoii, AUen Gardner I'e Bruin, JaroL Gerharilus . De Klerk, Gideou Jacobus. De Klerk, Jacob Coenrad De Klerk, Jfihaimes . . De Kock. Johannes Jacobus . . Do Kodi, Michiel Josias De Kock, Peter Johannes De la K'arpe, Cliarles William Heur\- De Lauge, Johannes Hendrik. , Dell, Cornelius Edward Delport, Oekert Delporte, ifichael Daniel Devenish, John Meares Devenish, John Meares De Yilliers, Carl Jacobus * l)e Yilliers, diaries Gerhardus l)e Yilliers, L»aniel Gabriel De Yilliers, Jftsobus Pi(:ter De Yilliers, Matthys Johannes De Yilliers, Pieter Daniel De Wet, David De Wet, Ernst Jacobus De Wet, Hendrik Petrus De Wet, John De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus De AYet, Petrus Stephanus Dc Wet, Philippus liudolf . . De \\'et, WiUiam . . De Jag er, Cornelius .Tansen De Jager, Hendrik Johannes . . De Jager, Peter Charol Dii beJ^ William Do,1d, Harold Joseph Dougl ass, Thomas Dreyer, Andries Duckies, Thomas Edward Dugmore, George Egerton Du Plessis, Andries , . Du Plessis. Barend Johauuos . . Du Plessis, Jacobus . . Du Plessis, Jacobus, jr. Du Plessis, John Du Plessis, Philip Ludovicus . . Du Plessis, Stephanus Christian Duminy, I'ietiT Willem van Essland Du Eaan, Andries Du Toit, .Jacobus Francis Du Toit, Jacob Johannes Du Toit, J<»hannes Petrus I'll Toit, Petrus Stephanus ]' I Toit, Peter Cornelis Du Toit, Stephanus Petrus Du Toit, WiUiatn Johanm- . . Duvenage, Johannes .Jacob * Eales, John Edward . . Ebden, Alfred Eckerdt, Cornelius . . P]ckslecn, Hermanns Arnoldus Eckstoeu, Afii-hapl Edmouds, Walter Arnold Edwards, Walter James I'AGE. Komgha . . . . Burghersdorp . . Cape Town 88 .. 446 731 . . King William's Town 46 East London 33 . . Aliwal North 4.39 Xalanga . . 391 Somerset East 27K Yictoria West 541 do. 539 do. 535 do. 540 . . Douglas . . . . Eobertson 625 695 . . Caled<'n . . .. 677 Mount Stewart 219 Qneeu's Town 11 . . Kei Road 106 . . Middelburg 327 do. 316 . . Omdraaivlei 558 Swellendani 667 Beaufort West 534 Aberdeen 182 . . Beaufort West 522 do. 533 Caledon . . 679 . . Beaufort West 53.' Aliwal North 457 Robertson 697 Tarkastad 417 Prince Albert 638 . . Aliw.':l North 452 Eiversdalc 647 . . Queen's Town 18 do. (> . . Prieska . . 561 .. Beaufort West 526 . . Hope Town Kimberley 481 611 King William's Town 62 . . Port Elizabeth 250 . . Bedford . . 287 Kiug William's Town 56 Dordredit 415 T^ady Frere 370 Ilauovcr . . 470 . . Philip's Town 490 do. 491 . . Queen's Town 20 . . Cradock . . 299 . . Brit's Town 549 Eiversdalc 652 Hope Town 4S7 Graafl-Eeinet 167 Fraserburg 587 Hope Tow n 486 . . I'hilip' s Town 495 . . Jjadi^mith 641 Caledon . . r,82 Hope Town 484 . . Middelburg 318 . . Tarkastad 427 .. Yictoria West 54 1 Eichmond 506 Bredasdorji 668 Swollcndam ii62 Komgha . . •Jausonvillc 91 213 Edwards, Josejili Horiilio * Elliott, William Tliomas Erasmus, Andries EraKniue, Baronfl Jacobus Erasmus, Carl Ste})liaiius Erasmus, Cornplius Friederik Erasmus, Pptrus Joliaunes Erasmus, Picter Erda, All)ert Everitt, Alfred Paye Every, Frederick Heury Faber, Coruelis Jacobus Featherstone, Robert Fick, Joshua Filmer, James Fincham, Tliorntou . . Flanagau, Henry Georj^e Fleischer, Alfred James Fourie, Adriaau Pauliis Johauues Fourie, Jacobus Jouuthau Frouemau, Adaui Froneman, Johauues Coeurad Frouemau, Hendrik Frost, Arthur Heury Frust, William Charles Fryer, S}'diie\- * FuUer, William John Gaylard, Richard Evelyn Geldenhuis, Hans Johannes . . Geldenhuis, Nicolnas Joh:niues Geldenhuis, Willem Francis . . Gibbons, Edwaid Field Gibelaar, Petrus Johannes Glass, Thomas Frederick Goodhals, Joseph Fi-ederick . . Gouws, Ernest Frederick Gouws, Jurgcn Francois Graalf, Hon. I )avid Pi';ter * Gray, Jas. Wakelyn . . Gray, George Greell, Audrios Greefl, Jacol' Greeff, Steiihanus Jacobus * Grewar, Thomas Junes PHttcrsiMi Grewer, John William Grey, Owen Greyvenstein, Hendrik Jacobus Greyvenstyn, Mathias Johannes Grove, Stephanus Sig-isniuml . . Gubb, Thomas Witlieridge * Hagelthoru, Charles Theodor Hall, Herman Hancock, Alfred Harding, Robert Henry Hart, John Hart, Joseph * Hartman. Esias Engelliert Hattingli, Dirk Jacobus Haw, John Hegter, Christian Karl Henuing, Jan Christoplier Henning, Uliver Herold, Jan Andries Herman, Gert Hendrick Heydenrich, Joachim Audries Heydenrych, Robert Heyns, Juiob Higg», Geor^je LudovicuH Villiers, M.L.C. Bedford . . Beaufort West Prince Albert Hope T(nvn Fraserburg Beaufort West Tarkastud Richmond Calviniii . . King William's Town Mi 277 272 AVainwright, Henry. . Walker, Lawrence Henry Wallace, George Gough Warren, George Joseph Warren, Robert Warren, William Robert Watermeyer, Andries Joshua Watermeyer, Frederick Webster, Frank Weideman, H. J. Weideman, Jacob Johannes Weidoman, P. A. C. . . Wentzel, Carl David Wessels, Johannes Frederick Whitehead, George . . Whittal, Walter Wiggill, Walter Charles Wiener, Ludwig, M.L.A. AVilhelm, Max Hendrik Wilsnach, Mathys Pieter Wolfiiard, Hermanns WuU'aart, Johannes Coruolis Queen's Town Tarkatttad Barkly Er.st Lady Frero Kei Road Dordrecht Middelburg Graaif-li'ciuot King William's To Aberdeen do. do. Queen's Town Robertson Philipstown Cathcart Xalanga Cape Town Cala Priuco Albert Hanover . . Ladismith 113, Yzcl, Isaac Philipstown 491 Jjandberg, Jacobus Gideon Zaza Zietsma, Christian , . Kenliardt King William's Town Uitenhage PAGE. 574 44 229 APPENDIX. A. Eeturu put iu by Mr. J. B. Kettles showing small stock in area No. 6 A., and benefit derive 1 from scab act . . . . . . . . . . iii B. Copies of letter from Mr. Kettles on improvement in Kaffrarian wools, and of replies thereto by London firms . . . . . . . . . . iii C. Copy of notice sent to civil commissioners of centres selected for hearing evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv D. Copies of Plaaceats on scab in sheep, 11th September, 1693, and 11th October, 1740 . . . . . . . . .. . . . . iv E. Extracts from letters of chief inspectors of stock, &c., in Australian Colonies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v F. Extract from letter of the Secretary of Lands, Mines and Agriculture, submitting points for consideration of Commission . . . . . . vi G. Memorandum by the Senior Colonial Veterinary Surgeon. H. Map of scab areas . . . . . . . . . . after x W. G. Cameron, Lieiitenant-Genoral, Officer Administering the Governmont. COMMISSION BY HIS EXCELLENCY LIEUTENANT-GENERAL WILLIAM GORDON CAMERON, Companion of the Most HouoiivaLle Order of the Bath, Senior Officer in Command of Her MajeRtj''!i Troops in tho Colony of the Cape of Good Hope, Administering the Government of the said Colouj', and the Territories and Dependencies thereof, and Her Majesty's High Commlssiouer, tin:., &c.. &c. To John Frost, Esquire, Companion of the Most Diitiuguished Order of Suiut Midiael and Saint George, a Member of the Honourable the House of As-^embly ; Eudolph Philippus Botha. Esquire, a Member of the Honourable the Legislative Council ; Pieter Jacobus du Toit, Esquire, a Member of tlie H, and having no means of communicating with the people, and not wishing tr- [G. 1— '94.] « disappoint them, we nhartered a ponveyanoe from Mr. vau Niekerk, (if Grass Kraal, a farm on the banks of the Zac River. Mr. vau Niekerk took us through the river in the most admirable mauuer, during a temporary sub- sidence of the flood water, by swimming his horses, and drove us througii to Calvinia, a distance of 72 miles from his homestead in about 12 hours, and thus by travelling the greater portion of the night wo arrived in time to hold our sitting as advertised. Unfortunately, on this occasion it was necessary to leave two members behind, and as it was impossible to arrange for the conveyance of all, Messrs du Toit and Francis consented to remain. 2. In examining witnesses great care Was taken to obtain, drl^uJ's'iJiZZ. ^^ fairly as possible, the opinions of all sections of the com- munity, and in almost all cases, besides ordinary witnesses, scab inspectors, delegates representing and appointed by public meetings, branches of Farmers' Associations, Afrikander Bond, and Chambers of Com- merce were examined ; and it was also left open to anybody present to come forward and give evidence, and enormous numbers of farmers and others availed themselves of this opportunity. 3. As your Commissioners always gave timely notice of Notiu of tiuings. their sittings to the various civil commissioners and resident magistrates, requesting them to give the widest publicity to the same through the medium of piiblic notices, field-cornets, and otherwise, and suggested in these notices the advisability of meetings being held by farmers and others interested in the inquiry, for the fullest discussion of the subject, and for the appointment of delegates to represent all sections of opinion expressed at siich me(>tings, and as theso meetings wore very largely attended, your Commissioners are thus enabled to place on reeord, either directly or indirectly, the views of almost the whole f.irming community, and of all those, who though not farmers, were deeply interested in the wool and mohair industries. 4. In conducting these examinations, it was often found CioHs.cxmmnation. noccssary minutely to cross-examine witnesses for the purpose of elucidating statements, often made without sufficient fore- thought, or to bear out preconceived notions which had no foundation in fact, and which on minuter examination were constantly found to be untenable. 5. As the meetings of your Commission were held in public, ««S.-/ ""'""' and large numbers of farmers and others attended, the public had an opportunity of judging of the soundness of the evidence advanced by different witnesses ; of weighing and reconciling as far as possible the diametiically opposed views of the case held by different persons, and thus the sittings of your Commission, and also public meet- ings held at the request of the inhabitants, brought the matter under investigation more forcibly and keenly to their notice; engendered full, careful, and far-reaching discussion on the subject, and became an educating mediiim, many persons openly stating that since hearing the discussions they had altered their former opinions. 6. To enable every one to follow the proceedings in the i,!'m,''"'''"'^"' '"" fullest manner possible, in all cases when any single in- dividual present did not fully understand the English language, both questions and answers were fully interpreted into Dutch. 7. Your Commissioners cannot too strongly express their irJuiru'.''' '''"''"''' appreciation of the great interest taken in the investigations with which they were entrusted, not only by stock farmers, but also by the commercial classes, especially through the medium of the various Chambers of Commerce throughout the Colony; and this certainly proves that both the fanners aud the merchants are not only keenly alive to the importance of the subject, but are convinced of the necessity — if the wool and mohair industries are to be placed on a sound footiug — of a correct solution of the problem being arrived at. S. What struck your Commissioners forcibly throughout fJeTofolif'f'''^' ^^^ inquiry was tho great diversity of opinion often expresscjd by fariiKTs, residing in the same locality, and under abso- hitely similar conditions, as to the prevalence of scab among the tlocks in their neighbourhood ; the suitability or otherwise of scab legislation, either for the whole Colony or the districts in which they resided ; the circumstances which caused or favoured the disease, and the losses caused thereby ; the efficacy or non-efficacy of different modes of treatment — some stating that two dippings in a recognised solution, properly applied at stated intervals, would cure any case of the disease under any conditions, and others even going so far as to maintain that treatment of any sort was not only non-efficient but absolutely injurious; the merits or demerits of different kinds of treatment, aud the time most suitable for applying the same ; the contagiousness or non-contagiousness of the disease, aud the possibility or otherwise of eradicating the disease from the tlocks <.>f the Colony by legislation. 9. In fact almost all over the country some witnesses ra^Sel/milcon. Were found who stated that they believed treatment was 'fptions. useless ; that drought, poverty, blood-impunties, and bad shepherding were the causes of the disease ; so long as these occurred it was useless doing anything ; and that any legislation on the subject simply meant ruination to the farmers. So convinced did some witnesses wish us to be on these matters that they went so far as to state that, not only did their experience prove to them the fallacy of the theory of scab being contagious, but that they had no objection, if their flocks happened to be clean, to have scabby sheep or goats freely mix with theirs, as they knew positively scab never was contagious. From the evidence of a "large number of witnesses living outside the area at present under the provisions of the scab act, it appears that a vast want of knowledge as to the conditions imposed by and the general workings of the present act exists among a large section of the farming community, and that all sorts of vague aud unfoinided rumours are freely circulated as to the hardships wrought by it, the severity of its penalties, and its inoperativeness in coping with the spread of scab disease, with the result of prejudicing many against the present act or against legislation of any sort on the subject ; however, we are pleased to be able to state that numbers who held these erroneous views, when ac([uainted with the real provisions of the act, at once altered their opinions, and seemed to be in favour of scab legislation. Prevalence of lUcab. 10. Though the evidence as a whole clearly proves that, Aiaimtng extent of taking the flucks of thc Colony in general, scab has diminished during the last five or ten years, and that as a rule all over the country more care is taken to cleanse the flocks now than formerly, still, your Commissioners, after carefully weighing all the evidence submitted, and from personal inspection of many flocks in different localities, are con- vinced that scab is prevalent to an alarming extent in the various sheep aud goat flocks of the country, especially in the north-western and western districts, and causes enormous losses to the farming community, particularly in seasons of drought. II. Ill , which reju-esents about the average of th(> different estimates arrived at by various wituesscs, both commercial and farming, who have carefully iuvesligated the matter, is not less than the yearly loss borne by the farmers of the Colony, owing to scab being prevalent in our flocks, 14. In connection with this portion of the investigation jivi'iciice. your Commissioners have taken the fullest evidence, a great deal of which is of such vast importance and of so convincing a nature that it is necessary to reproduce some of it in full. Mr. A. Lehmann, Chairman of the East London Chamber of Commerce, who has been connected with the wool trade for sixteen years in- this Colony, and three years previously with the Australian and South American trade in London, aud on the Continent, considers that when fii'st he went into the trade nineteen years ago the relative value of Cape wools as compared with Australian and South American wools was ten, fifteen, and in some cases twenty per cent, more than il is now in favour of the Cape, and attributes this very largely to the fact that for years this Colony was without any scab act at all, while the competing countries named have been most industrious in stampii'^ out scab, aud he further cousiders ihc proacnt act, although it io a begiuniug, uusatisfactory because it does uol ajjply to the whole odUiitiT. In had luaikcts \vc sufier out of all proportiuu to what we should, even con- sideiing the quality of our wool, as in such markets it is the faulty wool which suffers first, aud in a rising market it recovers last. The actual loss caused by scab is very dilficult to estimate, but Mr, lichmaun considers that the direct loss may be calculated with almost mathematicul correct- ness, and he puts it down at between £500.000 and £(iOO,000 a year, and in bad seasons, when scab is more prevalent, at from £750,000 to £1,000,000, as in such seasons the losses of stock from scab are more .severe. He added: "I had a very good illustration of the way we suffer when I last attended the Loudon wool sales in 1886, for in bad seasons our wools have got such a bad name that — I say it without the slightest exaggeration — you can go through one warehouse after another and see strings of Cape wools of 200 to 600 bale.s in the morning exposed for sale, and in the cveniug with the bales hardly cut. [ remember in particular on that occasion one lot of 14,000 bales of K.in-oo wools lying in the London Docks, long and short, from the Graulf-Eciuet district, which was then very scabby, and Avherc I see they are trying to introduce the scab again, Murraysburg, Jausenville, and about there. This wool was lying at the docks, and about 140 bales had been cut .so as to be properly examined. A buyer comes to a bale, and pulls out a couple of handsfull of scabby wool, and he saj-s at once what is the good of his buying scabby Cape wool when he can buy good Australian aud American. The result is the wool is declared unsaleable, and I am afraid to say how nuioh we lose in a bad market. A general scab act, if jn'operly worked, could only have the same effect here that it has had in other countries, that is. to stamj) out the disease ; and I am perfectly certain if it were known in the London and Continental markets that the Cape Legislature had passed an efficient general scab act, which was to be put in force at once, that without any rise in the market taking i>lace, our wools would immediately command additional attention from the large and better class of buyers. The benefit to be derived from that need not be enlarged upon. "What I have stated applies with equal force to mohair, and with almost greater force to skins, because scabby wool is worth something, but a scabby skin is frequently worth hardly tany thing." Mr. Malcomess, King "William's Town, Avho has also studied the subject, gives it as his opinion that, owing to the increasing competition and prodiictiou of other countries, if our farmers do not eradicate scab from their flocks, they will soon not be able to make wool production payable. He considers the loss caused by scab enonnuus. 'Slv. John INlcIlwraith, Mayor of Poi-t Eliza- beth, a large produce buyer, though not being in a position to form an opinion of the exact loss caused by scab, estimates that the produce which passes through his hands would be worth thousands of pounds more if free from scab, iu support of which he stated that he had seen parcels of scabby skius from Somerset East and other districts sorted out, and found a third of Ibcni scabby. Mr. L. "Wiener, ]\[.Ii. A., says: "The average number of bales of wool passing through Cape Town is about 25,000 aimually, and this is depreciated in value from £15,000 to £20,000. To this must be added say another £10,000 for diminished production." He further produced figures showing that we exported in 18'J2, 1,726, -328 goatskins, value £132,717, 3,459,415 sheepskins, value £271,698, and he estimated the lo.'ss on these at about 10 per cent. Mr. John J. Murray produced figures to prove th.it iu 1890 he lost on 2,177 sheep Is. per head from scab. Mr. "Walter Eubidgc, one of the largest farmers in the Graaff-Eeinet district, who considers the loss from scab very great, instanced a case where he bought Mi-. Berraugc/'s property with the stock on it, 3,700 sheep, very scabby, and shore from them 37^ bales of "wool at twelve months' growth. The Allowing year from 3.250 of the same sheep, clean, he shore 57| bales of wool. The a\'eragc loss of wool from soab be ostimatfs at about 2 lbs. por >]k'0|). Mv. Paibulge alb(> ppecMilatfis largely in sheep, and buys both in and outside of tho pronlainipil area, giving from 3s. to 4s. per head more for sheep witliin the jjroclaiined area, because they are freer of scab, in reference to this statement we may 3ay that the evidence of butchers and speculators in general is to the effect that elean sheep are worth at least 2s. per head more than scabby ones. 15. The proportionate loss on scabby skins seems to be the Skins. heaviest of all, and tanners stated, and skins were prodiiced to bear out their statements, that for tanning purposes scabby skins were useless, whereas good, sound, well tanned sheepskins were worth about 7s. 6d. each in London, a scabby one being useless, and only bought for the wool, as the pelt is worthless, except for making into glue. Mr, James Holt, of Port Elizabeth, representing Messrs. Jowell & Sous, of London, whose firm is one of the largest exporters of skins, principally sheep- skins, stated that an enormous amount of skins are scabby, and that the difference in price is about 28i per cent., all which loss is borne by the farmer. Perhaps no evidence taken on the subject of the prevalence r)f scabby skins, and the consequent deterioration in their value, was more instructive than that given by the Hon. D. P. de Villiers Graaff, M.L.C., on the subject of Cape sheep skins, considering that many farmers in the north-we.stem and western districts had stated that scab was almost unknown among Cape sheep. Mr. Graaff, who is connected with a couple of firms who d<;al largely in Cape sheep skins, computes that the Colony is losing 50 per cent, in the value of Cape sheep skins through their being affected with scab. When in London he interviewed Messrs. Dent & Co., perhaps the largest glove makers in the world, who informed him that though no skin can come up to the Cape sheep skin for certain glove-making purposes, yet owing to the prevalence of scab in the skins they were keeping the Cape sheep skin trade in the background as much as possible, as it was too much trouble to be bothered and worried with the Cape scabby skins. If these skins were sound they would be prepared to pay as much as 70s. per dozen for them ; but now. owing to the prevalence of scab in them, the firm was substituting all sorts of imitations for the purpose of taking their place. Mr. Graaff pertinently remarks : "If this is not sutRcient evidence to show that Cape sheep are affected with scab, &c., &c., then I don't know what other evidence you want." Very strong and convincing evidence of the losses caused by scab could be given in addition to that already quoted, but your Commissioners think it is unnecessaay to labour their report with it, and feel convinced that tho evidence already referred to is more than sufficient to prove to any impartial person the serious nature of the damage done by scab financially to th(i flockinasters of the Colony. Legislation against Smb. 1 G. Your Commissioners were surprised to find that durin<.'- Dutch fhiecaati. the regime of the Dutch Government it was found necessarv. in the interests of the farmers, to ppss very stringent measures dealing with the scab disease among the flocks, as appears from two placcaats bearing date respectively Wv- 11 th September, 1G9.3, and the 11th October, 1740. which appear as an appendix to this report. [Appendix D.] 17. In the course of time these placcaats fell into disuetudt", J'tidei' reipamihit n6,Jn>Lt..t '"" iiiiJ it was not until 1874 that a permissive act [No. -51 of 1874 was passed by Parliamcnit to deal with the question. After :i few years of trial, however, it was found that this act did not auswer th- expectations which had been formed of it, and in 1884 an amendiu- bill was introduced, referred to a select committ(^e fA. 3— '74"[ but subsequently discharged. Besides proposing some small altera- § lions in the act of 1874, this bill providod that divisioufil oouneih should have the ajtpoinliug of iuspoctovs. In 1886 a measuvo xriiH introduced to repeal the Act of 1871, but the alterations proposed were little beyond increasing the penalties and compelling owners of sheep to give inspectors an account of their flocks. In 1886 the Act No. 28, 1886, was passed. This repealed the Act of 1874, and was a conapulsory scab act as far as the eastern portion of the Colony, comprising twenty districts, was concerned ; and it made arrangements for any adjoining districts, that wished it, to become attached to this area for the purposes of the act. In 1887 an Act [No. 17 of 1887] for the regulation of pounds in " protected " areas became law, and during the next year another Act, No. 33 of 1888, was passed, dealing with the removal of sheep from one district to another, and determining what dips were to bo used. In 1889 a select committee [C. 6 — '89] was appointed by the Legislative Council, and in terms of their report an act [No. 25 of 1889] was passed, permitting field-cornetcics adjoining protected areas, to become attached thereto. A further amendment of the Act of 1886 "was made in 1890 by a measure [Act 7 of 1890] permitting a field-cornetcy adjoining a district in the Trauskeian Territories in which the "scab rules" are iu force, to be included in that area, and in the same year another act [No. 9 of 1890] was passed which permitted scabby sheep being carried by railway through a protected area, when going from one place where the act was not in force to another similarly situated. During this session two bills were introduced by one member, one dealing with the scab laws in force in the Transkei [A.B. 4 — 1890J and the other permitting farms adjoining protected areas being included in that area [A.B. 6 — '90], but neither of them became law; and another bill [A.B. 27 — '90] which was also lost, prohibiting sheep being moved about the Colony without a permit. This was in fact a general scab bill. In 1891 an Act [No. 37, 1891] was j)as3ed, permitting the scab acts to be put iu force in any division, whether it adjoined a scab area or not, and also arranging for the act to bo suspended at the will of the divisional council. During this year two bills were introduced [A.B. 16 and 37, 1891] to consolidate and amend the scab acts, and in 1 892 this Commission was appointed to inquire into the whole question. Jifcct of Seal Acts. 18. In accordance with the provisions of Act No. 28 of 1886 Goud rniiHs. and subscquont acts, the laws dealing with the scab disease among sheep and goats are at present proclaimed over a large section of the eastern and midland districts of the Colony, and though in some districts where the law has been in force that marked improvement which might have been expected is not apparent, still, in others the improve- ment is so decided that it is necessary to refer to it, and to state that your Commissioners are convinced there is much less scab among the flocks in those districts where the act is in operation than in those outside the area of scab legislation. This fact is borne out not alone by the evidence of many of the most intelligent and progressive fanners in the country, but is unanimously testified to by all the merchants and produce buyers examined at King William's Town, East London and Port Elizabeth, through which centres all the wool and skins produced in the proclaimed areas pass ; in the majority of cases being examined and. handled by the merchants and buyers referred to, whf) have thus the best opportunities of jtidging of the improvement in the pr()duce, and comparing it with the produce from other districts where the act is not, or has not been, in operation. 19. The most marked improvement has taken place in the KaffiMia KaSrarian districts, notably in the districts of Komgha, King W^illiam's Town, Stutterheira and Cathcart ; and tliis fact has hoen forcibly brought to the notice of your Commission by Mr. Lohmann, of E:tst Loudon, an expert ou wool, and a large buyer, and by other buyers examined at that port. Mr. A. H. Oxenheim, wool buyer at East London for Messrs. Ebel & Co., of Port Elizabeth, says : " The wools from the Kaffrarian districts are acknowledged by London buyers to be freer fi'om scab than any others coming from the Colony, and if they go on improving they will be able to compete to some extent with the Australian wools, and this is due solely to the working of the scab act ; " Mr. Herman Malcomess : " Scab is almost a thing of the past in the Kaffi-arian districts;" Mr. A. Jack, of King William'ts Town, a woolwasher of 13 years' experience: "The 6 months' wool has so improved within the last 5 years or so that at present the wool- washing industry has fallen nearly 50 per cent., but formerly wools were so scabby that there was no hesitation, they must be sent to be washed. Native wools, especially, have so much improved that they can ship them without washing, and the wools we are washing now have so much improved that they are losing in the wash from G to 8 per cent, less than they used to do, much to our disadvantage." 20. The native headmen examined at King William's Town mthw jiockt. unanimously testified to the improvement of the native flocks in the locations since the introduction of scab legislation, and your Commissioners personally inspected several native flocks in the King William's Town district, and were agreeably surprised to find those flocks almost completely free of scab ; whereas, from the evidence taken, it appears that before the flocks came under the operation cf the act the reverse was the case. 21 . YourCommisBioners have much pleasure in statiug that Kt-mgha f,;:e of srah. from thc t'vidence takou they are convinced that the difitrict of Komgha, at the time of their visit was absolutely free of scab, and this thoy attribute, as stated by Mr. G. Gray, to the energy of the fiirniiu'», who use their best endeavours U> keep their flocks clean, and to the efliciency of the inspector, Mr. J. B. Sparks. 22. In connection with this subject, your Commissioners h»pfci<,rs Sparks think it uo morc than their dixtv to bring to your Excel- lency's notice the admirable tact and indomitable energy displayed by scab inspectors Sparks and E'ettles in carrying out their duties, and to place on record their opinion that the cleanliness of the flocks in the divisions of Komgha and King William's Town, the areas under the super- vision of these inspectors, is greatly due to their zeal, and to state that if all the scab inspectors had worked as enthusiastically and shown the same amount of tact in dealing with the farmers as they have done, the amount of scab in the proclaimed areas would be much less even than we found it to be. These men have proved that, even if the present act, with all its imperfections, had been efficiently administered, it would have been capable of working much greater improvement in other areas than it has done. 23. Mr. J. F. .Janse v. Rensburg, who has been farming Zonuiu wfore the fn t^e Komgha district for the last 30 years, stated that when act and after. , o ■ i -> i i-n the act was first introduced much scab existed among the flocks of the district, but that it is now a thing of the past, and that he had not found it necessary to dip for the last three years, and he attributes this solely to the scab legislation in force, and this opinion is backed up by that of several farmers in this and other districts where the act is in force and who have not found it necessary to dip for some years, 24. Two members of your Commission, Messrs. Botha and Komgha inspected, du Toit, personally inspected several flocks in the division of Komgha, numbering some 50,000 sheep, and reported that, [G. 1— '04.] b 10 not only were those flocks, which had at tho time lung wmoI, perfectly free from scab, but that no trace could btj seen iu any single case of scab having been present within the previous twelve months from the time of their inspec- tion, as the fleeces of all the sheep referred to were perfectly whole and unbroken. Your Commissioners have no hesitation iu saying that such freedom from scab in such a number of sheep with full fleeces could not be found in any district outside the proclaimed area. trociaimtd and liO. Mr. J. Mclhvraith, whosefirmhasoDe of the largest wool ''Z"au!r'''plH''' warehouses in Port Elizabeth, and who thus has an opportunity Eiitabtih opinion!, of sceiug the wools coming iu from all districts dealing with that port and hearing what is said about them, thinks that undoubtedly there was more scab in wool and skins five years ago than now, and that the improve- ment is greater in those districts where the scab act was in force, especially in the districts of Bedford and Graaff-Eeinet. Somerset East unfortunately has not made the same improvement, and he considers that they get more scabby skins from there than from almost any district he knows of. He further states that Graaff-Keinet has made enormous strides in wool growing during the last few years, and that it is one of the most retrograde steps that Graaff-Eeinet could possibly have taken to repeal the act which had done so much good for the produce of that district. Mr. G. Schertz, partner in the firm of Messrs. Ebel & Co., who buy about 40,000 bales annually, assures ub that the improvement is decided in the wools coming from the proclaimed areas, but that the bulk of the wools from Carnarvon and Victoria West have not impi'oved in the same way as those from Bedford, Graaff-Eeinet and Brit's Town. The latter place, however, is not within the proclaimed area. 26. Mr. Wiener, who has bought produce for a series of Oapt Town opinion: ycars from the western and north-western districts, iu- cluding Carnarvon, Victoria West, Prieska, and Hope Town, states there is a considerable amount of scab in most wools, and in a great many skins coming from those districts, and that the produce buyers are enormously handicapped by the prevalence of scab among the flocks there. Mr. Graaff, who has had extensive experience in judging of the condition of the slaiighter stock coming to Cape Town from districts, in almost all cases, outside the proclaimed areas, informed us that scabby sheep are very often seen among the slaughter stock arriving for the Cape Town market ; whereas, Messrs. Hill & Co., and other Port Elizabeth butchers, who draw their supplies of slaughter stock almost entirely from the pro- claimed areas, never receive any scabby sheep. Mr. Wilhelm Sphilhaus, delegated by the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce, bears out the statement as to the flocks in the western province being largely affected with scab. 27. The evidence of many farmers also goes to prove that Farmert' ofinions. in the wcstcm districts of the Colony scab is very prevalent, and at times enormous numbers of small stock — especially goats— perish from it. 28. In the district of Fraserburg, though stated in Praiirbutf. evidcuce by some witnesses that scab was not excessively severe there, we specially examined a flock of sheep at a farm where we outspanned, and a more miserable lot we never saw ; there was not a single clean sheep among them. Some of them were almost bare of wool, covered with hard crusts of scab, and presented a most disgusting appearance. The owner stated that he had bought the sheep some few weeks before at a public sale in the district, and that since then some 50 had perished from scab, some dying on the road in process of removal. He did not seem to consider it a very unusual thing to be the possessor of such a flock, and gave us to understand that it was not a 11 great rarity in that district to laeyt with shuep iu such a miserable pliglit . As these sheep were freely raoved through the country, naturally scattering contagion in their path, how can it be expected that scab can bo anything I Ise but prevalent where such things are possible ? 29. Your Commissioners are forced to the conclusion that u/i^kttim/'"^ ""* ^^^ much greater freedom from scab of the flocks in the proclaimed areas over those in the other districts of the Colony "where the scab act is not in operation is due greatly to the scab legislation in force in those districts, which tends to make the flockmasters pay more attention to the cleansing of their flocks from scab than they otherwise would, and though the operations of the act have not been attended in all districts where it is in force with the conspicuous success Avhich might have been expected, still, this is greatly du« in many cases to bad and lax administration and the inherent weakness of the act, to be referred to under another heading, and we un- hesitatingly state that if the present sc.ib acts were repealed, without any revised or improved scab legislation to take their place, it would be nothing short of a national calamity, and iu a very short time scab would be almost as rampant as before the scab act was introduced, and the financial position of the stock-farmers in those districts would be seriously imperilled thereby. Administration of A cts. 30. Though scab legislation has been in force in most of the Weak pointi. casterQ and a portion of the midland districts for some six or seven years, and thoughasalready stated a marked decrease of scab disease in the flocks in those districts, with one or two exceptions, has resulted therefrom, still, your Commissioners, thinking that th« improvement on the whole is not so great as it might reasonably have been expected to be, con- sider it necessary to discuss many of the sections of the said act, and to point out, from the evidence, their weak points, as well as to state after the fullest investigation, the causes to which tliey attribute much of the failure referred to, vi»! : — 31. The lax and uncertain administration of the law in In aiministration. many districts ; the freedom and easiness with which many eva- ded actingup to the provisions laid down by the act, and the great want of tact shown by many inspectors in dealing with tlie farmers, many of whom were quite unacquainted Avith the provisions of the act, and incapable, without instruction, of carrying them out intelligently. 32. The want of any provision compelling simultaneous iraiit vfiimuu.i- action on the part of stockoAvnex's in any given district or group of districts to cope with the spread of the disease ; thus every owner treated his stock, or a portion of it, at any time which was most con- venient to himself, and Avithout an eye to the general good, and as a result one fanner with scabby sheep dipped them in one month, and his neighbour dipped his say three or foui' months afterwards, when perhaps they had been a cause of contagion to the flock just dipped, and consequently an endless routine of dip- ping, cleansing, re-infecting and re-dipping goes on from year's end to year's end, without any possibility of stamping out the disease ; giving cause to those Avho oppose scab legislation to maintain that it is impossible under any circumstances to stamp out the disease, and causing others, who Avere at first in favour of sucli legislation, to think that perhaps after all they were mistaken. 33. The constant danger of infection from travelling stock h.fcctwii from \^^J\\^ fj.yn^ Avithiu the area and also from stock brou'>ht in travelling aluck ti- -i i l , ^ i Irom outside. In this particular the greatest carelessness has been proved, and it constantly happened that speculators and others freely b Z 12 moved scabby sheep through flie proclaiTiied areas without detection, and even if detected, which appears to have been a vers' remote Men-mt^'"'"'''"''"" ^^^^'"^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ found the penalties generally enforced so slight, that they were not to be compared to the profits often obtainable, and consequently as a deterrent were a dead letter. When detecited, the law — Section 8 of Act No. 33 of 1888 — stipulates that such scabby stock shall be either impounded or sent back to the place from whence they came, thus causing a double danger of re-infec- if»;?«;(j^io«s rHiasa*/f. tion ; whereas, ordinary prudence and common sense would suggest the quarantining and immediate dipping of such stock at the nearest convenient place. 34. In connection with this subject, Mr. Thornton Fincham, nM^'n'tock" """'"^ Queen's Town, delegated by the Queen's Town Farmers' ijaoc . Association, said that, there was a good deal of scab in the Queen's Town district last winter, and up till November, but it was not as bad as it used to be before the introduction of the act, and he attributes it greatly to sheep being imported from outside areas, meaning thereby scabby sheep. Mr. S. J. Qreeff, speculator and farmer, residing in the same district, and representing the Farmers' Association, who had been in the habit of purchasing sheep outside the proclaimed area, found no difficulty in bringing them in, whether scabby or not, even being so daring, owing to the impunity with which such stock can be moved, as to have bought scabby sheep in Cradock, brought them in, and sold them on the Queen's Town market. The inspector, he says " did catch me once, but I have brought them in on several occasions. The act allows too many loopholes, and so long as the law is lax there is very little chance of stamping scab out of the Queen's Town district ; but in case you could prevent sheep being brought in in that way I think scab coidd be stamped out in a few months." Mr. W. Thornton, Graaff-Reinet, whose farm is on the border of the \mproclaimed area, and whose flocks were consequently constantly reinfected by his neigli- boiu's across (he boundary and by trekkers, one of those who signed a polifion for the repeal of the act, assured us he would not have done so if the act had provided that no sheep should be allowed to come from the unproclaimed into the proclaimed area. The trekkers, he added, "generally make you believe they have dipped in the unproclaimed area, but we know how they dip." Mr. H. J. Adkins, scab inspector, area No. 6a, considers it absolutely neces- sary to prohibit stock entering from an unproclaimed area. Mr. Kettles, to wlioin we have referred before as an inspector deserving of especial praise, the European flocks in his area being comparatively free of scab, when asked how it was he liad not been able to stamp the disease out among the native flocks, ascribed it to his failure to induce the natives to adopt simultani^ous dipping ; and during the previous winter an outbreak having resulted from sheep being introduced from other areas. Though tliese slieep entered on permits from scab inspectors, in one case he is convinced that scab existed when the inspector gave the permit, and in another instance he could see the sheep were bad with scab, and had simply been dipped to kill all living insects at the time, but the disease broke out again a few days after the sheep arrived ; and, in his opinion, if these sheep had been quarantined, and not allowed to come into his area until they had been properly dipped a second time, no harm would have resulted. He further thinks it impossible to keep his district clean, or that Komgha will remain free of scab, so long as sheep are allowed to come in as they do now, and he gave an instance of the danger of such a flock re-infecting the flocks of a whole district, where at Kei Eoad on the 6th July, 1891, a flock of 108 sheep were put up at a sale there, which flock had been moved on a permit dated the day j^re- viously, and 21 of which were visibly aJfeclcd, some having largo patches of live scab. At this time all the sheep in the neighbourhood of Kei Koad 13 were cleuu, uud had beeu su tor two or three years. Fortuuatcly for the sheep {'uriners, the district had iu Mr. Kettles a thoroughly euthusiaBtic aud practical inspector, who immediately had the sheep quarantined, and dipped in a tub, under his supervision, thus saving the district from an outbreak of scab. Had this, however, been a troop of one or tAVO thousand sheep he acknowledges the result would have been different, as though he would have tried his best, the owner, under the act, might have removed them, and it would have taken two or three days to properly dip them with the appli- ances at hand. As an instance of how easily scabby sheep are moved Mr. John Kilfoil, Kei Road, related how he had been at a farm where he was asked to sign a permit for the removal of sheep, but when they came he refused. The owner had a certain number caught out, and put on one side, the scabby sheep being left out. Afterwards a permit was signed by others for the removal of these sheep, and he believes that the continuance of scab in the proclaimed areas is greatly due to the freedom with which permits are granted, and the frequency with which scabby sheep are moved. Mr. L. F. Oosthuizen, Cathcart, is in favour of prohibiting the importation of sheep into the proclaimed area because of the great danger of infection ; his sheep have been clean for years, but once got scab from the mixing of scabby sheep with thorn. He held a clean bill at the time of our visit and had held one for some years. Mi-. Davison, superintending scab inspector, knowing the danger of scabby stock entering a proclaimed area, maintains it is abso- lutely necessary to prohibit such entry entirely. Mr. "Walter Buhidge, Graaff-Reinct, who speculates largely, buying constantly outside the proclaimed area, finds that, though he always dips on the border, scab is still liable to break out, and on one occasion actually did, aud he believes it is impossible to keep the proclaimed area free of scab if sheep are allowed to enter, even after dipping as done by him. He suggests that if sheep are allowed to enter the proclaimed area from outside they should be dipped at least twice under inspection, and quarantined for a month or two before being moved in, to bo certain that the disease has been stamped out by the dipping. Mr. D. P. Marais, Uiteuhage, a farmer of 21 years' experience, considers legislation on the same lines absolutely necessary if the act is not made general. 35. With reference to the great risk of contagion being carried by sheep entering from outside, the evidence, briedy summarised, strongly pointed to the great danger of constant reinfection of flocks in the proclaimed areas from travelling scabby Remediet mgrjcsted gtock, and the Suggestions given to remedy this were : dip- ywinc>.scs. ping twice Oil the border witliiu a period of 1-4 days; dipping as above aud period of quarantine of at least one mouth ; definite ports of entry with quarantine stations, through which alone sheep could enter the proclaimed areas after being dipped and quarantined under strict supervision ; and absolute prohibition of entry of stock from outside. oG. The differences of opinion on these points held by intelligent farmers residing in the proclaimed areas, wlio are renowned for keeping their stock clean, and by scab inspectors, make it more than ordinarily difficult for your Commissioners to arrive at a definite conclusion ; but, considering the enormous danger of Recommendation, contagiou being Carried into the proclaimed areas from outside, under a partial act like the present one, we hold that it will be necessary in order to ensure' success, to prohibit the removal into the pro- claimed area of any small stock from outside, save and except such importa- tions of stock as may enter at Port Elizabeth or East London from over sea, at which places quarantine stations could be erected, aud the stock dipped aiiil i|u;iraatiued mulir the superiutcndence of a veterinary surgeon. The 14 reason why the port of Cape Towu is omittod is that all the districts in its vicinity are at present unproclaimed, and the stock while travelling from the port to the border of the proclaimed area might be in danger of becoming infected, though we are bound to admit that this danger would be reduced to a minimum if the stock were forwarded from there by rail under [iroper precautions. Trespass, and Imjyonnding of Sheep in Procbmtcd Area. 37. Another defect in the present law is the absence of any ,io^k1o"po,tr''^'' Pi-ovision for the dipping of scabby stock before being sent to the pound, so that it frequently happens that they are driven over the runs depastured by clean stock, often being the cause of contam- inating the same with the disease, and this is a peculiar oversight in an act which tries to prevent the removal of scabby flocks in a proclaimed area on account of the danger of contagion, yet, at the same time makes it legal to remove stock, no matter how scabby, to the nearest pound, which may be several miles distant, even though in transit they may pass over clean farms where pei'haps scab has been absolutely unknown for three or „^™^y;'/'''""'four years, or even longer. Mr. C. J. Lee, chairman of the Zwart Kuggens branch of the Afrikander Bond, and delegated by the branches in that district lo represent them, considers it is not advis- able to drive scabby sheep to a pound, but that they should be dipped at the nearest tank to the spot at which they arc seized. Mr. C. W. de la Harpe, chairman of a branch of the Afrikander Bond, Willowmore, where the act is in force, aud who is opposed to the scab act as it is at present, thinks scabby sheep should not be permitted to be driven to the pound, but should first be dipped at owner's risk and expense. Mr. Eobert Featherstone, Somerset East, spoke on this question to the same effect, and objected to the infection being spread broadcast by Loufrm Trespau. such means, and Mr. Davison is also of the same opinion. Mr. Joseph Keth, King William's Town, who has had a clean bill for the last two years, has before this had the misfortune to find straying scabby sheep among his flocks, and knows that the loss and inconvenience would not be recompensed by the £20 damages recoverable under the act, and though severe, would be in favour of an alteration in the law making the owner of scabby sheep responsible for all loss and inconvenience that could bo proved. 38. In connection with this subject we would suggest that Steomtmndaiion. in uo proclaimed area should any person be allowed to remove scabby stock to the pound across the ground of any other person without first dipping them in a recognised scab destroying solution ; and a certificate to that effect stating the date of dipping aud the name and strength of the material used, should accompany the stock ; the poundmasler receiving the stock should quarantine them, and dip them a second time within a period of 10 to 14 days after the first dipping, the owner being responsible for all costs. LiceJices. 89. This section is a most important one, and most valuable Three montht' evidence relating to it was given by numerous witnesses, lemee aja% me. principally by pcrsous Uviug within the proclaimed areas, who thus spoke from extended acquaintance with the subject, and consequently with great authority, and whose opinions are therefore entitled to the utmost attention. The bulk of the evidence, especially of those who had clean bills, or were noted for keeping their flocks clean, goes to prove that the present system of granting a three months' quarantine licence to cleanse stock in case of au outbreak of scab, which licence can be renewed at the expiration 15 of tliut p(M-i(id, if tlie owner shows that he has uaeil iiieaus to cleanae his flocks, has been oue of the greatest causes of the failure of the present act, and has been most shamefully abused, renewals constantly having been given when no real or diligont effort had been made to stamp Dipping dtiaytd. out the discase. The recipient of such a licence need not make any effort to cope with the disease until the time granted by the licence has expired, and even when stock are dipped under such a licence, there is no guarantee that they have been dipped in an efficient manner in a reliable scab destroying solution. W^hen dipping of any sort takes place a renewal of the licence is a,yrr»exm'i. almost always giveu. In fact, the inspector is almost bound to do so, as it would be very difficult, even though he were certain of the fact, to prove that the owner had not used diligent effort ; and such iourT^'" '° *""'* stock are consequently a continual source of danger of causing an outbreak among neighbouring flocks which may have come in contact with them. Mr. Davison is conftdent that the three months' clause is the weakest point in the whole act, and that it is a constant occurrence for holders of a licence to take no action until its expiration, or at best until just before then. Mr. Kettles who, as stated before, has been Thirij/dav' gg succcssful iu administering the act in his own area, to whose opinion as a practical and efficient inspector we attach much weight, and who has a right to be considered an authority on the working of the act, believes the three months' licence is a mistake, and that the first licence should be for thirty days. Mr. J. F. J. van Rensburg, a farmer, residing in the division of Komgha, who is convinced that when the act first came into force in that division much scab existed among the sheep there, and that the act has been of enormous benefit to himself and other farmers, and that through its operation his flocks are now clean, on the other hand considers the period of three months is not too long, so that every man may have a chance, and he believes that under any circumstances flocks could be cured in that time ; he further adds that if a man with such a licence did not set to work to cleanse his stock as soon as possible after immfdiatt action rcceiviug his liccnce, he would be a danger to others. Living in the district of Komgha, Mr. J. van Eensburg may perhaps hardly think farmers would be so short-sighted as to procrastinate the dipping so much, but unfortunately this is too frequently tlie case in many other districts. Mr. H. J. van Rensburg, of the same district, agrees entirely with the previous evidence. Mr. J. B. Sj)arks, inspector of the one district in the Colony in Avhich we found scab actually stamped out, is in favour of a three months' licence to begin with, and at the expiration of that ihft't'f'""'' '"'^ time charging l|d. per f^heep for renewal, and doubling the charge for each further renewal, and believes this would cause farmers who are now careless to try and cleanse their sheep. Mr. J. Kilfoil, who farms in the King William's Town and Cathcart districts, and whose flocks were quarantined for scab for three months when the lu^r'cjit. ''""' *^* ^^^ ^^^^ introduced, but have ever since been free of scab, also objects to the three months' clause, and considers thirty days quite sufficient under any circumstances. Mr. John Tweedie, Cathcart, in reply to a query whether he thought the continuance of the disease in that district was due more to the moving of sheep about than to any other cause, acknowledged that, " though that was one of the causes, the greatest drawback was the three months' licence allowed for cleansing sheep ; ji.irJiZ"'''''' t^o tioie should be left to the discretion of the inspector. so as to make provision for times of drought, but in th- majority of caset the flock should be cleansed at once ; the first dipping should certainly take place within a week, and two dippings properly appliel would cleanse any flock." Mr, Walter Rubidge is strongly in favour of Hi fiirtailing the limo of licence, and thinks Ihat when sheep Tm, u-ftk. umpi, . have only four or six months' growth of wool a fortnight's time is ample ; however, he wonld issue a licence for a month, and after that a renewal should be paid for. Mr. Rowland Timson, repre- sentative of Messrs. Cooper and Nephews, is very explicit ifoiuenci. on this question, stating that if his firm's scheme for the eradication of scab from the flocks of the Colony were accepted, they did not purpose issuing any licences, only clean bills, and in all cases of an outbreak of scab their inspectors would insist on the dipping being done as soon as possible. Mr. J. Devenish, Prieska, thinks that any man can clean his sheep within three norih-uJt""''" '" ^OJiihn, either in winter or summer, and considering that he resides in a district subject to the most severe droughts, and farms with 10,000 small stock, and has been farming there for the last 20 years, his opinion is entitled to much respect. Mr. C. J. Ttotntj/ to Thirty Yemiaak, Steynsburg, deems 20 or 30 days the correct period for a licence in summer, but that in winter it should be extended in his district till th(i warm weather set in, say in October or ext( November 40. The conclusion to be arrived at from the evidence on RHcmmnidatim. tliis point is that uudcr a licensing system, such as that laid down in the act, provision should have boon made, when the cuntlition of the infected flocks and other circumstances permitted, for dipping them for the first time within 14 days after receipt of licence, and for a second dipping within from 10 to 14 days later, and for a third or even fourth dipping if necessary, in a recognised scab destroying solution of efficient strength, and in cases when, either through poverty, length of wool, &e., the condition of the flocks was not such, or when by reason of inclemency of weather and other causes delay was necessary, the time fixed for the first dipping might be extended at the discretion of the inspector, but iiuder no circumstances for mor(> than three months ; and any recipient of an order to dip within a certain period, if he considered himself aggrieved should have a right of appeal to the resident magistrate of his divisioii, who should be empowered, if the evidence proved it to be necessary, to (extend the period fixed for the first dipping. It is unnecessary for us at this stage of the report to touch further on this matter, as we intend at a later stage to refer again to the subject. Inspectors. 41. From the evidence of inspectors themselves, and of NumU.umiflicie,,! farmers in general, it is abundantly proved that the number of inspectors was grossly inadequate for the duties they were supposed to perform, or to enable them in the majority of cases to efficiently inspect the flocks under their charge. In this opinion the superintending inspector also concurs, and that the department responsible for the adminis- tration of the act jiartially recognised this fact is shoAvuby the constant sub- division of areas, and appointment of fresh inspectors. Many So that work can- ^j.^gg ^^.^ gp igj-gg ^l^r^^ ^^ would rcQuire at least three months' not be got thiongh. , , , ,9 „ , . , '■ . ■, , • ■ , •• constant travelling for the inspector in charge to visit each farm, and thoroughly inspect the flocks in it, but when it is taken into con- sideration that they are constantly required to grant certificates for the removal of stock, and before doing so must inspect them, a proceeding which often necessitates travelling long distances, the impossibility of maintaining their regular visits appears verj^ iMonvtnuuet to evident. This paucity of inspectors presses very hardly upon ■ "'"""■ those farmers whose flocks happen to be under quarantine, and who after receiving a quarantine licence have thoroughly dipped and cleansed 1 / 17 them, but perhaps find it necessary to move them ; they are however, unable legally to do so without a permit from an inspector. When it is remembered that the majority of our farmers are small holders of stock, that in many cases their properties are mortgaged, and that they very frequently count upon the sale of stock to pay their interest, not having any other resources, it will be seen how hardly this scarcity of inspectors interferes and ditcontent. -yy^th their busiuess, and from this fact alone many are discon- tented, who otherwise do not object to the act. Cannot com h ^^* ^^ appears to havc been a constant occurrence for with farmers' sum- farmers to Send several times to an inspector before he could cora- '^'""- ply with their request to inspect their flocks, and as an example we may quote one case, that of Mr. C. Froneman, of Cathcart, who requiring urgently to move his ewes before lambing, sent seven times to the inspector, and after all he did not come, but on the last occasion of sending the inspec- tor's brother informed Mr. Froneman that he had better move the sheep, and he woidd make the matter right and explain it to the inspector. As his ewes were lambing it was absolutely necessary for him to move, but owing to the delay ho was only able to get some 200 away, leaving the rest behind, and from that time till the visit of your Commission — two years — the inspector had never visited his farm, although he wanted a permit for the removal of those left behind, but as the inspector never came he never got it, and suffered a very heavy loss in consequence. Besides this, in Frequent negUct of many casBS it appears from the evidence that the inspectors did not attend to their duties properly, and a vast amount of Want of tact. dissatisfactiou has been caused by many inspectors being absolutely devoid of tact in working with certain classes of farmers, and consequently, instead of enlisting their sympathies on the side of the act, their actions frequently caused a feeling of antagonism on the part of farmers who, rightly or wrongly, often imagined they were being coerced or unjustly treated. 43. Thatsomeinspectorsalsohave been grossly incompetent Incompetence. has been fulIy proved, and when the superintending inspector was asked whether, in the event of fresh legislation, he would suggest that before any new act was promulgated all inspectors should receive notice that their services would be dispensed with on a certain date, but be eligible for reappointment, his answer was : " Yes, and I con- sider a great many would have to go ; " thus proving that as chief inspector many cases of incompetence had come under his observation. 44. Many of the half-yearly returns as to the prevalence of orrect returns, scab in the different areas have been framed in the most care- less manner, and if the evidence has any value it goes to prove unmistakably that in a number of areas far more scab exists among the flocks than appears in the inspectors' returns. 45. The usual course pursued in the appointment of in- jfeMw;«iv /ifjc (.' J^uppJ•i]ltendent gljould receive printed insti'uctions detail- '''' ing in full the proper method of mixing and preparing all recognised dips, and possessing as he would full powers to have all stock dipped under his personal supervision, should be responsible for their cleans- ing. lusjDectors of dipping should receive pay at the rate of say "'''' 10s. per diem when on duty, and the head inspectors say at the ,, ,. , „ rate of from £200 to £300 per annum. "We are thoroughly Notice to all , • -» r ti • i i n i • i • • iiixpeeiois. m accord with Mr. Davison that before any new legislation is introduced all the present scab inspectors should receive notice of the termination of their appointments, but should be eligible for re-election, and we consider this would be the means of removing many incapable men, and give general satisfaction to the flockmasters throughout the country. Kraals. 48. The system of ki-aaling sheep, so much in vogue in this Source «/ »««/«- gQ^^jjt]^.y^ ig Qjje of the most fruitful sources of reinfection, and no act can be successful which does not make provision for the fellmy'^""* thorough disinfection of these and of all buildings, &c., with 19 which infected sheep hare come in contact, and we find no section in the present acts bearing on this important matter. Kymiing formerly' The frequency of kraaling stock is in many cases due to neccisary for protee- the oustom of former timcs, wheu it was absolutely necessary **"■ to fold the stock at night to protect them from wild animals Nowyn unfeneed and savage marauders, though even now in some districts it '"''"'• is necessary to do so ; to the fact that many runs are com- - pletely uufenced ; and that in the agricultural districts the For manure. -I •' iii i it owners of small stock state they are obliged to kraal their sheep and goats for the purpose of obtaining the necessary manure to put on their cultivated lands. tMstence of xcah 49. Though the cvidcuce points to the fact that the acari Acari on griund. caunot Hve Very long on open ground, especially when exposed in a dry season to the rays of a hot sun, still many practical Or m kraals. ^^.^ ^^.^ (.Q^viuced that iu old kraals either the insect or its ova can exist in a dormant condition for months. 50. Mr. Wm. D. Snyman, of Barkly East, is afraid to put Evidenee. shccp in a kraal within 6 months after infected sheep have been in it. Mr. D. P. Marais, of Uitenhagc, holds the same opinion. Mr. M. K. Neser, Philip's Town, thinks the aca7-i would not sui'vive 6 weeks, thoiigh under certain conditions he believes it possible the eggs might remain much longer before hatching out. Mr. Neser has carried out many experiments Avith the acari, and closely observed all matters of this sort. Mr. W. Diebel has found it necessary, upon an oiitbreak of scab among his firm's slaughter stock to isolate them, and burn the kraals, or the next troop of sheep put into the kraals soon become infected. Mr. Edward J. Hughes, Bredasdorp, who has 8,000 sheep under his care, attributes their reinfection to iising an old kraal which had not been used for 12 months. Mr. P. V. van der Byl, of Caledon, thinks it would be very difficult to eradicate the disease because the kraals are the hot-bed of it, and they must have kraals for the supply of manure. Mr. Poland Timson considers the disinfection of all kraals of vital importance, and a point on which his firm would insist if their scheme were accepted, and the senior Colonial veterinary surgeon coincides with this, further considering that it would be necessary to take out a foot of the loose or top manure, burn it, and disinfect the kraal, and that such disinfection could be efiiciently and cheaply effected. 51. We would therefore suggest that it bo lawful for any Sccommendations. inspector to iusist ou the thorough disinfection of all Icraals, buildings, or vehicles in which any infected sheep may have been placed ; or to order such kraals to be burned or destroyed if necessary ; but in such cases of destruction the Government to pay one-half of reasonable expenses incurred in cai'rying out the order, and the material for disinfecting such places to be supplied by Government free of charge. Perchloride of mer- cury would appear to be the cheapest and most eificient remedy for the purpose, and if carefully used, would be unattended with danger, and in this opinion the senior veterinary surgeon agrees. Perchloride of mei-onry being a violent poison, it would be advisable to have it made up in packets, mixed with sufficient chloride of ammonium to render it freely soluble in water, each packet being sufficient for mixing with five gallons of water. Every packet should have upon its face distinct instructions for use printed in English and Dutch, and it would also be advisable to have the material mixed with some coloiuing agent which would give the solution, when prepared for use, a brilliant distinctive colour, as by this means the danger of its being mistaken or used for any other purpose would be reduced almost to a minimum — the material to be obtainable from every resident magistrate or inspector of dip- ping by any stockowner on signing the necessary certificates. 20 Sheai-ers. 52. Many witnesses arc convinced that * shearers con ~ Carrying infettion. stantly Carry the infection in their clothes, and several gav<^ evidence to this effect, basing their statements on practical Evidente. cxperiencc. Mr. J, Landrey, jun., Cathcart, said that scab can be conveyed by native shearers ; Mr. W. J. Edwards, GraafE-Reinet, would not even allow shearers to go into proclaimed areas unless their clothes had been disinfected ; Mr. J, J. Murray, Colesberg, said that in 1889 hu clipped his sheep which Avere perfectly free of scab, employ- ing a gang of shearers who came from a scabby run, and two months afterwards they were badly infected. Mr. Hiitcheon also believes that it can easily happen, and the opinion of witness(>s is that shearers entering a pro- claimed area from outside or who havcj shorn scabby sheep in such an area should have theii' clothes, blankets, &c., thoroughly disinfected. Removal of Produce. No restriction ^^* Though the prcscnt act makes certain provisions with exitts. the view of preventing the removal of scabby stock within the , fr„,i, ,cooi pi'oclaimed areas, the removal of wool and skins is freely allowed both within the area and from outside. Wool being generally in bales there is not such great danger of its spreading contagion, but a case was stated where avooI from an unproclaimed area in passing through a proclaimed area could easilj' have become a source of contagion. In this particular case one of the bales, in passing on a wagon through a gateway, struck a pole, was ripped open, and a certain portion of the wool remained attached to the pole and fell to the ground, and we have no doubt that cases of this kind can and do frequently occur, and that they might be occasionally a source of reinfection to otherwise clean flocks, though per- skim. haps a very exceptional and remote one. The case of skins is, however, quite different, as they are generally moved unbalod, and thrown about at country stores auJ other places, where there is every probability of sheep coming in contact with them ; and it constantly happens at stores within and near the borders of proclaimed areas, that traders bring in very scabby skins from outside, and that wet skins are constantly pegged out to dry in the sun. 54. Several suggestions were offered to remedy this evil, Suggeitiom made, somc goiug SO far US to dcsirc the absolute prohibition of produce from outside coming into, or even passing in transit thi-ough, a proclaimed area, but as this would interfere unduly with the trade of the country and the carrying trade of our railways, your Commissioners could not for one moment entertain such a proposal. Another suggestion was the thorough disinfection of all wool and skins ; but when the enormous difficulty of practically carrying out such a proposal is considered, it may also be dis- missed as unworkable. 55. A more practical recommendation, however, was the Saiii:g produce, baling of all wool and skins in transit through a pro- claimed area, and the thorough disinfection of all railway Diaitifecting trucks, trucks, &c., with which sucli pi'oduce had come in contact, and with this opinion we concur. It appears that in many cases the railway authorities make no provision at intermediate stations for disin- fecting trucks after carrying produce, and very little at larger stations, though perhaps the pame trucks may be required a short time after to carry sheejj. In fact, the evidence points to great carelessness in allowing railway trucks after caiTrying scabby sheep to remain disinfected at the smaller stations. Under all circumstances such trucks should be disinfected fifcommndatioH. immediately after the removal of produce or stock, aud if a 21 supply of disinfectant, as suirgf^ttd I'ur kraals, were kept at every railway station, it could be easily done with very little expense or trouble. Repeal of Act under Section 2 of Act No. 37 of 1891. 56. Your Commissioners find that another cause of the imimirs effective- inoperativeness of the present act arises from the uncertainty nc^s of act. i-i • ^ • ,^ ■ -i n o i n • '' which exists m the minds of many of the farmers as to its permanency, in consequeuf^e of the powers of repeal afforded by section 2 of Act JTo. 37 of 1891, which provides that at the instance of two- thirds of the persons whose names appear on the divisional council voters' roll, the divisional council of any division in which the scab act is in force ma)', by request to the Governor, cause the act to be suspended in any such division, or any area therein. As a result, persons dissatisfied with the act CoMtant ugitiuion were constautlv found aeitatino; for its repeal in certain areas. tor repeal. . -, in,i- i ,' causing many who would other-wise at once have set them- selves to cleanse their flocks, to hold their hands, thinking the act might possibly be repealed before their three months' licence expired. Petitions were constantly hawked round a district, and pressure, political and other- wise, was brought to bear ou voters for their signatures, many Action for repeal of whom Were uot stock farmers ; and it appears from the often ill-coimdered . ., .i. i -ni .. evidence that several persons signed these petitions \vithout mature consideration, who afterwards regretted their hasty action, and were prepared to sign a counter petition requesting that the act might be left in force. One of the districts which took advantage of this clause lUusiiatioii. -^ag Graaff-Eeinet, and a short time afterwards a large portion of the district again came under the operations of the act by petition, followed later on by other portions, until at present only two field- cornetcies are not under the operation of the act, proving that many who first signed had repented of what they had done. We consider such a clause a great weakness in the &«.<»o/itrain«K. present act and would urge that in no future act, whether partial or general, should a provision of this kind be inserted. Permit .system for removal of Stock. 57. Perhaps of all restrictions inijjosedby the act none are Irksome. SO irksomc, or cause so much dissatisfaction as the permit sj'stem for removal of stock, and we were not surprised to find such a number of witnesses unanimously advocating the repeal of this pro^^sion, which they say causes the greatest dissatisfaction among all sections of the farming community, and almost all agree that a man holding a clean bill should be allowed to move his stock on his own swS'." '^"'""' personal permit, subject to a heavy penalty if he wilfully moved scabby sheep. With this suggestion we entii'ely Concurred in hy agree, and believe its adoption would diminish much of the opposition to present legislation. Scab Inspector Kettles And witnesses. cousidcrs such a regulation would be advisable, and do away with a great deal of the friction which at presput exists. Mr. Walter Eubidge thinks it would be a hardship if a man holding a clean bill were not allowed to move stock, subject to a heavy fine in case he moved scabby sheep. Mr. Davison also agrees with this, and believes the proposal woidd do away with many of the objections to the act ; but adds, the stock should not be allowed to be moved until they had been cleansed at least six weeks. Removal of Slawjhier Stock. 58. It has been forcibly brought to the notice of your iJf '"'"'■' '''^^'' Commissioners that great financial diffieidties are constantly ex- perienced, particularly by the smaller farmers, in not being 22 iiblo, when a suitable opportuuity arises, of disposiug favourably of nlaugliter stock under the present act if they do not happen to hold a clean bill. To remedy this, and to remove a great objection, your Commis- Eee.mmendauon. gJQ^p^.g agree -with those Avitucsses who believe such disabilities could be practically met by allowing all slaughter stock to be Dipping under removcd after undergoing one thorough dipping under inspec- .ntpccuon. ^-^^ ^^ .^ recoguised dip containing sulphur ; provided such stock reached their point of destination and were slaughtered within fourteen days after being dipped ; but in all cases where that is not done there should be a second dipping under inspection, within a period of not more than fourteen days from the date of the first dipping. Should, however, scab break out on slaughter stock already in transit by rail for Cape Town, Port Elizabeth or East London, these sheep should be allowed to proceed to their destination and be immediately dipped on arrival. 59. To ensure the efficient administration of such a clause, brmda!'' '" all slaughter stock moving under this restriction should be marked with a special recognised brand, to enable them to be distin- guished under all circumstances, and the person in charge of Ceriifimuof \}^q stock shoidd be obliged to have a certificate from the '^■'""^' inspector of dipping stating the date when they were dipped, and also that they had been etficiently dipped, and any person removing stock which should have been subjected to these restrictions, without TcnaUij. having complied with same, shoul;! be subjected to a penalty at the rate of Gd. per sheep removed. 60. Even if a general act were proclaimed, a clause of this stu^Zd.'"^'''''""^ description would prevent the starving of large consuming centres, and could be repealed when the majority of the flocks were cleansed. From the evidence of Mr. Timson we arc led to i.SifoT.""' '^"' believe that Messrs. Cooper & Nephews would be quite willing to include such a clause in their scheme, and that they do not consider there would be any danger under it of reinfecting clean flocks if the dipping were properly carried out. Removal of Stoclc in times of drought and for change of pasturage. 61 . Taking this into consideration, Ave believe the same pro- />ome pynvUion for yisious could be applied when the removal of stock was found ciangeo pas wage. ^-^^QYutelj uccessary iu times of drought, or in those portions of the Colony where it is annually found necessary to remove stock from summer to winter veldt or vice t>ersa. Dipping Tanks. 62. To thoroughly and efficiently cleanse infected flocks it is raucit;/ of. necessary to have proper appliances for dipping ; but we found that even in the proclaimed area many farmers had no tanks on their properties, and were consequently often obliged iu order to dip their sheep to drive them for considerable distances to stations Avhere such appliances had been erected, with the great danger of spreading the disease. This paucity of dipping tanks is much more marked in the unproclaimed areas, and in certain districts in the west and north-western portions of the Colony it is quite exceptional to find a dipping tank on a farm. We consider that the owner of any property or group of erl'cuankf'^'"'" '" adjoining properties farmed as one farm for grazing sheep or goats, should be obliged to place thereon a properly con- structed dipping tank, either portable or otherwise, capable of allowing for For use of .liotk ^^ efficient dipping of all small stock depastured there, and ihert. all small stock, grazing on such run, no matter who the 23 owner may be, should have the free use of this tank ; nor Servant's suick. shoulcl any employer of laV)Oiir be allowed to discharge a servant who happened to be the owner of small stock, without first thoroughly and effieiently dipping them at the servant's expense, provided the stock were not clean, and had not previously been declared free of scab, and every master should be empowered and compelled by law so to do. 63. All dipping tanks should be carefully measured and Ti'i/'StobeiimHed. gj-Q^^-ij^^lQ^^ and their capacity clearly marked on the side, or on a graduated measuring rod kept for that pirrpose, and in any case where the inspector of dipping found that a properly marked tank had not been constructed, it should be his duty to have it ^n^mg''l?/oZtnet. ^^'^^ 5 t^'3 owncr Supplying the labour and appliances neces- sary for measuring the capacity of the tank, and being responsible for all expenditure, and in case of any owner refusing to comply with these instructions he should, on conviction before a resident magistrate, be liable to a penalty not exceeding £20. Dipping Tanks on Public Roads. 64. For the treatment of scab breaking out in ti-avelling mtrecommoiiieii. stock, a large mass of evidence was given in favour of con- structing Government public dipping tanks on main roads, but after carefully weighing the same, your Commissioners do not consider they would be justified in recommending such a large expenditiire of public moneys, nor would it be necessary, if our previous suggestions But»p'-operUi ^j. jj g^^ ^q qq^ prepare their dipping solution properly, and of a given strength according to the directions, or keep the stock Time i,f immersion * Sufficient time in the bath, many considering it quite sufficient too short. for the stock to pass throiigh a bath 8 or 10 feet long as quickly as possible; whereas, the evidence and experience of all persons acquainted with the subject, prove that the time of immersion should be from one to two miniites, and as the bath in this country, especially when patent dips are employed, is generally used cold, continued immersion for the time specified is much more necessary than a/eas ""^™' '""""' wheu thc dipping solution is warm. In the unproclaimed areas the percentage of farmers unacquainted with the principles of dipping is much larger, and in some districts it is quite the exception to find farmers who dip their sheep efficiently or understand the principles, and hundreds of cases were quoted of men who never dipped their flocks at all, and who, in the opinion of your Commissioners, will never do so unless com- pelled thereto by legislation. In fact, the evidence unmistakably shows that at least 40 per cent, of the farmers in the Colony are not thoroughly acquainted with the principles of dipping, and consequently when they dip do not do it properly, and in many cases are naturally disappointed in the results. 68. To cure this great evil, many suggestions have been sufnlTte/"^^ made, and a large number of witnesses gave it as their opinion, that the projDer way to remedy this deplorable condition in all districts in which scab legislation is in force, would be by heavily fining all those stockmasters who, at the expiration of their period of licence, had failed to cleause their fiocks of scab, and some quoted Australia, and especially New Zealand, as examples of what can be done by heavily fining delinquents. After giving every attention to this evidence, your Commissioners, believing that it is impossible to stamp out the disease in this country without the loyal co-operation of the farmers ; that the farmers of this country are a people who cannot be driven, though easily led to follow a particular course when it is first proved to their satisfaction that such course is for their ultimate benefit ; and that it is a gross injustice to punish men for want of knowledge, incline to the opinion But deprecated, which is the most strongly supported by evidence, that when- ever any doubt exists as to the capacity of a stock farmer to Dipping under thoroughly and efficiently dip his stock, the dipping should be supervision recom- ■ i "i ^ l^ '' ': . e • . n t mended. camcd out uucter the supervision ot an inspector ot dipping, who should have full power to cause the process to be con- At owner's expense. ^y^Q^Q^ properly, at the expcnsc of the owner, from whom the 25 ^ ji ,y responsibility of cleansing the stock would be removed, and resimmiiutrj. pluccd Oil the dipping Superintendent : but in all cases where a And impecior's. fa^-n^er failed, after dipping, to cleanse his stock, the subsequent sinmitaneous dippiugs should always be conducted under the supervision tpptng. ^£ ^^ inspector. If dipping under supervision is properly carried out, your Commissioners believe that such an enormous diminution of scab in the flocks will so immediately result therefrom, as to disarm any opposition which may be advanced against compulsory dipping. Every owner of infected stock should be obliged to dip them at least twice after shearing, ut intervals of not less than ten nor more than fourteen days ; the first dipping to take place within one month after shearing, and whenever this is ineffectual in cleansing the stock, the owner should be obliged to dip them a third or even a fourth time if necessary, and in such Authorised dip. cases the inspector of dipping should have authority to specify the kind of dip to be used, and his choice should be restricted Should contain , ■•• ... , , ,„!pr,,„: to a dip containing sulphur. Notice of intention to dip on a certain day should be ^^^ohceo/intentmi ^-^^^ ^^ ^j^ flock-mastcrs to dipping inspectors at least seven days before the time fixed upon, to allow tbe inspectors to supervise the process if they think it advisable, personally or by deputy ; and whenever the dipping is not carried out under supervision a return should be sent in to the dipping inspector stating the number of stock dipped, the material used and the result. , . ,. ff^ii, tobt ^'^- ^^rives' flocks running in locations should always be dipped wider super- dipped uudcr supervisiou, and the condition of many of these *"''"'• flocks in the King William's Town area, which have been dipped under the sujjer vision of Inspector Kettles, proves conclusively what results can be achieved by such means. Before Mr. Kettles Remits obtained. tQo]^ thesc pcoplc in hand then- flocks were always scabby, whereas it is now quite exceptional to find scabby stock belonging to natives in his area, and this we attribute entii-ely to his seeing the dipping thoroughly and efiiciently carrried out. Mr. Bippiny should h« Kettles further pointed out the advisability of having native stock running in locations all dipped at the same time. With this we entirely agree, and cuusider that the best means for effecting it would be to authorise the inspector of dipping to have all such stock dipped under his supervision in a dip supplied by the Government, a charge being made of so much per head of stock dipped to cover the cost of material. ,, , , , 70. As it is unfortunately in many cases the practice in this ilatl'-rs lo be re- .,.•',.•'. , p i s/)(»isi6fc/or«e)OT«(s' country to pay native herds lu kind, instead or by m^onetary ''""*• wage, and us the small lots of sheep and goats held by these people are diflicult to treat separately, and in moving about the country are constantly the cause of spreading contagion from outside, your Commissioners consider it would be advisable to make the masters responsible for the cleans- ing of their servants' stock, and as in almost all cases the And to dip them, slieep aud goats belonging to herds are mixed with their master's flocks, the latter should be empowered and obliged to have the small stock of all shepherds and others employed upon their properties thoroughly and effif^iently dipped at the time they treated their own flocks, aud should bo at liberty to make a charge to cover At a charge. thcactual cost of dipping, or otherwise at the rate of one penny per sheep for each dipping. 71. A most instructive case illustrating the necessity of tr'd'pp'ingf ""^"'' ^^'^^^8 ^h^ep dipped under inspection is given by Inspector Sparks. A certain Mr. Krog had dipped his sheep three or four times without curing them, and when Mr. Sparks im^uired into the reason why, [G. i— ".J4.J d 26 after a third dipping, thos(> sheep Avere not cleansed, Mr. Froueman, uncle of the owner of the sheep, informed him that his nephew, Mr. K^rog, had not dipped them thoroughly, but had simply passed them rapidly through the bath without properly soaking them ; that the solution was not strong enough, and that this was doue to enable him to state tliat the sheep had been dipped, thinking that the inspector would thereupon grant a permit for their removal. Mr. Sparks examined many of these sheep carefully, and, on opening their wool, found that the solution had not penetrated to tlie skin, and, conse- quently was ineflS-cacions, and this point he demonstrated to Such cuKi common. Mr. Krog. He further informed us that cases of dipping of this sort were extremely common, where men simply dipped with a view, not of curing the disease, but of securing a permit of removal, which was constantly granted. Such things being possible, is it any wonder that scab has not been eradicated from the proclaimed areas ? Mr, "W. Minaar, GraafE-Eeinet, said that a great deal of the prevalence of scab is due to inefficient dipping, such dipping being frequently carried out very badly, and dipping under inspection would remedy this. Mr. "W". Eubidge considers, and we thoroughly agree with him, that goats are more difficult «««!"''* ■'i^"^' '» to cure than sheep, and that it may be necessary to give them three dippings, and a scrubbing to soften the hard skin, and in cases where sheep are badly infected he also considers the same treatment necessary. Mr. J. van Heerden is convinced that the present act ptffecf dipping""' ^^^ failed becausB a great many different kinds of dips have been used, and not always correctly, and he would remedy this by supervision of dipping in cases where a farmer failed to cleanse his stock. Mr. L. de la Harpe, Willowmore, chairman of the local branch of the Afrikander Bond, holds the same views as Mr. van Heerden. Mr. Barend Marais, Humans- dorp, explained how for four years he dipped, and even killed some of his stock by dipping, without curing the scab, until the veterinary surgeon came on his farm and shoAvcd him how it should be done. He followed these instructions, cleansed his stock in 1888, and they have been clean ever since, though in 1889 some of his goats died from poverty. Mr. ^Marais' con- siders that many farmers are in the same position as he was before 1888, and are opposed to legislation because, being unacquainted with the principles of dipping, they have been unable to cleanse their flocks, and he believes that dipping under supervision would remedy all this. Mr. Marais' flocks were always obliged to remain in the same kraal, and he knows of other farmers in the same division who are necessitated to use the same kraals, whose goats and sheep have been clean for the last two years. It is almost unnecessary to state that he is strongly in favour of legislation, as he attributes to the act the fact of his own stock being clean, and he would like to see other farmers benefitted in the same way as himself. Superintending Inspector Davison said : "I can safely say that 50 per cent, of the farmers do not know what their tanks hold, and when they do they don't mix the dip strong enough, or keep the sheep in long enougli. Every man should keep a gauge, and the gauge should have every 25 gallons marked on it." 72. Many witnesses also freely stated that owing to the farZlf." """ "^ prevalence of scab among their flocks, the increasing compe- tition in the world's wool market from other wool producing countries, and the low prices of our staple product, the position of numbers of the smaller farmers is becoming extremely grave, and that if nothing is done to help them out of their difficulty, the time is very near at hand when many will be compelled to part with their holdings, a large proportion of which have been in the possession of their families for generations, and your Com- Ahoutt ,iec;»uj raissioners, being firmly convinced that this is the case, and of dipping under fearing such a deplurable result, cannot too strongly urge the tmpec ion. absolute necessity of having the flocks of siich farmers dipped 27 under inspection, thus proving to them that scab can be combated with ; placing them in a better position to compete with other wool-producing countries, and saving them from the ruin which is now most certainly impending. Efficacy of Dipping. 73. It is almost unnecessary to state that your Commis- Beijond Aispute. sioners are thoroughly convinced from the evidence before them of the efficacy of dipping, when thoroughly and efficiently ap- plied, to cleanse any sheep or goat flocks of scab, and that at advLabieat'aifttmes. all timos whcu scab breaks out in a flock it is much better, even in winter, to choose a favourable day and dip them, rather than allow the disease, by temporising, to advance ; still, considering that several witnesses, who are otherwise iu favour of scab legislation, object to being compelled to dip their stock in winter, and acknowledging, as we do, that if the thorough and efficient dipping of all the flocks is insisted on in the summer months, such cases will be very excejDtional, your Com- Bat hand dressing njisgioncrs belicve that they could be met by allowing the inspector, on the instruction of the chief inspector of stock, to authorise hand dressing during the winter months, due notice being given to all neighbouring farmers that the sheep were infected ; but in Exeeptiotti. any case when only one or two flocks in an area were infected, and all the rest clean, the inspector should, selecting a favour- able day, dip such sheep under his own supervision, and the Government should be responsible for all casualties over and above 2^ per cent, which could be directly proved to be due to the said dipping. Dipping Materials. 74. Not wishing to become the medium of a trade adver- Paitnt Dips net ^[^qj^q^i to any particular tii'm or firms engaged in manufactur- mentimea by name. . .. •' ^ . ^ ^ . . "",. , • ^ -i vag dipping materials, your Commissioners studiously avoided mentioning the names of any particular patent dips when they were given in the evidence, and all such statements are merely jii patent dips referred to as "patent dips." The evidence proves that '■^"''"'"- tj^e patent dips generally used in this country, when thoroughly and efficiently applied according to instructions, are effective in curing the disease, but that dips containing sulphiu- are more Lasting efect of lasting in their results, in so far as the danger of reinfection '"''"'"' is concerned, because the particles of sulphur remaining in the wool seemed to protect the sheep from reinfection. 75. As a lime and sulphur raixtui-e does not come under Xothtnff better fjie heading of patent dips, a great deal of evidence was taken 'LZ'"'"'"" ""' on the subject, and youi- Commissioners unhesitatingly state that it has been proved to their satisfaction that no more certain or efficacious dip could possibly be applied, and that when carefully prepared it is not more deleterious to the wool than other sulphur dips, Does not injure especially whcn the staple is short, and that eveu when wools "'°°'' are long 'the prevalence of scab is more deleterious to them than Prevents rein- t]jp presence of the dip. Lime and sulphm- dip also undoubt- ^"'*''"- edly wards off reinfection, often for a considerable time, even if the dipped sheep have to be placed iu old, infected kraals, or happen to come iu contact with infected flocks. It has also the advan- chtap. tage of being extremely cheap, and were it not that it is But requires care, ncccssary to boil the mixturc before using it, nothing could compare with it for the purpose of eradicating scab from the flocks of the Colony. d2 28 76. Mr. Giibb, woolwnshev, Uitenhage, considers lime and Effect on u-ooi. Bulphuv onc of the worst dips so far as the effect on the fibre of the wool is concerned, but as Mr. Gubb referred to the free lime in wools so dipped, we are inclined to think that solutions of lime and sulphur producing sucli conditions as he stated were not properly prepared, and that if there had been a thorough solution of the ingredients, and had the pure golden fluid been obtained by boiling, and then drawn off, the result would have been very different ; and this opinion is held by Mr. Jack, wool- washer, of King William's Town, who considers it one of the best dips when properly applied, even from a woolwasher's point of view, and almost all the scab inspectors and the majority of the leading farmers are loud in its praises. 77. Another equally good dip is tobacco, especially suMu"" '""' when mixed with sulphur, and as tobacco is largely grown in the country, your Commission would suggest the advisability BMuaesformanu- of trvins', bv the offering of bonuses or otherwise, to establish the manufacture of tobacco extract for dipping purposes, con- taining not less than a certain fixed percentage of nicotine, certified by Government analysis. The principal objection to using colonially prepared leaf rariation in tobacco is due to the fact that it varies greatly in strength, and strength. that tlio appliances necessary for infusing it for dipping pur- Preparation. poses are not to be found on most farms. 78. The value of the different dipping materials annually imported"'^ ^''' imported into this Colony may be stated roughly at from £60,000 to £70,000, and if our suggestion were carried out, a great portion of that amount would go into the pockets of the colonial cultivators of tobacco, and thus help to develope the resources of the country. Compulsory Simultaneous Dipping. 79. Believing, as we have already stated, that one of the Evidence taken, chief causes of failure of all previous scab legislation in this country was the absence of any provision for compelling simul- taneous co-operation on the part of flock-masters in combating with the scab disease, your Commissioners took the fullest evidence as to the necessity or possibility of incorporating compulsory simullaneous dipping in any future legislation on the subject. 80. No less than 1 78 witnesses, including the most success- Farotmibie. f^\ ggab inspectors and many of the most intelligent and practical men engaged in sheep and goat husbandry, who were examined directly on this subject, and who collectively owned or managed flocks numbering over 5J:0,000 sheep and goats, were unanimously in favour of compulsory general simultaneous dipping. To this number must be added that of a vast host of witnesses whose evidence, though agreeing on this subject, cannot be tabulated because, having stated in twidence that they agreed with previous witnesses, it was unnecessarry directly to examine them on this question. 81. Owing to the extent of country and diversity of climate thnemm'tfis"."' to be takpu iuto Consideration in framing a regulation of this far reaching character, and to prevent any unnecessary inter- ference with the ordinary routine of farm life, your Commissioners consider that general dippings should be extended over a period of three months, and that for all practical purposes dippings so conducted might be considered sufficiently simultaneous. 82. The Colony should be divided into areas according to Lipping areas. climatc, the usual scasons chosen for shearing, &c., and the stock farmers residing in these areas should have the right of When to dip. deciding, by a majority of votes, the most suitable time for cui'iying cut the dippings ; but in all cases, all flocks within HoK. any given area should be dipped twice at intervals of not less than 10 nor more than 14 days between each dipping, in a recognised scab-destroying solution containing sulphur, under inspection if necessary, within a period of six weeks ; and all flocks in the Colony during the months of December, January and February, and on no kraal"""' Consideration should sheep be moved from an area in which such dipping had not yet been carried out into one where the dipping had already taken place, without being properly dipped under inspec- tion. To provide against the contingency of the rains in the north-western districts being late, the Commission would suggest that in such cases the time for the simultaneous dipping in those districts might be extended for two montlis, if necessarj\ Disinfection of all kraals should be Xetv kranh. insistcd ou duriug this period, and when possible all dipped stock sliould be placed in new kraals or on fresh lying places, and, Aiidtiewrddt. whcrcver jDracticable, grazed on veldt on which sheep or goats have not been pastured for two or three months previously. 83. A few witnesses contended that as several flocks in the ciSil"'. '" '"" Colony were already clean, it would be unjust to the owners, and unnecessary, to insist upon these flocks being dipped ; but, considering the danger of scab being latent in a flock supposed to be clqan, your Commissioners agree with the majority of those who, Not eoi.curred In. though holdiug clean bills, consider it advisable to have all flocks, whether clean or not, brought under these regulations. 84. Nothing more forcibly proved the advantages enjoyed Owners u-iUn.ci. \yj ^j^g owners of clcan stock, and their di'ead lest their flocke should become reinfected, than the alacrity with which they agreed to provision being made to oblige them to dip their clean stock, with the view of stamping the disease out of the country. 85. Being convinced that si'.nultaneousgeneral dipping would Two yearfi limit, practically deal a death blow to scab disease in this country, your Commission consider that such a clause should only be in operation for two years, after which time any isolated cases of scab re- appeai-ing could be dealt with under the other recommendations already made. 86. As raany flockmasters might wish to alter their time for Notice to farmers, shearing, &c., bcforc this compulsory dipping came into force, we would suggest that legislation on these lines should come into operation on the 1st of December, 1894, provided at least three months notice was given beforehand, to (>nable every flockinaster to prepare for it. 87. In every district of the Colony visited by your Corarais- u/ferffavo,,7a7i''' sioncTS, evideucc was advanced in favour of compulsory geueral simultaneous dipping, and we were forcibly struck by the fact that no evidence on this point M^as stronger or more lucid than that given in the western and north-western districts by farmers who felt that without some combined action of this kind their position was becoming hopeless. Mr. J. F. J. van Eensburg, Komgha, is in favour of such legislation for the whole of the Colony ; Inspector Sparks thinks for the purpose of quickly eradicating scab, it would be advisable to have such a clause in conjunction with a general scab act ; Mr. J. Kilfoil, King William's Town, whose flocks have been clean for some years, believes such a clause desirable, if necessary under super- vision, as he knows of men who " dip 600 sheep in a gallon of dip " ; Mr. J. van Heerden, Aberdeen, well acquainted with the districts of Fraserburg, Car- narvon and Prieska, and constantly buying stock there, considers such legis- lation should be enforced over the whole Colony ; Mr. H. G. van Niekerk 30 Bedford, would limit the period of dipping to two months for the whole Colony ; Mr. J. L. Botha, Cradock, says it would be a good thing, and pre- vent reinfection'; Mr. Lang, Dordrecht, thinks it would materially assist in stamping out the disease ; Mr. A. Kruger, Burghersdorp, delegated by a branch of the Afrikander Bond, when asked if he thought it advisable that any new act should be commenced with a sinmltaneous dijiping, said : " That would be one of the best clauses in the act. If two or three farmers live on the same place and don't dip at the same time one gets infected from the other, and that is the case with most farms." Mr. N. Badenhorst, snr., Hope Town, a delegate elected to oppose a scab act, gives it as his opinion that in order to prevent the spread of scab disease as much as possible, it would be advisable if all the farmers in a district were obliged, within a given period of one or two months, to dip their sheep ; Mr, J. P. du Toit, who has been farming in the Hope Town district for the last forty years, believes in a general act with a simultaneous dipping clause ; Mr. J. F. van Wyk, Fraserburg, says : " In suitable seasons like the present if we were to club together and do our best, with the aid of compulsory simultaneous dipping, in two years, if not altogether eradicated, there would at all events be very little scab left ;" Mr, A. J. Vorster, Calvinia, states : "Any act should include a general dipping clause. There are merino sheep farmers here who have never dipped their sheep, and where a man can keep his sheep on his farm he can also dip if necessary ; " Mr. C. J. de Jager, Prieska, states : "I am in favour of compulsory simul- taneous dipping ; " Mr. W. Smallberger, Eiversdale, is in favour of such dipping under inspection ; " Mr. P. Swart, Bredasdorp : " I would be in favour of such an act." Govm'mnent Dip Depot. 88 . With very few exceptions, al most all witnesses examined ^^oeneraihj approved ^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^-^^ Government establishing a dip dep6t with branches throughout the country, either in charge of resident magistrates, field-cornets, dipping inspectors or others, for the supply of efficient dipping material to flockmasters for dipping purposes at cost Free of raiiicmj price, to bc forwarded over all Government railway systems free of carriage. Many who in theory did not believe in such a principle, considered it not impolitic iu practice, as by Expenditure ^jj^g means a great deal of opposition to legislation would be disarmed, and thought that, if Government compelled them by law to dip their sheep, the Government would be justified in coming to their assistance and by spending a large amount of money stamping the scab disease out of the country. Nature of Scab. 89. The most extraordinary views are held by some regard- vt(ws" ""'"""■" "^S the origin, nature, and treatment of the disease, and your Commissioners were surprised to find several farmers give it as their opinion that the disease was not contagious, simply resulting from poverty caused by bad seasons or bad herding. How any person of ordinary intelligence, and gifted with even very moderate Seal/ contagious, powcrs of obsoivation, the routine of whose daily life brings him into close contact with his flocks, can believe that the disease is not alone contagious, but under certain circumstances extremely so, is more than your Commissioners can understand. Several such persons, however, presented themselves for examination, especially in the north- western and western districts of the Colony ; but as a short treatise on the disease, by the senior Colonial veterinary surgeon, with the principles laid down, in which your Commissioners entirely agree, is attached as an appendix to this report, it is unnecessary for us to deal further with this subject. 31 Possibility of eradictiiig the disease from the flocks of the Colony. 90. Persons being found professing to disbelieve in the Considered impo>- contagioiisness of the disease, it is not to be wondered at that many witnesses scouted the idea of ever, under any circum- stances, eradicating the disease fi-om the colonial flocks ; but, your Com- missioners consider that the evidence proves exactly the Commistio,, believes contrary, and that nothing demonstrates this more conclusively than the fact that the disease has already been stamped out, not only as previously referred to, in the district of Komgha, but also in most of the Australian Colonies, as proved by the letters of Sxampia. the inspectors of stock in Victoria, New South "Wales, South. Australia, Tasmania, and Queensland published as an appendix herewith. If it was possible to cleanse the flocks in the Komgha division, why should it not be possible to do the same thing in other districts of the Colony, if suitable legislation were introduced, and efficiently administered ? Legislation, general or partial. 91. The vital question for decision is whether legislation, Conflicting evidence, bascd OD the liucs your Commissiouers have suggested, should apply to a part, or the whole of the Cape Colony. On this crucial point, as was naturally to be expected, the most opposite and conflicting views were freely tendered by witnesses, and much of the evidence is extremely difficult to analyse, as several witnesses, after stating that they were opposed to a scab act, were on minuter examination found to be strongly in favoiu' of protecting the careful farmer from the danger of reinfection of his flocks thi'ough the carelessness of his less energetic neighbour. In to tatliat^"'"""'" ^^^^ ^^^'^ ^^^ witnesses were found to be entirely oi^posed to legislation on the subject ; but your Commissioners could not help noticing that many witnesses expressed themselves as ' violently opposed to the present act, and that their objections Through ignorance. Were in many cases due to complete want of knowledge of the principles of the act, or to a sentimental feeling that legis- Or lentimentai. latiou, referring to their flocks, interfered with what they orunsuitauuty. Considered their sacred liberty. We are also bound to acknowledge that a great deal of opposition is due to the present act being in many cases inapplicable to the requirements of the country : thus a feeling of uneasiness and uncertainty as to the probable removal of unsuitable provisions by future legislation causes many to declare against any such attempt being made. The strongest and most convincing evidence has been given, especially by farmers residing in the Pntectim under uorth-w^estcm and western districts, of the absolute necessity, partial act. .. i- i i • i • i k - • i f • it a partial act is proclaimed, of protecting in those districts the farmers who cleanse their flocks, against the danger of re- auIldfT^ ^"'"^ infection hy travelling scabby stock passing over their properties, by empowering them, simply as a matter of right and justice, to prohibit such passage, and tlius allow them to Andituide. reap the due reward of their industry ; on the other hand the farmers residing in the eastern and midland districts of the Colony, under similar circumstances, demand protection from the danger of reinfection of their flocks from stock entering from the uuproclaimed areas, and this on a large border can only be given by the absolute prohibition of stock entering from outside. 92. "With regard to the most suitable dividing line, in case Dividing luxe. a partial act he decided on, the north-western railway was that most favoured, and it was thought by many that such a Hue should be fenced ; but as the railway traverses many properties, it would be impossible to cut off a farmer holding land so divided from the other portion of his holding by adopting a division of that sort. Several Admission into Ayituossps were iiudcr the impression that, if a dividing line were decided upon, adjoining field-cornetcies or even single farms should have the right of petitioning to come under the act ; but we agree with the evidence of the superintending scab inspector Line mutt be y^j others that, a dividing line to be effective, should be definite, and that only when another large tract of territory was ready to come in should it be altered. 93. The principal arguments advanced by certain farmers mappUcabuTo'mrth- residing iu the north-western and 'western districts against the western districts. possibility of such districts being placed under scab legislation were the prevalence of droughts and the scarcity of water, which would pre- vent their complying with the restrictions on the removal of scabby stock, though they appear to overlook the danger to clean flocks by such movements ; and, most extraordinary reason of all, the large size of their holdings, which youi- Commissioners consider rather an advantage, as it enables them to place cleansed stock on fresh pasturage. 94. That these north-western districts are subject to severe uiSoubted^ periodical droughts, and that at times the necessity for the removal of stock in search of pasturage, or from the failure of the water supply, has been fully proved by the evidence, your Commis- nioners acknowledge, and in recommending the provisions in the earlier portion of this report which they consider it advisable to adopt in any future legislation on this subject, these facts have received all due consideration. Still, to further meet the difiiculties advanced by farmers rJomZmied '^""" I'esidiug in these districts, and to prevent injustice being done to them under any possible contingency, your Commissioners would further suggest the advisability of embodying a clause in anj^ future legislation dealing with the suppression of scab disease, whereby the Governor- in-Council could suspend the act, or any portion of it, during not'reaui'red"''"'''^^ pcriods of severe drought, if it were absolutely proved to be necessary ; but as such legislation would be commenced with compulsory simultaneous dipping during the summer months, we believe the improvement in the flocks in those districts would be so immense that it would be unnecessary to bring such repeal into operation. This clause of repeal should refer only to those districts north and west of Prieska, Victoria West, Beaufort West, Worcester, Tulbagh and Piquetberg, and on no consideration should sheep be removed from a district where it is in opera- tion into a district where such was not the case, until the ordinary require- ments laid down for the removal of stock had been complied with, 95. Mr. J. Devenish, Prieska, says : " I am in favour of a i'CTrf««f«m/aOT»/- general act if inspectors are appointed in each fleld-cornetcy geiera ae . ^^ ^^^ recommeudation of the sheep farmers." Mr. J, A. van Niekerk, Prieska, stated that he is always in danger of reinfection from travelling scabby stock passing over his property ; that he is in favour of a general act ; and that there is always suiflcient water to dip. Mr. J. F. van Wyk, Fraserburg, holding 6,000 sheep and farming there for 25 years, says : " I must declare, aud I am delegated to do so by the Afrikander liond in my ward, iu favour of a scab act, but not of the present act. Although as a general rule people are opposed to a scab act, still, on all sides the scab act, or something in favour of it, is pressed on them, and they think it is better that the Government should come to the assistance of the people and provide for such a workable scab act ; that those who are willing to dip should be assisted ; and that there should be a suspensory clause, so that in times of drought, when they are obliged to trek, (li.i act should not. iuterfere ■with them or he an oppression. If we were cut off by means of (he scab act, it would cause great inconvenience in the selling of slaughter stock which had to be taken into the proclaimed area." Mr. M. J. van SchalkAvyk, Fraserburg : " I am in favour of a reasonably lenient act, because I ha\ e seen that if there is no law to force them our people will do nothing. For instance, if I were not obliged to pay my quitrent I don't think I should do so. I have dipped since 18So. Before that I never dipped, but then I had to shear from 75 to 80 sbcep to get a bale of wool. I shear at the end of February and now dip ifi .W;uch or April, twice within 11 days, according to the regulations, and the result hns been that I now shear oO to 55 sheep to a bale from the same quality of sheep." Mr. A. J. Vorster, Calvinia : " I am in favour of an act. My reasons arc that, although I am doing my best to keep down scab, it does not help me much, because according to the practice in this country there is continual trekking of scabby flocks over my property, which lie about and rest there for some time. I have neighbours who don't take (he same view as I do, and are not particular in dipping ; consequently my sheep constantly become reinfected, and I am put to expense, and j'oquiro some [u-otection in the shape of a law." Mr. J. J. Reineke, delegate fi-om a branch of the Afrikander Bond, Herbert, is in favour of legislation because Ijis experience has taught him, that if a man looks after his sheep carefully and properly he must dip them, and he is sorry to say many of the Herbert farmers do not do so. Mr. S. P. Luttig, Prince Albert : " I am in favour of an act. You will never eradicate scab without the assistance of an act which will oblige people to dip, and will compel them to keep scabby sheep separate frorn others. This will be of great benefit to the smaller farmers." Mr. H. W. P>ekker, Ladismith, maintains that if a law were passed corn polling people to dip under inspection when necessary, it would lie of the utmost beneflt to his district, and in three years' time he would be able to eradicate scab. Mr. W. Smallberger, Eiversdale : " I am perfectly prepared to receive a workable scab act, and it would be a benefit to those people who are most opposed to it." Mr. H. A. Eckstein, Bredasdorp: "I am iu favour of some legislation to oblige negligent farmers to attend better to the cleaning of theii- flocks from scab, and to protect those who do keep clean .'iheep against their negligent neighbours. I think only the large farmers, not the smaller ones, dip here," Mr. M. J. de Villiers, Caledon : " I think it possible to devise a law which would be acceptable, but there will always be some objections. I think the more intelligent farmers would be in favour of such a measure.'' 96. On the other hand, many witnesses were altogether -n''f"7t "^"""^ opposed, not only to a general scab act but to almost any legislation on the subject. Mr. G. van Niekerk, Prieska : " I have farmed in this district for seven years, and thirty-throe years in Victoria West. I have .3,000 merino sheep and goats. I am opposed to a general scab act. The north-western districts are more liable to drought than any other part of the Colony — and I am acquainted with the greater part of them, and during the last three years have come into contact with the farmers trek- king from Calvinia and Fraserburg. That is sufficient proof that it was impossible for them to stay there, and they have also told me about the d rough t^'. It is on account of these periodical droughts, which compel them tu trok, that they are so much opposed to the scab act. On the larger pi oportion of the farms there, not only those which have been lately sold by tlie Government, but even the others, there is scarcely sufficient water for domestic purposes, and that shows how impossible it is for those parts to be under a general scab act. I have dipped sheep for the last thirty years, and my experience is that it helps temporarily, but you must always keep at it. [a 1— '94.] e 34 In this district the majority of the farmers do dip, and I am surprised to hear to-day that two of the witnesses examined do not. When we have no dips we dip at our neighbour's. I am not certain that you can ever stamp out scab altogether." Mr. Sydney Fryer, C'alvinia : " I am not in favour of legislation for this district at present, because the circumstances here are quite different from many others in the Colony, especially the eastern province. Here our sheep have large tracts of country to run over, and are never kraaled ; and owing to drought and scarcity oi water they are obliged to be con.stautly moved about for watering piu-poscs, and large numbers of sheep, sometimos 40,000 or 50,000 have to drink at one place, so the act •would be unworkable here. And how would it be possible to dip sheep at these places ? The veldt would become impregnated with the dip, and would be the means of poisoning the sheep as well as the people who drank the water, if a poisonous dip were used. Besides this, much of the water cannot be used for making dip, because of its brackish qualities. Another reason why an act would be unworkable in this district is that if 50,000 or 60,000 sheep are drinking at one place, and one became infected with scab, it would be absolutely necessary when the water gave out to move them away ; but under the act it would first be necessary to get an inspector, who might be many miles away. But it would be necessary, on account of the water, to move the flocks at once to another drinking station, and as they have all been drinking at one place they would all have to be quarantined on account of one sheep. In some seasons the springbok migrate in thousands and tens of thousands, even mixing with our flocks and constantly infecting them with scab. I am convinced that if the act were proclaimed in this district it would, under present circumstances, mean ruin to the sheep farmers here. I should further like to state that scab causes very little trouble or loss in this district, and as a rule is mostly seen amongst the young sheep if they are not shorn at the proper time. The small loss caused by scab in our flocks would be nothing compared to the expense and inconvenience of carrying out any act here. Before permanent drinking places are established it will be impossible to carry out any act here." Mr. A. G. Visser, Carnarvon : " I am against anj' act. My first reason is, the continual droughts to which the district of Carnarvon is liable, which sometimes bring stock into siich poor condition, that it would be impossible to dip them as requu'ed by the act. These drouglits cause constant trekking of stock from one part of the district to another, and into other adjoining districts. On my farm there is a good supply of permanent water, but there is constant trekking over mj- property. For the rest of the district there is a great scarcity of water ; last year several farmers had not enough water on their places to drink their stock, and I can mention cases where they had to water their sto(tk every other day, and in this respect I think the climate is also against us. The lambing season here is in the winter, wheu it is cold and the kraals are very wet, and the stock get so pDor that it is impossible to dip them. Last year I lost over 1,200 sheep from j)overty. Then labour is another difficulty, and my experience is that the labour question presents one of the greatest objectious with regard to a scab act. If we have better herds we shall have less scab." Mr. J. B. Nigrini, Fraserburg : " It is well known that our part of the country is quite different fron< the east. The nature of the veldt here makes it necjessary to have very large holdings, which would render the application of a scab act here very inconvenient. There are tw^o different classes of sheep farmers ; landowners and trekkers. Trekking is necessary, but the scab act would make it very difficult, if not impossible, and that would mean ruin, because trekking is very often unavoidable. It is well known that people don't trek as long as they can help it, and when the day comes that they do trek, there is no chance for any delay, and the sheep are then so poor that if they were to be dipped half of them would die. We 35 manago to koep tho slioop fairly clean for a conjile of years, but then soab will return in a worse form than ever before, and then it is impossible to clean the sheep." 97. Though at the commencement of the iuqiiiry differ- refo^umM. cnces of opinion as to the advisability, practicability or possi- bility of fi'amiug scab legislation suitable to the reqxiirements of all portions of the Colony may have existed among the members of your Com- mission, now, at its close, after the very fullest investigation, during which all phases of the question were fully considered, and after personal observa- tions taken while travelling over the greater portion of the Colony, your Commissioners, fully recognising the responsibility of their position, unhesi- tatingly recommend legislation on the lines laid down in this report, such legislation to apply to the whole of the Cape Colony ; and if their recom- mendations are carried out, yoiu' Commissioners do not for one moment doubt that witliin a very short period of time none will derive more benefit there- from than theflockmasters residing in the north-western and western districts of the Colonj^, and that instead of such legislation causing ruination to them, as stated by some witnesses, it will be a means of placing their flocks in a much better position to withstand the severe di'oughts to which they are occasionally subjected, and during which, in the past, such vast numbers of stock perished, entailing losses many of which would have been averted had diligent effort been made to cleanse them of scab during favourable seasons. Cooperh Scheme. 98. With reference to the formal offer submitted by Messrs. Not reeommeiided. Coopcr & Ncphows to the Government of the Cape Colony for the eradication of the scab disease from the sheep and goat flocks, transmitted by the Government to your Commissioners for report, after careful consid( ration of the scheme, and the fullest examination of Mr. S. Rowlaud Timson, representing the said firm, who presented him- self for examination, your Commissioners consider it would be inadvisable to entertain an offer winch would entail the principle of handing Liability to Qygj. i^fje absolute administration of an act of the Colonial Legislature to any private firm. 1 Summary of Recommeiidations. Eepeal of present scab legislation. 2. A general scab act (§ 97). 3. Suspensory clause for certain north western districts. (§ 94.) 4. Notice of termination of appointment to all scab inspectors, who, howevQf, shall be eligible for re-appointment. (§ 47). 5. (i.) Appointment of at least one inspector of dipping in each field- cornetcy, on recommendation of resident farmers, (§ 46). (ii.) Appointment of inspectors of areas by Government, to supervise class (i). (§ 47.) (iii.) Appointment of chief inspector to be responsible for administration of act. (§ 47.) 6. Prohibition of entry of all small stock into Colony by land, and qimrantine stations at ports for importations 'over sea. (§ 36.) 7. Eificient dipping of all small stock at least twice after shearing, under inspection if necessary, (§ 68.) 8. Annual compulsory, simultaneous dipping of all stock for two years, in a sulphur dip, under inspection if necessary. (§ 82 and 85.) 9. Provision for dealing with intermediate outbreaks of scab. (S 40, 08 and 73.) 3fi 10. Immediate notification of all outbreaks of the disease. (§ 68.) 11. Notification of intention to dip, and of results. (§ 68.) 12. Dipping of scabby stock before impounding. (§ 38.) 13. All stock in native locations to be dipped at the same time, under supervision. (§ 69.) 14. Stock farmers to be responsible for cleansing of employes stock. (§ 70.) 15. Eegulatious for cleansing stock belonging to servants or others before removal from any run. (§ 62.) 16. Inspectors, police officers, or landowners may impound scabby stock travelling on p\iblic roads, with or without a permit. (§ 64.) 17. A siiitable dipping tank to be provided on every run. (§ 62.) 18. The same in native locations. (§ 65.) 19. Removal of clean stock on owner's permit. (§ 57.) 20. Facilities for removal of slaughter stock. (§ 58.) 21. Branding of slaughter stock for pui-poses of identification. (§ 59.) 22. Facilities for removal of stock in times of drought, or for change of pasturage. (§ 61.) 23. Government dip depots. (§ 88.) 24. Disinfection of kraals, buildings and vehicles, including railway trucks. (§ 51 and 55.) 26. Baling of skins and wool in transit. (§ 55.) T. W. SMARTT, C-'hairman. E. P. BOTHA. P. J. Du TOIT. W. H. HOCKLi. A. FRANCIS. Cape Town, 24th March, 1894. SCAB DISEASE COMMISSION. MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS. lU SCAB DISEASE COMMISSION. MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS. Qtteen's Toton, Friday, ith November, 1892. FR£SENT : Mr. Botha. „ P. J. DU ToiT. Mr. Frost (Chainnan). Dr. Smartt. Mr. Frajtcis. 1 . Read Commission of His Ivxcellencv the Officer administering the Government, dated the 17th October. 1892, appointing the Commission, and nominating Mr. Frost to be Chairman 2. Read letter from the Secretary for Lands, Mines and Agriculture, dated the 21st October, 1892, appointing Mr. E. F. Kilpin, Clerk -Assistant of the House of Assembly, to be Secretary of the Commission. ■'5. The Chairman put in : (1). Letter from the Secretary of Lands, Mines and Agriculture, dated the 21at October, 1892, submitting certain points for the consideration of the Com- mission. (2). Letter from the Secretary of Lands, Mines and Agriculture, dated the 24th October, 1892, forwarding copy of a letter, dated the 8th October, from Mr. C. de ViUiers, scab inspector, Area 20, Aberdeen, requesting that the Com- mission may shortly visit that area. 4. The Secretary put in : (I). Copies of the following Acts : i. Scab Act, No. 31 of 1874. [Eepealed 1886]. ii. Scab Act, No. 28 of 1886. iii. Scab Amendment Act, No. 17 of 1887. iv. Scab Amendment Act, No. 33 of 1888. V. Scab Amendment Act No. 25 of 1889. vi. Scab Amendment Act No. 7 of 1890. vii. Scab Amendment Act No. 9 of 1890. viii. Scab Amendment Ant No. .37 of 1891. ix. Pound Act No. 15 of 1892. (2). Copies of the following Bills, which were withdrawn or dropped. i. Bill to .alter and amend in certain respects the Act No. 31 of 1874. TA. B. 28— '84J. ii. Bill to more effectually prevent the spread of scab disease in sheep and goats. [A. B. 20— '85]. iii. Bill to declare the intention of the " Scab Acts Extension Act, 1889," with regard to the scope of the term " Scab Acts " therein employed. [A. B. 4— '90]. iv. Bill to authorise the extension of the provisions of the " Scab Acts " to farms or blocks of farms adjoining areas or districts wherein the said Acts or similar laws are in force. [A. B. 6 — '90]. V. Bill to extend the provisions of the Scab Acts, with certain Amend- ments, throughout the Colony. [A. B. 27— '90]. vi. BiU to consolidate and amend the Scab Acts and to provide for the extirpation of the scab disease in sheep and goats. [A. B. 16 — '91]. vii. Bill to repeal the Scab Acts and to make other provisions in lieu thereof. LA. B. 37— '91]. viii. Bill to amend the Scab Acts. [C. B. 1— '92]. (3). Copies of the following Select Committee Eeports : i. On Scab Bill. [A. 3— '741. ii. On Scab Bill. [A. 5— '841. iii. On extending Scab Act to Field-Cornetcies. [C. 6 — '89]. (4). Eeports of the Agricultural Department for 1890-91. [Q. 36-'91] and for 1891-92. [G. 19— '92]. 2 b (5). Copy of the Scah Law, revised as now in force. (6). Letter fr m the Secretary for Lands, Mines and Agriculture, dated the 21 st October, 1892, forwarding: — i. Scab Inspector's instructions, revised issue. 1892. ii. Set of forms in use by Scab Inspectors, iii. Set of Acts in force relating to scab iv. Draft of consolidated Scab Bill, fi-amed before the session of 1892. (7). Letter from the Secretary for Lands, Mines and Agriculture, dated the 27th October, 1892, forwarding copies of Proclamations and Government Notices now in force relating to scab disease. (8). Letter from the Secretary for Lands, Mines and Agriculture, dated the 27tli October, 1 892, forwarding a statement of the number of tanks which would be necessary for natives in scab areas, with cost of same, and a memorandum by the Treasurer of the Colony on the subject. « (9). Letter from the Secretary for Lands, Mines and Agriculture, dated the Slst October, 1892, forwarding a letter from the Secretary of the Zwarto Ruggens Farmers' Association, dated the 22nd October, suggesting Jansenvillo as a desirable place for the Commission to visit, (10). Letter from tlie Secretary for Lands, Mines and Agriculture, dated the 27th October, 1892, forwarding a letter from Mr. M. Knight, scab inspector, district No. II, relating to simultaneous dipping, and a memorandum by Mr. Warneford, Agricultural Department, on the same subject. (11). Letter from Mr. George Mandy, Petion, Barkly East, dated the 6th October, 1892, and addressed to the Hon. the Colonial Secretary, on the necessity for extending the Scab Acts. (12). List of scab inspectors, and their salaries. (13). Map of the Colony, showing the existing scab areas. (14). Map of Transkeian Territories, sliowing the existing .scab areas. 5. The Commission deliberated upon the mode of procedure to be adopted, and the times and places when and where it would be desirable to meet for the purpose of taking e\'idence, and resolved that public notice be given of the same through the various Civil Commissioners. [Appendix C] 6. The Commissioner adjourned at 12- 30 p.m. Queen's Totvn, Mondat/, 1th November, 1892. PRESENT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. BoTH.\. Dr. Smartt. ,, P. J. DU Toit. Mr. Fraxcis. 1. Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. 2. The Secretary put in copies of : (1). Natal Scab Law, No. 48 of 1887 (now in force). (2). Natal Scab Laws which have been repealed, viz.: — No. 32 of 1865, No. 28 of 1875, No. 26 of 1878, and No. 12 of 188'>. 3. Dr. Smartt moved : That the Government be recjuested to furnish each member of the Commia.sion with a copy of the Australian Scab Acts, including Tasmania. Agi'eed to. 4. Mr. Hendrick Christoffel van der Vj^er was examined. 5. Mr. WiUiam de Wet was examined. 6. Mr. Henry Wainwright was examined. 7. Business suspended at one p.m. and resumed at 2'30 p.m. 8. Mr. Johannes Hendrik de Lauge was examined. 9. Mr. Carl David Wentzel was examined. 10. Mr. John George Nicholas van Gass was examined. 11. Mr. Phillipus Eudolpli de Wet was examined. 12. Mr. Jacobus Christian Oosthuizen was examined. 13. Mr. John du Plessis was examined. 14. The Commission adjourned at six p.m. East London, Tuesday, Sth November, 1892. present : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. I Dr. Smartt. ,, P. J. DU ToiT. I Mr. Francis. 1 . Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. 2. The Chairman put in a tflegram from ihe Hon. the Treasurer of the Colonj requesting the Commission to give its most earnest consideration to the question of the mode of the appiiintment of seah inspectors. ;5. Mr. Albert Lehmann, chairman of Chamber of Commerce, was examined. 4. Mr. Henry James Adkins, jr., scab inspector, was examined. :>. Business su.speniled at 12 30 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m. 6. Mr. David Amos was examined. 7. Afr. Berthold Victor Danckwartz was examined. 8. The Commission adjourned at 4' 15 p.m. East London, Wednesday ^ 9ih November, 180l PRESEXT : Mm. Fkost (Chairman). Mr. Botha, I Dr. Smahtt. ,, Du ToiT. I Mr. Francis. 1 . Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. 2. Mr. Alfred Wallace Eeid was examined. 3. Mr. John Louis Norton was examined. 4. Mr. John Thompson was examined. ■'). Mr. Albert Cecil Oakeshott was examined. 6. Mr. William Jenvey, Assistant Tratfic Manager, was examined. 7. Bu.siness suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m. 8. The Chairman put in a letter from Mr. W. Hughes, Xonxa, Glen Grey, requesting to be informed if the Commission would visit that place. 9. After deliberation, the Commission .adjourned at 3 p.m. King William'' s Town, Thursday, 10^// November, 1892. PHESENT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. I Dr. Smartt. ,, DC To IT. I Mr. Fka:\cis. 1. Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. 2. The Chairman put in the following letters : — i. From J. W. Hunter, dated 27th October, 1892, Strydfontein, East Griqualand, honorary secretary of the Umzimvubu Farmers' Association, asking that the Commission will give that place a visit. ii. From Mr. C. J. Price, dated Bold's Point, Queen's Town, with reference to the working of the Scab Act. ill. From Mr. J. B. Kettles, Scab Inspector, area No. 6, dated the 7th and 9th instant, addressed to the resident magistrate, stating the arrangements made by him under in.structions from the magistrate for taking evidence in King William's Town. 3. John Molongeni, accompanied by Maci and Zaza, gave evidence on behalf of the Peelton natives, to which Maci added a statement. 4. Jim Tita, accompanied by Cwama and Tsala, gave evidence on behalf of the Balasi (Jamba) location. 5. Sem, accompanied by Deliwe and Nazo, gave evidence on behalf of the Yellowwood's location, Nazo adding a statement. 6. Mr. Henry Francis Brown, Scab Inspector, area Ob, was examined. 7. The Commission adjourned at 5-1.5 p.m. King William^s Toton, Friday, Wth November, 1892. PRESENT . Mr. Frost (Chairman. Mr. Botha. Dr. Smartt. ,, DU ToiT. Mr. Francis. 1. Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. VI 2. The Commission deliherated and decided upon the route to he taken after the comple- tion of that arrangod on thf> 4th instant, and resolved that public notice he gireu of the same as was iloae on that occsision. 3. Mr. Johannes Ooenrad Fr memtin was examined. 4. Mr. Ad'ira Fronemin w.vs examined. 5. Sizini, aceompniei by Mnytndu, on behalf of the Quggwala location, and by Jeremiah Bjneo and Tyatyaza, on behalf of the Mount Coke location, gave eridence. 6. Mr. Aubrey Collior was examined . 7. Mr. Robert Joseph Crowe, fiold-cornet, Dfibo Nek, was examined. 8. Mr. Tiiom-is E Iward Duckies was examined. 9. Mr. Alfred Page Everitt was examined. 10. Mr. Alfred Harold Oxenham was examined. 1 1. Business suspeiided at I p.m. and resumed at 2'30 p.m. rj, Mr. H^irold .Joseph Djdd was examined. I'i. Mr. Ludwiij Bliimpr was examined. 11. Mr. Frederick Webster was examined. 1). Mr. Herman Maluomoss was examined. 1 . Mr. William Diederick Snymau was examined. 6. Mr. Edward Sansom was fxamiiied. 7. Mr. Henry George Flamigan was examined. 8. Mr. AViUiam Miles was examined. 9. Mr. John Benjamin Sparks, scab inspector, area No. 5, was examined. 10. The CommisBion adjourned at 1 p.m. Kei Road, Wednesday, \^th November, 1892. PEESKNT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. Dr. Smartt. „ DU ToiT. Mr. Francis. 1 . Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. •Z. Mr. Cornelius Edward Dell was examined. ;5. Mr. Frederick William Landrey, field-cornet. Ward No. 10, was examined. 4. Messrs. Eobert Warren, William Manley and Alfred Hancock attended on behalf of the King William's Town District Farmers' Association, and gave evidence. .5. Mr. John Kilfoil, field-cornet, Ward No. 13, was examined. 6. The Commission adjourned at 1 p.m. and proceeded >iy rail to the Waterford Kstate. Kubusie, and examined the stock there which were found to be perfectly free of scab. Cathcart, Thursday, 11 th November, 1892. present : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. BoTiLi. I I)r. Smartt. ,, DU ToiT. I Mr. Frakcis. 1. Minutes of previous meeting read and contirmed. 2. Mr. William Krog was examined. .). Mr. John Tweedie was examined. 4. Mr. Walter Whittal was examined. .5. Business suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m. 6. Mr. AVilliam John Fuller, scab inspector, area No. 4b, was examined. 7. Mr. Hendrik Froneman was examined. 8. Mr. John Landrey, jr., was examined. 9. The Commission adjotirned at h-\b p.m. Cathcart, Friday, \'6th November, 1892. present : Mr. Frost (Cliainuan). Mr. Botha. I Dr. Smartt. ,, DU Toit. I Mr. Francis. 1. Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. J. Mr. Flrnry White Brown, scab inspector, area No. 4. was examiued. '■}. Mr. Louis Francois Oosthuizen was examined. 4 Mr. Jhuips Temlett Hockey was examined. •3. Mr. Nathaniel Edward Brown was examined. fi. Mr. Edward Field Giblions was exauiinod. 7. The CommigBion adjourned at 12-36 p.m. Graaff-Rcincl^ Tuesday^ 2'ind November, 1892. I'KESENT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. BoriiA. Dr. Smartt. ,, DF ToiT. Mr. Francis. 1. Minutes of previous meeting read and uonfirmod. 2. Resolved : That (he civil conimiKsiouers at the places where the Commission has arranged to sit be reijuested by telegraph to call a meeting of farmers la their respective divisions for the purpose of selecting two or three representatives on both sides of the scab question to give evidence before the Commission, statiog that if the meeting is held on the arrival of the Commission, the members will be happy to attend. 3. The Secretary put in : j. Beport of the inspector for area No. 2, dated the 3rd November 1892, with reference to the working of the Scab Act, forwarded by the Secretary for Lands, Mines, and Agriculture for the information of the Commi8.sion. ii. A proof copy of Government Notice No. 1114, 1892, showing tlie result of the working of the Scab Acts. 4. Mr. Frederick Leisching McCabe was examined. .5. Mr. Frederick Watermeyer was examined. 6. Business suspended at 12-4.5 a.m. and resumed at 2-45 p.m. 7. Mr. Walter Eubidge was examined. 8. Mr. Charles Neeser was examined. 9. Mr. Gysbert Henry Maasdorp was examined. 10. The Commission adjourned at 5-45 p.m. Graaff-Reinet, Wednesday, 23/- I \ 12. Mr. Johannes van Heerden was exa:niiiR'l. 13. The Cominissioa adjourned at 4-30 p.m. Aberdeen, Saturday, 2Qth November, 1892. PRESENT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. I Dr. Smartt. „ DTT ToiT. ( Mr. Francis. 1. Mr. Johannes Anthony Smith was examined. 2. Mr. Alfred Miller was examined. 3. Mr. Jacob Johannes Weideman was examined. 4. The Commission adjourned at 10'p«'» a.m. Jansenville, I'uesdciJf, 22th November, 1892. PRESENT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. I Dr. Smartt. ,, Du ToiT. I Mr. Francis. 1 . Minutes of two previous meetings read and confirmed. 2. The Commission siispended business in order to attend a meeting of farmers which had been called by the civil commissioner in accordance with the resolution adopted on the 22nd instant, and at which representatives were elected to give evidence on behalf of the farming community. BusineBs was then resiuued, and 3. Mr. James Biggs was examined. 4. Business was suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2-30 p.m. 5. Mr. Floris Noah Bellingan was examined, (j. Mr. Eobert Heydenrych was examined. 7. Mr. Complin Seach Birch, scab inspector, area No. 16a, was examined. 8. The Commission adjourned at 4-30 p.m. Jansenville, 30th November, 1892. PRESENT : Mr. BoTHA. ,, DU TOIT. Mr. Frost (Chairman). Dr. Smartt. Mr. Francis. 1. Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. 2. The .Secretary put in a letter from the Secretary for Lands, Mines and Agriculture, dated the 24th iust., forwarding a report by the superintendent scab inspector, dated the 28th Jime, 1892, on the working of the Scab Act in the district of Herschel. 3. Messrs. William Hobson Berrington, Charles Lee, Walter James Edwards, Hurndall, and Geicke attended to represent the Zwart Ruggens Farmers' Association, and the three first-named gave evidence. 4. Mr. Charles George Lee (Chairman), Mr. Pilt Joubert (Assistant Cliairman), and Mr. Jurgan Francois Gouws (Secretary), of the Zwart Euggens Branch of the Afrikander Bond, attended to represent that branch, and gave evidence. 5. Ernst Frederick Gouwo was examined. 6. Mr. David Hobson Nash, scab inspector, area No. 16, was examined. 7. The Commission adjoui-ned at 12-20 p.m. Mount Stewart, Thursday, \st December, 1892. PRESENT : Mr. Fhost (Chairman) Mr. Botha. ~ ,, DU ToiT. 1 . Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. 2! Mr. Charles William Henry de la Harpe was examined [G 1— '94.] Dr. Smartt. Mr. Francis. ;!. Mr. John Edwin Nash was pxai 1. Mr. Siiiiiufl Joshua TIoTison wa •>. Mr. Jolui Uoorge Diithie Uu.\, h. , wns examined. iJ. ' iie Conjinission adjourned nt 1' Uitenhage, '^y, 2nd Deeemver, '.892. Mr. Botha. ,, DU ToiT. -KM": A (OLainnan". Dr. Smartt. Mr. Fkanois. 1. Minutes of previous meeting rea ..i 1 voutirmod 2. The Secretary put in a telegram from the Seoreis / if Lauds, Mines and Agriculture, informing the Commission that the division .f Muriaysburg had petitioned for suspension of Scab Act. Resolved to reply that the Ooii-'.TT.is ■on wf '■ '"M Mi iraysburg later, after due notice. 3. The Chairmau put in : i. A letter from Mr. J. I. i' m ji. '' nt 'rlioek West, regretting his inability to bo prcsi rii, and vnu iumself strongly in favour of the Act. ii. A letter from Mr. 0. G. Lee, Klipplaat with reference to the licensing of scabby stock. 4. The Secretary put in a letter from the Secretary for Lands, Mines and Agriculture, dated the 28th ultimo, forwarding a memorandimi on the subject of kraaling sheep in old and scab-infected kraals. 5. Mr. Matthys Swart was examined. 6. Mr. Michael Swart was examined. 7. Mr. Christian Zietsman was examined. 8. Mr. Jacob Heyns was examined. 9. Mr. Thomas Witheridge Gubb was examined. 10. Business suspended at 12-40 and resumed at 2'30 p.m. 1 1. Mr. John William Grower was examined. 12. Mr. Barend Marais was examined. 13. Mr. Cornelius Sayman was examined. 14. Tlie Commission adjourned at 4'20 p.m. Uitenhaf/e, Saturday, Srd December, 1892. Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. I Dr. Smartt. ,, 1)1' ToiT. I Mr. Fkancis. 1 . Mr. Daniel Petrus Marais was examined. 2. Mr. Joliannes Ludwic Moobnan was examined. ;5, Mr. William Nash Kirkman, scab inspector, area No. 15a, was examined. 4. Mr. Thomas Jones Patterson Grewar, scab inspector, area No 15, was examined. 5. The Conimission adjourned at 12 noon. Port Elisabeth, Monday, 6tk December, 1892. PRESENT : Mr. Frost (Chainnan). Mr. Botha. I Dr. Smartt. ,, DU Toit. I Mr. Francis. 1. Minutes of two previous meetings read and confirmed. 2-. Mr. Sydney Bryan was examined. 3. Mr. John Bowen was examined. 4. Mr. Herman Hall was examined. 5. Mr. John Mcllwraith, Mayor of Port Elizabeth, was examined. 6. Business suspended at 12.30 p.m. and resumed at 3.0 p m. 7. Mr. Thomas Douglass was examined. 8. Mr. John Love Stewart was examined. 9. Mr. Walter Lane was examined. 10. Mr. John Hill was examined. 11. The Commi.ssion ailjotirned at 4.15 p.m. Port Elisabeth, Tuesday^ Qth December, 189 Mr. Botha. DU TolT. Mr. Fkost (Chairman). Dr. Smartt. Mr. Francis. 1 . Minutes of previous meeting road and confirmed. 2. The secretary stated that in accordance with instructions given to him he hail tele- graphed to the civil commissioner of Graaff-Reinet, requesting him to furnish the local newspapers with certain statements made by the Mayor of Port Elizabeth, Mr. M'llwraith, in his evidence yesterday with reference to the great importance of the inquiry, and the position and prospects of Graaff-Eeimt in regard to scab. 3. Mr. Georg Schertz was examined. 4. Mr. James Holt was examined. 5. Dr. Smartt called attention to a paragraph appearing in to-day's issue of the Fort Elizabeth Telegraph newspaper, publishing, with commeuts, an assertion that the Commission had nwor in regard to these essential matters, and also to superintend, wherever possible, the dipping of their docks, iii. With reference to the letter from the Secretary for Lands, Mines and Agriculture, dated the 27th October, 1892, forwarding a memorandum on the subject of dipping tanks for natives, the Commission desires to state that the evidence ali-eady taken on this subject is of such a conflicting nature, that it is utterly impossible for it to report upon so important a matter without lii'st having had an opportunity of thoroughly analysing the evidence after being printed. The Commission considers the subject of such great importance that it intends proceeding shortly to Lady Frere and Cala, for the j)urpose of taking further evidence on this and other matters connected with the inquiry. 5. The Comuussion adjourned at 12 noon. CoUsberg, Saturday, 17 fh December, 1892. PRESENT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. I Dr. Smartt. ,, Dv ToiT. I Mr. Francis. 1. Minutes of previous meeting re.id and confirmed. 2. Messrs. John James Murray, Jan Lategan, Thomas John Plewmau, Daniel Uostliuizon, senior, Hendrik van der Walt, and Adam Hobkirk, elected at a meeting of farmers held this morning in accordance with the resolution adopted by the Commission on the 22nd ultimo, attended and gave evidence. 3. Business suspended at 12-30 and resumed at 2-30 p.m. •1 Messrs. Nicolaas van Eensburg, Hendrik Jooste, senior, Jacobus Andries Jooste, Michael Venter, Johannes Kruger, and Eoelf Badenhorst, also elected this morning, attended and gave evidence. 5. The Commission adjourned at 5-30 p.m. Colesherg, Monday, i^th December, 1892. PRESENT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. I Dr. Smartt. ,, Du To IT. I Mr. Francis. 1 . Minutes of previous meeting read and conflrmed. 2. The Chairm.in put in a letter from the private secretary to the hon. the Colonial Secj-etfiry, and a letter from Mr. Wege, M.L A., with reference to the advisability of a visit being paid by the C()nimisKi(m to Calvinia, and it was resolved to reply that the Commission woidd visit Calvinia later on, upon due notice. 3. The Chairman further put in a letter from Mr. J. C. Munch, Honing Kraal, dated the Uth inst.. logietting that he was unable to attend at Middelburg to g^ve evidence in favour !■! a general scab act. 4. Mr. Dirk Sluiti r was examined. 5. Mr. George Albertyn Lkjuw was examined. 6. Mr. Piet B ideiilinrst was examined. 7. Mr. William Tiiumas ])raper Plewm;in was examined. 8. Mr. Thomas John Plewmnn was further examined. 9. The Commission then adjourned at 12.30 p.m. to meet at Queen's Town, on Thursday, the 12th January. (Queen's Town, Thursday, 12th Janmry, 1893. PRBSENT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. I Dr. Smabtt. ,, bu ToiT. I Mr. Francis. 1. Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. 2. The Secretary put in : i. Letter from the Secretary for Lands, Mines and Agriculture, dated the 16th December, 1892, informing the Commission that the administration of the scab acts in the Transkeian Territories will in future bo undertaken by the department of Native Affairs. ii. Pcturij from the Census of 1891 of Live Stock and Agriculture. 3. Messrs. Tliiimton Fincham, Stephauus .Jiiinbus Greeff and Murdo Maciver, appointed to represent the Queen's Town Farmers' Association, attended and gave evidence. XV 4. Mr. Alexander Campbell Macdonald was examined. 5. Business suspended at 12.45 and resumed at 3 p.m. 6. Mr. Jacob Coetzee was examined. 7. Mr. William Middlewyek was examined. 8. Mr. Henry Hugh McDonald was examined. 9. Mr. Joseph HoUis Barnes, scab inspector, area No. 3, was examined. 10. Mr. George Barnes, scab inspector, Native Location area No. 1, was examined. 11. Mr. Thomas Campbell Stubbs, scab inspector, area No. 1, was examined. 12. The Hon. Thomas Bailey, M.L.C., was examined. 13. The Commission adjourned at 6 p.m. Driver's Drifts Fndaij, Vith January^ 1893. Mr. Botha. ,, DU ToiT. PKESEXT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Dr. Smartt. Mr. Fraxcis. 1. A number of headmen and others having assembled in accordance with the notice issued by the Commission, and distributed by the civil commissioner aud fteld-cornets, elected certain of their number to rej)resent their views. 2. Klaas Makasi, senior headman, was examined. 3. Sam Maseti was examined. 4. Booi Mbengo, headman, was examined. 5. Mali Nkaka was examined. 6. Mr. James Temlett, scab inspector, area No. 3.A, was examined. 7. Business suspended at 1.30 and resumed at 2 p.m. 8. Mr. William John Hughes, field-cornet, ward No. 2, was examined. 9. Solomon Teka, headman, was examined. 10. Matwa Nwagi, headman, was examined. 1 1 . Thomas Ealant, a Basuto, was examined. 12. During the day the Commission inspected 22 flocks of sheep, averaging from -50 to 400 each, and found them perfectly clean, and, with the exceptim of one lot, showing no indication of having been previously aifected with scab. 13. The Commis.^on adjourned at 3 p.m. Lady F)'',re, Saturday, I ith January, J 893. PRESEXT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. I Dr. Smartt. ,, DU ToiT. I Mr. Frajtcis. 1. Minutes of two previous meetings read and confirmed. 2. The Commission had under consideration the route to be taken in the north-western districts, and read and decided upon certain correspondence. 3. The Secretary put in a letter from the Hon. Secretary of the Glen Grey Farmers' Association, dated the 12th instant, forwarding a resolution adopted by the Association in favour of a compulsory scab act throughout the Colony. 4. Mr. Gert Coetzee was examined. 5. Mr. David Coetzee was examined. 6. Mr. Andries du Plessis was examined. 7. Mr. Andries Greeff was examined. 8 Business suspended at 1240 and resumed at 3 p.m. 9. Mr. George Joseph Warreu was examined. 10. Mr. Robert John Boyce was examined. 11. Mr. Reuben Ernest Cross was examined. 12. David Matsolo was examined. 13. Mr. James Wakelyn Gray, scab inspector, area No. 22. was examined. 14. The Commission adjourned at 4-4.5 p.m. Cala, Tuesday, Mth January, 1893, PRESEXT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. I Dr. Smartt. DU Toit. Mr. Feancis. 1. Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. XVI 2. Messrs. Joseph Stephanus Christian Robertse, Louwrens Erasmus Smit, Christian Daniel Aucamp, delegates from ttie Einhokotwa fielfl-cornetcy, attended and gave evidence. .3. Messrs. William Frederick Beadon, Max Heindrich Willielln, Jame.s McGregor, Ricliard Evelyn Gaylard, and Oliver Austin Brown, delegates from the Xalanga Farmers' Association, attended and gave evidence. 4. Solomon Kalipa, headman, representing the native farmers in Xalanga, gave evidence, four others being with him. 5. Business suspended at I aad resumed at .3 p.m 6. Mr. Cliarles Theodore Hagelthorn, scab inspector, area No. 7, was examined. 7. The Commission adjourned at 3-4.5 p.m. Slang River ^ Wednesday, \%th January, 1893. PRESENT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. ,, DuToir. 1. Mr. Barend Moolman was examined 2. Mr. Diederick Jurgens Kokemoer was examined. 3. Mr. Abraham Kruger was examined. 4. Mr. Abraham van Niekerk was examined. 5. Mr. John Hart was examined. 6. Mr. Robert Henry Harding was examined. 7. Mr. Walter Charles Wiggitt was examined. 8. Mr. Piet Venter, field-cornet, was examined. 9. Mr. George Dargie was examined. 10. The Commission adjourned at 5.45 p.m. Dr. Smarti'. Mr. Francis. Barkly East, Friday, 20th January, 1893. Mr. Botha. „ DU ToiT. PRESENT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Dr. Smartt. Mr. Francis. 1 . Minutes of two previous meetings read and confirmed. 2. The Commission agreed upon the places to be visited in the north-western districts, and also had under consideration the means of transport. 3. The Commission adjouroed at 6.45 p.m. Barkly East, Saturday, list January, 1893. PRESENT : Mr. Frost (Cliairman). Mr. Botha. , Dr. Smartt. ,, DU ToiT. j Mr. Francis. 1. Messrs. Johannes Daniel Naude and Jan StapeDierg, delegates from tlie Clifford ward. No. 6, attended and gave evidence. 2. Messrs. William Diederick SnjTuan, Reginald Orpen, George Gough Wallace, Charles Arthur Sefton, Benjamin Norten, Henry Clement Sefton and Thomas Frederick Glass, delegates from New England, attende I and gave evidence. 3. Business suspended at 12.45 and resumed at 3 p.m. 4. Messrs. Carl Johannes van Plotsen, Johannes Ludovic Steinekamp, Jan Harthoff Steine- kamp, Christian Carl Hegter, Thennis Christoffel Botha, Barend Theron, Cornelius ^Willem Cloete, Salie Johannes Pelzer, Jacobus Schoeman and Philip Hendrik Oliver, delegates opposed to the scab act, attended and gave evidence. 5. Messrs. Jan Adrian Venter, Coenraad Johannes Visser, Jacobus Adrian Vorster and Abraham Botha, delegates in favour of the scab act, attended and gave evidence. 6. Mr. Julius Schoenland, Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce, Barkly East, was examined. 7. Mr. Henry Benson, Chairman of the Highland Farmers' Association, was examined. 8. Mr. David Rudolf Naude, delegate in favour of tlie act, was examined. 9. Mr. Esais Engelbert Hartman, scab inspector, area No. 21, was examined. 10. The Commission adjourned at 550 p.m. Dordrecht, 2iih Febrmry, 1893, PRESENT : Mr. Botha. ,, DU ToiT. Mr. Frost (Chairman). Dr. Smartt. Mr. Francis. 1. Minute.s of two previous meetings read and confirmed. 2. Mersrs. Joseph Sutherland and Frederick Jacobus van Zyl, delegates from ward No. 3 ; Ockert Johannes van Heerden, ward No. 1 ; Piet Aucamp and Hendrik van Eensburg, ward No. 2 ; Nicolaas Labusacliagne, ward No. 4 ; and John Cloete, sr., ward No. 6 ; attended and gave evidence. 3. Business suspended at 10 and resumed at 30 p.m. 4. Messrs. Peter Lang, Alfred James Fleischer, William Thomas Clark, George Moorcroft, Lawrence Mulligan, William Eobert Warren, John Haw and George Egerton Dugmore, delegates from the Wodehouse Farmers' Association, attended and gave evidence. 5. Mr. Philip Botha was examined. 6. Mr. Peter Frederick Anderson was examined. 7. The Commission adjourned at 5-25 p.m. Sterkstroom, Friday, 22th January, 1893. PRESENT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. Dr. Smaett. ,, DU ToiT. Mr. Fk.\ncis. A number of farmers having collected for the purpose of interviewing the Commis- sioners, a short meeting was held at about seven o'clock in the niorning, at which the subject of the inquiry was discussed, and the opinions of those present, for and against the act, were elicited, after which the Commission adjourned, there being an unanimous expression of opinion in favour of a simultaneous dipping act, in place of the present scab acts. Tarkastad, Saturday, 2%th January, 1893. PRESENT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. | Dr. Smartt. ,, Du ToiT. I Mr. Francis. 1. Minutes of two previous meetings read and confirmed. 2. Mr. Hendrik Petrus de Wet was examined. 3. Messrs. Louis Jacobus van Heerden and Dirk Jacobus Hattingh, delegates from the Tarka branches of the Afrikander Bond, attended and gave evidence. 4. Messrs. George Max King, Cliarles Adams, William Francis King, and Arthur Henry Frost, delegates from the Tarka Farmers' Association, attended and gave evidence. 5. Mr. Gotlieb Christian Venter was examined. 6. Mr. William Charles Frost was examined. 7. Mr. Petrus Johannes Erasmus was examined. 8. Business suspended at 12-45 and resumed at 3 p.m. 9. Mr. Lawrence Henry Walker, scab inspector, area No. 2, was examined. 10. Mr. John Edward Eales, scab inspector, area No. 2, was examined. 11. The Commission adjourned at 4*10 p.m. Molteno, Tuesday, olst January, 1893. PRESENT : Mr. Frost (Chaii-man). Mr. Botha. | Dr. Smartt. ,, uu Toit. I Mr. Francis. 1. Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. 2. Mr Peter Eobenheimer was examined. 3. Messrs. Johannes Adrianus Jacobus Vermaak, Stephanus Abraham Cloete, Hendrik [Gl~'94] d XVlll Christofiel Beurman, Matthias Johannes Gieyvestyn and Willem Morkel Steyn, delegates from branches of the Afrikander Bond, attended and gave evidence. 4. Business suspended at 1 and resumed at 2 30 p.m. 5. Mr. Johannes Adrianus Vermaak was examined. 6. Mr. Thomas Pierce was examined. 7. Mr. John Wesley King was examined. 8. Mr. Jan "Willem Aucamp was examined. 9. Mr. Jan Diederick Aucamp was examined. 10. Mr. Paul Eorich was examined. 1 1 . Mr. Hendrik Jacobus GrejTestein was examined. 1 2. Mr. Daniel Eaubenheimer was examined. 13. Mr. Carel Zacharius Pretorius was examined. 14. The Commission adjourned at 5'0 p.m. Burghersdorp^ Thursday, 2nd Fthruary, 1893. PRESENT : Mr. Fhost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. I Dr. Smaett. ,, Du ToiT. I Mr. Fkancis. 1 Minutes of prerious meeting read and confirmed. Messrs. Johannes Pansegreuw, Gert Cornelius Strydom, Gert Abraham Ninaber, and Theunis Pelzer, delegates from the local branches of the Afrikander Bond, attended and gave evidence. 3. Mr. Josepli Adrian Jacobus Coetze, was examined. 4. Mr. Albert Kruger, delegate from ward No. 3, attended and gave evidence. 5. Business suspended at I'O a.m. and resumed at 3'0 p.m. 6. Mr. Johannes van Aswegen was examined. 7. Mr. Jan Frederik Coetzee was examined. 8. Mr. Johannes Daniel Petrus van den Heever was examined. 9. Mr. Jan Carel Van Pletzen was examined. 10. Mr. William Brownlee Cumming was examined. 11. The Commission adjourned at 5-10 p.m. Aliwal North, Friday, Srd February, 1893, PRESENT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. Dr. Smartt. ,, DTJ To IT. Mr. Francis. 1 . Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. 2. Mr. William Frederick Smith was examined. 3. Messrs. Jan Hendrick Nicolaas Bekker, Gabriel Coetzee, Nicolaas Jacobus de Wet and Gabriel Myburgh, delegates from various wards, attended and gave evidence. 4. The Commission adjourned at 1 p.m. Aliwal North, Saturday, 4th February, 1893. present : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. ,, DU ToiT. 1. Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. 2. Mr. Jacobus Guetow van Aardt was examined. 3. Mr. Sydney Mooreroft was examined. 4. Mr. Gideon .Joubert was examined. 5. Mr. Comehus Willem Cloete was examined. 6. Mr. Stephanus Bekker was examined. 7. Mr. David de Wet was examined. 8. Mr. Olivier Henning was examined. 9. Mr. Francis Steyn was examined. 10. Mr. Eustace Arp Danckwerts was examined, 11. The Commission adjourned at 12-1.5 p.m. Dr. Smastt. Mr. FsAN0i3. SIS Steijnsburg, Tuesday, 1th February, 1893. PRESKXT : Mr. Botha. ,, DTJ ToiT. Mr. Prost (Chairman). Dr. SiLARTT. Mr. Fra>'cis. 1 . Minutes of previous nipcting read nnd confirmed. 2. Messrs. Jan Christian Henuiug, Plfrmanus Theodorus Bekker, Hans Coetzee, Martinus Jacobus Coetzee, Marthinus Marais, and Jacobus Johannes Oosthuizen, delegates elected to represent the different ward.M, attended and gave evidence. 3. Mr. Gerhardus Bekker was examined. ■4 . Mr. Cornelius Johannes Vei-maak was examined. .5. Business suspended at 12'50 and resumed at 2-30 p.m. 6. Mr. Charles Louis Eoece Allen was examined. 7. Mr. Ockert Jacobus Johannes Oosthuizen was examined. 8. Mr. Hendrick Bernardus Coetzee was examined. 9. Mr. Ockert Petrus van Zyl was examined. - lO. The Commission adjourned at 1'15 p.m. Hanover, Thursday, dih February, 1893. PRESENT : Mr. Botha. ,, DU TOIT. Mr. Frost (Chainnan). Dr. Smartt. Mr. Fraxcis. 1 . Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. 2. Messrs. Dirk Johannes Viljeon, Jacobus Albertus van Zyl, Daniel Johannes Klyngelt, Carl Visser, and Jan Joubert, delegates appointed to give evidence in opposition to a scab act, attended and gave evidence. 3. Messrs. Henry Benjamin Humphries, Barend Jacobus du Pleiss, John Pirie, Hermanus Wolfaard, Edward Murray, and Gert Vissor, delegates appointed to give evidence in favour of a scab act, attended and gave evidence. 4. The Commission adjourned at 1"5 p.m. Hope Town, Saturday, \\.th February, 1893. PRESEXT : Mr. Botha. „ dt: Toit. Mr. Frost (Chairman). Dr. Smartt. Mr. Francis 1 . Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. 2. Messrs. Barend Jacobus Erasmus, Nicolaas Badenhorst, senr., John Albert Swiegers, Pieter Charel de Jager, Johannes Ludovicos Pretorius, Barend Hans Jacob Baden- horst, Johannes IJrbanus Badenhorst, Hendrick Johannes Liebenberg, Stephanus Vermeulen, Jacobus Johannes Snj-man, Christoffel Jacobus Liebenberg;, and Willem Johannes du Toit, delegates elected to represent the farmers of the district, attended and gave evidence. 3. Business suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m. 4. The Chairman put in a telegram from the Secretary of the Wodehouse Farmers' Association, stating that the divisional council had passed a resolution in favonr of the promulgation of the scab act in that division, only two members opposing. .). The Chairman put in a letter from the Hon. Secretary of the Highlands Scab Erndim- tion Association, dated the 4th instant, forwardirg a copy of their rules, and referring to the success achieved by. the association. 6 Mr. Joseph Holland Crump was examined. 7. Mr. Gotlieb Swiegers was examined. 8. Mr. Johannes Petrus du Toit was examined. 9. Mr. Piot Badenhorst was examined. lu. Mr. Andries du Eaan was examined. U. The Commission adjourned at 4.40 p.m. (/ 1 Phillip's Town, Tuesday, lith February, 1893. PRESENT : Mr. Botha. ,, DU To IT. Ml'. Frost (Chairman). l)r. Smartt. Mr. Fr.^ncis. 1. Minutes of previous nioeting read and coufirmed. 2. Messrs. Charel Jolianncs Marnis, .Tacobus du Plessis, senr., Andries Hendrik Vont^-r, Isaac Yzel, Francois Veutor, Gert van Vuuren and Pieter Johannes Smit, delegates appointed to represent the farmers of the district, attended aud jjave evidence. .3. Business suspended at 1 and resumed at 3 p.m. 4. Me.ssrs. Adrian Paulus Johannes Fourie, Michael Hendrik Noesei-, John Hendrik Potgieter, Adrian Paulus and Johannes Fourie, also delegates, attended and gave evidence 5. Mr. Petrus Stephanus du Toit was examined. 6. Mr. Barend Jacobus vau der Merwe was examined. 7. Mr. Jan Andries Herold was examined. 8. Mr. Cirk Bernardus Jansen, jr., was examined. 9. Mr. Franz Jooste was examined. 10. Mr. George Whitehead was examined. 11. The Commission adjourned at .5.5 p.m. Richmond, Thursday, \^th February, 1893. Mr. BoTUA. ,, DU Torr. PRESENT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Dr. Smartt. Mr. Francis. 1. The CommissioQ had under consideration certain arrangements to be made on the tour through the north-western districts, and adjourned at 5.30 p.m. Richmond^ Friday, }7th February, 189; Mr. Botha. ,, Dir Toit. PRESENT : Mr. Fkost (Chairman). Dr. S.MARTT. Mr. Francis. 1. Minutes of two previous meetings read and confirmed. 2. Mr. van der Morwo attended and requested, on behalf of the public, that the Com- mission would adjourn public proceedings until the afternoon, as a great number of persons who wished to attend were oTiliged, under a previous engagement, to be absent from the town during the forenoon, and it was resolved accordingly. .3. Mr. Botha moved : The Commission desires to bring it to the notice of Government tlint it is advisable to cancel all the existing appointments of scab inspectors in the district of Somerset East, and to ask the divisional council of that district to recommend more suitable men for appointment in their stead, as the Commission is iufijrmed that the inspectors now in office were not the nominees of the divisional council, and do not give satisfaction. After discussion, On the motion of Dr. Smartt, the debate was adjourned. 4. Business suspended at 11.15 a.m. and resumed at 2. .30 p.m. 5. ^Messrs. Paul Jacobus vau dor Merwe, Pieter Erasmus, Hendrik van Zjl, Franz Petrus Naudo, James Rowland Chambers and Philip van der Merwe, delegates appointed to represent the various wards, attended and gave evidence. T). Mr. Cornelius Eckerdt was examined. 7. Mr. John Stewart was examined. iS. iMi . .Tacobus Nii.'olas Theunissen was examined, y. The Commission adjourned at 6.5 p.m. Murrayshurg, Monday, '10th February, 1893. PBK8ENT ; Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. I Dr. Smartt. ,, DU Ton. I Mr. Francis. 1. Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. 2. Mr. Franz van der Ahee, Isaac Malherlie, Christian Theron, Daniel Pienaar and Barend Pienaar, delegates appointed by branches of the Airikander Bond, attended and gave evidence. 3. Mr. Franz Petrus van der Merwe was examined. 4. Business suspended at 1.0 p.m. and resumed at 3.0 p.m. 5. Mr. Archibald Eoso Innes was examined. 6. Mr. Stephanus Jacobus van der Merwe was examined. 7. Mr. Barend Jacobus Johannes Burger was examined. 8. Mr. Jeremias Auret van Heerden, M.L.A., and Mr. Joseph Frederick Goedhals, also delegates, attended and gave evidence. 9. Mr. Joshua Joubert, scab inspector, area No. 18, was examined. 10. The Commission adjourned at 4.30 p.m. Beaufort West, Wednesday, 22nd February, 1893. present : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. Dr. Smartt. ,, DU Toit. Mr. Francis. 1. Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. 2. Messrs. Daniel Gabriel de Villiars and Heudrik Johannes de Jager, delegates from the divisional council, attended and gave evidence. 3. Messrs. Jacobus and Jonathan Fourie, delegates from branches of the Afrikander Bond attended and oave evidence. 4. Business suspended at 1 and resumed at 3 p.m. 5. Messrs. LourcQs Johannes Jacobs, Cornelius Friederick Erasmus, Johannes Stephanus Marais, Jacobus Pieter Verster, and Carl Petrus van der Westhuizen, delegates from the Afrikander Bond, attended and gave evidence. 6. Messrs. Pieter Daniel de Villiers, Julius Eobert Jackson, Jacobus Pieter de Villiers and Carl Jacobus de Villiers, delegates from the Beaufort West Farmers' Association, attended and gave evidence. 7. Mr. William Thomas Elliott, scab inspector, area No. 18, was examined. 8. The Commission adjourned at 6.1,J p.m. Victoria West, Friday, 'lith February, 1893, Mr. Botha. ,, DU ToiT. llr FuosT (Chairman). Dr. S.maktt. Mr. FiJAXcis. 1. Minulos of previous meeting read and confirmed. 2. IMe^srs. Jacob Coonrad de Kkrk, Gert Dirk van Schalkwjk, Johaunes Hendrik Claasscns, Gideon Jacolius do Klerk, and Isaac Johannes van der Merwe, dele- gates from the local branches of the Afrikander Bond, attended and gave evidence. 3. Business suspended at 1 and resumed at 3 p.m. 4. Messrs. Johaimcs do Klerk, Nicholas Keyser, Gabriel Willem Andries van Heerden, David Sihalk Pienaar and JacoT) Gcrhardus de Bruin, also delegates, attended and gave evidence. b. Messrs. Alfred Ebden, jun., and Frederick Staubridgc, delegates appointed by farmers in tlm district, attended and gave evidence. 6. Jlr. Clifford Jackson was examined. 7. Mr. Willem Tobias van Schalkwyk was examined. 8. The Rev. Gustav Adolf Miider was examined. 9. The Commission adjourned at 4. .50 p.m. sxn Brits's Town, Saturday, lUh March, 1893. PRESENT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Du ToiT. I Dr. Smartt. I Mr. Francis. 1. Minutes of previous meeting read and condrmed. 2. The Chairmau put in a letter from the Resident Magistrate of Glen Grey, dated the 20th February, forwarding an apology from Sam Maseti for his forward behaviour at Driver's Drift on the 13th January. 3. The Secretary put in a letter from the Secretary of Lands, Mines and Agriculture, dated ■ the 28th February, forwarding reports and Acts of Parliament relating to scab and other diseases of stock in the Australian Colonies. 4. Messrs. Ai'ie Blomerus, Cornelius Hendrick Blomerus, Stephanus Christian du Plessis, James Hitchcock, Philip Lotts, and Jacobus Albertus van der Merwe, delegates ajipointed by the varicjus wards, attended and gave evidence. 5. Business suspended at l"lo and resumfld at 3-0 p.m. 6. Messrs. David .\ndrea Steytler and OLjft' Jacobus Marais, also delegates, attended and gave evidence. 7. Messrs. Edward Frost Jackson and Julio Johannes Wilhelm van Zyl, were examined. 8. The Commission adjourned at 5-.55 p.m. OmdraaivUi, Prieska Division, Tuesday, lith March, 1893. prese^^t : Mr. Botha. ,, viv To IT. 1 . Mr. .John Meares Devcnish was examined, 2. The Commission adjourned at 10 a.m. Mr. Frost (Chairman). Dr. Sji^iRTT. Mr. Fk.vncis. Prieska, Wednesday, Votk March, 181)3. present : Mr. Botha. ,, DU TOIT. Mr. Frost (Chairman). Dr. SilARTT. Mr. Fraxcis. o 1 . Minutes of two previous meetings read and confirmed. 2. Messrs. Cornells Jansen de Jager, Johannes Gerhavdus Borman, Johannes Jacobus van der Merwe, WiUem Daniel Jacobus Maritz, David Sohalk Viljeon, and Gilliam van Niekerk, delegates appointed to represent the farmers in the district, attended and gave evidence. 3. Mr. WiUiam Francois Geldenhuis was examined. 4. Mr. Stephanus Sigismund Grove was examined. 5. Mr. Jan Anthony van Niekerk was examined. 6. Business suspended at I'O and resumed at 30 p.m. 7. Mr. Johannes Gerhardus Louwrens was examined. 8. Mr. Jan Walters van Niekerk was examined. 9. Mr. Michael Carel van Niekerk was examined. 10. Mr. Jacob Greeff was examined. 11. Mr. Johannes Marthinus Jurgens Steyn was examined. 12. Mr. George Ludovicus Higgo was examined. 13. Mr. Carel Johannes van der Merwe was examined. 14. The Commission adjoui-ned at 4-3.5 p.m. Kcnhardl, Monday, 20 fh March, 1893. present : Mr. Frost (Chaii'man). Mr. BoTiiA. I Dr. Smartt. ,, DU ToiT. I Mr. Frakcis 1 . Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. Messrs. Julius Alhertus Yoskule, Hendrik Willeni Strauss, Matthys van Rooi and Tilman Carel Nieuwrnult, delegates appointed to represent the farmers in the district, attended and gave evidence. Mr. Barend Michael Nicolaas van Niekerk was examined. Mr. Jacobus Gideon Zandberg was examined. The Commission adjourned at 12 noon, Calvinia, Saturday, 25th March, 1893. PRESENT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. | Dr. Smartt. 1. The Chairman stated that in consequence of transport difficulties it had been found im- possible to convey all the members of the Commission to Calvinia in time to attend this meeting, and that under the circumstances, Messrs. du Toit and Francii h»d consented to remain behind. 2. Messrs. Sydney Fryer, Willem van der Westhuizen, Gert Nel, Willem Louw, Gert ran Wyk, Jacob van Wyk, Jeremins Nieuwoudt, Marthinus Jacobus van Wyk, Jacobus Nel van der Merwe, Jacobu AUewjTi van der Merwe, Hendrik Louw, Isaac Visagie and Franz Johannes van der Merwe, delegates appointed to represent the farmers in the district, attended and gave evidence. 3. Mr. Albert Erda was examined. 4. Business suspended at 12-45 and resumed at 30 p.m., when the subject of the futur* movements of the Commission was considered, the Commission adjourning at 4-0 p.m. Williston, Wednesday, 29th March, 1893. Dr. Smastt. Mr. Francis. Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. ,, DTJ Toit. Minutes of two previous meetings read and confirmed. Messrs. Gert Dirksen van Schalkwyk, Martin Hollander, Dick Jacobus vanSehalkwyk, Daniel Johannes Theron, Nicholas Johannes Geldenhuis, Daniel Gerhardus Iloux and Pieter Johannes Moolman, delegates appointed to represent the farmers attended and gave evidence. The Commission adjourned at 11 a.m. Fraserlurg, Saturday, \st April, 1893. present : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. Dr. Smartt. ,, DU Toit. Mr. Francis. 1. Minutes of previous meeting read and confia-nied. 2. Messrs. Johannes Bernardus Nigrini, Jacobus Hendrik Hough, Willem FranooLs Stoffberg, Carl Stephanus Erasmus, Johannes Frederikus van Wyk and Hendrik Louwrens van der Westhuizen, delegates appointed to represent the farmers, attended and gave evidence. 3. Business suspended at 1 and resumed at 3 p.m. 4. Mr. Jacob Johannes du Toit was examined. Mr. Johannes Hofmeyr was examined. Mr. Michael Johannes van Schalkwyk was examined. Mr. Okkert Gert van Schalkwyk was examined. Mr, Gert Visaer was examined. The Commission adjourned at 5.45 p.m. Carnarvon, Wednesday, bth April, 1893. PRESENT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. I Dr. Smartt. ,, DTJ Toit. | Mr. Francis. 1. Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. 2. Messrs. Andriea Gerhardus Visser, Andries Charl Cilliers, Jacobus Pieter Hugo, Johannes Mauz Cloete, Jacoluis Nicolaas Moolmau, Wilheliuus Lambertus Vos, Stephanas Johannes Latsky, and Petrus Jaiobus Vernieulen, delegates appointed to represent the farmers, attended and gave evidence. 3. Mr. Alwyn Johannes Vorster was examined. 4. Mr. Johan Coenrad Theunissen was examined. 5. Mr. Francois Hendrik van der Westhuizen was examined. 6. The Commission adjourned at 1,0 p.m. Victoria West, Saturday, 8th April, 1893. PKESENT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. | Dr. Sm.\rtt. ,, DU ToiT. I Mr. Francis. 1. Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. •i. The Chairman put in a draft preliaainary report, which, after discussion, was amended and agreed to as follows : — The Commission appointed by His Excellency Lieutenant-General W. Q. Cameron, C.B., the Officer Administering the Government, by a Com- mission dated the 17th October, 1892, to inquire into the question of the scab disease in sheep, met at Queen's Town on the 4th November following, and have, since that date, been almost continuously occupied upon the inquiry. In consequence of the voluminous evidence which it has been found necessary to take, and the extent of country which had to be traversed in order to carry out their instructions, your Commission regret to be unable at this stage to present their final Report ; but in the meanwhile they consider it desirable to direct your Excellency's attention to one or two matters of urgent importance connected witli the suppression of this disease. In accordance with the provisions of Act No. 28 of 1886, and of subsequent acts, the laws dealing with the scab disease are at jiresent proclaimed over a large section of the country, where their operations in some districts have been attended with conspicuous success. In other districts, however, it appears from the evidence already taken that much dissatisfaction exists, particularly in the district of Somerset East, owing principally to the fact that in this district the Acts have been almost inoperative in diminishing the spread of scab among the flocks ; and we are reluctantly compelled to acknowledge that if the scab inspectors in Somerset East had carried out their duties efficiently, and with more tact, mucli of this dissatisfaction would by this time have disappearel, and the working of the acts would have been attended witli much better results. Consequently, in the interests of the farmers, we feel constrained respectfully to recommend the removal of the inspectors who held office in the Somerset East district at the time when the Commission sat at that place in December last. Your Commission find that another cause of the inoperativene.ss of the acts arises from the uncertainty which exists in the minds of many of the farmers as to its permanency, in consecjuence of the powers of repeal afforded by section two of Act No. 37 of 1891, which provides that at the instance of two-thirds of the persons whose names appear on the Divisional Council voters' roll, the Divisional Council of any division in which the scab acts are in force maj', by request to the Governor, cause the acts to be suspended in any such division, or any area therein. Until, however, the Commission have had an opportunity of fully analysing the evidence, none of which has yet been printed, they hesitate to recommend legislation in regard to this or any other sections of the scab acts. It further appears from the evidence, and from circumstances which have come under the personal observation of the Commission, that a number of the farmers who now dip their sheep fail either in preparing the mixture properly, or in applying it efficiently even if properly prepared, and, with two or three notable exceptions, the scab inspectors have not assisted the farmers with their encouragement and advice. It is no doubt greatl}' to this want of intelligent and trained assistance that much of the opposition to the acts on the part of the smaller farmers is due. Your Commission felt so strongly on this point that, on the ] 6th December last, they adopted and caused to be forwarded to the proper department a resolution urging the desiral >ility of instructions being issued to all scab inspectors to afford the farmers every information and assistance in their power in regard to the proper method of mixing and applying dips and also to superintend XXV wherever possible tlie dipping of their flocks, and your Commission trust that the suggestions may receive yoiu- Excellencj's favourable consider- ation. With reference to the question of the supply of dipping tanks for the use of natives, which has been specially referred to the Commission for consider- ation, after having taken the utmost pains to ascertain the opinion of both Europeans and natives on this subject, and th« circumstances connected with it, your Commission have resolved not to recommend the adoption of this step, which, for various reasons, is not regarded with much favour by many even of the natives themselves. 3. The Secretary was instructed to forward the report to the Government. 4. Mr. Botlia, with leave, withdrew his motion of the 17th February, relating to the Somerset East scab inspectors. 5. The Commission then adjourned imtU after the ensuing session of Parliament. Cttjye Town, Friday, 1st September, 1893. PBZSEJfT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. | Mr. du Toit. 1. Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. 2. The Secretary submitted communications he had received from Dr. Smartt and Mr. Francis, the absent members of the Commission, in reply to letters he had written to them b}^ direction of the chairman, expressing their views upon the future movements of the Commission. 3. The Commission deliberated, and arranged the places at which the Comoiiission would sit at the conclusion of the session of Parliament, the Secretary being instructed to give due notice thereof in the usual way. 4. The Commission then adjourned. Cajje Town, Friday, 8th September, 189.3, PRBSEXT : Mr. Frost (Chau-man). Mr. BoiHA. J Mr. du Toit. 1 . The miuutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. 2. The Commission had under consideration the question of a proposed sitting at Vryburg, and resolved not to sit there, as previously determined, but to proceed to that place for the purpose of acquaiuting themselves with the circumstances of the country in reference to the incjuiry. 0. The Commission adjourned. Kimherley, Saturday, 1th October, 1893. peeskn't : Mr. HocKLT (in the chair). Mr. DU Torr. I Dr. SiiAETT. I Mr. Francis. 1 . The Secretary put in letter from the Acting Under Secretary for Agriculture, dated the 19th September. 1893, transmitting His Excellency the Governor's Commission appointing Mr. W. H. Hockly, M.L.A., a member of this Commission in the room of the Honourable J. Frost, M.L.A., resigned, and intimating that it will devolve upon the Commissioners to elect a chairman vice Mr. Frost. 2. Resolved that, in the absence of Mr. Botha, the election of a chairman be postponed, and that I\Ir. Hockly take the cliair temporarily. 3. Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. 4. The Secretary put in the following letters from the Department of Agriculture : — i. 19th April, 1893, forwarding copy of letter from the Colonial veterinary surgeon, dated the 5th April, on the appointment of inspoctors. ii. 3(Hh May, 1893, forwarding papers relating to offer of Me.-srs. Cooper & Nephews to completely eradicate scab from the Colony, iii. 8th June, 1893, forwarding copy of a letter, dated the l'2th May, 1893, from Mr. E. J. N. Orpen, of Barkly East, on the working of the scab acts. iv. June, 1893, forwarding cojn' of scab act in force in the Orange Free State. v. lotli .\ugu6t, 1893, forwarding copy of a letter, dated the 27th Julv, convoying [G l-'94.] < resolutions on Messrs. Coopor and Nephews' offer, passed at a meeting at Humefield, near Klipplaat. tI. 29th August, 1893, forwarding cox>ies of resolutions on same subject adopted at Steynsburg and Cradock. vii. 6th September, 1893, forwarding copy of letter, dated the 2nd July, from scab inspector, area No. 8, Albanj', on inadequate fine under scab acts. viii. 16th September, 1893, forwarding copy of a letter, dated the 6tli September, con- veying resolution on Messrs. Cooper and NejAews' offer, passed at a meeting at New England. ii. 30th September, 1893, forwarding copy of a letter, dated the 18th September, from the South African representative of Messrs. Morris, Little and Son, with reference to any scheme for the eradication of scab. 5. The Sec rotary put in : i. Letter from Messrs. Cooper and Nephews, dated the 24th Jidy, 1893, offering to afford further information in connection with their proposal. ii. Translations of Placaats on scab in sheep, dated the 1 1th September, 1693 and 11th October, 1740. iii. Agricidtural and live stock returns for 1892-3, issued in connection with statistical register, 1892. iv. Extracts from letters on scab from chief inspectors of stock in Queensland, Victoria, New South Wales, Tasmania, and South Australia, in reply to inquiries by Messrs. Cooper and Nephews. 6. The Commission liad under consideration the route to be followed after that adopted on the 1st and 8th September, and agreed to the same, and the Secretary was instructed to make the usual arrangements. 7. The Commission adjourned at 12.30 p.m. Kimbcrley, Monday, 9th October, 1893. PRESENT ; Mr. Botha. ,, DU ToiT. Dr. Smartt (Chairman) Mr. HoOKLY. Francis. 1. Minutes of previous meeting read and conliimed, Mr. Hockly being in the chair. 2. The Commission proceeded to the election of a chairman. Mr. Francis moved : That Mr. Hockly be chairman. Mr. Botha moved : That Dr. Smartt be chairman. The last motion put and the Commission divided : Ayes . . 2 Noes . . 1 Mr. Botha ,, du Toit Mr. Francis The motion proposed by Mr. Botha accordingly agreed to. Dr. Smartt took the chair. 3. Messrs. Johann Abram Van Wyk, Johan Hercules Viljoen, Hermanns Steyn, Frieder- ick Stej'n and Jacobus Steyn, delegates appointed to represent the farmers in the district, were examined. 4. Messrs. Pieter Willem Marthinus Botha, Petrus Johannes Marais and Henry Johannes Morkel, delegates from the Kimberley branch of the Afrikander Bond were examined. 0. During Mr. Botha's examination, business was suspended at 12.50 and resumed at 2.30 p.m. 6. Messrs. Andries Johannes Kuhn and William Diebel, butchers, were examined. 7. Charles Howie, produce buyer, was examined. 8. The Secretary stated that in reply to his inquiries he was informed that the Kimberley Chamber of Commerce did not wish to produce any witnesses before the Com- mission. 9. The Commission adjourned at 4-1.5 p.m. Vrybunj, Thursday, V2th October, 1893. PRESENT : Dr. S.MARTT (Chairman). Mr. BoiJiA. I Mr. Hockxy. „ i)U ToiT. I ,, Fraxois. 1. Minutes of previous meeting read and contii-med. 2. Resolved; That upon the resignation of the Hon. J. Frost, C.M.G., who has been chairman o£ this Commission fi'om ths commencement of the proceeding* until XXVll now, tte Commission desires to express its deep sense of the very able, impartial, and courteous manner in which he has discharged the duties of that office. 3. Eesolved : That the Secretary be instructed to forward to Mr. Frost a copy of the above resolution. ■i. Upon Messrs. Cooper and Nephews' letter of the 24th July. Eesolved : That without now expressing any opinion upon the merits of Messrs. Cooper and Nephews' proposal, the Commission will be prepared to take any evidence thereon which that firm desires to produce, The Commission will sit in Cape Town on the 10th, Uth, and 13th November. 5. The Commission then considered certain details of the proposal of Messrs. Cooper and Nephews for the extermination of scab, and after deliberation and discussion adjourned at 11 a.m. Douglas, Monday, IQth October, 1893. PHESEXT : Dr. Smartt (Chairman). Mr. Du Torr, Mr. Hocklt. „ Fbakcis. 1 . Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. 2. The Chaii-man stated that Mr. Botha was prevented by indisposition from attending ths meeting. 3. The Chairman put in a petition addressed to the Commission by certain inhabitants of ward No. 3, Herbert, against the scab act. 4. Messrs. Joshua Johannes Eeineke, Cornelius Jacobus Faber, Theunis Johannes Holt- shuisen, Christoffel Maritz, and Jan Adriaan Naude, delegates appointed by the Afrikander Bond, were examined. 5. Mr. James Tui-ner was examined. 6. Business suspended at 1 and resumed at 2-30 p.m. 7. Mr. Edward Boyer Cook and Eedmond Newnham Morris Orpen, representatives of the Herbert Fanners' Association, were examined. 8. Mes-srs. George Mackay, Marthinus Lourens Lotter, Thomas Turner, Johannes Jacobus de Kock, Paul van Niekerk, and Jacobus Hendiick van der Westhuizen wer» examined. 9. The Commission adjourned at 430 p.m. Prince Albert, Saturday, 2\st October, 1893. PKESENT ; Dr. SiiAUTT (Chairman). Mr. Botha. ,, DU ToiT. Mr. HocxLY. Feajs'cis. 1 . Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. 2. Messrs. Frederick George Oudendal, Andries Erasmus, Jacobus Adriaan Snydeis, Petrus Johannes Gibelaar, Gabriel Daniel Eussouw, Witska Marthinus van der Westhuizen, Nicolas Francois Marais, Mathys Pieter Wilsnach, and Christian Hendrik Venter, delegates appointed by various branches of the Afrikander Bond, were examined. 3. Business suspended at 1 and resimied at 2.30 p.m. 4. Messrs. Samuel Peter Luttig, Louis Daniel van Zyl, and John de Wet were examined. 5. The Commission adjourned at 4.30 p.m. Ladismith, Wednesday, 2b th October, 1893. Dr. Smartt (Chairman). Mr. Botha. I Mr. Hocklt. ,, DU To IT. I ,, Fbancis. 1 . Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. 2. Messrs. Pieter Langenhover, Carel Francois van Zyl, Johannes Cornelia Wolfaart and Pieter Cornelius du Toit were examined. 3. Mr. Gert Johannes van Wyk, delegate appointed by the farmers of Buffelsfontein was examined, and put in a petition from certain inhabitants of that ward against the scab act. € 2 xxviii 4. Mr. Oert Ilermamis Bonjamin Brewer was examined. ;j. Mr. Heinrich Wilhelm Bekker was examined, 6. The Commission adjourned at 1.5 p.m. Riversdale, Thursdwj, 27th October, 1893. PRESENT : Mr. HocKLY. Francis. Dr. Smartt (Chairman). Mr, Botha. „ DU ToiT. 1. Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. 2. Messrs. Willem Abram van Wyk, Petrus Steplianus de Wet, Jan Abram Nel (who presented a petition from the iuhabifants of his field-cornetcy in opposition to an unworkable scab act), Franz Hendrik Oudendal, Pieter Willem van Essland Duminy and Samuel Wilhelm Oudendal, delegates appointed to represent the farmers, were examined. 3. Business suspended at 1.5 and resumed at 2.30 p.m. 4. Mr. Daniel Cronje, a delegate, was examined. .5. Messrs. Hermanus Jacobus Steyn, Ooruelis Johannes Eoelafs, Wilhelm Smallberger and Nicolaas Joliannes Uys were examined. 6. The Commission adjourned at 4.5 p.m. Stoellendam, Monday, BQth October, 1893. Mr. Botha. „ DU ToiT. PRESENT : Dr. SiiAiiTT (Chairman). Mr. HocKLY. Francis. 1 . Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. 2. The chairman reported that, on the road from Eiversdale to Swellendam he, with Messrs. Hocklj', Francis and du Toit had examined a flock of sheep running in a paddock on a farm about an hour on this side of Eiversdale, belonging to Mr. J. van Wyk and foimd that, though in good condition, they were badl}- affected with scab, and that several other flocks which they saw on the road were also scabby. 3. Messr.s. Frederick Hurling Hopley, Jacobus Petrus Willem Joubert, Louis Knoblauch, Michael Eckstein and Hans Johannes Geldenhuis, delegates appointed by the local branch of the Afrikander Bond, were examined. 4. Business suspended at 1.10 and resumed at 2.30 p.m. 5. The chairman read and put in a letter from Mr. Donald Moodie, of Groot Yader's Bosch, regretting his inability, through ill-health, to attend and give evidence, and expressing himself strongly in favour of a scab act. 6. Messrs. Douw Qerhroudt Steyn and Cornells Janse Badenhorst, also delegates, were examined. 7. Messrs. Eoger Hoplej', Jan Gysbert Ste-sni, the Hon. Frederick Jacobus van Eeden, M.L.C., and John Meares Devenish were examined. 8. The Commission adjourned at 5 p.m. Bredasdorp, Wednesday, 1st November, 1893. PRESENT ; Mr. Botha, ,, DTj Toit. Dr. Sm.\rtt (Cliairman). Mr. HocKLY. Francis. 1. Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. 2. Messrs. Hermanus Arnoldus Ecksteen, Gert Hendi-ik Human, Ahrend Brink Noethling, Louwrens Uys, Henry Hamilton van Breda, John Alljert van der Byl, Edward James Hughes, Pieter Swartz, and Jacobus Swartz were examined. 3. The Commission adjourned at 1 p.m. XXIZ Cakcltin, Friday, 'drd November, 1893. PRESENT :. Dr. Smabtt (Chaii-man). Mr. Botha. Mr. Hocklt. ,, uu ToiT. ,, Fraucis. 1. Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. 2. Messrs, Peter Johannes de Kock, and Matthys Johannes de Villiers were exaK.ined. 3. Messrs. Stephanus Petius du Toit, Pieter Hendrick Swarfz, Ignatius Stephanus le Eoux, Johannes Human, and Joshua Pick, delegates appointed by the local branch of the Afrikander Bond, were examined. 4. Business suspended at 12-50 and resumed at 2-30 p.m. 5. Messrs. Peter Vol telyn van der Byl, Henry Metcalf and Carl .Tolin Petrus van der Merwe, were examined. 6. The Commision adjourned at 3.30 p.m. Worcester, Monday, Wi November, 1893. PRESENT : Mr. Botha. ,, uu ToiT. Dr. Smartt (Chairman). Mr. HocKLY. Fkanois. 1. Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. 2. Messrs. Wouter de Vos Meiring, Pieter "Wouter Cloete, and John George Meiring were examined. 3. No other witnesses appearing, the Commission adjourned at 11.30 a.m. Rohertson, Wednesday, Sth November, 1893. PRESENT : Dr. Smaett (Chairman). Mr. Botha. | Mr. Hockly. ,, uu Toit. | ,, Fr.vncis. 1. Minutes of previous meeting read and contiiTued. 2. The chairman put in a letter addressed to the civil commissioner by Mr. J. S. Marais. field comet, Wakkerstrom, of this date, regretting his inability to attend, and expressing himself in favour of some legislation regarding scab, but pointing out certain difficulties in the matter. 3. Messrs. Johannes Friederick Wessels, Michiel Josias de Kock, Pieter Willem Marais, Jacobus Daniel Stemmett, Ernst .Jacobus de Wet, Barend Bartholemus Jonbort, Johannes Stephanus Cilliers, Amoldus Johannes Schoonwinkel and Paul Viljoen were examined. 4. The Commission adjourned at 1 p.m. Cape Town, Friday, lOfh November, 1893. PRE.SEXT : Dr. Smartt (Chairman). Mr. BoTiiA. Mr. Hockly. ,, DU Toit. ,, Francis. 1. Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. 2. Mr. L. Wiener, M.L.A., Capt. George On- Stagg, the Hon. David Peter de Villiers Graaff, M.L.C., and Messrs. Wilhelm Spilhaus, John Hendrik Eussouw and Henry William Chicken, representatives appointed by the Chamber of Commerce, were examined. 3. Business suspended at 12.45 and resumed at 2.30 p.m. 4. The Commission had under consideration the offer made by Messrs. Cooper and Nephews, and, after deliberation, adjourned at 3.30 p.m. Cape Town, Saturday, 11th November, 1893. present : Dr. Smaktt (Cliarman). Mr. Botha. I Mr. Hockly. ,, i)u ToiT. I „ Frakcis. 1 . Minutes of preTioua meeting read and confirmed. XXX 2. jVTr. Samuel Eowlancl Timson, representing Messrs. Cooper and NephewB, was examined upon the formal offer made b}- that tirm to the Government for the eradication of scab from the Colony. Mr. Molyneus, the local representative of the firm was alio present. 3. The Commission adjourned at 12.0 noon. Cape Town, Monday, l^th November, 1893. PEESENT ; Dr. Smartt (Chairman). Mr. Botha. Mr. Hockly. ,, DU TOIT. ,, FRiVNCIS. 1. Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. 2. Mr. Duncan Hutcheon, senior colonial veterinarj- surgeon, was examined. 3. Business suspended at 1 and resiimed at 2.30 p.m. 4. Mr. Sydney Cowper, principal clerk, Agricultural Department, was examined, 5. The Commission adjourned at 3-30 p.m. Cape Town, Tuesday, \^th Novemher, 1893. rRESENT : Dr. 8>rAKTT (Chairman). Mr. Botha. Mr. Hockly. ,, Du ToiT. „ Francis. 1. Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. 2. Mr. S. E. Timson was further examined. 3. The Commission then considered the cj^uestion of the preparation by the chainnan of a draft report. 4. Business suspended at 1 and resumed at 2 p.m. 5. Sundry points in connection with the draft report having been agi-eed to, it was resolved that the chairman convene the Commission for its next meeting at such time and place as may be most convenient. Cape Toion, Monday, \^th March, 1894. Mr. Botha. ,, DU TOIT. PRESENT : Dr. Smartt (Chairman). Mr. Hockly. Fean-cis. 1. The Secretary put in the following letters from the Under Secretary for Agriculture : — i. 30th December, 1893, forwarding copy of circular despatched to civil com- missioners, and others, on dipping tanks and kraals at pounds, and copy of letter from the divisional council, Ladismith, dated the 8th December, 1893, in reference thereto. ii. 29th January, 1894, forwarding a copy of Messrs. Quibell Bros.' suggestions for the extirpation of scab from sheep and goats in South Africa, iii. 3Pth January, 1894, transmitting a resolution adopted by the Glen Grey Farmers' Assoeiati(m ia favour of dipping tanks for natives, and on main roads, iv. 1st February, 1894, forwarding copy of letter from the Under Secretary for Native Affairs, dated the 2.5th January, 1894, with reference to scab in the Herschel district. V. ■24th February, 1894, transferriag a letter dated the 1 5th February received from the Secretary of the Albany Farmers' Association on the subject of Messrs. Cooper and Nephews' scheme. 2. The Secretary further put in a letter from Messrs. Cooper and Nephews dated the 6th instant, forwarding copy of a letter addressed by them to the Secretary for AgricTiiture, dated the 3rd instant, on the subject of their formal offer, and their willingness to accept amendment in the details thereof, requesting that it may he published in the proceedings of the Commission. Eesolved : That inasmuch as the letter in question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, and is not officially in the possession of the Commission, they regpret to be unable to deal with it. 3 The Chairman stated that, in accordance with the resolution adopted at the last sitting, he had prepared a draft report which would be submitted to the Commission to-morrow in a printed form. 4. Mr. Charles Currey, Under f^ecretary for Agriculture, was examiaod. 5. The Conimissiou adjourned at 12 noon. Gape Town, Tuesday, 20th 3Iarck, 1894. PRESENT : Dr. Smaktt (Chaii-man). Mr. Botha. I Me. Hockly. ,, Dir ToiT. I ,, Francis. 1. Minutes of two previous meetings read and confii-med. 2 The Chairman submitted copies of the draft report, which was read. 3. After deliberation, the Commission adjourned at 12- 50 p.m. Cape Totvn, Wednesday, 21s f March, 1894. PRESENT : Dr. Smartt (Chairman). Mr. Botha. I Mr. Hockly. „ DTJ ToiT. I ,, Francis. 1. Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. 2. The Chairman put in the rough draft of a proposed scab act which he had received fi-om the lion, secretary of the Farmers' Congress at East London. 3. The Commission then proceeded to the consideration of the draft report. Paragraphs 1 to 9 put and agreed to. On paragraph 10, Mr. Hockly moved : That the consideration of this paragraph stand over. Agi'eed to. Paragraphs 11 to 38 put and agreed to. Paragraph 39 put, as follows : — 39. As a difficidty often occui's in ascertaining the owner of stra^-ing scabby sheep, especially when their number is so small that the owner does not come forward to claim them, your Commissioners think it would be necessary to introduce a compukory regfistered brand or marks act, by which means the ownership of scabby straj"ing .sheep could be traced under any circumstances, and that the owner of clean sheep should be at Libert)' to destroy aU straying scabby sheep found on his property, when not exceeding ten in number, reporting the same, immediately, in writing, to the resident magistrate of his division. After discussion, the i)aragraph was put and the Commission divided : Ayes — 2 Noes — 3 Mr. Francis Mr. Hockly Dr. Smai-tt ,, Botha ,, du Toit The paragraph accordingly negatived. Paragraph 39 (as agreed to} put. Mr. Hockly moved: After ''contact with them" to omit: "Mr. Sydney Cowper, principal clerk in the Agricultural Department, when asked if the inspectors or superin- tending inspector had ever directed attention to any defects in the act, or suggested any improvements, said yes, and .stated a case where a man who had been granted a three months' licence, and who, taking no trouble or using no effort to cleanse his stock, was brought up before the resident magistrate of his district by the scab inspector, and fined, appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Chief Justice held that as long as the licence was rimning he coidd not be fined. Whatever ma}- have been the intention of the framers of the act, we can hardly think that it was proposed to give a man a three months' licence, during which time he was not obliged to make any effort to cleanse his stock ; and this judgment proves that, as the act is at piesent, a man holding a three months' licence cannot be compelled until the expiration of the licence to make any effort whatsoever to eradicate or check the spread of the disease, though during all that time he may be surrounded by neighbours whose clean flocks are in daily danger of contamination, either by mixing with his on open runs, or on fenced runs by rubbing agaiast the boimdary fences. This is tlie opinion also expressed by " and after "Mr. Davison" to omit "who." Agreed to. Paragraph as amended agreed to. Paragraph 40 put and agreed to. Paragraph 41 put. Discussion ensued. 4. The Commission which had sat from 10 a.m. until 12.40., and resumed at 2.30., then adjourned at 4..i0. p.m. xxxu Cape Town, Thursday^ 22uil March, 1894. PRESENT : Dr. Sinartt (Chairman). Mr. Botha. Mr. Hocklt. „ Btr ToiT. ,, FkANCIS. 1 . Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. 2. The CoBimission resumed the cousideration of the draft report Paragraphs 41 to 46 put and agreed to. On paragraph 47. Mr. Botha moved : That the consideration of this paragraph stand over until a later period of the morning sitting. Agreed to. Parag^-aphs 48 to 54 put and agreed to. On paragraph 65, Mr. Francis moved : To add at the end " but no sheep or goat skins should be removed from an infected farm until the expiration of at least one month from the time when the skin was removed from the animal " After discussion, This motion was put and nogatived. Paragraph as printed put and agi-eed to. Paragraph 56 having been agreed to, the Commission reverted to paragraph 47, standing over. Mr. Botha moved: To omit after "complaints against them " the words " and we would suggest that these inspectors should be chosen from the best men noTf acting as scab inspectors." After discussion, This amendment was put and agreed to. Paragraph as amended put and agreed to. Paragraph 57 put and agreed to. On paragi'aph 58, Mr. Botha moved : To add at the end " should, however, scab break out on slaugher stock ali-eady in transit by rail for Cape Town, Port Elizabeth or East London, these sheep should be^ allowed to proceed to their desstiuatiou and '^be immediately dipped on arrival." Agreed to. Paragraph as amended agreed to. I'aragraphs 59 to 81 put and agreed to. On paragraph 82. Mr. Francis moved : To add after "February" the words " and on no consideration should sheep be moved from an area in which such dipping had not yet been carried out into one where the dipping had akeady taken place, without being properly dipped under inspection." Agreed to. Mr. du Toit moved : To add thereafter " To provide against the contingency of the rains in the north-western districts being late, the Commission would suggest that in such cases the time for the simultaneous dipping in these districts might be extended for two months, if necessary " Agreed to. Paragraph as amended agreed to. Paragraphs 83 to 90 put and agreed to. The Commission reverted to paragraph 1 0, standing over, which was put and agreed to Paragrajihs 91 to 98 put and agreed to. 3. The Commission which had sat from 10 a.m. until 12'50, and resumed at 2'45, then adjourned at 4 20 p.m. Cape Totvn, Saturday, 'lith March, 1894. PRESENT : Dr. Smartt (Chairman). Mr. Botha. I Mr. Hockly. ,, j>v ToiT. I ,, Fkanois. 1. Minutes of previous meeting read and confirmed. 2. TheJ Commission resumed the consideration of tlie draft report, and agreed to the summary of recommendations. The draft report, as amended, was then adopted, and the Secretary wa.s instructed to ause a fair copy to be prepared for signature at the next sitting. 3. Mr. Hockly moved : In the opinion of the Commission, their thanks are due to Dr. Smart, M.L.A., for tlie very ablo mannor in whicli lio liaa discharged tlic arduous duties of Chairman since his election to that office. Agreed to. 4. Mr. Francis moved : The members of the Commission, at tho close of their sittings desire to convey to the Hon. R. P. Botha, M.L.C., tlieir sincere thanks for his kindness in interpreting tlie voluminous evidence into English and Dutch, whenever necessary ; and also to express their appreciation of the careful and imjiartial manner in which such interpretation was done. Agreed to. 5. The Chairman moved : The Commission desires to place on record its appreciation of tlie able and courteous manner in which Mr. Kilpiu has discharged his duties as Secretary. As the sittings of the Commiss'on have extended over such a long period, and as Mr. Ivilpin has had, and has still to perform, a large amount of work in connection with the iu(|uiry for which he receives no special remuneration, especially in connection with the comjnlation of an exhaustive index, tabulating all the evidence, and thereby greatly facilitating tJie preparation of the report, we strongly recommend a bonus of £150 as a remuneration for thefe valuable services. Agreed to. 6. The Commission adjourned at 11 '30 a.m. Cape Town, Tuesdaij, 21th Uurch, 1S'J4. Dr. Smartt (Chairman). Mr. Botha. Mr. Hockly. ,, Du ToiT. „ Francis. 1. Minutes of previous meeting read and confii-med. -'. TliG .Secretary submitted f-0, Smalberger 142ot;. .Toubert 15354, 15374, Geldenhuia l')400, R. Hopley 154U1-2, NoL-thling 156;)7-fi, Swaitz 157(i7-», J.Swartz 157:)l-3, de Villiors I5nOS-9, Swartz loft7i!, V. Swartz l'>'»7i;, l.j'JSO, l.')90J-2. Albert— Wentzel 300-1, Amos l!30. Reid 721, Niirton 76'3, Oaljoshott flOl, Blumer lolO, Webster 1549, Jack 1G42-4, Hockey 3fi22. Hcvns ■'5750, Paiisegreuw 10236-80, Strydoin 102S1-8, Niiiabor 10289-92, Polzer 10293-301), Coetzee 10301-0, Kriigrr 10307-29, Aswesfon 10330- l.j. Cni'Uvt' 10344-58, v. d. Heever 103a!l-«5, V. rictzen 1U38G-91, Cmmning 10392-421, Hopley 15330-2, 15319-50. Aliwal North— Wentzel 300-1, imos 030, GCiO-7S, Reid 721, Morton 703-4, Oake8h.:j, 2110-2, Film.n- 2203. Kei Road— Dell 2.iy.j, Landiey 27 iO-7. 27o4. Cathcart—Ki-og 291)9-1.0, 294{i. Tweidie 3070-1, Whittal 309(i, Fuller 3191, Landiey 3324, 3:-i29-o5, 337.5-6, 3392-3, Brown 3490, 3531. Graatf-Reinet- McCabe 3G46-9, 370.''., Rubidge 3884-7, Neeser 3980, du Toit 4148, Bremiaer 4215, 4227, 4233-0, Thoinlou 44116-9. Aberdeen -Phillips 4437, 4449, dc Villifi-s 4.i48-.')l, Auret 4G2-5-G, 4628, Bigg.s 4787, 4791, Smith 4917. Jansenville— Biggs 3027, Bellingham .illo, Bei-ringlon o242, Lee 5280, C. Lee 5332. Gouws 5369, Na.sh 5394-6. Mount Stewart— De la Harpe 5434, 5139. Uitenhage — Swart 6585, Zietsma 5702, Grewer 5871, Grewar 6035-6, 6042. Somerset East — Hofmeyr 6571, Heydcnrich 6695. Bedford -Bennet.- 6904-6, Dreyer 6978-9, Coetzee 0990, Botha 6998, Knight 7009-13, 7058-62, Bouwer 7134. Cradock— Van Heerdm 7164, Botha 7258, Cron-Wright 7299-303, CoUett 7363, Cloete 7415-S, 7427-9. Middelburg — V. d. W.ilt 7546. Waterineyer 7731-4. Colesberg— Murray 7868, 7882-7, Oosthuizen 7949-52, Badenhorst 8111. Queen's Town Fii»-liam 8191, MiddlewycU 8429-34, McDonald 8546, Bame-s 4565-7, 8570. Driver's Drift— Makazi S644-6, Mbengo 8664, Nwagi 8724. Lady Frere— Du Plessis 8796, GreefE 8813, Warren 8830. Cala— Robertsn 8954, Smit 8972, Beadon 9016, 9033, 9035, McGregor 9079, Hagclthorn 9100. Slang River— Jloolman 9197-8. Hart 9224, 9.'44-6. Harding 9252. Barkiy East— Naude 9282, 9286, 9289, 9294-5, 9301-3, Siapelberg 9327-8, 9333-6, Snyman 9342-4, 9361-4, 9387. Orpen 9393. v. Pletsen 9419-21, Steinekamp 9437, Theron 9465. Venter 9486. Dordrecht— Sutherland 9520, v. Zyl 9582, Labuseagnie 9618. Clocjte 9624, Lang 9695, 9715, 973S-», Moorcroft 9750-7, Mulligan 9760, Botha' 9779, 9782. Taikastad— De Wet 97S7, 9813-4. v Heerden 9838-41. Kiujr 9893-4, Venter 9917. Molteno— Robeiiheinier 10057-8, Vermaak 10084-8, Greyvestein 10119-IOa. J. Vermaak 10143, 10141, King 10180-1, 10188. Burghersdorp— Jiswegen 10332-5, J. Coetzee 10345-6, v. Plelzen 10387-8, Cumming 10418-9. Aliwal North-Smit 10457-8, Coetzee 10534-6, v. Aardt 10571, Steyn 10695. Stevusburi;— Henniiu.' 1075ii, Bekker 10881-2. Vermaak 108S4. Hanover-- W ol laard 11114. Hope Town— Erasmus 11134, Badenhorst 11178, Crmnp 11278-9, Bpdenhorst 11325, 11332-3. Philips Town— Marais 11395, Fourie 11459-64, Neeser 11508-11, v. d. Merwe 11542. Richmond— P. v. d. Merwe 11557, 11562, 11580-3. 11599, Erasmus 11014, Chambers 11645. 1171S. Murravsburg— V. d. Ahee 11844, t. d. Merwe 11972-8, S. v. d. Merwe 11998-12005, Joubeil 121-.:7. 12"l34-5. Beaufort West— De Villicrs 12197-201, 12226, Fourie 12257-8. 12266, 12271-2. Jacobs 12298-300. Victoria Wesl^Pienaar 12526, Ebdeu 12580-3, 12596-7. Brit's Town— Stey tier 12738, 12782-8. Prieska— Devenlsh 12900-1. Willisten— V. Schalkwyk 13299. Fraserburg — Nigrini 13370, v. Wyk 13474. du Toit 13487-9, 13514, v. Schalkwyk 13576. CaUTnia—Visscr 13584, Vos 13714. Kimberley — Botha 13975-6. Douglas—Naude 14287-93. Prince Albert — Oudendal 14473, Luttig 14705. LadLsmith— Du Toit 14884, 14891, Cronjc 15199, Eoelofs 15216-31. SweUendam— Hopley 15323-4, StejTi 15491-2. Bredasdorp— Eckstecu 15584, Herman 15606-7, 15609, Neethliutr 1563U. Galedou-De K.ick 15812, 1.5837-8, 15853, de Villicrs 15873, 15899-902, du Toit 15927-9. Worcester— Meiring 16l;KI, 16174-5, Cloete 16216. CajK- Town — Timson 1G557-9, Hutcheon 16618-22. See " Dips, effect of," " Licences, period of." Delay dangerous — Brown 1070-3, 1129-30, Thompson 1711-3, van Kensbiu'g 2112, Laudrey 2765-7, Tweedie 3060-1, Fuller 3167-70, Landrey 3333-5, Rubidge 3882-3, 3958, Phillips 4473, Hurndall 4676-8, 4739-40, Biggs 5000-1, Bennett 6917-8, Murray 7887, Barnes 8530-1, S560, G. Barnes 8565-6, Beadon 9010, Hart 9246, Harding 9253, Snyman 9361-2, Aucamp 9610-2, Labuseagnie 9617-8, Cloete 9625, Lnng 9696. King 9895, Vermaak 10080, Kins? 10164. 10182, Cumming 10421, Henning 10757, Allen 10937-9, Malherbe 11S80-I, v. d. Merwe 11975-6, de Villiers 12199,' Fourie 12273, Ebden 12562, Steytler 12782-3, Devenish 12912-3, Naudc 11292, v. d. Westhuizen 1 1637, Luttig 14704, y. Wyk 15001, v. Breda 15706, v. d. Byl 15728. For opposite yiow sec "Hand- dressing" and "Pasturage." Efficacy of — Queen's Town— V. de Vyyer 5-7, 16, 22, 32, 36, 46-8, dc Wet 102, Wainwright 138, 151, 168, de Lange, 187, 191, 217, Wentzel 245-9, 294-7. van Gass 365-73, de Wet 387, Oo.sthuizen 396-406. East London — Danckwartz 698, Thompson 867-8, 877. King William's Town— Froneman 1190, 1199-1201, A. Froneman 1211-3. Sizini 1242, Thompson 1678, Keth 1902, 1926, 1947-52, 1967-70. Komgha— Van Rensburg 2079, 2103, 2106-7, 2115, Cruywagtn 2143-4, Van Rensburg 2170-2, Hart 2304-5. 2385. Kcightley 2410-2, Nel 2466. Kei Road- Dell 2593-4, 2630, Laudrey 2727, Kilfoil 2856. Cathcart— Krog 2931-4, 2978-83, Tweedie 3012, 3037, 305!i, Whittal 3081, Fuller 3131, 3147, 3161-3, 3189, Froneman 3261. 3279, 3282, Oosthuizen 3552, Hccky 3588-91. Graaft-Beiiiot- McCabe 3645, 3671-3, Rubidge 3833, 3838-9, ^856, 3881, du Toit 4C64-9, 40S1-7, 4112-4, 4123, 4135-7, 4169, Bremmer 4200-1, 4211-4, 42.58-61, Minaar 4304, 4313, Thornton 4406-7 4415. Aberdfen— Thillips 4448, de Villiers 4537. 4552-4, 4580, Auret 461S-23. Biggs 4769, 4776-9, 4791, Tan Heerden 1814, 4851, Smith 4872. 4901. 4917, Miller 4948, Weideman 4961. Jansenville— Biggs 4974, 4990, 5007-8, Nash 5086-9, 5098, Hcydeniych 5129-30, Bcrriuiflun 6226, 5236, 6257-8, Edwards 5303, C. Lte 5319-21, 5349, E. Gouws 5369. Mount Stcwart—De la Harpe 5432, Nftsh 5503, 6527, Rex 6547-68, 5671, 5573, Uitenhage— Swart 5o8C-7, 5590, 5637-8, Zietsma 5689, 5702, Grewer 5814, 5866, Mai-ais 5884-6, Say- man 5911-2, 5939-40, Marais 59b2, Moolman 5985. Somerset East — Pietersen 6338, Featherstone G432-3, Bowker 6.)2(J-8, Vosloo 0663. Bedfurd— Dreyer 6979, 6981, Knight 7046, 7050-4. Cradock— V. Heerd™ 7171, 7207, Cion-Wright 7299, 7301,Cloeti- 7150-6, 7468-70, Martiu 7492, Tiotlia 7496-7. Middelburg— Delpiirte 7599, v. d. Walt 7749. v. d. Walt 7777. Uuliioit 7795-6, 7.S16. Cole.sberg— Murray 7845, 7852-1, 7881-2, 7889, v. d. Walt 7956-S, Hobkirk, 7967, J. Jooato 8021, Kruger 8043-6, Sluiter 8006-7, Badenh .rst 8111. Badenhorst 8125. Queen's Town— Fineham 8178. 8212-3, Ma<-Iver 8302, Coetzee 8349-51, Middlewyck 8408. Driver's Drift— Makazi 8644 -50. Mbeugo 8671. Lady Frere— Coetzee 8770, an Plessis 8796, 8802, 8810, Greeff 8813, Matsolo 8879, 8884-7. Cala— Beadon 901.), Kalipa 9102-3. Slans River— Moolman 9190, Kruger 9211-1, Kruger 9222, van Wiekerdt, 9227, Venter 9203. Barkly Kast— Naudc 9287, Stapelberg 9334, Snyman 9352. 9378-9, v. Tlet-sen 9403, 9414, J. Steinu kamp 9447-5!. Hegter 9450, Benson 9506. Dordrecht— Sutherland 9551-4, 9560-8, v. Zyl 9574, Auoamp 9605, 9609. Labuseaguic 9620-1. Lang 9700-2. Tarkastad— De Wet 9803-4, 9812, v. Heurden 9826, 9831, 9842-3. Molteno— Robeuheimer 10033, 1(1056, Greyvestcin 10U9, Au<'amp 10190, 10199-200, J. Aucauip 10210. Greyvenstein 10223-8, Eaubcnheimer 10230-1. Burghersdorp— Pansegreuw 10259, 10202-4, Kruger 10318-9, v. Pletzen 10389. Aliwal North— Smit 10455, 10466, Bekker 10503, 10518, de Wet 10542, Mybursfh 10551. v. Aardt 10570. Steynsburg— Henniug 10727, 10741, Bekker 10780-2, Coetzee 10823-7, M. Coetzee 10836, van Zyl 10970. Hanover— Viljoen 10993, 10996-9, 11018, van Zyl 11029, Humphries 11092, 11097, du Plessis 11109. Hope Town- Era.smus 11119, de Jager 11194-200. Pretorius 11205, Vonnculen 11213, Liebenberg 11225. 11227, du Toit 11250, Crump 11271. du Toit 11323, Badenhoist 11329-30, du Raan 11336. Philip's Town— Marais 11341, 11350-1, 11392, Jansen 11407, du Plessis 11431-3, Fourie 11460, Neeser 11491, V. d. Merwe 11535. Herold 11547. Richmond— V. d. Merwe 11568-9, 11595. Erasmus 11-614, v. Zyl 11624, Chambers 11716-7, 11728. Munaysburg— V. d. ALee 11880-2. 11816-21, 11849, Pienaar 11922-3, v. d. Merwe 11967-5, S. v. d. Merwe 11987-90. 11993-4. Burger 12031. Beaufort West— de Villiers 12160, 12192, Fourie 12266, Jacobs 12301-4, 12314, 12321-3. Victoria West-de Klerk 12419-20, V. Scha'.kwyk 1248r, Claasseii 12487, 12500, v. Hcerdeu 12522-3 Pienaar 12526-9. Ebden 12541, 12570, 12574-6. Brit's Town— Hitchcock 12700-3, Stej^ler 12774-6. Pricska— de .Jager 12948. Borman 12981, Maritz 12994-0, Viljoeu 12998, v. Niekerk 13009, Louwreii,<^ 13050, V. Niekerk 13052, 13056, Greeff 13063-5, Steyn 13078, Higgs 13079, 13083. Kenhardt- Vcskule 13151-4, 13171, Strau.ss 13173, Nieuwoudt 13188-91, 13198. Calvinia— Fryer 13232, Nel 12351-2. Williston— V. Schalkwyk 13300-3, Hollander 13331-2, Moolman 13365-7. Fraserburg— Nigrini 13370, 13373-5, 13416-7, v. d Merwe 13443, Stoffberg 13447, Era.smus 13450, du Toit 13482, 13491, 13498-9, 13.506, v. Schalkwyk 13537, 13541, 13548, 0. v. Schalkwyk 13576. Carnarvon— Vis.ser 13590-3, Vos 13712, Vorster 13747, 13750, v. d. Westhuizen 13770. lumbcrlcy— V. Wyk 13776, 13782, 13788, Viljoen 13816, 13835-7, Steyn 13851-3, 13869, Botha 13973, 13980, Morkcl 14026. Douglas— Reincke 14147, 14160, Faber 14179, 14186, 14191-2, Reineke 14227, Holtshuisen 14237-43, Maritz 14246-S, 14261, Naude 14281-2, 14289-91, Turuer 14329-30, Cook 14341, Mackay 14410, Lotter 14421, 14430, de Kock 14446, v. Niekerk 14460-3. Prince Albert— Oudendal 14473-4, 14504, 14525-6, Erasmus 14545-7, Gibelaar 14594-7, 14608-9, RuBsouw 14621, V. d. Westhuizen 14626-8, Marais 14655, Wilsnach 14672-4, Venter 14693, v. Zyl 14737, de Wet 14776-82. Ladismith- Langenhover 14796, 14816, v. Zyl 14838, du Toit 14871, 14876, 14881, 14889-92, v. Wyk 14917-20, Bekker 14958-9. Riversdale— V. Wyk 14970-7, Nel 15035-6, 15074-5, 15119-26, Oudendal 15147-8, Duminy 15167-71, Oudendal 15179-82, Cronje 15200-1, Steyn 15204, Smalberger 15239. 15246. Swellendam—Hopley 15269, 15298-300, 15324, Steyn 15415-6, Badenhorst 15435-6, R. Hopley 16451, 15455-8, Steyn 15485-6, v Eeden 15510, 15518, Devenish 15528. BredasJorp— Ecksteen 15568, 15584, Neethling 15632, 15639, v. Breda 15688, 15705, 15708-9, v. d. Bvl 15726-7, Swartz 15752, 15766-7, J. Swartz 15777-80. Caledon—De Kock 15810, 1.5818-23, 15829, 15832-3, 1.5836-41, 15852-3, 15856, de Villiers 15873-4, 1.5884-7, 15915-6, du Toit 15927-32, 15947, Hurman 16007, 16013-S. v. d. Byl 16049. Worcester— Meiriug 16135, 16156, 16166-7, Cloete 16209. Robertson— De Kock, 16277-9, Marais 16295-8, de Wet 16310-2, Joubert 16323, 16334, 16352, Cilliera 16357-62, Schoonwinkel 16367. Cape Town— Hutcheon 16657, Cui-rey 16825-6. See " Hand dressing " and "Pasturage for cure of Scab ; " also " Licences, period of," and " Internal remedies." Method and Extent of — Queen's Town— V. d. Vyver 37-54, de Wet 103, Wontzel 297, van Gass 359-73. East London —Atkins 518, 546, Danckwartz 696. King William's Town— Molongeni 965, 970, Titi 989-93, Sem 1023, Brown 1053-4, 1 116, Collier 1293, Jack 1650, Thompson 1674-5, Kettles 1726-8. Komgha— Gray 2032, 2037, van Rensburg 2084, 2086-7, 2103, 2106, Hart 2313, 2397-8, Sparks 2501, 2508-9, 2515-6, 2545, 2555-6. Kei Road— Warren 2786, KiUoU 2852. Cathcart- Krog 2880-915, 2953-68, Tweedic 3016-7, 3038-42, Whittil3082, Fuller 3140-1, 3152, 3250-1, j Froneman 3257-70, Landrey 3306, 3309, 3327, Brown 3ll8, 3425, Hocky 3600. Graatf-Reinet—McCabe 3743, 3766, Rubidge 3848, 3893, du Toit 4115-23, Bremmer 4216-23, 4244-OJ 4256-7, Mil: lar 4311, A. Thornton 4426. Aberdeen— PliUlps 4440, de ViUiers 4486-9, 4501, 4547, Aui-et 4616-8, Humdall 4714, van Heerdeii 4812. Weideman 4961. Jansenrille- Biggs 4990-2, Heydenrych 5134-6, Birch 5181, Berrington 5218-9, Nash 6373-6, 6384. Mount Stewart— De la Harpe 5412-4, Rex 5563, 5569, 5571-2. li:tenha:re— Swart 5626, 5651, Zietsma 5689, Grewer 6826, 5879, Maraia 6885, 5899, 6901, 6903-7^ Sayman 5916-28, Kirkman 5992-4. SomersetEast— Pieterson 6332, Featheratone 6436, 6451, Bowker 6488-93, 6524-5, Voaloo 6664-5, Davison G756, 6765, 6815. Bedford— Bennett 6S59, 6864-6, Rennie 6945-7, Knigtt 7022-5. 7047, Pringle 7072-4. Cradock— V. Heerden 7170, 7173, Venter 7247-55, Cron-Wright 7271-5, 7322, 7350, Vermaak 7373, Botha 7497. Middelburg— V. d. Walt 7550, Delporte 7599, Pretoriu,s 7615, 7619-20, DuTenage 7624, 7626, Murray 7635, Grey 7736-9. Colesberg— Murray 7358-9, Lategan 7916-7, v. Rensburg 7975, Kruger 8038-42. Queen's Town— Flncham 8156-60, Middlewyck 8409, 8441, Barnes 8472-81, 8495-500. Driver's Drift— Temlett 8687. Lady Frere— Coetzee 8738-48, 8754, 8758-9, Coetzer 8778-84, Warren 8825-9, Gray 8908, 8913. Cala— Aucamp 8984-9, Beadon 9006, 9053, Brown 9087, K-ilipa 9093-4, Hagelthom 9124-6, 9163-5. Slang Kiver— Kruger 9220-1, Hart 9234-5. Barklv East— V. Pletsen 9404-20, Schoenland 9498, Hartman 9515-6. Djrdrccht— V. Zyl 9574, Aucamp 9606-9, Cloete 9627, Lang 9670-3, Fleischer 9749. Tarkastad—De Wet 9795, v. Heerden 9830, 9837, Hatting 9857, 9861-3, King 9876, Walker 9937, 9939. Molteno— Robenheimer 10028, 10031-2, 10036-7, Vermaak 10073-6, Cloete 10104-5, Vermaak 10134-7, 10142-5, Pierce 10157, Kins; 10167, Aucamp 10190-200. Burghersdorp — Pansegreuw 10260-1, Kruger 10312-3, Aswegen 10340, Coetzee 10347-51, v. d. Heever 10364-70, T. Pletzeu 10387, 10391, Gumming 10399-400. Aliwal North-Smit 10437, 10467-8, 10476, Bekker 10493-4, t. Aardt 10592, Moorcroft 10601, de Wet 10639, Henning 10685, Danckwerts 10712. Steynsburg- Henning 10728-9, 10737, Coetzee 10828-30, M. Coetzee 10837-8, 10840-3, Oosthuizen 10805, Vermaak 10885, AUen 10S99, 10901, Coetzee 109-54-7, 10971-4. Hanover— Viijoeu 10982-93, van Zyl 11031-2, Klyngelt 11035, Visser 11047-8, Humphries 11078-80. HopeTown— Erasmus 11119-24, deJager 11201," Liebenberg 11223-4, Crump 11258, 11266, Swiegers 11291-2, du Toit 11305-9, Badenhorst 11325-9. Philip's Town— MaraLs 11340-9, 11368-9, Jausen 11404, du Plessis 11428-30, Smit 11454, Fourie 11465, Neeser 11469, 11488, 11503, Potgieter 11514, du Toit 11524, v. d. Merwe 11535-6, Whitehead 11554. Richmond— V. d. Merwe 11576-9, 11596-8, 11607-9, v. Zyl 11629-30, Chamoers 11664-5, 11712-3, V. d. Merwe 11746-7, Eckerdt 11756-7, 11770, Stewart 11787, Theunissen 11794. Murray.sburg— V. d. Ahee 11810, 11815, v. d. Merwe 11934, S. v. d, Merwe 12006, Burger 12032-6, V. Heerden 12045, 12069, Joubcrt 12090-3. Beaufort West— De Villiers 12148, 12159-60, Foui-ie 12259, 12266, Jacobs 10303, Erasmus 12328-35, de VOliers 12357, EUiott 12412-4. Victoria West— De Klerk 12421-30, 12434, 12459-63, v. Schalkwyk 12481, 12483, Ebden 12538-9, 12551, 12572, Mader 12608. Brit's Town— Blomerus 12618-20, 12050, Lotts 12715, Steytler 12742-54, Jackson 12838-41, v. Zyl 128.59. Prieska—Devenish , 12880, 12891-4, 12898, 12926-7, de Jager 12937-8, 12973, Borman 12981, v. d Merwe 12990, Maritz 12993, Viljoen 12998, v. Niekerk 13009-10, Geldenhuis 1302.5, Grov^ 13028, GreefE 13066-76, Higgs 13080-2. Kenhardt— Voskule 13100-3, Nieuwoudt 13178, 13199. Calvinia— Fryer 13214, Nel 13249-50, 13254-5. Williston- V. Schalkwyk 13312-4, Hollander 13333-46, Moolman 13363. Fraserburg— V. d. Merwe 13438-42, ErasmiLS 13450, v. Wyk 13455, 14462, v. d. Westhuizen 13477-8, du Toit 13480-91, 13500, 13507-9, 13515-26, 13522-5, v. Schalkwyk 13537, 1354-3, 13555, O. T. Schalkwj'k 13579-80, Visser 13582. Calvinia— A. Vi,s.ser 13580-9, 13026, 13630-2, 13048-9, 13652-5, Moobnan 13691-4, Vos 13711-4, Latskv 13724, Vorster 13740, 13756, v. d. We-sthuizen 13759-72. Kimberley— V. Wyk 13778-82, Viljoen 13818-23, 13833, Steyn 13846-54, F. Steyn 13882-3, 13885, 13888-90, Botha 13920, 13930, 13960, 13974-6, Morkel 14022-5, Diebel 14092-3. Douglas— Reineke 14148, 14161-3, Faber 14182-92, 14201-2, 14206-12, Maritz 14246-7, Nande 14276-7, Turner 14310, 14320-3, Cook 14347, 14353-64. Mackay 14413-4, Letter 14422-34, Turner 14437, de Kock 1443-50, 14443-50, 14435, v. Ni.-kerk 14103, Orpen 14466. Prince iUbert— Oudendal 14472, 14475-9, 14505-14, 14517-8, 14531-3, Erasmus 14538-46, 14558, Snyders 14570-3, Gibelaar 14589-93, 14000, 14612, Russouw 14020-1, v. d. Westhuizen 14625, 14039-52, Wilsnach 14008-73, Venter 14089-92, Luttig 14700, 14726-31, v. Zyl 14751-4, de Wet 14773-87. Ladismith— Langenhovcr 14795-803, v. Zyl 14841-3, 14850, Wolfaart 14852-61, du Toit 14874-5, 14882-5, 14891-7, Bekker 149.30, 149-';8, 14961-2. Riveradale— V. Wyk MOiiS-9, 14978-85, 14094-8, 1-5021, Nel 15032-4, 15044, 1-5085-92, 15108, Oudendal 15149-51, Duminy 15160-1, Oudendal 15180-95, Cronje 15199, Steyn 15204, 15207-8, Smalberger 15246. Swellendam— Hopley 15267-73, Joubert 15355, Geldenhuis 15403-4, Steyn 15417-21, Badenhorst 15445, R. Hopley 15151, Steyn 15475-8, v. Eeden 15509-13, Devenish 15526. Bredasdorp— Ecksteen 15554-8, 15567-75, 15591-2, Herman 15600-6, 15612-3, Neethling 15630-2, 15635-9, 15047-61, v. Breda 15086-91, v. d. Byl 15721-2, 15731-3, Hughes 15736, Swartz 15747-61, 15754-62, J. Swartz 15771-3. Caledon— De Kock 15800-31, 15839, 15855, 15860-8, de Villiers 15872-5, du Toit 15926, 15933, 15940-54, Swartz 15977-80, 15986-7, Hurman 16008, 16018, v. d. Byl 16031, 16048, 16051, Metcalf 16085, 16099-100. Worcester— Meii-ing 16118, 10121, 16136-41, 16190-2, Cloete 16208, 16216. Robertson— Wessels, 16222-4, 10231-2, 16242-6, de Kock 16249, 102-56-67, 16291, Marais 16299-301, Stcmmet 16306-7, .Joubert 10324-30, 16344-8, 16353. Cape Town- Stagg 16435, Hutcheon 16597. See "Tanks, number of." Simultaneous — Against : — Queen's Tomi—V. d. Vyver 9, 18-20, 53-9, Wainwright 133-4*, Wentzel 302, 331-5, de Wet 389-9i. King William's Town— A. Froneman 1222-3, 1231, Crowe 1329-9, Duckies 13856. Komgha— Gray 2033-8, Edmonds 2218-9. Cathcart— Brown 3451-3, 3537 Graaff-Keinet— Neeser 4022-7, Maasdorp 4047, du Toit 4154-8, 4160, Minaar 4288-90, Thornton 4354-9. Aberdeen— De Villiers 4535-0, Smith (1889-91) 4921-3, Weideman 4960. xlii ansenrille — Heydearyeh 5132, Bcrnuglon 5233-1, Lee 2I5D. Uitfnha^e— Kirkman 6006-7. Somerset East— Vosloo 6669-70, G6S0. Cradock— Cloetc 7430-5, 7445. Middelburg— Dclporto 7612, Vorstor 7765 (7767), Delpovt 7798-803 Colesberg — Badciihorst S053-5. • Queen's Town — Bailoy 8006. Lady Frere— Cootzeo 8750, Matsolo 8881-2. Barkly East— Naude 9288, v. Plotsen 9403. Dordrecht— Sutherland 9535-7, Cloetc 9630. Tarkastad— Do Wet 9796. Molteno— Cloete 10108-9, Greyveeteiu 10122. Aliwal North— Bekker 10500-2. Steynsburg — Coetzee 10827. Hanover— Van Zyl 11030. Hope Town — Erasmus 11135. PhiUp's Town— Marais (11386-7), du Toit 11527-32 (11531), Jooste 11.551 Murraysburg— V. d. Ahee 11833-5. Beaufort "West— De VlUiers 12191 (12208-12), P. de Villiors 12354-G. Victoria West— De Klerk 12432-3 (12437-9), Claassen 12491-4. Brit's Town— Steytler 12762-4. Fraserburg— Wigrini 13396-7. Carnarvon — Visser 13605-6, Swellendam— Joubert 15358-62, v. Eedeu 15503-4. Caledon— V. d. Byl 16059-60. In Favour of — Queen's Town- V. d. Vyvcr 63-5, do Wet 110-4, de Langc 222-30, Oosthuizeu 396. East London— Atkins 595, Thompson 859-60. King WilUam's Town— Tita 1003, Brown 1056-61, Froueman 1175-7, Groove 1321-2, Kettles 1723, 1796-9, 1810-7, Kcth 1903-4. Komgha— Gray 19S5, van Rcnsburg 2093-4. 2116-20, Cruywagen 2138, 2140-3, van Reusburg 2167-9, FUmer 2250-2, 2277-81, Hart 2362-4, Nel 2442, 2447-8, 2455-6. 2462, Sparks 2549-51. Kci Koad— Dell 2645-7, Landrev 2746-7, Kilfoil 2852-4. Cathcart— Krog 2940, Tweedie' 3014, Fuller 3192-5, Landrey 3342, 3347, 3394-6, Ooathuizen 3560-7, Hockey 3616, BrowTi 3625, Gibbons 3631. Graatt-Keinet— McCabe 3654-6, 3735-43, 3755-7, Rubidge 3859-62, 3893, 3902-5, Brcramer 4226-9, A. Thornton 4429. Aberdeen— Rex 45S7-8, Humdall 4715-9, van Heerdcn 4837, Smith 4889-91 (4921-3), Miller 4941-2. Jansenvillc- Biggs 5026-32, Nash 507S, Edwards .5294-5^ Mount Stewart— De la Harpe 5416, Nash 5489-90, 5530-2, Hobson 5S40. Uitcnhage — Swart 5628, M. Swart 5677, Zietsma 5692, Grower 5812, Marais 5887. Sayniau 5941, Muiaia 5950. Somerset East— Pieterson 6330-2, Feathcrstone 0422-3, 6427, 6436, Turner 64C8, Bowker 6496-8, Davison 6757-63. Bedford— Bennett 68.58-60, Rennio 69 '(-9. Knight 7031-3, 7061, Pringle 7087-9, v. Niekerk 7126, Bouwer 7134, Roux 7136, Edwards 7i40. Cradock— V. Heerdcn 7174,7199, 72(i •:, 7217, Venter 7245, Cron-Wriglit 7269-70, Vermaak 7373, Barber 7403, Botha 7499-500. Middelburg- V. d. Walt 7572-3, Mu riy 7637-8, Southey 7691, v. d. AValt 7760-1, Vurster 7766-7, Visser 7836. Colesberg— Murray 7860, 7899, Latcgau 7918, Plowman 7923-6, 7928, 7932-4, v. Rensburg 7978-9, J. Jooste 8027, Slintcr 8C82, Louw 8087-8, Badeuhorst 8129-34, AV. Plewman 8144-5. Queen's Town— Fincham 8101-2, 8245, Coetzcj 8344-8, Middlcwyok 8410, Banius 8483-9, 8518-51, G. Baiu.^s 8565. Driver's Di-ift— Temlett, 8687. Lady Frere— Coetzee 8775, 8789-90, du Plessis 8805, Greefl 8813, Warreu 881-'^, Gray 8922. Cala— Aiiuamp 8982, Beadon 9004-6, 9035, 9050. Slang River— Hart 9237-8. Barkly Enst — Snynian 9348, 9356-7. Dordrecht — Lang 9678-9. Tarkastad— Hattiugh 9854, King 9876, Venter 9920, Er.Tsiiius 9928, Walker 9936. Moltenu— Kiibenlicimcr 10li;i5. 10064, Vermaak 100S3, King 10178. Biiryhersdorp — Panscgreuvv 10266, Kruger 10321, Gumming 10420. Aliwal North— Bekkci- 10532, v. Aardt 10563-5, 10576, Moorcroft 10602. Btcynsburg— Her.iiing 10739, Vermaak 10893, Allen 10911. Hanover— Viljoen 11000-2, 11020, Visser 11050, Humphries 11081-2. Hope Town— Badenhorst 11181, Swicgers 11185, Liebenberg 11226, Crump 11273, du Toit 11316. Philip's Town— Jansen (11413), Smit 11456, Neeser 11479-80, v. d. Merwo 11541. Richmond— P. v. d. Mcrwe 11586, 11605, Chambers 11640-8, 11680-8, Eckerdt 11765-6, 11779-82, Theunissen 11795. Murraysburg— V. d. Ahee 11810-4, Thcron 11890-2, Pieuaur 11919, v. d. Mcrwe 11963, 11970-1, v. Hecrdon 12050, Joubcit 12140-1. Beaufort West— De Jager 12243-5, 12251-3, Jackson 12381. Victoria West— Dc Klerk 12137-9, Ebden 12551-2, 12589, 1 2592-3. Brit's Town— Blomerus 12631-2, 12643, Steytler 12770, 12794, Jatksuu 12849-51. Prieska— Devenish 12884, 12922, de Jager 12970, Viljoen 13004-5. Fraserbiirg- V. Wyk 13461, 13474, v. Schalkwyk 13542. Calvinia— Vorster 13739, 13761-2. Kiraberley— Botha 13922. Douglas— Reinekc 14151-3, Cook 11355-6, de Kuck 14440.', Prince Albert- Luttig 14701. Rivcrsdalc — Smalbcrger 1 5242. Swellendam— Knoblauch 15385-6, Uoldeuhuis 15406-7, Slcyu 15169. Bredasdorp— Ecksteen 15559-61, liys l.'i673, v. Breda 156S0-2, Swartz 15704-5. Caledon— Dc Villiers 15876-8, Swartz lo98J, Metcalf I60S5-6, v. d. Merwe 16112-5. Worcester— Meii-iiig liU20, 1(;151, 16155, Cloetc ir,l'J7. Robertson — De Kock i62.)2-4, Marais 16302. Cape Town— Timson 16538, 16562-4, Hutcheon 16600, 16603-4, lbh07, 16620-5, 16630-5, Carrey 16862 xlui And see "Tank*, imblic" Under Inspectiun. — Queen's Town — Wainwrigljt 151, van Gass 357-8. East London— Atkins 518, 5'27-S, iiii-'j, ulO-20, Danckwart? 698-9, Thompson 812, 848, 850, 880. King William's Town— Molongeni Pi32, 965, 9C;8-70, Tita lOdO-l, 1005, Brown I051-G, 1117, 1122, 1137-8, Froneman 1161, Sizini 1211, Crowe 1324-7, 1328-9, Duckies 1382, 1389, 1391, Everitt 1427-30, Maleomess 1593, 1605-9, Thompson 1671, 1677, Kettles 1738-40, 1788-3, 1793-5, Keth 1897, 1901, 1933-5. Komgha— Gray 1985, 2040. 2047-8, van Rensburg 2085-9, 2104-6, Cruywagen 2130-2, Edmonds 2213, Filmor 2259, Hart 2303, 2315-C, 2351-2, Nel 2462, Sparks 2-504-6, 2510, 2517, 2.528. Kei Road— Dell 2(US-51, 2654, 2657, Landrey 2734-5, W.tiTen 2787-9, 2798, Hancock 2832, Kilfoil 5852-4. Cathtart— Tweedie 3002, 3017, 3042, 3048, 3055-6, Whittal 3095, Fuller 3125, 3142-6, 3151-3, 3182, 3190, Landrey 3310-1, 3322, 3328, 3346, 3378-84, Brown 3426-7, 3496-501, Ocsthuizen 3570, 3574, Hockey 3600, Brown,3625. Graaff- t56, Sutherland 9563, Labuseagnie 9619, Cloete 9637, Lang 9710, Dugmore 9774, v. Heerden 9841, Hatting 9864, King 9884, Walker 9936, Roben- heimer 10045, Vermaak 10079, J. Vermaak 10139, King 10185, Pansegreuw 10237, 10251-3, Pelzer 10297, Kruger 10311-2, Aswegen 10339, Smit 10474, v. Aardt 10574, 10595, Henning 10740, Vermaak 10888, Viljoen 11019', 11023-4, Visser 11051-4, Humphries 11103, Erasmus 1 1142-S, Badenhorst 11183, Swiegers 11185, Liebenberg 11211, C. Liebenberg 11228-9, Crump 11267-9, du Toit 11311-4, Marais 11374, Neeser 11486-7, du Toit 11526, v. d. Merwe 11690, Chambers 11066-9, xliv V. d. Merwe 11731, Eckerdt 11701-2. Theron 11899, v. d. Merwe I1914-G, Joubert l'2n0S-inC, .1p Villiers 1'2H5, l'2155-8, Fourie 12273-9, Jacobs 12286-7. Erasmus 12325, Verster, 12311-2. d<-- KWk 12441-2 Ebden 12553. Blomeras 12644-5, Steytler 12789-90, Marcus 12810-1, 1 2814 -5, Jackson 12843, V. Zyl 128CC, Pevenish 12897, 12928, de Japrer 12962-3, v. Wyk 13283. J. v. W.vk 13458, v. Schalkwyk 13541, 13570, Visser 13644, Vorster 13758-60, v. Wyk 13808, Viljoen 13824-30, Steyn 13873, Botha 13925, Reinfike 14156, Faber 14179, Reineke 14227. Nande 14302, Turner 14306, 14314, Cook 14342, 14393, Oudendal 14482-4, 14486, Snyders 14569, Marais 14656-7, Lutlig 14702, Langenhover 14827, Steyn 15209, Uys 15259, 15261, Hoplcy 1533S, Joubert 15357, Steyn 15474, Eckt.tuen 15590, Swartz 15796, de Keck 15851-2, 15857, de Villiers 15880-2, Swartz 15983-4, Hurman 16009, v. d. Byl 16062-3, Meiring: 16123, 16170, J. Meiring 16218, de Kock 16276, Timson 16560-1, 16581, Hutcheon 16604, 16613. Government.— Orpen 9394, Jackson 12851, Hutcheon 10613, Currey 16825-6. Properties of — Lime and Sulphur.— De Lange 233, ColUer 1295, Buckles 1375, Jack 1648-50, 1657, Hart 2395, Frone- man 3282, Rubidge 3960, Gubb 5779, 5793-805, Grower 5877-80, Brj-an 6089-90, Mcllwraith 6183, Knight 70.50, Every 7828-9, Coetzer 8781-3, Orpen 9393, Ebden .12590, Spilhaus 16,502,10504, Russouw 10513. Hutcheon 16605-6. Tobacco.— Jack 1052-4, Weideman 4657, Gubb 5779, 5803-4, Bryan 6089-90, Every 7827, Orpen 9393, Spilhaus 16503, Russouw 16514. Others.— Jack 1655, Tweedie 3071. Landrey 3340, van Heerden 4812, Gubb 5779, 5802, Stapelberg 9328 Orpen 9393, Ebden 12590. Used by Fanners — Lime and Sulphur. — V. d. Vyver 38, Wentzel 332, Ooathuizen 401, Atkins 546, Molonseni 351, Sem 1018, Hart 2395, Sparks 2501, Krog 2891, 2895, Tweedie 3072. Froneman 3259, Landrey 3347, Brown 3625, Rubidge 3960, Bremraer 4223, Biggs 4974, Nash 5089. Edwards 5303. Re.t 5569, Greser 5877, M:irais 5900, Sayman 5915. B. Vosloo 6693, Knight 7049, G. Barnes 8567, Oietzee 8738, Coetzer 8778, Warren 8823, Gray 8927, Aucamp 8985, Aucamp 9600, v. Heerden 9830, \\''alker 9939, Aucamp 10190, v. Pletzen 10387, Coetzee 10829, M. Coetzee 10S42, Vermaak 10885, Coetzee 10954, Viljoen 10984, Maraia 11347, de Klerk 12422, du Toit 13483, Viseer 13646-7, Steyn 13.S72, F. Steyn 13889, Faber 14184, Turner 14319, Cook 14364, Turner 14437, de Wet 14777, Bekker 14958, Nel 15084, Hopley 15326, Steyn 15417. dp Villiers ^15875, du Toit 15944, Hurmau 16007, Meiring 16171-3, 16176. Patent Dips.— De Lange 236, van Gass 367, Krog 2895, Tweedie 3021, Froneman 3259, Bremmer 4223, Auret 4616. Weid.-man 4961, E. Gouws 536i\ Rex 5569, Marais 5905, Sayman 5915, Delport 7797, Gray 8913, Stapelberg 9328, v. Pletsen 9404, 9408, Walker 9939, Aucamp 10190, Allen 10901, Coetaee 10954, Era.smus 11119, de Jager 11203, Crump 11281, Badenhor.st 11325. v. d. Merwe 11696-7, V. d. Ahee 11800. Fourie 12266. Jacobs 12303, v. Schalkwyk 12481, Jackson 12840, Oreeff 13071, Hollander 13337, Visser 13045, VOjoen 13832. Cook 14304, Oudendal 14472,14475,14506, Erasmus 14541, v. d. Westhuizen 14638, Mar.-iis 14655, Venter 14094, Langenhover 14795, Oudendal 15184, Cronje 15199, Hopley 15325, Steyn 15417, Ecksteen 15571, Swartz 15749, de Villiers 15873, Fick 16020, M^■i^ing 16134, 16173, Joubert 16325. Others.— Biggs 4^73, Rex 5572, Gubb 5793, Snyraan 9378. v. Pletsen 9408, Steinek.amp 9447, Panse- erew 1' 260, Coetzee 10347. Coetzee 10954. Viljoen 10997, Klyngelt 11035, do Klerk 12421, v. Heerden 12523, Hollander 13333-5, du Toit 13483, Morkel 14022, Lotter 14423-7, Oudendal 14507, V. Wyk 14980, Dumiuy 15105, Uys 15259, Badenhorst 15430, de Kock 15811-4, de Villiers 1.5873, du Toit 15^73, Oloete 16216, de Kock 16259, Joubert 16324- Dividinsr Line.— Lehmann 475-9, Amos 638-9, Danckwartz 688, Brown 1134, Fronem.in 1165, Collier 1270, Duckies 1351-4, Everitt 1417-9, Malc.mess 1589-90, Kettles 1745-50, 1788, Cnristinn 1840, Gray 1995-8, 2057, 2060, van Kenshurif 2165, tdmonds 2194-201, Nel 2440. Dell 2020-8. Landrey 2725, Wj'ren 2792-4, 2810. Kroff 2923, Tweedie 3019, Wniittal 3080, Fuller 3172-3, Landrey 3320-1, 3351, O'Sthuizeii 3549, Hocky 3593-5, 3006, 3611-5, McCabe 3663-5, Rubidge 3835-6, 3888, 3910, 3955-6, VTaasdorp 4'i35-40, Minaar 42'<1 4284, Thornton 4340-2, de Villiers 4519, Hurndall 4679-80, Biggs 4781, van Heerden 4S10, Bjir^'s 5002, N.-ish 5064, 5074, Berrington 5227, L^e 5268. de la Harpe 3420, Nash 5482-3, Hotison 5541, Zietsma 5695, Grower 5822-3. M.irais 5946. Kii-kman 599S-9, Grewar 6035, Pieierson 6333, Feath-Tstone 6429, Davi>on 6708-7. 0774-7, Bennett 6867, Rennie 6936, Knight 7028, Priiijjle 7076, Elwards 7144, Cron-Wright 7265, 7311, Murray 7641, Suuthey 7692, Murray 7848-50, Bunes 8491-2. Snyman 9349-50, Cloete 9632, Lang 9683, Anderson 11985, v.d. Merwe 12ill5, Burger 12035, 12ii39, de Villiers 12202, Fimrie 12261, 12264, de Villiers 1236_'. Elliott 12409, de Klerk 12419, 12430, Claasxn 12487, de Klerk 12515-7. Nader 12609-10, Blomeius 12615, Stevtlcr 12793, Mareus 12799-800, Jackson 12848, 12856, v. Zyl 12860. Devenish 12921, Vitjoen 12998, Nigrini 13406-9, v. Wyk 13461, du Toit 13495-6, v. SehalkwVk 13546, Visser 13629, Vo.s 13721, Vorster 13762, Stcyn 13906-8, Botha 139(>8-7il, Faber 1 1225-6, 14"244, Maritz 14262, Naude 14300. Turner 14324, 14333, Cook 14365. 14381, Turner 14137. de Knek 14451, Oudendal 14494-9, v. d. Wo^t- huizen 140.35-0, Wiknach 14G80-6. Luttig 14714, 1471.S, Bekker 14957, t. Wyk 14991-3, Nel 1.V131 15976, 15109, 15130-1, Oudendal 15153-4,~Hopley 15275, .'oubert 15369-70, Knoblauch 15396, Baden horst 15441, Stern 15496, Deveni.* 15525, 15550, Ecksteen 15581-2, Neethling 15671 T.Breda 15711, Swaitz 15763-4, J. Swartz 15800-1, de Kock 1585-'J, de Villiorst 15883, Swartz 15993-5, 16002, v. d. l?vl 160.36-7, 16041, 16073, Meiring 16186-9, Cloete 16207. MaraLs 1029.s Joubert 16323, 16341, Tiras,,n 16579-80, Hutcheon 16607. See '• Dippin?, efficacy of," " Scab acts, effect of.'' E.xiX'nditure for Eradication of Scab, whether warranted. — Reid 750, Duckies 1363. Dodd 1507, Malcome.ss 1603, Rubidge 3859, 3902, 3944-0, Ma.i.sdoii) 4039-40, Min;uir 4294. Phillips 4471. Humdall 4743, Na*h .5511, Hobsou 5541, Marais 5888, Holt 6313-4, Pietcrson 6386, Featherstone 6465, Bennett 6920, Rennie 6956, Pringle 7090, 7120, v. Heerden 7217, Cron- Wright 7288, v. d. Walt 7555, 7561, Delporte 7605, Kouthev 7702, Murray 7873, v. Ren.«burg 7981, Badeuhorst 8052, Sluiter 8071, Louw 8089, Badenhorst Sill, Bailey 8604, WaiTen 8822, Lang 9739, Walker 9950, Robenheimer 10028, 10047, 10053, Vermaak 10082, Coetzee 10534, Bekker 10024-7. G. Bekker 10874, Allen 10914, Crump 11272, Biuger 12041, de Villiers 12145, 12157, 12216. Erasmus 12325, Claassen 12501-2, Ebden 12556, Blomerus 12046, Jackson 12857, T. Zvl 12866. de Jager 12973, VUjoen 12998, Botha 13985, Turner 14334, Luttig 14719, Nel 15040-3, 1.5068, Smalberger 15252, Hopley 15310-3, Deveui.sh 15548, Ecksteen 15597, Herman 15618-25. V. Breda 15715, de Villier.s 15907. v. d. Byl 10038, Wiener 16420-1, Hutcheon 16620. See ■• Dip, cost of, and dip depots," which involves expenditure ; also '" In-speetors." Famicrs to Regulate Act. — See ' • Di\-isional Council," particularly van Aardt 10557. 10571, 10580-9. Faiming Operations Handicapped by Scab. — See " Los.«." Fencing.— Thompson 811, 877, Gray 2063-5, Filmer 2247. Hart 2288, Maa.sdorp 4038-41, du Toit 4097, Smith 4919-20, C. Lee 5355, Swart 5597. Bowker 6558, Vosloo 6631, 6657, ])avison 6775-7, Edwards 7140, Duvenage 7623, Murray 7641, Southev 7697-8, Grey 7739-40, v. d. Walt 7746, J. Joo.ste 8023, Sluiter 8065, Badenhorst 8111, Bnrnes 8554. v' Zyl 9577, Robenheimer 10028, Vermaak 10150-1, Rorich 10221, Kekker 10496, Henning 10774, Bekker 10798, Coetzee 10S21-2, 10832, du Plessis 11109, Badenhor.st 11329, Eckerdt 11784, v. d. Ahce 11828-9, Pienaar 11919, 119-28, v. d. Merwe 11971, v. Heerden 12046. Marcus 12829. v. Zyl 128.59, 12866. Steyn 13.)92. Botha 1.39.50-2, Howie 14142. Faber 14194, Turner 11315-8. V. Zvl 14760-1, Neethling 15668-9. v. Bre-(), f.lU-l), Hall tiU«, GUT, Mcllwraith 6165, 6167, 6178-81, Scheitz 6243. 6246, Murray 762H-«y, v. d. Aliee 11800. Haud-dressing: nnlv. tV>r cure of .soah.— Wainwright 172-3, Hart. 2289. Twei'die 3021. Laiidrey 3392. Neeser 3'.i;i6-U. du Toit 4138-43. 4143, Rex 460t, Vosloo 6C,'.4, Bennett 6914. Norton 6931, Reiinie 6960-3, v. Ileerden 7190, Cloete 7166, v. d. Walt 7688, Southey 7702, Murray 7846, Latrgan 7904, 7911-4, Oi sthuizen 7961. Beadon 0049, Naude 9283, 9290-2, 9322, Snyman 9364, 9163, Sutherland 9520, 9634, Coetzce 106;m, Henning 10768, Bekker 10782, Coctzee 10820. Malherbe 11S68, do Vi liera 12198, de Jager 12947, Borman 12983-4, 12986, v. d. Merwc 12990, Voskule 13102-1, Moohnan 13364, v. d. Merw* 13112, duTuit 13616-6, Latsky 13733, V. Wyk 13778-9, 13786, Viljoon 13818, 13836, Steyn 13911-2, Marais 14000, Maritz 14263, Lotter 14430, Frasmus 14566-7, Gibelaar 1 1603, Dummy 16106, ITye 16269, Heiman 16606-9, v. Breda 16696-7. Swartz 16796, de Koik 16808-10, 16860. See ' • PasturajEre, for ciu'e of scab," and for opposite view " Dipping, danger of delay." Uanover.— Rubidge 3826-9, Viljoen 10980-11026, van Zyl 11027-33. Klyngelt 11034-44, Visser 11046-68. Joubert 11069-74, Humpbries 11075-106, du Plessis 11107-9, Pirie 11110-3, Wolfaard 11113-4, Murray 11116. Viseher 11116-7. Herbert (Douglas).— Crump 11263-87, Reineke 14143-76 and 14227-8, Faber 14177-220, Hi.ltshuisen 14229-44, 'Maritz 14245-68, Naude 14269-302, Turner 14303-36, Cook 14337-96, Orpen 11396-101, Mackay 14402-18, Lotter 14419-34, Tunier 14435-7, de Kock 1 1138-66, v, Niekoik 14467-06, Orpeu 14466, y. d. Westhuizen 14467. Hope Town.—Rubidge 3825-9, Maasdorp 1063-5, Bryan 6053, 6066, 6072-3, BoAven 6120, 6125, Hall G13S, ."fhertz 6677, Erasmus 11118-76. Badcnhorst 11177-83, Swicg.rs 11184-92, de Jager 11193-203, Pretorius 11204-6, Badenhorst 11206-7, J. Badcnhorst 11208-9, Liebenberg 1 1210-1, Vemieulen 11212-7, Snyman 11218-20, Libenberg 11221-18. du Toit 11249-62, Crump 11253-87, Swiegers 11288-302, du Toit, 11303-23. B.adenhorst 11324-33, du Raan 11331-0, y. Niekcrk 13035, Roelofs 1.6231-2, Wiener 16381. HMmaiisdorp.—Sw.art 5678-671, M. Swart 5072-8, Zietsnia 5679-747, Heyn.^ 5748-69, Grewer 5853-60, Marais 6966-70, Mcllwraith 6166. Imp.rtation of Stock.— Tweedie 3061-4, Whittal 3094, Hutchcon 16673. Inihve Railway Co.'s Land.— See " Lady Frere." INSPECTORS:— Appointment and qualifications of. — Thompson 815-9, Froneman 1145, 1155-9, A. Froneman 1216-7, Crowe 1320, Keth 1911. Gray 2002-6, van Rensburg 2095-6, van Kensburg 2178, Edmonds 2210-6, Hart 2333, 2357-60, Nel 2443, Snyman 2470-4, Flan.agan 2484, Mills 2491, Dell 2676-7, Landrey 2715-7, Krog 2928, Tweedie 3033, Whittal 3103, Landrey 3397-8, 3400-4, M-Cabe 3681, Rubidge 3S76-8, 3935-7, Maaadorp 4043-4, Bremmer 4263, Thornton 4352-3, Hurndall 4736-7, van Heerden 4818-20, 4910, Miller 4932, 4943-7. Biggs 5006. Nash 5076, Hoydenrych 6146-9. Birch 6186, Bcrrington 5260-1. Loo 6276, Edwards 6326-7, C. Lee 6362, dejla Ha'rpe6l22, Nash 6492, .T. Nash 6626, Swart 5617-8, 6632, 5036. 5660-3, Zietsma 5700. Grewer 6851-2, Mar.ais 6976, Lotter 6404, Feather.stone 6146, Turaer 6468, Bowker 6641, Vosloo 6631, 6043, D.avisou 6778-S2, 6801-9. 0823-5, 6840, 6818, Bennett 6870, 6897-900, 6922, Ronnie 6910, 0964-5, 6969-74, Knight 7041-2, 7083, Priugle 7099, 7110-2, v. Niekcrk 7127, King 7129, Bouwer 7134, Roux 7138, v. Heerden 7206-6, Michau 7239, Botha 7258, Cron-Wiigl.t 7283-6, 7329-31, 7345, 7361-3. Collett 7363, 7366-70. TroUip 7388-9. Cloete 7474-6. Martin 7490-1, Probert 7630-3, V. d. Walt 7670-1, Delporte 7599, Murray 7647, Huttou 7709-23, Staples 7726-6, Smit 7728, Watermeyer 7731, Grey 7740, v. d. Walt 7756, Kruger 7772, Lategan 7916, Plowman 7923, Oosthuizen 7942-6, Hobkirk 7967, v. Rensburg 7975, 7998, 8000, 8016, Venter 8029, Badcnhorst 8062, Loiiw 8091-2, Plowman 8147, Fincham ^170-2, 8476-7, 8205-6, Coetzee 8346, 8363, Middle- •wyck 8393-6. 8398-9, McDonald 8446, Warren 8818-20. Aucamp 8994, Beadon 9036, 9042, Gaylard 9084, Hagelthorii 9121, 9172-4. Venter 9267. Snyman 9357, Venter 9486, Visser 9493, Sutherland 9639-44, Cloete 9650-1, Lang 9711-2, 9727-31, "Fleischer 9745, Clark 9762-3, Warren 9762, Haw 9766, Dugmore 9774, Anderson 9784, de Wet 9788, 9800-2, v. Heerden 9860, Hattingh 9869, King 9876, Frost 9912-3, Robenlieimer 10028-30, Vermaak 10148A-9, Price 10169-60, King 10169-70, A.swegvn 10336, Cmnming 10402, Smit 10429-32, 10402, Bekker 10621-4, Coetzee 10534, 10538, Myburgh 10662. v. Aardt 10665, 10669. Cloete 10613. 10617-8. 10620. Bekker 10623, 10628-9, 10032-3, Henniuir 10691, 10760. 10770. Coetzee 10839. Marais 10860, Oosthuizen 10863-4, Bekker 10875. Viljoen flOlO, Visser 11061, Erasmus 11164-6, Liebenberg 11231, du Toit 11304, Marais 11377-8, Neeser 11486, Potgieter 11513, Fourie 11618, du Toit 11521, v. d. Merwe 11.640, v. d. Merwc 11675, Chambers 11660, 11063, 11703-5, v. d. Merwe 11731, 11738, Theunissen 11791, Theron 11912, 11915, Pienaar 11920, y. d. Merwe 11948, S. y. d. M«cwe 12008, Burger 12037, 12040, v. Heerden 12064, Joubert 12104.de Villiers 12177-8, de Jager 12231-2, Fourie 12274-5, 12282, de VilUers 12360, 12363 Jach.son 12381-3. de Villiers 12402-6, de Klerk 12463, Ebden 12546, Bloraerus 12648-9, 12661. Steytler 12767-8. v. Zyl 12803-5, Deveuish 12869-78, 12887-90, de Jager 1294U-61, y. Schalkwyk 13349-.60, Stoffberg 13433-4, Vorstor 13764-5. Stoyn 13869, Botha 13919, Diebcl 14103-6, Reineke 14155, 14167, Naude 14302, de Kock 14456, Luttig 14708-10, Hopley 15327, Knoblauch 15387, Steyn 16471-2, v. Breda 15684-5, de Villiers 15879, 1.6892-3, y. d. Byl 16035, 16045-7, 16061. Meiring 16191-4, Cloete 16197, Timson 16539-41, 16570-8, Hutcheon 16598, 16626, 16636-40, 16661-70, Cowper 16718-20, 16746-98, Currey 16S51-3, 16860-1, 16863-8. Charges Against.— De Wet 80. 90, Wainwright 118, Froneman 1142-3, 11,60-5, Gray 2001, 2014-20, Cruywagen 2126-8, Edmonds 2222-5, Hart 2308, 2364, Dell 2588, Landrey 2708-9, Hancock 2832-4, Tweedie 3021, Fuller 3158, 3212, Froneman 3295-9, Neeser 3991, Edwards 5302, de la Harpe 5412, 6423, .6468, Na.sh 6494, Rox 6646, Grower 6842, 5849-51, Hill 6210, Lotter 6398-9, 0402-3, 6404-6, Featherstone 6412, 6461-2, 6464, Vosloo 6031-41, 0672, 6682, B. Vosloo 6686, 6690-3, J. Vo.sloo 0726, Davison 0826-32, van Heerden 7160-8, 7196-7, 7218. du Plessis 7222-36, Michau 7239, Venter 7246, Barber 7391-412, Martin 7189, Proboit 7511-36, Butlon 7708, Visser 7836-8, v. Rensburg 7975, Warren 8816. ^848. Sutherland 9672. Clcotc 10013. 10016, Hcnning 10760, Malherbe 11871-3, 11883, Steytler 12732-8, Hutcheon lO.WS, 16640-3, 16671-2, Cowper 16740-4, 16769-74. Duties.- De Wet 89-90, Wainwright 148, de Lange 202, Weutzel 272, 298-9, 303, van Gass 359, Oosthuizen 412, Thompson 808, 824-6, 861, 878, Molongeni 942-66, Sem 1024, 1038, Froneman 1142-3, 1160-,6, 1191-8, Sizini 1241, Malcomess 1605, Gray 1975, 1981-2, 2000-1, 2012-21, 2026-6, 2027, 2066. van Rensburg 2084, 2107. 2117, Cruywagen 2126-33, Edmonds 2222-6. Filmer 2263-4, Hart 2303, 2307-9, 2322, 2337-43. 2362-6. Keightley 2412-6, 2426, Nel 2468-61, Dell 2588, 2696- 605,2616,2650-5,2607-76, 2682, 2690-2, Landrey 2097-714, 2718-9, 2748-63, 2758-65,2767-72, Warren 2799, 2806, 2826, Manley 2831, Hancock 2832-4, Kilfoil 2841-2, Krog 2860-908,2944-8, Tweedie 3001-2, 3008-9, 3021-3, "3034-6, Whittal :;083-4, 3104-8, Froneman 3287-99, Landrey 3324, Brown 3625, Rubidge 3865, 38S4-7, 39011, 3906-8, 3969, Nee,ser 3976, 3980, 3991-8, 4000-2, 4011-2, 4020, Bremmer 4216, Minaar 4296, 4303, Tlioniton 4392-3, Phillips 4437, 4478, Hurndall 4723-5, Biggs 4770-1, 4801-2, y. Heerden 4822, Woideman 4900, Biggs 6019, Nash 6105, Bellingara 5108, xlvii Edwards .5302, C. Leo .',:J4 1, do U Ilm-pj .U2.i, .VI 1.1, Na.,h •5170-811, .5103-1, Swart .5r,l!)-.50, o6.32, .503.5, Zietsiua 5711, .571.S-'21, .5747, Hjym .57.57-0, G-rewer .5812, .5872, Mlikii.s .5890, Moulmaii tiSOl, Feathorstono 6112, G120, 643(i, 6100-2, B. Vo.sloo 6690-3, rtoydenrich 009.5-8, Lombard 07H. Bennett 6871, K.'.uide 09.53, Priugle 7099-102, v. Niekerk 7126, v. Heerdiiu 7164-.5, Cron-Wri^'iil 7293, 7311, 73.50, Gioete 7118, 7418, Vorstijr 7768, Murray 7897, v. Rensburg 7986, Venter 802 i, Badeuhorat 80.52, Lcjuw 8092-103, 8100, Plewiaan 8147, Fiiiuham 8229, 8231, 8249-.51, Greeff 8280-3, Middlewyuk 8101-6, Hughes S70.5, Coetzec 87.53, Ooctelpi.rl 7795-7, 7SI0, Sluiter 8058-01, 81)79, v. Heerden 98 11, Erasmus 11 133-4, Marais 1 1 ■;90, v. d. Mi rwc 11503-73, 11600, 116112, de Klerk 12410, 12431, 12460, 12408, Ebdeu 12568, de Jager 12947. .laiisenville.— Lchmaun 123. iJijrgs 4762-805, J. Biggs 4907-5(100, Nasli 5601-105, Bellingam 5106-27, lleydenrycli 5128-68, Birch 5l'69-200, Berrington 5207-63, Lee 5261-81, Edwards 5283-308, Lee 5309-50. .loubcrt .VJ57-02, Gouws 53(;3-7, E. Gouws 5368-9, Nath 5370-405, J.Nash 5471, " ' '"'" " Biyau 6051, 6072-3, Mellwraith 0159, Lane 6212. Ajid see " Mount Stewart." 1 slviii Kpi RjaJ, LoUmaim fi:\ Kottlos 17')i)-'.i, U U JiSl-77::, Liiadrey 2691-772, Warrea 2773-2831, Minley 2808, -isai, Hauoock 2S0S, 2831-2, KUfoU 2S3J-oii. Ivonhardt. — Voskule 13085-171, Strauss 13172-4, v. Rooi 13175-G, Nieuwoudt 13177-201, v. Niokerk 1320-i-l, Zandberg 13205-10. Kimbudey.— V. "Wyk 13773-812, VUjoen 13813-11, Steyn 13812-73, F. Steyn 1871-912, J. Stayu 13913-5, Botha 13916-91, Maraia 13992-11007, Morkel 11008-46, Kuhu 14047-71, Diebel 11075-106, Howie 11107-42. King William's Tuwu.— Atkius 496-622, Oakeshott 899, Molougeui 932-78, Mad 978, Zaza 978, Tita 979- 1015, Cwama 1015, Tsala 1015, Scin 1016-38, Deliwe 1038, Nazo 1038, Brown 1039-1138, Frouomaii 1208-34, Siziiii 1235-48, Mnyauda 1248, Collier 1249-1301, Crowe 1302-30, Duckies 1331-92, EvcriU 1393-1130, Oxcubam 1431-78,' Dodd 1479-1511, Blumor 1512-16, Webster l.)47-71, Maleoniess 1572-1622, Jack 1623-57, Thompson 1658-1716, Kettles 1717-18211, Christian 1821-82, Kcth 1883-1971, Kilfoil 2835-56, Holt 6294, 6296. Ivoinjjha.— Lehmaim 428-9, 447, Amos 629, Thompson 798-880, Oakeshott 898, Fronemau 1186, Webster 1571, Malcomess 1577, Kettles 1730-G, Gray 1972-2071, van Rensburg 2072-121, van Rensburg 2147-87, Edmonds 2188-237, Fibncr 2238-81, Hart 2382-401, Keightley 2402-25, Nel 2426-66, Snymau 2467-76, Sansom 2477-9, Flanagan 2480-7, Mills 2488-91, Sparks 2192-580, Ki-og 2929-30, Tweedio 3020-1, Whittal 3096, Landrey 3356-70, Hopley 15349-50. Kraals, their tTse and Abuse. — V. d. Vyver 7, do Wet 84, Duckies 1362, Malcomess 1622, Gray 2032, Hart 2394, 2400-1, Keightley 2404, Nel 2448-50, Snynian 2476, Sparks 2510, Twcedie 3037, Brown 3411, 3116, 3455, 3523-30, McCabe 3652, 3742, 3747, de Villiers 4501-3, 4537, Weideman 4657, Wcideraan 4962, Biggs 5048-50, C. Lee 5341-6, 5350, dc la Harpe 5414, Rex 5562-4, 5574, Swart 5588,5610-1, Swart 5616, M. Swart 5674-5, Zietsma 5689-90, 5744-6, Marais 5909, Sayman 5911, Marais 6957-5970, Moolman 5985, Featberstone 6433-4, Bowker 6526, Vosloo 6631, Norton 6926, Knight 7023, 7051, v. Hcerden 7200, Cron-Wright 7275, 7317, Duvenage 7623, 7627-8, Murray 7635, 7677, v. Rcnsbui-g 8017, Sluiter 8058-62, Maclver 8924, 8304-7, Middlc«-yek 8427-8, Coetzee 8734-0, 8748-52, 8771-2, Warrou 8858, Grav 8927-8, Wilhclm 9056, Snvman 9373, Sutherland 9537, 9555-62, v. Heerden 9832, King 9876, Vcrmaak" 10081, 10088, Greyvestein" 10119, Pierce 10158, King 10166, 10182-3, Pansegreuw 10239, Bekkcr 10507, de Wet 10542, Henning 10763, Allen 10921-33, Viljoen 10994, Kljnigelt 11035, Erasmus 11125-6, 11172, de Jager 11203, Crump 11205, Marais 11352, Neeser 11475-8, 11495, Whitehead 11554, V. d. Merwe 11603-4, Chambers 11691, 11696, v. d. Ahee 11846, Innes 11984, v. d. Merwe 11993, 12023, v. Heerden 12045, de Jager 12239, Fciurie 12268-9, de Klerk 12428-9, v. Heerdcu 12521, Marcus 12797, dc Jager 12947, Borman 12985, Nieuwoudt 13178, Frj-er 13212, 13216, Moolman 13702, Steyn 13871, F. Steyn 13896-7, Morkel 14014, Diebel 14095, Faber 14193, Cook 11365-6, Oudcndal 11500, 14509-11, Erasmus 14549-58, Gibelaar 14601-2, Luttig 14702-3, Hoplcy 15275-6, R. Hopley 15458, Deveuisb 15543, Ncethling 15635-7, Hughes 15738-41, de Villiers 15877^1 15883, du Toit 15949, 15964-6, Hm'man 16010-2, V. d. Bvl 16036-7, 16052-6, de Kock 16286, Marais 16300. Joubert 16349-51, Timsou 16542, Hutcheon 16607,' 16609-12, 16653. See "Wild animals, render kraaling necessary." Krog, Infected Sheep of Mr. — Froneman 1187-99, A. Froneman 1227, Kettles 1805, Keth 1955, Gray 2053-1, Sparks 2501-7, 2515, 2552-64, Landrey 2741, Krog 2857-980, T^veedie 3038-40, 3068-9. Labour Question. — Cloete 7117, Pretorius 7619, v. d. Walt 7761, v. Rensburu: 7975, Venter 8036, Badenhorst 8111, Sutherland 9520, 9529-33, de Wet 9787, Rorieh 10219, Pansegreuw 10237, Blomorus 12615, 12636, diiPIessis 12682, V. Zyl 12859, Nigrini 13387-8. Stoffber^' 1344-'>, Visser 13584, 13599, 13635, Latsky 13731, Duminy 15174, Hopley 15314-8, Badenhorst 15432, de Kock 15850, de Villiers 15873, du Toit 15938, T'imson 16568. See " Scab originated by bad herding," " Natives, payment of." Lady Frero— Coetzee 8729-75, Coetzer 8776-93, du Plessis 8794-811, Greetf 8832-3, Warren 8814-63, Boyce 8864-9, Cross 8870-5, Matsolo 8976-901, Gray 8902-36. Ladismith.— Langenhover 14788-836, v. Zyl 14837-69, du Toit 14870-901, v. Wyk 14902-34, Bruwer 14935-52, Bekker 149.53-64, Steyn 15202-10. Landowners, inspection or certificate by. — Atkins 513-1, Kilfoil 2842-3, Brown 3418, 3436, MeCabe 3690-1, Rubidge 3829, Neeser 3999, 4011-2, Thornton 4364, 4393-5, Hurndall 4738, Heydendrych 5161, Birch 5197, 5202-3, Nash 5495, Rex 5576, Hill 6216, Moolman 6391-5, Bowker 6556-7, Bennett 6880, Rennie 6952, Knight 7006, 7043, 7045, 7047, Pringle 7118, Roux 7136, v. Heerden 7153, du Ples.sis 72:;i-2, 7234, Michau 7239, 7241, Cron-Wright 7293, 7321, 7350, Cawood 7359, TroUip 7386, Murray 7061-2, Murray 7874, v. Rensburg 8007, Fineham 8182-3, 8242, Middlewyck 8384, 8435-9, McDonald 8445, Barnes 8531, Warren 8832-3, Aucamp 8979, Beadon 8999, McGregor 9069, Naude 9276, Snyman 9369, Glaas 9398, Sutherland 9550. Cloete 9598, Lang 9704-6, Clark 9753, King 9881, Walker 9942, 9946, 9951, 9969-70, Eales 10005-17, RobenJieimer 10038-40, Pierce lOlGl, Smit 10482, de Wet 10644-6, Allen 10908, Humphries 110S8, Piric 11112, de Villiers 12106-7, 12221-2, Blomerus 12667, v. Zyl 12862. Sec "Trespass, landowners may impound." Legal Scab. — See " Acarus, nature of." LICENCES :— Payment for.— Wentzel 257-8, 332, Edmonds 2217, 2237, Filmer 2265, Hart 2325-9, San.som 2479, Dell 2588, 2650, WaiTen 2789, 2791, Hancock 2808, Warren 2828, Kilfoil 2856, Krog 2935, Tweedie 3014,Fuller3190-l, Landrey 3310, 3327, Brown 3121, 3170-2, Oosthuizen 3557, Hockey 3603, 3607, Brown 3625,McCabe 3641, 3704, 3730, Rubidge 3856-8, 3957, Minaar 4277-8, Thornton 1366, 4416, dc Villiers 4533, Hu:ndall 4713, Miller 4951. Biggs 4989, 5013, Nash 5091-3, 5099, Bellingam 5142, Birch 5193, 5201, Berrington 5211, Leo 5278, C.Lee 5329, Nash 5384, de la Harpe 5i:il, Nash 5198-9, 5529, Zietsma 5706-7, 5738-0, Grew er 5828, Kirkman 0017, Grewar 0037, I'ieterson 0369, Featberstone 6415-6, 6436, Bowker 6548, Davison 6834, Bennett 6883, Rennie 6949, Knight 7019, 7061-2, Pringle 7071, 7103, Cron-Wright 7:!24-5. Murray 7809, Fineham 8181, 8208-9. 8252-63, Maclver 8303, Macdonald 8329, Jliddlewyck 814, IMcDonald 8445, Barnes 8532-3, G. Barnes S08S, Warren 8815, Venter 9262, Snyman 9358, Lang 9676-7, King 9880, Walker 9910-1, A.swegeu 10343, Gumming 10401, Cloete 10(il 3, Alien 10910, Himii)hries 11090, du Toit 11317, v. Heerden 12068, Joubert 12128, Botha 13929-30. See "Fines." Period and Renewal.— Wentzel 255-257, Atkins 584, 580-92, 602, Thomiison 848-50, 879, Br.iwn 1066-9, 1117-8, Thompson 1670, 1672-3, 1681-8, 1706, Kettles 1766-7, 1793-5, Keth 1907-10, 1053, 1056, Gray 2008. 2027-8, 2039-41, van Rensburg 2097-103, Cruywageu 2133-5, van Rensburg 21S0, lilmer 2263-4, Hart 2349-53, Sparks 2517, 2531, 2541-2, Dell 2588-98, 2650, Landrey 2728-30, KilfuU 2855, Krog 2932-5, 2949-50, Tweedio 3007-12, 3055-6, Whittal 3096-7, Fuller 3131-41, 3163, 316i;, 3190, 3228-30, Landrey 3312-3, 3321, 3371-7, 3385-8, Brown 3418, :i420-4, 3442-1, 3419, 3461-4, 3470, 3490-6, 3506-12. 3531, 3538-9, Oosthuizen 3556-9, Hockey 3584-5, 3603, 3607-9, Brown 3631, McCabe 3642-4,3650-:'., 3706, 3727-31, 3754, Rubidge 3855-6, 3882-9, Neeser 3996, Bremmer 4233, Minaar 4275-7, 4305-9, Thornton 4415, PhUlips 4464-7, de Villiers 4499-501, 4528-33, 1554, Hurndall 4711-3, Biggs 4777, 1792, van Heerden 1852-3, Miller 4949-50, Biggs |3S8, 5009-10, 5012-3, 5019, Naoh 5000, Bellingam 5108, 5112, 5143-5, Birch 5186-7, Benington xlix 5237-9, Lee 5278, oiSl, C. Lee .Vil7-8, 534:i-0, Gouws 5304-5, E. Gouws 53G9, NaaU SSSS, 539(;, de la Harpa 5433-5, 5445, Nash 5500-4, Swart 5621-2, Zietsma 5703-4, Grower 5813-5, 5867, 5S70-1, Marais 5S93-7, D. Marais 5955-7, Kirkman 6019-20, Grewar 6037, Pieterson 6365-6, 6385, Featherstone G413-5, 6432, B>wker 6527, Davison 6753-5. 67S3-7, Bennett GS77-80, Bennett 6905-8, 6919, Rennie 6949, 6975, Knight 7008-18, 7034. Pringle 7071, 7103, King 7129, Cron-Wright 7300, Miu-ray 7655-8, Murray 7870, v. d. Walt 7958, 7964, Hobkirk 7968-73, v. Rensburar 8002-3, Louw 8094, Fincham 8179-80, 8215-23, ilaolrer S303, Macdonald 8329. 8335-6, MfDonald 8445-6, Barnes 8527-9, S540-3, ilbengo 8661-3, Temlett 8701, Teka 8721. Warren 8815, 8830, Cross 8871, Gray 8921, 8934-6, Beidon 9022-S, 9033. 9051-2, WOhelm 905G, McOrcgoi- 9067, Brown 90S7, Ha'ielthom 9157-62, Hart 9241-3. Wiggill 9258, Venter 9262-4, Snyman 93G0, 9388, Hai-tmaii 951 1, Aucimp 9G04, Cloete 9C56-7, Lang 9703, 9714, Fleisoher 9746-8, Warren 9762, de Wet 9792-4, King 9876, Walker 9978, Greyvestein 1012U, King 101G7, 10184, Pansegreuw 10237, Pelzer 10291, Kriiger 10320, Cumimng 10410-3, Cloete 10G13. 10619, Hennlng 10742, Vermaak 10891-2, Allen 10909. 10935-6, 10940-4, Humphries 11089. Wolfaard 11114. Visoher 11117, v. d. Merwe 11540-1, 11543, O. v. d. Merwe UUOl, 11746, r. d. Ahee 11844, 1:817. v. d. Mer^ve 119GS, S. v. d. Merwe 11990-2, 12001, V. Heerden 120G3, 12065-7, Joube;t 12125-7, 12135. 12137, Fourie 12257-8, Jauksou 12381, Elliott 12412-3, Steytler 12739, v. Zyl 12862, Devenish 12900, de Jager 12933-4, Botha 13927-30, 13981-4, Morkel 14038, Reineke 14176, Cook 14344-9, 14367-75, do Villiers 15900-2, 15917-9, Timson 16565-7, Hutcheon 16597, 16615. See '' Dipping, danger of ; efficacy of," and "Inspectors! duties." Lime. — See '■ Dips." Locations, Private. — Norton 6926-31. Lo-8 to Colony and Individuals thi'ouffh Scab. — Lehmann 423, 455-65, 469, Amos G47-52, 656, Datiekwartz, 700, Reid 731-42, Oakesholt 906-7, Collier 1270-7, Duckies 13G3, Ereritt 1112-3, Oxenham 144G-7, Dodi 1493, 1505-6, Webster 1554-5. Malcomess 1595-1604, Snyman 2469, DeU 2610, Manley 2831, Whittal 3093, Watermeyer 3794-6, Rabidge 3825-8, 3840-3, 3852, 3880, Rubidge 3942-G, Neeser 3966-70, 4028-32. Maasdorp 404G, Proudfoot 4177. Bremmer 4230, Phillip.s 1458-60, 4171, Auret 4654, Hum 'all 4743. Smith 4876-80. 4911. Weideman 4960, B^ggs oOll-.i, Br.vau G083, Bowen 6099, Hall lil43-4. Mcllwi-aith 6164. G173-4, Schertz 6250-5, Holt 6299, Pieterson 638'J, Pringle 7119, Crnn-Wrisfht 7287, Every 7832-3, .Vturrav 7845, 7939, Sluiter 8071, Plewman 8147, Biiley 8002-3, 8612, Naude 9293, 9304-11, 9315-9, v. Pletseii 9431-5, Cloete 9639-40, 9063, D»gmore 8774, Hattingh 9685, Verma.ak 10071, Cloete 10102, 10106. J. Vermaak 10150-1, 10152, Pieice 10151, King 10173-4, Rorich 10219, Panaegreuw 10249-50. Kruger 10323-4. v. Aardt 10557,10595, Moorcri>ft 10004-6, de Wet 10055, Danckwertz 10701-2. van Zvl 10978, Humi^hries 11105. Mavais 11375, Nee-ier 1150.0, Herold 11547, v. d. Merwe 11587-8, Eckerdt 11769, 1 1771-3, U783, v. d. Ahee 11852, Therou 11907-S, de Vill'ers 12145, 12214-6, Fourie 12257, Jacobs 12319, de Villiers 12364, Ebden 12535, de Jager 12964-6, Voskule 13111, Fryer 13212. Miolman 13360, v. Wyk 131G4, du Toit 13496-8, v. Schalk-wyk 13551-2, 13556, Viser 13628, Vorster 13745-6, 13763, v. Wyk 13789-90, Viljoen 13824-30, 13838, Stevo 13860-5, F. Steyn 13878-9,13884, 13901, Botha 13921, Morkel 14020-1, Knhn 140.')5-7, Diebel 14079-81, 14101. Howie 14120, Riiueke 11169-70, Naiid- 14301. Turner 14306, 1430U, Coo"k 14341. Oudendal 14480-2, 14527, v. Zvl 14747-50, V. Zvl 14840, du fait 14872. Nel 15039-43 Duminy 151G2, Smalberger 15240-1, 15250. 15252, Hopley 15.fll, Knoblauch 15395, Steyn 15495, Hci-raan 15624, Hughes 15736-7, SwHrtz 15794-9, de Kock 15857-9, de Villiers 15906, Metcalf 16085, Meiring 16178-9, de Koek 16256, Wiener 16384, 16389-93, 16396, 16418-9, St.a^g 16431, 16444-6, Grailf 16461-5, 16489, Spilhaus 16495. See " Skins, deterioration by scab," •' Mohair." "Wool, sale of, in colony,'" " Progiess of districts, &c." Mohair, Deterioration in Value by Scab. — Lehm.iun 423, 443-6, Bryan 6078, Hall 6131, McHwraith 6158, Wiener 16408. Manure, necessary to kraal Sheep to obtain, see " Kraals." Middelburg.— Christian 1835, Trollip 7377-92, v. d. Walt 7536-97, Delporte 7598-613, Pi-etorins 6714-20, Duvenage 7621-8, Murray 7629-89. Southey 7690-7112. Hutton 7703-23, Staples 7724-6, Smit 7727-9, Watermeyer 7730-4, Grey 7735-40, v. d. Walt 7741-58, v. d. Walt 7759-63, Vorster 7764-70, Kruger 7771-5, v. d. Walt 7776-93, Delport 7794-817, Every 7818-34, Visser 7835-9, Allen 10895-944, Chambers 11655. Milder Provisions upon First Enforcement of Act, see "Partial Act." Molteno.— Oosthuizen 3545, 35G3-5, Cloete 7415, Robenhtimer 10027-67, Vermaak 10068-89, Cloete 10090-111, Beurman 10112-0, Greyvestein 10117-22, Steyn 10123-5, Vermaak 10126-52, Pierce 10153-61, King 10162-88, Aucamp 10189-208, J. Aucanip 10209-17, Rorich 10218-21, Grey .-iHSlein 10222-8, Raubenheimer 10229, Pretoriiis 10233-5. Mossel Bay. — Heyns 5750. Mount Stewart.— De la Harps 5406-68, Nash 5469-538, Hobson 5539-41, Rex 5542-77. MOVING .STOCK AND PRODXTCE :— Regulations for.— V. d. Vyver 68, de Wet 82, W.ainwright 122-5, 131, 148, Wentzel 261, Wentzel 313-27, Lehmann 477, 480-6, Atkin.s 552-5, 582-8, Amos G40-3, 653, Danckwertz 683-61, Thompson 834-7, 853-6, Brown 1063-4. 1134-5, Froneman 1144. Siziui 1245. Duckies 1356-60, Everitt 1419-22, Malcomess 1590-1, Thompson 1697, Kettles 1725-8, 1741-2, 1755-63, 1784, 1807-9, Christian 1844-5, 1850-60, Kech 1894-8, Gray 1990-3, 1997-8, 2032, 2045-6, 2061-2, Edmi nds 2202-6, Filmer 2261-2, 2267-70, 2279, Hart 2293-8, 2301-4, 2319-23, Keightley 2405-9, 2416-20, Nel 2440, Sparks 2519-27, Deil 2611-2, 2614-5, 2632-40, 2656-9, Laudrey 2720-6, Warren 2795-6, 2802-7, Hancock 2808, Warren 2813-23, 2829-31, Kilfoil 2844-51, Kiog 2924, Tweedie 3019, 3029, 3043-54, Whittal 3086, 3094-5, 3114, Fuller 3174, 3181-2, 31.86, 3225-7. Landrev 3318. 3322, 3348-9, 3351, Brown 3418-9, 3436-8, 3482, Oo.^thuizcu 3546-7. 3568-70, Hockey 3590-9. 3603-5, McCabe 3657-76, 3692-3, 3709-10, 3723-4 Rubidge 3837-8, 3S66-7, Neeper 3999-4010, 4016-20. Maasdorp 4036-42, Minaar 4282, Thornton 4336-47 4423. de Villiers 4498, 4521-4, Humdall 4681, 4694-6,4699-708,4710, 4742, Bigns 48110, van Heerden 4844-5, Miller 4937, Biggs 5003, 6034-5, Nash 5064, 5085, BeUingam 5109-U, Hcydeurych 5152, Berrington 5263, Edwards 5296, 5303, de la Harpe 5425-6, Hofcon 6541, Swart 5635, 5648-51, Zietsma 5696-8, Grewer 5839-40, Marais 5947-8, Kirkman 6000-1, Pieterson 0328, 6334, 6383 6407-8, Feathers.oiie 6430, Davison 6770-2, 6814. Bennett 6895. 6901, Rennie 6936-7, Knight 7007, 7029, 7063, Pringle "079, v. Niekerk 7123-5. King 7129-31, Pringle 7132, Cron-Wright 7265-8, Vermaak, 7374, Trollip 7378-80, Mun-ay 7642-3, 7659-62, Southey 7693, Murray 7850-2, Sluiter 8072-4, Fincham 81G5-6, Maclver 8286, Coetzee 8376, Middlewyck 8390, Barnes 8493-5, 8501-3, 8536, Temlett 8689, Wanen 8831. 8851-2, Gray 8925, Beadon 9001, Gaylard 9084, Hagelthorn 9144-8, Venter 9267, Snyman 9351-4, Sutherland 9547-8, Cloete 9634, 9652, Lang 9684-7, 9732. Clark 9753-4. Mulligan 9760, Warren 9762. Hattingh 9868-70. King 9876, 9882, Frost 9910, Walker 9948-53. 9979-86, 9990-10001, Eales 10004-6, Vermaak 10077. Grewestein 10122. Gumming 10409. Smit 10441-6, 10454. 10481. Bekker 10630-1. Henning 10765-8, Humphries 11086-7, Liebeni.er? 11239-41, Crump 11284-7, Neeser 11507. Chambers U672-3. 11685-99, 11707-9. V. d. Merwe 11732-3, v. d. Ahee 11810, 11847-8, Tberon 11909-10, v. d. Merwe 11939-40. de Villiers 12205, 12217-26, t. d. Merwe 12608-10, Ebden 12550, 12566-4, Blomerus 12625-6, 12634, 12640-2, [G. l-'94.] C. Bloinwus 12C7I-:S, Hitchcock 12686-92, Lotts 1271ft, SteytVi- 12769, de Jager 12931, 12969, 12il7S, VdsIcuI,- i:n0.)-2'.», i:)U2, Nieuwoudt 13178-80, Zandbcix' 13206. Fryer 13221-7, 13233-7, V. d. M-rwe 13287, Vissei' l:;iJli;-20, Sleyn 13907, Botha 13010. itorkel U')16. Turnei- Itii'.'.-T, Co)W 11378, Oudemlal U.V_>2-4, v. Broda 15710-1, 1j71U-7, de VilliiT.s 1-5913, v. d. Brl 1607.)-80, Meiring 16125-30, 16147-50,16180-4, Cloete 16215, de X lek li;2a-2, 16231-2. Gra'aff 10186-7, Tim.sou 16512-5, lR.i53-C, 16582-4, Hiitcheon 16615, 16674-5, 16697-8, Curr.iy K.S21-4, 16830-8, IC856. Sap " Barlering-," ■' TivUking," " Slaughter Stock," "Natives, ^^lsse.^ for Sliosp." On Owners periuit, .subjoct to pen.alty. — Atkins 510-17. 501-5, 503-4, Amw S55-6. 1171-3, Kettle* 1790-2, Gray 2042-4, Warren 2829, Landrey 3318-0, Brown 3136-8, 348-', Hockey 3605, Rubidge 3898-901, 3913-20, Nee.ser 3086-92, Minaar "42',I0, Thirnton 4363. de Viliidrs 45U-5, 1579, Hiirn.lall lOSS. 4702-6. van Hc-rdcn 4823-4, 4828-9, Smith 4907, Miller 4933-4, 1039-10, Biggs 4981-7, 5030, Nu.sh 5103, Hoydeurych 5159-60, Birch 5174-9, Berrington 5229-30, 5251-6, Lee 5281, G, Lee 5315, 5342, ■Toubert 5362, Wash 5391-3, 5403-4, de li Harpa 5417-9, Nash 5496, Rex 5567-8, 5576-7, Swart 5605-0, Grower 5825, 5872, Mar-iis 5973-1, Kirkman 601i)-3, Fieteraou 6328-9, 6350-7,6363-4, Moolmau 6391, Featherstone 0428, 6457-9, Turner 6471, Bowker 0504. 0521-3, 6560, Hofmeyr 6579- 80, 6589-95, Lombard 6718-20, Davison 0842-3, Benneti 6875-6, Reu.jia 6950, Knight 7005, Priugle 7085-6. V. Niekerk 7126, King 7129, v. Heerdeu 7176-8. Mich.au 7210, Cron-Wright 7270-80, 7351, Caw.iod 7359, Trollip 7387, Murray 7650-3. Southey 7695-7, Visser 7839, v. Ronpiburg 8004-5, Louw 8097, F.nrham 8185, 8237-40, Middlewyck 8115-0, Barnes 8535-8, Tenilett 8701, Warren 8810-7, Cross 8S71 -3. Robertso 8950-3, Au"amp 8081. Bjadon 8999, II irt 9231, Snynian 9374, Harlraan 9517, Satherlind 0545, Oloet.e 9590, Aucamp 9604, Cloete 9041-2, 9062. Lang 9707-8, Clark 9753, Oiiginore 0774, Ander.son 0781, d.,- Wet ■.17911-1. King 9876. E.d-s 10021-6, Robcnh"imer 10002, Cumuiing 10401-0, Smit 10170-3, v. Aardt 10572. Hen'ning 10700. V'ilj.iou 11017, Uumn'irios 11091, Liebeuberg 11242-4, Crump 11283, Nceser 11500, v. d. Merwe 11544, V. r. d. Merwe 11740, Milherbe 11870-1, V. d. Merwo 11956-9, v, Heerden 12063, Joubert 12103, de Villiers 12174-5, Ebdcn 12594, Botha 13926, Turner 14328, de Kook 14156, Hutcheon 16696, Currev 16839-45, 16850, 16854-5. See ** Landowners." By Riilwav. — Dp Wet 01-3, l/^hnann 477, .A-tkins 550-5, Amos 654-6, .Tonvey 015-31, Duckies 1355, Everitt 1423, K-ttles 1717, Grav 1990, van R'jnsburg 2166, E huonds 2197-200, 2234-6, Hart 2296-8, 2324, 2347-S, Spirks 2527, Dall 2022-7, 2059, SVarreu 2S11, 2817, 2823-4, 2824, Tweedie 3049, Whittal 3087-91, 3109-18, Fuller 3170, Landrey 3322, Hockey 3594, 3614, M'jCabj 36r,7, Rubidge 3874-5,3890,3911,3923-31, 3938-41 . Maasdorp 4043, Mia.vir 42S5-7, de Villior.s 4191, 4521, Hurndall 4709. 4709-35, Rabie 4755-9, Biggs 1795-8, van Heerden 4841-50, 4802-5. Biggs 5037-59, Nash 5066-72. Belling.im 5112, Heydeurioh 5153, Berrington 5245-7, 5263, Klwards 5290, C. Lee 5337-8, de la Harpe 5427, Naili 5519, 5521, Zietsma 5710, Heyus 5619, 5760-9, Savnia-i 5930-3, Hill 0210, 6223, 6233:4, Fearherstone 6452-5, Vosloo 6631-11, 0651-2, 6682, .1. Vosloo"072fi, Davison 0772, 6788-91, 082^-32, Norton 0925-6, Priugle 7101-6, Bouwer 7134, van HeerJon 7149-50,7218-21, do Tlessis 7222-36, Venter 7215, Cron-Wright 7289-94, 7326, Trollip 7380-2, Btrbar 7394-412, Cloete 7415. Martin 7494, Probert 7511-35, Murrav 7649, 7654, 7672-5, Southev 7702, Vi.sser 7830-8, Murrav 7855-7, Fincham 8184, 8187-8, 8103-203, Ma-Iver 8288-301, 8321-0, Middlewyck 8426, Barue.s 850S-12, Wan-en 8856-60, Beadon 9002-3, Gavlard 9084, Snyman 9377, Cloe-e 9041, 9047, 9662. Lang 9088-00. 9718-22. Clark 9754, Moorcr'oft 9758, Dugmorc 9771 Anl-rson 9784, King 9880-91. Walker 9962-1, 9990, King IOI70-7, Aswegm 10331, Smit 10447-8, Allen 10007-8, Humphries 11087-8, Pirie 1 1 1 12, Crump 1 1287, Jansen 11414-24, Neeser 11496-7 Potglei.er 11515-6, .Jansen 1 1549. Chambers 11674-9, Malhr-rbe 11871-3, 11883, v. d. Merwe 11041-2, V. Heerden 12073, de Villiers 12145, 12170-2, 12213, v. Zjl 12862, Fryer 13242, v. tl. M.-rwe 13286-8, J. T. d. Merwe 13290. v. Schalkwyk 13304-5, Roui 13350, Nigrini 13411-5, du Toit 13502-5, V. Schalkwyk 13576, Vissor 13602-4, Vorster 13764, Wiener 16423-4, GraafE 16480-3, Timson 16.542, 16582-4. Hutcheon 16676. . See " Slaughter stock." By Wagoni or with Traders.— Gray 1998, Edmonds 2232, Warren 2824-6, Fuller 3175, Rubidge 3868-73, Maasriorp 4051, Huradall 4709. 1729-35. Rabie 4755-9. B'gg.s 4793-8, van Heerden 1841-50. 4862-5, Hevdenrych 5153 Berrington 5245-7, 5263, Edw.ards 5296, C. Lee 5337-8. de la Harpe 5127, Nash 5478, 5519. 5521, Zietsma 5740, Heyus 5749, 5766-9, Marais 5981, F.-atherstoue 6152-3, Davison 6788-91, Norton 6925-6, Pringle 7104-6, Cron-Wright 7289-90, 7326, Barber 7402 Murray 7654, 7072-5, Southey 7702, Murray 7855-7, Finchara 8188, 8193-203. Madver 8238-301. Middlewyck 8426, Barnes 8508-12, 8515-6, 8559, WaiTen 8860, Beadon 9013-4, G.iylard 9084, Cloete 9047, Ling 9688, Anderson 9784 , Smit 10447-8, Potgieter 11515-6, Wiener 10423-1, Timsnn 10582-4, Hutcheon 16699-700. Murraysburg. — Lehmann 423, 452, Rubidi. Kfttles 1739. Ktth 1991. Graj 198.5, 1988, ran Rf-nsbur.u- 298.5, Edmouds 2211-4, Filmer 22.58-60, Hart 2313-ti. Dell 26.53, Laudrey 2734, 274.5, Tweedie 3917, Laiidrty 3328, Oosthuizen 3.574-6, Heydeiirych 5134, C. Lee 5316, NaeL 5378, Grewar 6939, Davisou 6764, G. Barnes 8579, 8.585-7, Temlctt 8688-9, 8791, Hughes 879.5, Wanen 8845, Matsolo 8880, Gray 8911, Kalipa 9993, 9117, flagelthom 912C-7, 9159-2, 9180-1, t'un-ey 16862. See "Tanks, public." Trekkiiisr by.— V. d. Vyver l(i-12, Thompson 838, Molougeni 939-50, Tita 997-9, Froneman 1162, 1204-6," .Sizini 1244"-6. Ihompson 1665-8, Gray 2063, Sparks 8565-80, Dell 2652, Landrey 2762-6, \\'arreu 2802-5, Haneuok 2S32-4, Whitlal 3091-2, 3097-9, Landrey 3389-90, MtCabc 3694-8, Kcx 4590-2, vau Heerden 4857-9, Njish 5079, Grewer 5832-4, Atin..re 6728, 6739-40. Knight 7004-6, 70C6, TroUip 7383, Sluiter 8074. Matdoaald 8330, Bamns 8456, G. Barnes 8571-8, Gray 8923, ^^'Ilhelm 9057 McGregor 9071-3. Gavlard 9081-3, Hagelthorn 9140-2, 9148, vnn Wickerdt 9227, Hart 9240, Haw 9766, W. Iviug 9907. W. Frost 9922-4. Walker 9942-5, 9953, Heniiing 10742-3, Allen 10897, 10902, Pirie 11112. ilarais 11356, Neeser 11467, v, d. Merwe 11936, Ebden 12535, 12564. See '■ Reiufectim. causes of," "'Transkei.'' Working of Act with.— Atkins 518-28, 542-9, 556-9, 612, Danckwartz 696-9, Thompson 827-39. Molon- geui932toNaz. 1038, Brown 1942- 1138, FronemaD 1146-9,A. Froneman 12 18-20, Sizini 1235-48, f oilier 1256-8, Crowe 1392-30, Dwckl'js 1337, 1381-92, Ercritt 1399, Oxeuham 1434-7, 1477-8, Malcomew 1593, 1605-9, Jack 1045, Th-uupson 1658-1716. Kettl.s 1717-1820, Chiistiau 1828-32, Keth 1H99-1901, Gray 1982-7, van Reusbur-.' 2085-9. 2104-6, Cruywaffen 2124-33. Hart 2313-8. 2392, Sparks 2508- 14, 2543-4, Dell 2652-5. 26-11 -5. Landrey 2732-5, 2762-6, 2784-7. Warren 2798, 2802-5, Hancock 2832-4, Tweedie 3015-S, Wbittal 3091-9, Fulier 3149-53, Landrey 3326-8. 3389-91, Brown 3416, 3429, 3473-4, Hockey 3600-1, dii Toit 4128, 4111-6, Nash 5079-Sl, Hcydenrych 5165-8, Lee 5271-2, C. Lee 5316-7. Nash 5374-5, .1. Nash 5534, Grower 5847-8, Grewar 6038-45. Bowker 6552-4, Davison 6764-6, 67S0-2, 6807, 6815, Bennett 6863-6. Rennie 6946-7, Dreyer 6980, Knight 7024-6, 7060, Cron- Wright 7274. r. d. Walt 7551, Sluiter S074, (Jr. Barnes 8564-88, Makasi 8613 to Ralant 8728. Nbika 8682, du Ple^sis 8809, Warren SS42, Matsolo 8876-901. Gray 8902-36, Kalipa 9990-119, Hagelthorn 9126-31, 9178-81. 91S5. v. Wickerdt 9227, Snyman 9370", Walker 9942-45, 9992-3, Eak-B 10022-3, Smit 10449-51, Cum-y 16823-1. North-Westeni Districts. — See " Water," and also the several districts visited. Omdraaivlei (Prieska).— Devenish 12867-929. OPPOSITION TO ACT, CAUSES OF : - Ignorance. — De la Harpe 5468. 5514, Featherstoiif; 6437, Beadou 9037, 9053, Snyman 9379, Cloete 9636, King 9890, King 10171, Krager 10322, Smit 10484-5. v. A rdt 10592, Allen 10917. Hiunphriei 11097, Nepser 11489-90, Potgifter 11513, v. d. Merwe 11964. v Heerden 12071, Joubert 12129-33, Ebdiu 12551-5. Jivcksou 12837, Denenish 12895-6, t. Wyk 13459, 14463, v. Schalkwvk 13539-40, 13571. 0. V, Schalkwyk 13576, Vorster 13749-51, v. Wyk 13801-2, Botha 13955. 1.3989-90, Morkel 14011, R>-ineke 14159, 14108, Naude 14290-7. Turner 14331, de Kock 14454-5, Marais 14663-4. Luttig 14715-7, V. Wyk 14910, 14927-9. Bekker 14958, 14963. .Smalberger 15248-9, R. Hopley 15464-5, Steyu 15473, 15481-3. Devenish 15534-6. Ecksteen 15562-6. 15596, v. Breda 15712-3, Swartz 15766-7, de Villieis 1.5888-91, 15922, v. d. Byl 10029-30, 10057-8, de Kock 16274, Wiener 16395, Stagg 1643S-1II. Graaff 10475-7. Russouw 10511. Locul Influence. — Wainwright 165, Maji.sdurp 4051, de la Harpe 5448-51, Nash 5513-8, Rex 5570, /-iets;na 5717, Cron-Wrigl.t 7329-30, Tcmlett 8691-6, Hughes 8706-7, Teka 8718-9, Nwagi 8724, Kalant 8726-8. Hart 9250, Harding 9255, Kruper 10329, Joubeit looil. Coetzee 10851. Allen 10915-6. VUioen 11010, Humphries 1 1096. Swiegers 1 1296-7, Marais 1 1380, Neeser 1 1504, v. Heerden 12051-3, deVilliers 12206-7 and 12254, de Jager 12242, 12246-50, de VilUeis 12378-9. Marais 12830-3, v. Schalkwvk 13573-4, Vmster 13750. Reiueke 14228. v. AVyk 14930-4, Steyn 15210, Smalberger 15251, Hopley 15345-7, R. Hopley 15405. Sentiment.— Barber 7103-5. Robenheimer 10060, Vermaak 10140-1, King UI172, v. Aardt 10592, Swiegers 11297. de Villiers 12377, Jackson 12837, Vos 13720. Parti il Act, diflicuUy ot Aiiplication and Administration. — Lebmann 487-91. Atkiiis 506-70. Malcones* 1592, Kettles 1786-7, Gray 2031-2, 2057, vau Rensburg 2077-SO, Filmer 2275-8, Nel 2462-4, Dell 2642-4, Landiey 2738, Warren 2809-11, 2S22, Tweedie 3067, P'uller 3196, Landrey 3340-5, 3396, 3399. Hockey 3597-8, ^IcCaba 3719-21, 3732-4, Rubidgc 3888-93, 3912, Neeser 4021-2, Thornton 4410-8. Phillipi 4444-5, de Villiers 4560, 4571, Biggs 4785-90, Nash 5101, Heydeniych 5150. 5156, 5162-4, Berriiigfon .5248. l^dwarJs 5297-301, de la Harpe 5456. 5160-:;. Swart 5648, 5070, Grewtr 5821. 5861-2, Pieterson 0348-9. LotUr 0401. Bowker 0519, iJavison 6792, Bennett 6911, Norton 6932-3, Knight 7064, 7080, Ci-on-Wri.uht 7361-10, 7327-8, 7348, V'ermaak 7373, Cloete 7445, 7459-03, De'po.le 7599, 7010, Pretorius 7015, Soutlicv 7709, Hutcon 7704, Staples 7725, Smit 7728, v. d. Walt 7754, Murray 7877, Fimham 8210-1, Bcadon 9038-40, 9044-5, Snyman 9365-8, Sutherland 9546, Lang 9740-1, Bekker 10487, Bekker 10805, Eckerdt 11774-5, v. d. Merwe 11961, G. v. d. Merwe 11995, 12012-5. t. Heerden 12059-63, 12074-5. de Villiers 12180-1, 12224, P. de VilUers 12369-71, Steytler 12792, Devenish 12914-5, Botha 1.3962-4, Morkcl 14039-40, Cook 14374-0, Luttig 14724-5, r. Wyk 14915-6, Joubert 15302, Geldenhuis 15408, Devenish 15537-8, Stagg 16452-5, Hutcheon 16715. See " Water." Pasturage, Effect on Health of Sheep.— Gray 2032, Cruywagen 2144, Landrey 2740, Krog 2941, Tweedi* 3029, 3037, Fuller 3204, Brown 3523, McCabe 3052, 3742, Rubidge 3842, Eremmer 4231-2, Phillipi 4450, Auret 4012. 4622. 4033. 4050-3, Biggs 4479, Smith 4917, Weideman 4963, C. Lee 5319-21, 5343-5, 5356, Nash 5394, de la Harpe 5414-5, Rex 5500-1, Swart 5590-1, Knight 7045, 7047, v. Heerden 7200, Cron-Wright 7275, v. d. Walt 7541-7, Murray 7635 Hobkirk 7967, Coetzee 8352, 8364-6, Wilhelm 9056, Snyman 9341, V. Heerden 9833, King 98"76, Rolienheimer 10064, Vermaak 10081, Pierce 10158, Pans^sre'nw 10237, 10201, Pelzer 10297, Coetzee 10539-40. M. Coetzee 10830, Viljoen 10995-6, Era8n.u« 11147-9, 11172, de Jager 112o3. Snyman H219,Marais 113.j2-4, v. d. Merwe U535, Eckerdt 11753, \.d. Ahee 11818-20, 11S40, Pienaar 1192"7,de Villiers 12192-6. Jacobs 12288, 12321, de Klerk 12419, 12428-9, V. Schalkwvk 12484, v. Heerden 12521, v. de Merwe 12719. Nieuwoudt 13178, v. Schalkwyk 13299-309. 13311, Moo'lman 13358, Nigrini 13370, 13420-4. Visser 13592-3, 13650. Marais 13996-9, Cook 14365, Lotter 14428, Ou.leudal 14510-4, Gibelaar 14595, Langeuhover 14795, 14797, v. Wyk 14919, W. v. Wyk 15094, Duminy 15163, Devenish 15529, 15543, de Villiers 15883, du Toit 15949, Marais 16301, Joubsrt 16350-1, 10354, Cilliers 16357, Hutcheon 10009. Pu»turage, when Good, suftieieut to Cure Scab.— Gray 2026, Tweedie 3075-6, du Toit 4138-42, Weidemsn 4057, Delport 7797. Sluitar 8058. Ccetzee S305. Coetzee 8760, du Plessis 8796. MooUnau 9199-200. v Pieteen 9421. Stoinekamp 9437-44, Coetzee 10302, J. Coetzee 10346. Bekker 10503-4, Klyngelt 11035. Badenhorst 11330, Erasmus 11614, t. d. Ahee 11806. Jacobs 12289, 12292, de Jager 12939-46, 1236S. T. d. Merwe 12990, Geldenhuis 1.3025, Voskule 13137. Strauss 13173, y. .Srhalkwjk 13323, t. Wyk A 2 Hi 13472-;j, (lu Tuit 13-198-9, T. Schallnvvk 13oll,V,.s loTlo, Lalsky 13728-30, Vorstar 13740, VUjoen 13816, Naxide 14271, Tvirner 14332, v. Wyk 14968, Nel I.5107. See ■• Recovery nithoiu treatment." Peelton. — Molonjreiii 931, to Zaza 978, vau Eansburjf 2086-7. Permits. — See " Moving stock," " Scab acti, administration of," " Inspectors, duties of." Philip's Town.— Bowen C122, Marais 11337-98, Preturius 11399-101, Jansen 11102-24, , Yz 1 11436-9, Venter 11410-1, v. Vuuren 11442-3, Smit 11444-J7, Fourie 11468-65,- Neeser 11466, 511, Putgieter 11512-6, Fourie ll."il7-9, dn Toit 11520-33, v. d. Mcrwe 11534-45, Herold 11546-7, Janseu U54S-9, Jooste 11550-2, 'Whitohead 11553-4. Piiiuetbei-. — Jlclcalf 100S3-101. Placaat, fine for Boabby sheep. — Martin 7493. Police Assistance. — See " luspectors." P ilitic^il iufluonce against Scab Act. — See " Opposition to Acl, local influence." Poor St, ck.— See " Dippiny-, danger of." Port Eliz:ibeth.—^Lelau-j,un 424, Savinau 5930-S, Brvau 6047-90, Bowen 6091-127, Hall 6128-48, Mcllwraith 6150-85, Douglass 6186-96, Stewart 6107-200, Lauc 6201-12, Hill 6213-35, Schertz 0236-91, Holt 6292-314. Pound Law. — See "Trespass" Poverty, cause of scab. — See " Scab, origin of." Prevalence of Scab : — Queen's Town.— V. d. Vyver 8, 31, 60-2, Wainwright 153-5, deLange 200, Wcntzel 245, 285, ran OaM 355, 363, Osthuizen 405. TOast Loudon. — Lehmann 424-38, 443-5, 492. Atkins 499-503, Amos 656. KoniL-ha.— Hart 2381-4. Abi-rdeen.— Thornton 4400-3. Cradock.— V. Heor.icen 7166-9, Trollip 7381, Cloete 7416-8, Botha 7501-6. Middelburg.-V. d. Walt 7537-43, Hutton 7707, v. d. Walt 7713-1, Every 7820. Colesborg.— Muirny 7841-3, 7845, Lategan 7905, v. Bensburg 8014. J. Jooste 8024-6, 8045-50, Bkden- horst 8112-7, W. Plewman 8142 Cala — Robertse 8942-3. Biirkly East.— Naude 9278-81. Dordrecht.— Lang- 9606-9. Burghersdorp.— Pans'greuw 10241-5, 10270-1, Niu.tber 10290-2, Pelzer 10296-7, Coetzee 10303-4, Kruger 10309-10, 10327. Aliwal North.-Sniit 10435-6, Bekker 10192, 10503, Mvburiy 10545-51, van Aardt 10558-62, Mojrcroft 10603, de Wet 10637-8, Henning 10686, Danckwerts 10697-9. Stcynsburg. — Heuning- 10726, Allen 10S9S. Hanover.— Viljucn 11014-5. 11025, Vis.-*er 1!002. Humphries 11076-7, 11093-4. Ho|.e Town.- Badenhorst 11178, Crump 11257, 11265, 11274-7, Swiegers 11290, 1 1301-2, du Toit 11323. PhilUp's Town.— Neeser 11468, Fouiie 11519, du Toit 11522-3, Herold 11547. Kichmoud.— V. Zyl 11634, Eckerdt 11709. Beauioit West.— Ue Villiers 12149-50. Victoria West. — Claa8.rh 10547-50, Hennin:; 10742-3, Coetzee 10844, Allen 10897. 10H02, du Plessis 11109, Mariis" 11300. 11379, Nee.ser 11467, 11470-1, Hewer 11547, -Jansen 11540, Chnnibcr,'* 11670, v, de Merwe 11935-6, de ViiUers 12152, de Jager 12228, 12240-2, Fourie 12266-7, Jacobs 12294-6. de Klerk 12435-6, v. d. Mciwe 12511, v. Heerden 12521, Blomems 12622-6, Lotts 12716-7. v. d. Merwe 12723, .Stertler 12767, Devtnish 128so. de Jager 12968, v. Niekerk 13036. 13038, Voskule 13108, Fryer 13234-6. v. Schilkwyk 13315-21, Nigrini 13394-5, Visser 13.597-600, Vorater 13737, 13742. Faber 14213-20, v. Niekcrk i4164. v. Zyl 14762-3, Bekker 1 ;95S. Hopley 15287, Stevn 15487, v. Eeden 15506-8, D-venish 15530-3, v, Breda 15692, T, d, Bvl 15721, Hughes 15736-7", Swartz 157S4-90.de VUliers 15912, v. d. Byl 16025-7,16039, Jleiriug 16150, 16158-63. Cloete 16203-5. 162! 1-4, Graaff 16485. Trespass.— V. d. VyverS, Waiuwrigbt 126, Wentzel 250-1. 311, Atkins 558, Tita 995-6, Sem 1038, Brown 1097-9, A. Froneman 1226, Crowe 1322, Duckies 1356-7, Keth 1929-32, Gray 2059, van Eens'urg 2108, Hirt 2328, Tweedie 2991, Whittal 3123. Fuller 3138, 3186, Froneman 3271, Brown 3418, 3431-5, Csthuizen 3561-2, Brown 3631, Nee.ser 4012, Maasdorp 4038. Bremmer 4202, 4238-41, Minaar 4.302, 4314-5, 4399, Auret 4648-9. 4659-60, van Heerden 4853. Berriugton 5233-4, 5262, Xa«h 5522-3, 5534. Hob.son 5541, Sayman 5934-8. Mellwraith 6177, Mnoln;:in 6392. Featherstore 6433, Turner 6478-9. VosVjo 6675. Bennett 6857, 6873,6891. Knight 7007, 7061, Edwtrds 7146, Croii-Wright 7316, Vennaak 7376, Cloet.? 7419, Bo'! a 7496. 7507, v. d. W.iU 7563 Pret-iius 7616, Murray 7637, Delport 7806, Murray 7844, 7866, 7890-3, v. d. Walt 7964, Louw 8106, Badenhorst 8124, 'W. Plewman 8142, Barnes 8529. Mbengo 8672-5, Bcadon 9041, Snym.au 9346, Steinekaiup 9414. v. Zyl 9577-80, v. d. Merwe 9586, Cloete 9654, Robenheinier 10028, 10033, 10042-3, Veiinaait 1007l", I0OS9. King 10164, Pansegrcu-v 10279, Knigcr 10321, 10327. Cumiuing 10.395, Smit 10438. Srait 10464-5, Hcniiiug 10730-2 Era-mus 11127-9, Vei-meulen 11216, Liebeu- berj 11222, dn Toit 11250, Marais 11370, Smit 11119-52, Xeeser 11467, 11170, 11493-4. Whitehead 11554, V. d. Merwe 11571-2, P. V. d. Merwe 11739. v. d. Ahce 11807-8, 11839-43, v. d. Merwe 11931, 11937, 11971. Innes 11984 v. Heerden 12045. de Viilier.s 12210-1, P. de Villiers 12346, de Kltrk 12454, v. Schalkwvk 12482, Claas.sen 12497-9. Marcus 12809. Devpr.ish 12886, de Jager 12971. V. Schalkwvk 13307. Xig''ini 13370, 13383-91, Stotfberg 13445. v. Sclialkwyk 13545, Vorster 13737. T, Wvk 13796, Stevn 13893-4. Morkel 14025, R-ineke 14150, Faber 1 1193-20", Holtshuisen 1 1237-8, Xaude 14283-6. Cook 14341, 143.59, Mackay 14411-2, 14415-7, Turner 14437. v. d. Westhnizffc 14467, Erasmus 14548-9, Wilsnach 14675-9. v. Wyk 14922-3. Bruwcr 14939-41. Bekker 14958. Nel 15038-9. 150.58-fO, 15098-102. Duniiuv 15172, Steyu 15204. Smalberaer 1-5238, HojJey 15302-5, 15314-8, V Eedcn 15502. Devenish 15.5"29, Ecksteen 15598. Xeethling 15665-70 Swartz 15998-16001, Metcalf 16084, Meiring 16122. Wessels 16235-41. de Kock 16250, de Wet 16313, .Joubert 16342-3, Schonuwinkel 15366. Wiener 16395, Spilhaus 16494. Wind, blown by. — Wainwright 117, de Lange 208. Wentzel 330, Thompson 870, van Rensbui-g 2113, Landrey 3309, 3364, Biggs 4784. Long wool Dipped, a preventive. — De Lange 232-5, van Rensburg 2115, Nel 2449. See " Fencing." See ■' Moviug .-toik A:e.. by wagons," '-Railways," " Kr;».-ils," " Seal) iirigin.lted by iwverty." Removal uf Stock, regulation!, for.- See "Laudowrers." Richmond. -Wnlennwye- 3791, Rnbidge 3525-9, Pi-oudfoot 4 172-5, Grewav 6035-.36, Biyan 6rti;6, Bowen 6123, Hall t.l3:i. Lane 6203, 6206, Sohertz 6277, v, d. Merwe 11555-61 1, Erasmus ' 1 1612-21, v, Zil 11622-36, Naude 11637-8, Chambers 11639-728, v. d. Merwe 11729-50, Eckerdt 15751-81, Ste-»-a"rt 11785-0, Thennu-sen 11790-7, v. Niek- rk 13051. Riversdale.— Hevues 5750, v. Wvk 14965-15009, de Wet 15010-28, Nel 1.5029-132, Oudeudal 151S3-55, Dujuiny 15156-75. S. Oudendnl 15176-90, Cro-jje 15197-201, Steyn 1.5202-10, Roeifs 1.5211-35, Suial- berger "1.5236-57. Uys 15258-61. Robertron.— Wes.seLs 16219-46, de Kock 16247-91, Msras 16292-303. Stemmett 16304-7, de W»t 16308-16, Joubert 16317-51, Cilliers 16.3-55-63, Sehoonwinkel 1G364-7, Viljoen 16358-70. SCAB ACT, GEXRRAI. : ARain-t — Queen" .•! Town— V. de Vyver 18-19, de Wet 87, 97, 101. liv King William's Town — FioiieiuH.ii 1 16:*. Konigiia— Vim Rciisluug 207T-SO, ■>')'M, van Reusburg 2164. Janseiivillo — Berriugton .V220-:!. Crad.rk— Van Iletivleu 7IS1, Cl.ifti' Ttl."). Middelburisr — KnijifiT 7772. v. <1. Walt 7777. Colesberg— V. Rensbyiif 797o. Dordreclit— Sutherland ".IV20, Aucamp9G12, Labuaeaguia y6l(>, Cloet9 9623, 9031. Tarka»tad~V. Hceidcu OSl'.l. Burghersdiirp— Fretoiins lOISl-."), Coetzoe l(i:}ti2, J. Coety.ee 10;U-3, v. d. HeeTsr 10360-:), v. PIeti«n "10:387. Aliwal North— BekkiT 10187, ile Wet 10.)t2, de Wet lOiiiil-.-iii, 106.58-60, 1O0G7-9, 10670-81. Steynsburg— Coetzee 101H8. HaLuver— Klvugclt llo:?.">, Vi^.-ar UO-W, lloiio, U0G6. Hopi- Ti>\vii— Erasmus llUi), UKiO-l, Swifgors 1 118.5, 1-iebeiib. ig 11211, Vorniculeii 112i:i, Badeiihorat 11325, du Ruan li:>35. Philip's Town— Marai- 1133iJ. ll:>.S',J-!tl. Jaiiseii 11403, 11413, Sinit 1114./. 114.53 (114.57J, V'tunn 114o9, duToit ll.")21. Richmond— V. d.jMerwe 11.584, 11.580. Mun-avsburg— V. d. .\heo 11800, Malherbo 11858, 11875-7. Beaufort Wet— .laoobs 12285, Eimmuu.s 12325. Victoria West— De Klerk 12419, Kayser 12159. Brits' Towu— Bloiuorus 12(;14, Steytler 12727. Pricska-V. Nicke.k 13009. v. Nitkerk 13052. Culviiiia- Fryer 13212. WilliKton— V. .Srlialkwyk 13290, i:i309-10, 13324-9, Hollar. der 13331. (4f',doiihuis 13351. MoMlnian l:,:!88 {1336.''i. t'rast'rbuig— Xigrii.i 13370, 13405. du Toit 13480, Hofmeyr 13532-3, v. Sclialkwyk 13571% Vi.sstr 13.582. Carnarvon— A. VLssur 13,584. 13621-5. 13629, 13638-9, 13651. Mo huau 13692. Kimbcrlev— V. Wvk 13775-6, 13783-4. Dougiiw— Fabci- 14179, Hoitshuisen 14232-4, Maritz 14246, 14268, Lotier 11120. Prince Albert — WlLsuaeh 14667. Kobertson— Joubcrt 16319-23, Cilliers 16363. In favour of — Queen's 'I'own— ]Je Wet 88, WainnTis»ht 119, do Lange 204-6, Wcntzel 281-3, 312. 336-41. East Loudon— Lehiuauu 422, 4:i9, 469-70, 471, Atkins" 53 4, .\iiio.s 635, Dauckwartz 683, 687, 701, ReiJ 719-51, M.iriou 771-2 Tliomp.soii 812-4, 843-6. Oak-shoU 902-3. 914. King William's Towu -Muloiigfui 974-5, Browu 1065. 1088-91, A. Froneniaii 1214, 1221, folHi^r 1268-71, 1277, Crowe 1318-9, niakhs 1349-50. Everitt 1415-6, Oxeuhara 141S. Dodd 1496-15110, B'umer 1531-3. 1516, AVeUstcr 1565-6, Male ■m..s.s 1588, Jack 1639-4. 1645, KettUs 1743. Christian I8:i:i-!, 1882. Keth 1891-3, 1921-5. 1971. Koniglia-C.av 1994, 2030, Cruvwagen 2136, 2143, Edmon-Ls 2193. Fjlii.er 22-iS-9, Hart 2292, 2374, Xel 2438, 2447-8, 2451. .Snvinan 2476-6. Sausom 2478, Flanaijau 24S1, Miih 2489. Kci Road— Dell 2618-9, 2632-10, Landrey 2723, 2740-1, Warreu 2792, Manl y 2S32, Kilfoil 2349. Catheart— Krog 2922, 2951-2, Twcedie30I3, Fuller 3171, 318;;-6, Froucman 3286, Landrjy 33!9, Jironn 3450, 3532, Oosthuizui :!544-5, Hoi'key :1592, Brown 3625, Gibbou.i 3631. Graatf-Kuuet— >IeCabe 3662, 3719, Rubidge 3831-5. 3853, 3870-1. Xec.-ier 3978-9, 4013. Maatdorp 4035, Bremnier 4224-5, Minaar 4280-1, Thornton 4335, 4410-2, 4422, A. Thornton 4429. Aberd. a- -De VilUcrs 4517-8, 4571-3, Rex 4.587. Huriidall 4671-2. 4680, Biygs 4782-3, 4803-5, van Herrden IS08-9. Miller 492i)-:iO. Jansenville--Bi;.'gs 4993-6, .5005, Xa:.h 5067, 5o;3. Bellingam 51i:i, Heydenrych 5131,5100-1, Eireh .5179. Lee 5267, Edwards 5289-90, C. Lee 5314, Xasli 5105. Moui.t Stewart— De la Harpf- 5417, 5429, 5456, Nash 5481-6, Uobsi.ii 5511, Rex 5.559. riteirioigc—tSvrait 5605. 5670-1, M. Swait 5(;76, 5678, Zietsraa 5686-7, Giewer 5SU, .5821. Slarais 59iri, ,S:iyuiaii 59 12-3, Marais .5945, 5982. Kirkman 5997, Grewar 60:{5. Port Klizabeth — Hall 6139, McUwiaiili 61(;6-7, 6185, Scheitz 6219, 6290. Holt 6305. Somer.srt l^a.-^t- J'ielersou 6327-8, Feather-lone 6117, 6465, Turner Iil68, Havisi.n 6767. Bedford— Bennett 6854-5, Rennie 6936, Knight 7027, Pringle 7075, Bouwer 7134, Roux 7136, Edwards 71 10. Cradock- -Miehau 72;)9, 7242, (.'con-Wright 7264, 7332, Vermaak 7373, 7376, Bolhu 7496. Middelbtirg— J)elportc 7606-8, 7610, Murray 7639, 7676, 7679-88, 8juthey7691, Smit 7728-9, Visser 7.s:!i;, Cole.Hbcrg — Muirav 7846-7. 7865. L.-itcgau 79)8, Plowniau 7923, Oohthiuzeu 7917-8, Jooste 8021, .Sluiter 80581 T.oow 8107, W. riewmaii 8146, Plewniaii S147-5il. Queen'? To a u— Fiucham 8163-4, Midd'ewyck 8388, Barnes 8190. Driver '» Drift— Temletl 8686. Lady I'lere-Gray 8924. Cala— Smit 8974. Aucamp 8979-80, Beadou 8999, MacGregor 9070, Gaylard 90Ho, Kalipa 9114, H.ifroltborn 9149. Baikly Ka.s!— Hart 9236, Harding 9256, Venter 9202, Snjmsn 9347, Venter 948.5, \orsler 9495, 8c).oiu- la'ud 9498, Benson 9.506, Naude 9.509. Doidri'i.t— V. d. Mctwe 9o87-9, Cloelc 9663, Lang 9665, Fleischer 9745, Dujmore 9774, Botha 9779-80. Tarkasta-i— De Wet 9787, Hatiing 9852, King 9876, W. King 9908, Erasmus 9928, Walker 9961. Molleno—Robenheimef 10031, 10018, Wiiiiaak 10070, 10078, J. Vprnmak 10131, Pierce IU154, Kilig mid.;. Rorich 10220-1. Burgh, rsdoip- I'au.-egifcuw 10237, 10274-5, I'elier 10294, Kruger 1030S, 10325-6, Aswegen 10331, Cumming I0407. Aliwal North— Smit 10123-8, 10439, v. Aardt 105.57. 10594, Moorcroft 10598-600, Joubert 10609, Cloete 10613, Heuning 10688-90, Steynpburg. — Henning 10725, 10735-G, 10753-4, Bekker 10872-3, Veimaak 10884, 10890, Allen 10896-7, OoHthiii/en 10946. Hanover.- Humphries 11104, du Plcfsis 11107, Pine 11111, Murray 11115, Viseher 11117. Hope Town.— Liebenberg 11222, 11236, U246-7, du Toit 11250-1. Ciump 11254-6, 11282, Swiegtrs 11289-94, duToit 11:504, 11315. Philip's Town.— Smit 11457, Keener 114t'7, v. d, Mtrwe 11535, AVhitehcad 11554. Rithm'-i.d.- V. d. Meiwe 11737, Eckndt 11752. 11764, 11774, Stewart 11786. Muiiayelurg.- Theuuisten 11791. v. d. il^}w^ 11931, 11949, 11954, Inies 11980-2, v. d. Meiwell987, Burger U2027, 12038, v. Heerdcu 12014-7. 120411, 1206:>, Goedhals 12077, Joubert 12139. Iv Beaufort West.— De Villiers 122i>3, de Jager 12J2S, Fourie 122RK ile VUIiera 12346, Jacksou 123B1, d* Villiers 123!J3. C. de Viiliers 12402. Victoria Weat — Ebdeu 12535, M^ider 12605-7. Brit'« Town.— Jii-l;6on 12835-6, 128i5, v. Zyl 12859-61. Pricska.— Dov,3i.isli 12S68, v. Niekerk 13036-7. Fra^erburg. -V Wyk 13452, 13456, v Sohalkwyk 13537, 13545. CalTinia.— Vorster 13737-9. 13744. Kimberley.—ButLa 13917, 13956-7, 13963, Maraii. 13994-5, Mork^l 14010, KuhaJUOaa, Diebel 14U5<), Howie 14133. Douglas.— Keiueke 14145-6. 14149, Naude 14278-80, 14.302, Turner 14305, Couk 14339-41, Orptii 1439a- 401, Mackay 14405, 14418, Turner 14436, de Koek 14439, 14442. 14453. v. Niekerk U45S, v. d. Westliuizen 14467. Prince Albert.— Luttig 14699, 14732, v. Zyl 14740-3, 14764-8. Ladismith.— Bekker 14957-8. EiTeradale. — Sraalberger 15237-8, 15247. Swelleudim.— R. H.jpley 15448-9. Steyii 15467-8, Devenish 15523-4. Bredasdorp. -Eoknte.n 15552, Neethlin>f 15633, 15671, v. Breda 15678-9, 15718. Gale Ion.— De Villiers 1.5894-7. v. d. Bvl 16024, Metcalf 16091. "Worcester.— Meiricg 16119, 16142, 16151, 16169, Cl-iete 16196-7. Cape Town.— Wieu-.-r 16388. 16425, Stagg 16441-3, Graaff 16487, Spilham 16494, Kmtouw 18803, Chicken 16521, 1653:5. SCAB, LRGISL.VTIOX FOR : — Arainst — tiueeu'sTown- V. d. Vyver 34-5, van Grass 349-4, de Wet 3S5-8. Aberdeen — VVeidemau 4960, 4966. .Somerset East— Vosloo 6630, 6646, 6673-81, Heydenrich 6695. Bedford— Drever 6980 6984. C .ctzea G987, Botha 6998. Cradock— aoete 7424-6. Middelburg— V. d. W.ilt 7554, 7563, v. d. Walt 7746, 7752-8, Kruger 7773-5, v. d. Walt 7777, Delport 7807, 7811-5. Colesberg— V. Einsburg 7993-7, J. Jooste 8023, Venter 8029-34, Kruger 8036, Badenhorat 8052. Lidy Frerj— Cjetz-.;e 87n7-8, 8773, Coetzer 8788, (8792- J), du Ptosis 8802-4. Cala— Robertan 8944. Barkly East— Stapelber^ 9332, van Plet^en 9402-3, Steinekarap 9437, C'loete 9471, Pelzer 9480. Molteuo— Cioete 10090-2, 10109, Aucamp 10190, J. Aucamp 10213-5. (10216-7). Burgberidorp— Pansegreuw 10J46-8, 10275, Ninaber 10290-2. AHwal Norih — Coetzee 10534 Steynsbiirsr- Co-tzee 10820, M. Coetzee 10836, 10847-52, 10855, Coetzee 10964. Hanover-^Viljoen 10981, 11000, 11017, (11023-4). Hope Town— Swiegers 11192. PhOip's Town— Marais 11370-3. Beaufort West— Ver.st^r 12339-40. Brii'.s Toivn- Hitchc ick 12705-7. Lotts 12711-4, Jlarcu.- 12796, 12812-21, 12826-33. Pri'sk I— Borm.an 12981, 12987, LouwreiLS 13048. Greeff 13065, 13U77. Stovn 1307S, v. d Merwe 13084. Keuhardt— Voskule 130S7, 13114-7, 13120-9, 13165-9, Xieiiwoudt 13178. " Willii>t*.n— V. Sehalkwyk 13324-9. Kirab.rlev— VUjoeii 138lS, Stern 13844-5, 13853, 13866, F. Steyn 13877, 13902-5. J. S»*vn 13914. Prince Albert— Oulenda! 14470, 14489. V. d. Westhuizen 14629-31, Marala 14656-7, 14659-62, Vcu'er 14688. Lai-lismitb— Langenhover 14790, (14804), 14825-6, 14828-33. du Toit 14899-901, y. Wvk 14902-13, 14924-6. 14930-1. Rire-sdale— V. Wyk 14966-7. 14987-90. de Wet 15016-20, 1.5023-8. Nel 15030, 15061-6. 15112-8, 15131-2, Oudendal 15135. 15155. Duminy 15175, Cja 15259. Sweliendam— Hipley 15563-5, 152S6, 15310, 15318. Badenhorst 15430, 15437-41. 15446. Bredasdorp — Herman 15610 (15G15-Sj. 15628, Swartz 15770, 14775-G. Caledon— D.r Koek 15803 (15846). du Toit 15925, 15963-4. 15974, Swartz 15976. 15989-94, Hurman 16009-10. Robertson- Wessels 16227-9, Stenimett 1C305, .Schoonwinkel 16367. In favour of — Qupcns Town.— Wait. Wright 119-23, 129, 149-52. 165-78, de Lange 194-6. OatUuizeu 402-4, du Ple»9ii HI. 417-9. King William's Town — Froneman 1104, Keth 1927. Koragha.— Van Rensburg 2152, 2160-1. Graaff-Reinet — Du Toit 4153, Bremmer 4249-51. Aberdeen.— -\uret 4624-5, 4654-7, 4659-61, Smith 4888, 4906. SomersctEa.st.- Lotter 6401. Cradock.— V Heerden 7161-3. 7195, 7214, Cloete 7460-4, Martin 7492. Middelburg.— V. c. Walt 7574-5, 7588-97. Delporte 7606-7. Pretorius 7617-9. Diiv»nage 7623, Vontai 7769-70, Delport 7S07-9, 7816-7. Colesbcrg.- V. Rensburg 8009 - 1 3. 801S-9. Badenhorst 8111-34. Queen's I'owii.- Coetzee 8344. 8370-1. Driver' .« Drift.— Mbengo 8675. Lady Frere.— Coetzer S792-3. Greeff 8813. Cala'.- Robert.se 8914-7. 8964. Slauif River.— Moolman 9203-4. Kruger 9214-7. 9223. Barkly East.— Naude 9320-4. Theron 9403- 1. Dordrecht.— V. Zyl 9581-3. Tarkastad.— Hattingh 9866-7. Venter 9919. Molteno. — RoV-nheimer 10028, Greyvestein 10119, .T. Aucamp, 10216-7, Raubenheimer 10232 Burgheisdorp — StrTd:)m 10288. Aliwal North.- Bekker 10487. 10517-20, Steyn 10()95. St.n-nBburg.- Bekker 10804-5, Marais 10858-9, O.sthuizea 10863, van Zyl 10966, 10975-6. Hanover.- Klyngelt ) 1012, Visser 11060. pfopp Town.— Erasmus 11146. Badenhorst 11179, Swiegers 11186-91 (11192; Varmenlen 11217. Philip's Town.— Smit 11457. Fourie 11459, du Toit li521. Richmond. —V. d. Slerwe 11585, 11611, Erasmus 11611, 11617-8, 11620-1, Chambers 11657-9. Mun-ays'mirg.- V. d. A^iee 11824-9. 11854-6. Malherbe 11860, 11867-9. Beaufort West.- De Villiers 12145, 1217G, 12179, 12182, lourie 12260-2, Jacobs 12305-8, 12320. B rit'a Town.— Blomerus 12002, v. d. Meiwe 1271»-'il, \->TM-5. .Stoytlor 12727, 12741, 127'lll-2. Pri«ska. — Oe Jasper 12932, 1291)0, 12972, Viljoen 12998, 1.3042, 130()i, i:i021-2. Kiiubn'ley.— V. Wv'k l:i796, 13803-5. D,>uf,';a^.— Fab?r U203-5. Prinsa Albert. -Enuinus 145;)9-Rn, Snydera U;)fiS, Gibelaar UG04-7, Wil.Nniioli 14Gli7, de Wet 14772. Ladismith. — Liugeiihov(>r 14S()1, 14821, Rivcrsdale. — Steyii l.i2n.>. Swellmdam. — Toubert l."i3o3-(!. lo3(57, Knoblauch l.')382-l, ir.SilC., (ieldpnlmiN l.'.Kll, l.'ijn.';, r. Eeden l,i.i9l-2. IlredaS'lorp.— H'srmiu I.'ifil.'i-S, Swarlz l.'>711, 1;',7.)3. Calelon.— I) • Kork (1.WH3) 1.1813-8, Swartz l.)97r), Fick liil}21-2, Jtobei-tsuii.— De ICofdt lG2;il-2, 102U8-70, 1(J273, 1C2S0, Maruis 16303, Joubert 1(;319, Vilj.irn 16370. 8e« "Trekkins." "Trespass," " Simultaneous dipjiing," " LicencpB." SCAB ACr.S:— ' Breaches of, a!id PiMi;iltiij.s. — Weutzjl 310, .Atluns .>06, 0J9, r)92, Thompson 808, 82j, Miilongeui 977, Brown 1074, 1002-3, Thompson 1098-1700, 1708-10, Kettles 17.17-6r). 1820, Keth 1912-,'), Gray 1981-2,2010, 202 (-.'), 2003. 2007-71, Ciuvw.agen 2126, Edmonds ■■228-31, Hait 2330-2, .Sparks 2536-9. 2.502, 2.)6i-80, DhU 2588, 2602, •2081-5, 2690, Landrpy 2702-14, 2705, Warren 2789-90, Hancock 2808, Warren 282S, Kilfoil 2841, Krog 2930-7, Tweodie 3031-2, Whittal 3091, 3098-9, Fuller 3130-7, 3142, 3202, 3224, Froneman 329,5^, L-indrey 3308, 3391, Brown 3430, 3434-5, 3466-9, 3475-81, 3491-5, 3502, Oo^thiiizea 3571-2, MoCabe 3094-8, 3702-3, 3707-8, Rubidge 3906-7, 3954, Neeser 3991-3, du Tuit 4125-31, 4144-51, Minaar 4300-1, 4310-23, Thnriiton 4305, 4393-8, de Villiers 4525-7, 4534, van Heerden 4855-6. Miller 4951-3, 4950-7, 5011, Bipfrs 5022, Hevdenryoh 5140-1, Birch 5188-92, Berrington 5240, C. Lee 5335-6, Nash 5399-401, de la Harpe 543"o, 5468, Nash 5197, Zietsm.-i 5705, Grewer 5829, 6834, Kirknian 0014-0, 0018, Hill 0216, 0223, I'ieterson 6307-70, 0374, Biw-ker 0531-2, 0510-7, li564, H-ifineyr0570, Vo.sloo 6031-41, 0672, Lombard 6718, J. Vosloo 6720, Davis m 6741-5, 6786, 6826-32. Bennett 6881-2, Kennie0951, Pringle 7090-1, Cron- Wi-ight 7333-4, Barber 7394-412, Pmb-rt 7511-35, Protorius 70r.i, Visser 7836-8,' Finchara 8173-4, Greeit 8209-70. Maelver 8315-20. Middlcwvck 8385, 8412-3, 8120-5, 8437-9, Barnes 8462-71, So22-4, 8557, Makasi 8630-7. Mbengo 8061-0,' Nkaka 8679-81, Temlett 8687, Husrhes 8705, Toka 8720-2, du Plessis 8795, dross 8871, Gray 8920, 8923, Bcadon 9031, McGregor 9075-7. Gaylard 9082, HagoIrh>ni 9140, 9103, v. Wickerdt 9227, .Snyman 9358, 9385. Venter 9485, Ijansr 9706, 9713, Anderson 9781, King 9S85-ii, Walker 9943. 9940-7, 9950. 9909-7O, 9970-7, 9987-9. Eales 10011, Steyn 10695, Jansen 11118-21. Neeser 11484, Whitehead 11551. .Joubert 12122-4, de Villiers 12145, Jack.son 12391-2, Claa sea 12487, 12495-0, Stevth-r 12732-8. llnt<'h(^ou 10680-2. ('urrey 10804, 10859 See "Fines," ■'Pound Law." Administration and Effect of — Queen's Town— V. d. Vyver 4, 13-15, 22. de Wei, 79-80, 88. Wainwriglit 1 is, 128, 148, deLange 184-6, 199-200, VVeutzel 2011. 281-9, 308-11, van Gass 355-0, 304. de Wet 377-84, 391, 0-stbuizen 399, 412, du Plessis 115. East London— Lehmanu 448, 492, Atkins 199, Amos 020-34, 074, U.iuckwartz 092-5, Beid 708-29, Morton 758-70, 795-7, Thomp,son 800-5, 822-1. 847, 852, 861-2, 878, 0-ike,shott 898-9. King William's Town— Molontreni 935-8, Tita 984-0, SemlOlS, Nazo 1038, Brown 1011-9, 1094-7, 1120, Froueman 1142-3, 1154, 1160-70, A. Froncnian 1215, Sizini 1237. Collier 1254-7. 1267, Crowe 13'0-18, Dnckles 1330-8, 1361-2, 1301-5, Everiit 1395-1407, 1424-0, Oxenhani 1433-7, 1449-61, Dedd 1481-92, 1.J08-10, Blumer 1514-25, Webuter 15,50-1, 1500-4, Maleoraess 1570-87, 1014-9, Jacrk 1026-45, Thomp-on 1062-70. 1079. Kettles 1719-35. 1820. Christian 1822-32, 1839. Keth 1884-9, 1911-5. 1928. Komgha— Gray 1973-84, 1989. 2020, 2037. 2057-9, van Rensbnrg 2073-6. 2107, Cruywagen 2123-9, 2139, van R'ju.sburg 2148-51, 2150-9, Edmonds 2188-92, 2227-31. Fihner -2239-42, Mart 2283-91, 2301, 2:i30-46, Ncr2428-3I, 2457-01. Snyman 2470, S])irks 2492-5, 2514-6, 2548, 2573-5. Kei Road— Dsll 2582-3. 25S7, 2013, 2002-0, 2090-2. 2701, Warren 2778-82, 2789. Manloy 2831, Kilfoil 2837-41. Catheart—Kvog 2910-21, Tweedie 2988-9, 3020-3, Whittal 3077-84, 3100-2. 3119-21. Fuller 3127-31, Froneman 3253-5, 3284-5. 3302-3, Landi'ev 3305-8, 3350-70, Br.nvn 3406-11. 3447, 3484-9, Oostbuizen 3531-2, 3550-1, 3563-5. Hocky 30SO-3. Graatf-Reinet— MeCabe 3034-41, 3682-9, 3712-5. Watermever 3768-70. 3792-3. 3800-5, Rubidge 3819-28, Neeser 3971-5, Maasdoi-p 4048-53, du Toit 4057-63, 4093-100, 4124-7, 4132-7, Pn.udfoot 4162-6, 4175-0, Bremmer 4197-200, 4215, 4242-3, 1240-8. Minaar 4205-74. 4321-2, Thornton 4360-2, 4307-90. A. Tboi-nton 4430-1 Aberdeen— Phillips 4139, 4412. 4 101-3, 44e8r71. do Villiers llSl-7. 1195-7, 4539, Rex 4589, 4601-4, Auret 4007-12, 4024-5, 4027. 4040-7, Hurndall 1005-70. 1080-90, Hig>;s 4788, van Hcerden 4821-2, Smith 4807-75, 4881-7, 1921-5. Mi'ler 4928, 1955. Jansenville—Bigars 4970-9. 5017-8, Birch 5180, Berrinirti.n 5212-7, Edwards 6286-7, 5300-2, G.Lee 5312, 5328, Nash 5371-2. Moimt Stewart— De la flarpe 5409-12, 5117. 5152, Nash 5472-7, Ru.\ 5544-8. Litenhage— Swart 5581-5. 5598-004, 5029-30, 5039-40, 5008, Zietsma 5080-4, Herns 6750-1 , 5764'5, Gubb 5777, 5782-90, Grewer 5810, 5841-2, 5853-60. Marais 5892-5. 5908-9, .Saynian 5913, 5939, Marais 5900-9, 5982, Kivkman 5980-91, 5997. 01132. Port EUzabeth— Bryan 005(l-V8, Bo-wen 0993-0. 0112. Llall 0129-31. 0147-8. McTli\Taiih 0150-9, 0178-81, Douglass 0194-/), Stewart Iil98-200. Lane 0202-3. Hill 0214-30, Schertz 0-238-49, 6256-7, 6261, 0273, 6270-80, Holt 6294-0, 0301, Somerset East— Pieterson 0317-8, 6325-0, Feaiherstone 0421, 6449-50, Bowker 6482-6, 0499, 6501-3 Hofmeyr 0570, Vosloo 6600-8, B Vosloo 0080-7, Heydenrich 0695, Lombard 6718, 6721-4, Atmore, 6729. Bedford— Bennett 0851-7. Rcnnie 6958-9, Drever 6982-3. ( 'oetzee 6987-96, Kuight 7001-3, Pringle 7068-70. Cradock— V. Heerdeu 7159. \'artin 7489. Middelbursr— Murray 7031-3. Q(;een'8 To-n-u- Fineham 8153-5, Greefi' 8206-S, Coetzee 8372-5. Middb wvek 8389, Barnes 8449-53. Driver's Drift— Makasi •'<631 to Ralant 872R. Lady Frere.— Coelzee 8731-7, du Pl(«.«is 8808-11. Warren 8847-9, Boyd 8867-9. Mat«olo 8876-901, Omt 8903-7. Gala.- Kobertse 8910-4. 8960-1, Beadou 9010-2. McGregor 9008-9, Kalipa 9091-3, Hagelthom 9122-4, Slang River.- Moohnan 9180-8. Hart 9233. Harding 9254. Barkly East.— Naude 9273. 9296-8. Snyiuan 9339-41, 9381-2, Therou 9461, Cloete 9471, Venter 9486-9, Visser 9493, Vorster 9495. Botha 9497, Hartman 9512. Ivii DurdieoM. — Suthcilaiiil ;i."ij(i-l, v. J. Mcrwc <)Mi-(;, Fli-isuhcr '.>H(>, Warren 9704, Haw ()77iJ-2, I)U!nnore-9774. B"tb;i 977(1, y7S2-3, Aiidfi>on 'J7S4-.5. Tarkasfad.— De Wet y7.S7, V. Hemlen 9M'2I-.5, HatHnjrh 98,Vil, 9S.58, 9SU0-1, Venter 9917, W, K'-'^ft yyL'-2, Eiasmu-s 992U-,S, y9:il. Walker 9y:!4-r>, y9(J7-S. Molteuo.— Robenheiraer l(i02S-9, 100.51-2, Vcrmaak 10071, U'lOO, J. Vermaak 10129-30, Pierce 101.34, King 101U4, Pretorius 1023 1. Biu'gliers'^oi'p — Cummins? 10:iy:i-S. Aliwal Nirtl].— Smit 10477. iiteynsburg. — Ht'uning 10742. Hope Town. — Erasmus 11119. Kiclnnonil.— V. <1. iferwe n.).)7-G2, Naudc 11038, v. d. Mcrwe 1171-J-5, Stewart ins.S. Murray.-burg.— V. d. Ahee lls:50-2. Mnlherbe IISSS, Tlicron 11900-1, 11.907-8, v. d. Merwe li;i32-o, Ily47, .Jouhert 12082-9, 12101-2, 12138. Eeaiifi rt West.— De Villiers 12147, de Jagtr 1222S, de Villiers 12347-9, Jackson 12384-90, de Villi«r8 12102, EUL.tt 12407-12. Victoria West.— De Klerk 12419, Claa^seri 12487. Kim^.erleJ^— Viljoen 13841, Botha 139l.)-9. Sweliendam.— Hoplfy 1.530-S. l;'.311-3, 1,5333-4, ir)349-o0. Cape Town. — Hutcheon lG.592-3, Ciirrey 10803, 10827-9. See " Prevalence of Scab," " Natives, working of act," " Inspectors, duties and evidence," " Licences." Scab Acts, ignorai.ce of a cause of opposition. — See " Opposition." SCAB, ORIUIN OF : - V. d. Vyver i). 2t, 31, 36, de Wet So, Wainwriglit 130-42, 100-4, de Lange 188-93, 190, Oosthuizen 400, MoU.n-cni y.50, FroiieinMu l--'03, A. Fronemau 1233, Keth 19.59, van Rensburg 2179, 2183-!, Hart 237.5-89, Nel 24.52-4, 2!ii.5-(l, Dell 2031, Twccdir 30.57, Fuller 3148, 31S7-S, Froneman 3271-3, 3283, Oosthuizen 3.5.5-5, liubidge 3949-52, du Toit 4070, 4077-80, 4090, Bremmer 4207-8, Pli:llip.? 41.51, Auret 4632-7, Weideman 46.57, Smith 1900-4, 4914-0, Weidemau 4904, Bellingau .5121-2, Swart 5.591-5, 5633, 5646, Murais 5y00, Saynian .5929, Featherstoiie 6437, Vo.sloo 6660-2, B. Vosloo 0088-90, Hej-denrich 6095, Lombard 0718, Bennett 0902, Pringlo 7113, v. Heerden 7208-10. Cron- Wright 72y7". Cloete 7450, v. d. Walt 7545-S, 7550-9, 7507-8, 7580-7, Dnv.-nage 7023, v. d. Walt 776', Muirav 7880, v. Rensburg 7yS2-y2. Badenhorst 8. A. Fronenian 12:il. Duckkv* 1380-7, Malcomoss l.>82, l(;'21-2. Jack lfi32, Kett'c- 1812-5. Christian 1878. Kolh 18S7-!l. 191G-20, 193U-9, Gray 2033-4. FiliiuT 2263, 2279, Hart 2288. 24O0-1, Nel 2448. Kro;; 2933. Fuilor :il7.>, Landr«y o3'.»r>. Brown 3.")37. McCabe 3739-40. 373J-7, Ktibid-e 3S41, 38.i9-f)ll, 3905, Neeser 40.'2-3, du Tiiit 4rz3. Brcmmer 4215, de A^illiers 4 530, Biggs 4999, Nash 5519, 5531-2, Hobson 5540. Giibb 5792, MaraLs 5907, Bowen 0119, Voslou OGSO. Davison 0757-8. Prinsle 7089. Bimw^r 7134. RiHx 71311, T.Heerden 7190, Cloete 7471, Murray 7058. Gray 7739, Dt-Iport 7798-801, F.very 7834, OoKthuizen 7951, v. Reusburg 7978-9, Fincham 8101, Barce.s 8480-9, 8517-9, 8548-51, G. Baiiies 8587. 'ireeli' 8813. Gray 8927, v, Tietsen 9419, v. Zyl 9574, Cloite 9030, Laug 9715, Venter 9917, King 10104. Kaubcnheiuicr 10230. Fclzer 10291. (x)etzce 10340, CimimiiiK- 10413, 10420, Biklcer 10501-2, 10.")32, (•n-iz.c 10823. M. Coetzec 10830. AUen 10939. Viljoeu 11001. Klyiigelt 11035. Je Jngrr 12203. Cnimy 11278. Marais 11340. Janscn 11413. Fourie 11405. du Toit 11527-S, v. d. Morwe I15S0. 11005. Kckf-rdt lI7;-»et 6703-5. V. d. Walt 7578-85, Bailey 8599, SOOl-2, Naude 9315-9, Schoenland 9504. Dugraore 9776, 9778, v, Uecrdtn 9844-8, Rorich 10221. I'au-egreuw 10250-S, Myburgh 10554, Danckwerts 10097-700. Oosthuizen 10867-70. Kuhii 14007. Howie 14114-5. Oudendal 14528-30, Wiener 16385-6, 10402-3, 10409, Stagg 16432, GraaiT 1G401-2, 1G179, 10490, CLicktn 16.522-32. See " Moving S ock .and Produce." Sale of ill C:olony.— Anv;s 660-7. JRwd 731-6, 743-8, 752, Morton 705-94, Oakcghott 884-97, Collier 1219, 1301. Crowe 1305-19. Duckies 1331-92. Everitt 1393-1430. Oxonham 1411-2, Dodd 1490-85. AVebstor 1551-4. Malcorae.-^s 1610-4, Watemieyer 3707-817. Proudfoot 4102-72. 4185-90. de la Harpe 5475-80, Bryan 6057. Bowen 6100-1, Mcllwraith 6102-5. JJouglaKS 0192. Stewart 6199-200, Laii» 0203-10. Schertx 0261-5, Holt 6301-4, Spiers 6609-28. Blemierhasset 6702-10, Lang 9097-9. Dugraorc 9774. Kuich 10221, Mybu-gh 10553-4, Danckwctts 10093-721, Kuhn 14059-62, Diebel 1109(i-100. Howie 14107-42. Graaff 1G490. Sale of in London,— Reid 731-2, 702, Morton 778, Collier 1260, Duckies 13GS-9, Grewar 6046, Di uglast 6192, 6196, Stewart 6199-200, Lane 6210, Schertz 6263-4, Holt 6301-4. Wiener 16405, Graaff 16461-5. 1G489. S^ang River (see Xalanga). Slaughter Stock.— De Wet 80, .\tkins 514-7, Kettles 1800-1, Gray 2047-8, 2001. £dmoiid.s 2204. H»rt 2295, 2367-74. Spaiks 2527-9. 2546-7, Landrry 2726. Wan-en 2795-6. Hancock 2808, Warren 2812-23, Kilfoil 2S45-51, Tweedie 3003, 3047-9, Whittal 3080, 3093, 3109-18. Landrcv 3322-3, Hockey 3597.3014-5, McCabo 3060-8, Riibidge 3908-10, 3926-32, Neeser 3909, 3I.80, 3983," 101 1-9, jra.-.sdoi-ji 4035, Miuaar 42S3, Thornton 4313-5. dL-Villicrs 4511, 4522-3. Aiirct 4025, liiir. d.-ill 47'iO, 47:0-2. Weidemai. 1900, Biggs 5001. 5011), 5055-7, BcUing.ini 5111, Heydenrych 5151-5, Edwards 53()!-5. 11014, 11621, v, d. Merwe 11741-2, Ei'kerdt 11754. Malherbe 11870-7, lls,S3. v, d. Merwe 11941-2, ,11900. de Villiers 12145, 12170. 12205. 12213, Fourie 12270-S, v. d. Mcrwe 12508, 12512-3, Ebden 12559-60, Bl< nitrus 12023. 12633. Blomtnis 120G5-7, V. Zyl 12862, Devcnish 12SS5-6, de Jager 12939, A'oskulc I314.>, r'105-6. F'lyer 13222-3. 13241-2, t, d. M-rwe 13290, V. Schalkwyk 13304-5. Nigrini 1339S-400, 13110-5, v. AVyk" 13(52, du Toil 135ii:-12. Vi>.'^er 13601-4, Vorst«- 13704, Botha 13t37-9. Marais 14002-4. Morkel 14018-21, 14044-6, Kuhn 11047- 74, Diebel 13075-00, Reineke 14171-3. Cook 14394-5. Langeuhover 14823-4. r. Breda 15710-7. t. d. Bvl 10068-70, 16078, Graaff 10400, 16466-74, 16478-88, Tinison 16550-1. Hutcheon 16620. 16675, 10097-8, See ■• Railway," Somerset East.— Gubb 5777. Bryan 6051, OOGl, 6072-3, Mcllwraith 6155, 0159, 0105, Lane 6203, (Pieterion 6315-86, Moo'nian 63S7-9, Moolman, sr., 6390-5, Lotler 6396-410, Featherstone 6411-65, Turner 0406-79. Bowke;- 0480-504, Tlofmcyr 6565-607. Spiers 6608-28. Vosh o 0629-82, B, Vosloo 6683-93, Heydenrich 6691-701, Bleni erhostet 6702-16, Lombard 6717-24, J. Vosloo 6725-6, Atmore 6727-40, Davison (;741-84S, Hutton 7703-23. Sout'i -Western Districts, the Si-a-C'oaat Downs, set " Water." Spontaneous, see "Scab, origin of." Spriagbok.—Devenish 12929, de Jager 12956-61, 12974-5, Voskulc 13170. Fryer 13212, 13217-9, Viswr 13612-3, Moolman 13695-6, 13698-707, Timson 15571-3. Hutcheon 10655-6, 16660. Pteekgrag, *c . in Wool — Brown 1128. Oxeuham 1464-74. MalcouKS" 1620 1, Gray 2055-6. van Reps' uig 2176-7, Biggs 47i''S, Weidt-man 4900. Scheitz G271. Featherstone G4G0. Bowker"0517. Heydenrich i 695, I'ron-Wriglit 7312-5. Botha 7487. Martin 7492, Muirav 7764. Murray 7896. Fincham 8230-1. 8249-51, Middlewyck S443. Pansegreuw 10237, 10207-8. Smit 104.Vi, Ucunintr 10700. Vih.«ei 1 1047. 1 1050. lOra.-niua ill31,Pretoriui 11205, Marais 1 1397, Cbumbers 11720. v. d Mcrwe 12018-22. Joubert 12 105- 12, de Villiers 12189. de Jager 12235-7. de Villiers 12373. de Klerk 12470-8. CUas.son 12487. Ebden 12557-8, 12584-5, Bkmerus 12663-4. Deveiiish 12878-9, 12903-7, Zandberg 13206. v. Wyk 1377G, Cook 14352-4. St«y sburg.— Heyns 5750, Henning lf.722-74. Belikcr 10775-817. Coetzee 1I181.S-34. Coftzec 10835-55, Marais 10856-60, Oosthuizen 10S6I-70. Bckker 10871-82, Vermaak 10S83-94, Allen 108;\5-y44, '>o!!tl.uizen 10945-6, Coetzee 10947-64, van Zjl 10965-79. Ltxinjc^ut Partial or Milder General Act, see "Partial Act." lix Stutteiheiin.— Lehmunn 4:.'9. Tlijnipson SIV2, Oakeshott SllS, Wfl.f for 1-371. Mul.v.mcss 1577, Kettlis 17:3n-6, (ir;iv l:i7N-S. Hunidall 4741, van Heerdeii 4.S.54. Biirjr.s .3023. Bflliuj,'!!!]! .31 14-7. Berrington .324S. Lee .3280, 0. L' c .3:j:il. Na.r 11.313. du Toit. 11533, v. d. M<,.r«v 11.53.3, P. t. d. Merwe 11734-6. Eckerdt 11778, Tliriniis«e« 11791, TlK-ron 119I11-6, v. d. Mtrnc 119.3.3. 11997. Bnr^-cr 12029-30, v. Hecrdcn 12063. Goedhals 12078. (le Villier.s 12168. de Jagcr 12338, df Viliit-rs 123tiS. dc- Kltrk 124.5o, Ebdtu 12o48-.30, Bloincrii« 12637. .Jauksou 128.3,5. Dirv.,^^uisli 12920. de Jiigc-r 12967-9. Voskule 13142, v. Wyk 134.52, v. Sehalkwyk 13.376, Diiibel 14106. I'uruer 1430.3-6. Cook i4343, 14388, Luttig 14707. v. d. Byl 16069, Hutclieon 16704. See •■ Suspension under Act 37 of 1891." Su-p.iision of Act under Act No. 37 of 1891.— King 9876, 9897-9. W.ilktr 9965-8. Bcurrr,an 10116, Steyn 10125, Bckkor 104SS-9. Humphries 11104, Erasmus 11U9, v. Hcerden 12052-5, Cowper 16724-30. See " Suspension, temporary." Swellendiini.— Hopley 15262-350. Joubcrt 15351-79, KuobJaudi 15380-90, Ecksken 15397-9. Gsldenhui.* 15400-13, tt«-yn"l5414-2S, Badonhorst 15429-46. Hopley 15447-65, Steyn 15466-98, v. Eedeu 15499-521, Devenish 15522-50. TANKS:— Dimnnsions and Capacity of. — V. d. Vyver 52, van Ga!-s 370, Krog 2964-5. Landrey 3309, du Toit 4120. Bi-e-iinicr 4216. Birch 5181. Swart 5626-7. Sayniiu 5926-8, Picterson 6332, Pavisou 6756, Venter 7250, C.on-Wiigh; 7355, Mmrav 7859. Knigir 8039, Coetzee 8739, Kalipa 9093, v, Plctscn 9407, Hegttr 9457-S. Aucainp 10191-2, Coetzee 10829. Viljoeu 10985. Marais 1 1317. v. d. Merwe 11598. Steyiler 12748. Jackson 12811. 12855. Gro-.c 13027, Ste.^n 13886-7, Eciucke 11162, Falser 141S1. Tuner 14320. 14361-3, v, Niekerk 14466, v. d. We.-thuizcn 14648-52, Veut.r 14695-6. de Wet 14787. Nel 15080-3. Oudeiidal 15185, Timson 10568. Nuniberof.—V. d. Vjver 27-8. Fuller 3131. 3142-3, 3146. Fronemau 3300-1. Pldlii s 4440. de Villiers 4584. Auret 4614. Beriingion 5219. 5226. Nash o37S. J. Na.>.h 5."-37. Kirkmnn i,02.s. licteron 6383, Edwards 7140, Crou-Wriglit 7:"35. Murray 7632. Murray 7859. v. Kt-i sliuig 7975, Kniger 8036-7, Macdraiald 8337-8. Coftzee r.:j76. G. Bani'cs 8580. Bchcitsc 8959. Hai-elthorn 9150. .'■iiT.man 9308, ^tetnekanip 9445, J. .'^teiuckamp 9417. Hcgter '.i457. Tb.ron 9406-9. Cloete 9474-6, S;;lberland 9564-5. V. ZU 9574. v. d. Merwe 9591-2. v. Hondcn 9<.02. Aucainp 9612. C!o(te 9626. Lang 9071. de Wet 9806-7, v. Hcerden 9824. Vmter 9917. Eolenhi inier 10050. Greyvestein 10119. Pansegreuw 10244. Kruger 10312. v. d. Hecvcr 10360, 10372-3, 10376-84, v. Pletsen 10387, Moorcroft 10601, de Wet 10640. 10661-3, Hcnning 10684, 10745. Coctzte 10836-7, Allen 1089S-9, van Zyl 10967-9. Viljoen 10991, Erasmus 1 1119, Licbfnberg 11223. dn Toit 11250. Ciump 11261. du Toit 11305, Jansen 11405. du Ples.is 1 1427. Hero'd 11547. Wbilebead 11554, i-.d. Me'we 11591-4. Chambers 11667, Eck.rdt 11755. Thf uniss. u 11794. v. d. Ahce 11800, 11S15, v. d. Merwe 11934. Joubntl2091. 12095. Jacobs 12286. 12295. 12311. Era.-nius 12330-2, Versler 12340. dc Kkrk 12119. 12434. V. Sihalkwyk 12485. Ebd«n 12538, Blonierus 12617. Stcyfltr 13742. iJeverish 12924. de Jager 12937, Maritz 12996, Viljoen 13007. Grove 13027, 13032-3. v. Niekerk 13041. Vo.skule 13146. Frj-er 13229-31, 13239, Nel 13248, v, Wvk 13259. J. v. Wyk 13262-3, Sehalkwyk 13299, Nigrini 13370, 13372. .Stoftbfrir 13146. ICrasmus 13450, du Toit 13501. y. Sehalkwyk 13538. 13543. 13566, O. v. St:halkwyk 135'7f.. VLsser 13587-8. Vos 13710. v. Wyk 13787. Steyn 13850. Botha 13953, 139li7, Marais 14001, Keiueke 14158-9, Faber 14180. Cook 11357-8. Letter 11432. Oiidendal 11515, Era.suius 1 1558, Snvder..j 14571 , Gibi laar 1 1598, v, d. Wes'huizeu 14li21, 14032-4, Marais 14655, T. ZU 13736, Lan^'cnbovci 11810-1, Bikkcr 14958, v. Wyk 1 4980, 1 19S5. Nd 15031-5. 15045-57. Ondendal 15114. Stevu 1520S, Uys 152(;i. Hopley 15267. "joubert 15372-3. Geldenhuis 15102. Stejii 15118. Badonhorst 15433-4, K. Hopley 15452-4. Steyn 15484. Deveidsh 15526. Ecksteen 1557*2, 15575, V. Bre-ia 15693-7. Swartz 15744'. de K^-ck 15861. du Toit 15926, Swariz 15985, MMriug 16123. 16131-3, 16113 4, Cloete 16200. de Kock 16275. de Wet 16314, Timsou 16585, Hutcheon 16609. On every Stock Fa in for Bijwoucrs' and S(-rvants' Stock. — De Villiers 4568-70. 4583, Rabie 4750. Smith 4S84, Wei.iem n 4960, Hiydenrych 5166-8, C. Lee 5315, Na.sh 5380-4, J. Na-h 5535-8. Kirkni«n 6028-31, Piotcr.son 6383-4, Bennett 6865. Ecntiie 6947. Knitrht 7066, Cron-Wright 7276-8, Cawood 73t;0, V. d. Walt 7551-2, MiuTay 7801, Macdouald S339-l'i, Stubbs 8592, Beaton 8999, A'eiiter 9265, Dargie 9270-1. Snyman 9358, 9369-70. Orpen 9393, Naude 9510. v. Zyl 9574, Lang 9073, Haw 9769, de Wet 9787, Tt-banhcimer 10049, du Toit 11250, Marais 11357-8, v. d. Merwe 11592, Theunis en 11795, Joubcrt 12095-7, de Villiers 12163-5, Jacobs 12297-8. de Villicr-i 12359-60, (4. de Kl.?rk 12505-i;, Ebden 12565-7, Mader 12602-8, Blomerus 12647, Hitehcock 12689-90, Jack- son 12842, Deveni.sh 12925, v. Wyk 13465-70, v. Sehalkwyk 13543-4, Vi.sser 13608-9, 13610-1, Reincke 14227, Cook 14389-92, Oudendal 144S5, v. Zyl 14735. 14738-9, Nel 15048-52, Swartz 15745, Meiring 16124. 16177. de Wet 16315-6, Tinis..n 16586. 16702. Public— De Wet 9(i. dc Lausre 237-8. Wentzel 31 1-7. van Gass 360, Lehmaun 194. Atkins 519, 556-7, 573-6. 621, Thompson 838-9, 851. MoiouL'eni 968-9. Tita 1004. 1008-14, Br.jwn 1057-62, 1087, 1119, 1123, Fronc-m.m 1147-9, 1160-1, A. Fronrman 1219-20. 1224-5, Sizini 1238-9, Cr-.we 1323-7, 1330, Duckies 1382-92, Everitt 1421. 1427-30, Malcomess 1591. 1593. Thompson 1676, 1702. Kettles 1739. 1759-60. ICeth 1901, 1940-2. 1963-6. Grav 1985, 1988. 1992. 2021-3. 2047, vau Rensburg 2085. van R<>u.sl.urg 2185, Eamonds 2211-3. Fihiier 22.58-60, 2266. Hart 2302. 2334. 2365-6, Sparks 2528-9, 2540. Dell 2653. 2657. 2678. Landiey 2711. 2734, 2745, Warren 2799, 2808, Krog 2926-7. Tweedie 3017, 3030. Fuller 3164-5. 3197. Laudrev 3310, 3325, 3329, Brown 3430, Oosthuizen 3571-6, Hockey 35S7-8, 3597-8, 3599, McCabe 3659. Rubidgc 3864. Neeser 4000, Bumm'r 4226. Tloruton 4337. 4313. A. Thomton 4427-8, Philiirs 4416, U76. de Villiers 4490, I5I5-6. Hurndall 41.97. Ra:.ie 4750. van Hcerden 4826-7. 4830.6, 4861. Smith 4882-3. Miller 4935-6. Biggs 4991, 5033, Nash 5077. Hcydenrych 5133. Birch 51S2. Lee 5270, G. Lee 5316. Nash 5379. de la Harpe 5425, 5446, Nasli 5487-8," 5538, Hobsou 5511. Swart 5661-7. Ziclsma 5691, Grewe • .3865, .3869, Marais 5947-9. Kirkiran 6000. 6002-5, 6024, 6028-31, Gr war 6037, PieUrs n 6381.2, Letter 64(9, Featlierslone 6427. Turner 6469. Bowkcr 6504. Lcmibard 6718. D..visou 6811-3. Bem.ett 6SS7, I'rinirle 7092. v. N ekerk 7121. Crou- Wright 72S2. 7293-6. Murrav 7678. Murray 7878-9. FinL-h-m 8168-9. C.'etzce 8376. Barnes 8460-1, 8491. (4. Bariiei( 8585-7. Nkaka 8682, Teml'ett 8688-9. 8701. TluL-his 8705. Warren 8845. 8854-5, Malsoio 888(1. (Jray .■5911. Beadon 903.'. K.-ilIi a 9117. Hag. ?« ihi.ni 9126-7. 9l4i-5. 9l-'.2, 9180-1, H: rl 9210. Snyman 9:;59. CI- eto 9643. Lang 97"9, Fleisclu r 9745. Hatlingh 9s7(i. King 'J,S83. Walker 9918, Robcnl.ein.er 10046, (jreyvcsteiu 10122. King 10186, Smit 10479, ilenning 10744-7, Allen 10906, Ecasmiis 11141, du Toit "l 1322, v. d. Merwe 11539, Ix Jacubs IJ2SG-7, (Ji- Villior.s \-2.iM. 1J:>7.), Hitchcock |12i;S7, Voskulr lol'-l-J, t. Wjk lo4Tl, Butlia 13011, Bfkkor M'Jfil, Meiriug 11JU6, Cloote lli20(i, Ilutchcou 1G677-'J, Currey lliS62. Sec " TankH for Nntivts." Taika.— V. d. Vyvcr 2(i-7. Wiimwrifrlit. ll«-9, Lehmaim 42:), OakoKhott SUS, Lane 0212, do Wet !l7fi(l-.Slll, V. Hccracu 9S2(l-5(), Hiittiimh 9S51-74, King- H875-!)01, Adams 9nil2-;i. King 091)1-8, Frost 9909-1.'), Venter 991G-2(i, W. Frost "9921-4, Erasmus 9925-31, Walker 9932-10002, Bales 10003-20, Pretorius 10234. Time necessary to Clean Slieep, see " Dipping;, efficacy of," " Licences, period of." Traders with Stock or Produce, sec " Jloviiig Stock, &c." Traders, see " JReini'ectiuu." Trauskei. — Lehmann 131-0, 492, Danckwartz G9i-9, Rcid 723-9, Morton 7"iO, 701, Thomp.«iin 839, Oakeshotl. 899-900, Froii.mai.n 120I-G, G.llior 12r)2-G.i, Dnoklcs 1331-92, Jiverit.t 139(i-7, Oxeuliam 1434-8, T)odd I ISO, Blumer l.V24-r., M.n.lcomrss i:)74-88. Jack l(i34-0, Christian 1821-82 Hart 2313-8, Sparks 2497-.V)0, Warren 2800, Whilfal 3091-3, Laudrey 3310, 3390, Bryan G00'>, Davison li70l-0, 0780-2, 0840, Makazi 8013 to Naudc 9298, Hntrheou ICOOS, Cowpcr 10781-3. TREKKING : — Losses when jjrcvented from. — Wainwright 118, Fronemau 1142, Hockey 3003, Neeser 3983, Aurct 402,'i, Coetzec 8784, dn Plessis 879.>, Smit 8960-73, Naude 9273, Theron 9401, Cloete 9J9», Venter 9917, Coetxer ll).")31, Licbeiilierg 11237, Fouric I22.')7. Nectssury.— V. d. Vyver 31, F'oiieman 1141-3, Plewmau 793.), Robertse 8941, v. Niekerk 13009, Louwrcns 1304S,'Higgs 13070, Vo.skule 13087, Fryer 13212, v. Schalkwvk 13299, Theron 133.V2, Nipriui 13370, v. Schalkwyk 13.570, de Kock 144.30, Oiuluidal 14471, Gibelaar 14007, Luttig 14700, V. Zyl 11731, V. Wyk 14913-;'), Nel l')031, v. Ecdcn l.").")21, S\Yartz l.')744, v. d. Byl 1007, v. d. M.rwe 10109-11, Meiriug 1012.')-30, 10100. (Jver Clean Farms prohibited.— V. d. Vyvcr 71, de Wet SO, 91-.j. Wainwright 171, d- Lange 207, AV'entzel 2':3-8, 280, 304-7, du Plessi.? 410, Lehraann 495. Atkii s .^80, 'lhom])Son 821. Brown 1081, Fronemau 1178-81, Christian 1841-2, Keth 1905, Gray 1009, van Rci'sburg 2090, 2109. van Kcns- burg 2102-3, Edm;.iids 2200, Film r 2254, 2271, H.irt 2300, Ncl 2437, 2441, Sparks 2532, Dell 2010-7, Landr..T 2731, Warr.ii2797, Krog 2925, Twe(dic 3025, Full, r 3177-8, Laudrey ;352, Oohthuizen 3648', McCal e 3( 80, 3730, Rubidgc 3870, Minr.ar 4290, Thori tun 4348, di Vilb'ers 4520, .'inret4002, Hunidal 4682, van Hcerden 4825, Biggs 5005, Nash 5075, Berringtnn 5231. C.Lee 5323, de la Harpe 5124, Na,sh549!, Zielsma 5000, Marais 5880, Kirkmau 0009, Pittenson 0335, Featherstoue 0431, Davison (i847, Beniiett 6808-9, Rcnuie0941, Knight 7030, 7081-2, v. Hcerden 7170-81. Botha 7259-60. Cion-Wii(jht 7281, Vennaak 7374, Muirav 7044-5, IVjurray 7803, Finc^liam 8107, 8240-8, Middlcwyck 8.',92, Jian.es 8513, Wnr'Ci, 8802, Si ^m.-.u 9.';55, Cl( ete 9035, Lang 9003, Haw 9707, Hailing). 9871, Roberl.eiir.cr 10041, Vciniaak 10072, Pierce 10150, King 1010,), Smit 10480, V. Aardt 10507, Hei.i.iug 10734, Coet/ee 10833, van Zyl 10979, Erasmus 11130-40, Lieb(u- berg 11215, Ciunip 11202, ]V!arais 11361-3, 11384-5, Neeser 11483, Chambers 11671, 11707-8, V. d. Ahee 11838-43, de Villiers 12152-1, 12108-70, 12182. 12205, dc Villiers 12254, Fouric 12257, -Jacobs 12290-3, dc Villiers 1240(1, El den 12543, Blomcrus 12027, Bitdaock 12003, v. d. Merwe 117^2, Steyt'.er 127.39-00, 12700-8, 12771, Marcus 12822-9, Viljoeu 13093, Voskule 13109-13, 13117, NicuAvoudt 13181. Fryer 13215, v. Wvk 13451, Visscr 13607, Vorst*r 1.3741-3, Botha 13923-4, Reinckc 14157, Faber 14221, Muritz 14210, v. Zvl 14744-0, 14758, Steyn 15200. v. Feden 15520, Neethliug 15031, Swai-tz 15783-1, de Kook 15854, Mciring 10128, de Kock 10252. See " Moving Stock, &c." TRESPASS:— Landowner may impound scabby slock found on rriaiu roud. — Theron 11911. Pound, stock driv.n to —Neeser 3999. 1009-10. Iha-uton 4419-21, A. Thornton 4426, dc Villiers 4498, P. Wcideman, 1002, Hurudall 474 1, R^.bie 47.30-4, 470U-1, Lee 5272, Edwards 5300, C. Lee 5333-4, de la Harpe 5413, Nash 5505, 5513, Hobson 5541, Swart 5023-4, Zietsnia 5708-0, Grewir 5835-7, Marais 5976-7, Kirkinan (iU13, 0024-5, Grewar 6037, Pieterson 6371, Lottcr 0398-9. 0402-3., 6405-6, I catlerstouc 6456, Davison 0812, Bennett 0884-6, Pringle 7093, Cron-Wright 7336, Fiucham 8100, Middlewvck Sill, 8417, Barnes 8544, Beadon 9034, Hart 9239, Stai)elberg 0330-2, Snyman 9386, Haw 9768, dc Wet 9797, King 9892, Robenheimer 10003, King 10187, Smit 10475, t. Aardt 10575, Allen 10012, Theron 11914, v. Hcerdeu 12072, do Villiers 12361, 12374-0, Steytler 12791, Voskule 13123-1, Botha 13942-3. Pound Law, and Act 28 of 1880, protection under. — Wentzel 200-3, van Gass 364-5, Oosthuizen 412, du PI(ssi8 41o, Atkins 572, Keth 1930, Twecdie 3002, Landrey 3354, Brown 3431, Neeser 4009, Maa^dorp 4014, Minaar 4297, 4310, Smith 4894-8, Bipg.9 5022, Birch 5196, de la Hai-pe 5435-7, Nish 5512, 5520, Swart 5024, Zietema 5737, Grewer 5837, 1 ieterson 6372, Featherstone 6436, 04C)l-4, Hevdei.rich 0690, Bennett 6800-2, Cloete 7420-3, 7438-4, 7458-0, 7477-82, v. Rensburg 7003-7, Banics 8552-7, Aucamp 8976. IJagelthoin 9143, Stapelberg 9330, Sutherland 9520-33, Lang 0O!j2, Voiter 9018, Walker 90)3-1. 0000. f 1. etc 10003-4. 10103 A . Grey vestciu 101 10-21, Pierce 1015i;, 1-anscgreuw 10237. 102I-9. liekkcr 10497-0, 10510-0, d.i Wet 10671-1;, Bekkcr 1O702-5, 10807-11, Era...nius 11150-2, 11173-0, Marais 11303, 11381-3, Fuuric 11510. C. Blomerus 12674-7, ateyller 12702, 12765, 12768, 12772, Voiskulc 13110, 13125, Nigrini' 13401-4, de Wet 15028, Duniiny 15l"73. Hopley 15278-309, 15318, 15339-44, Jouboi t 15354, 15303-7, 16376, Knoblai:ch 15382-3, 1-1388 91, Swartz 15783, de Kock 15843, Swartz 15990-7, Metealf 16084, Wcsscls 10241, Stemmett 16305. I'itenbage —Nash 5474. Swart 5578-671, M. Swart 5672-8, Zietsma 5679-747, Heyns 5748-00, Gubb 5770- 807,"Grcwer 5808-80, Marais 5881-109, Saynian 5910-43, Marais .3944-83, M'olman 5984-5, Kirkroan 57S0, 0032, Grewar 0033-10. Veldt.— -See " Pasturage." Victoria West.— Riibidge 3829, Bryuu 0053, OOOO, 6072-3, Bowiu 0124, Hall 0117, Lane 6203, 0206, Schertz 6244, 0240, 0277, Snyman 9308, de Klerk 12417-79, Schalkwyk 12480-5, Claassen 12486-502, dc Klerk 12503-6, v. d. Merwe 12507-13, dc KI. rk 12514-7, Kayser 12518-9, v. Hcerden 12520-4, Piciiaar 12525-9, deBinin 12530-1, Ebden 12532-97, Stanbridge 12598-9, Jackson 12600-1, Mader 12602-12, Viljoen 12997-8, 13ilo7, v. Niekerk 13001, Wiener 16381. Wagons. — Sec " Jieiufcction." AVaid Committees. — See " Inspectors, number of." Water, difficulty of applying Act on account of want of.— Wentzel 312, Lehmann 475, 487-91, Atkins 560-70, 580-8, Amos 637-8, Thompson 870, Kettles 1806, Christian 1837-8. Keth 1956-9. Gray 2055-7, 'Cruywagen 2141-3, van Ren.sbuig 2162, Filmer 2272-5, Hart 2390-4, Ncl 2462. Dell 2020, 2044, Landiey 2739-40, Krcg 2923, Twcedie 3002-0, Froneman 3286, Landrey 3333, 3336-45, Brown 3532-7, Rubidgc 3003-4, de Villiers 4567, Burndall 4673-0, van Hecrdcn 4810, 4838-40, Biggs 4007-!i, J(iriin^'T(n"'5225-0, de la Haijie 5 140-2, 5457-0, Nasli 5484-5, Grewer 5816-20, 6863-4, Maniie 5884, Marais 5970, Gitwar 6035-7, Mcllwraith 0107, Scheriz 0250, Featherstone 0418-21, Pringle 7070-8, V. Hetrdeu 7182-3, Martin 7492, Delporte 7000, Murray 7040, rievnjuu 7923, 7929-31, 7935-8, 8147, Ixi Rnoham 8214, Coetzee 87i51-o, Beadon 'J040.8, Snymiu 9309, Lang 0724, de Wet 9Sl')-7, Erasmus 9929-30, Cloete 10097A-S, 10101, 10107, Greyvestein lOllO, J. Vermaak 10132-4, Smit 10440-2. v. Aardt 105()1-6a, Bekkor 10878-82, Vermaak 10889, Allen 10904, van Zyl 10966, Erasmus 11119, 11166-9, Liebenberg' 11230, Cramp 1120!-4, Sw\egeii 11298-300, du Raau 1133o-G, Jansen 1140.)-12. Smit 11446-3, Fourie 11459, Xejse.- U4S1, Jooste 11551-2. Eckerdt 11776-7, Theuanisen 11791, Theron 11902-i, V. d. Merwe 119.50-4, 11962, 11969, S. v. d. Merwe 11996, Burger 12028-9, 12034-5, Burger 12047, V. Heerden 12050-9, Goedhals 12077, de Villiers 121.55, 12203-4, 12225-6, de Jager 12229-30, Fourie 12257, Jaeob.'s 12285-6, Erasmus 12:i25-9, de VQUers 12346, 12352-3, P. de Villiers 12366-7, C. de VilUers 12403, de Ifl'^rk 12419, 12443-5, v. S-,halkwyk 12484, Claas^en 12490-2, Ebden 12536, Mader 12605, 12609, Blom^rus 12615, 12636. C. Blomerus 12069-73, Jackson 12844-7, 12852-5, v. Zyl 12859, Devenish 12915, 12918-20, 12928, de Jager 12953-5, Viljoen 13006, v. Nickerk 13009-6, Grorc 13032-4, V. Xiekerk 13039-46, .J. v. Niekerk 13052, 13057-60, M. r. Niekerk 13062. Voskule 13087, 13144-7, 131.55-9. Nieuwoudt 13182-9, v. Xiekerk 13203-4, Zandberg 13206-10, Fryer 13212, 13258, 13239, Louw 13257, Nieuwoudt 1326.5-77, v. Wyk 13279-83. Visagie 13294-6, Erda 13297, v. Schalkwyk 13299, HoUander 13331. Theron 13352. Geldenhuis 13351. Roux 13350. Moolman 13358, Nigi-ini 13370', v. Wyk 13457, 13460, du Toit 13480. v. Schalkwyk 13537-9. 13547-50. 13557-68, 0. v. Schalkwyk 13570, Visser 13584-0, 13032-6, Vos 13717. Vorster 13738, 13744, Botha 13965-7, Maritz 14246, Xaude 14295, Cook 14342, T. Niekerk 14461. Oudeudal 14471, 14519-24, Gibelaar 14610-2, Wilsnach 14070, Luttig 14706, V. Zyl 14844-9, HopWy 1532S-9, Joubert 15375, Knoblauch 15392-4, Ecksteen 15399, Geldenhuis 15410-1, 15413, Steyn 15115, R. Hopley 15459-00, Stevn 15494, v. Eeden 15521, Devenish 15541-3, 15549, Ecksteen 15585-0, v. d. Byl 15723, 15729-30, Swartz 15744, de Villiers 1.5897-9, 15910-1, 15914, V. d. Bvl 10028, 16064-8, Meiriug 16144-5, Stagg 16449-51. Russouw 16511, Timson 16552-6, Hutcheon 16594, "16608-9, 10705-7. See " Suspension of Act." WUd Animal.-.— Smith 4919, Vosloo 0631, 6681, Grey 7740. v. d. Walt 7746, Henning 10774, Coetzee 10832, Hopley 15275. WUlistOD.— V. Schalkwyk 13298-329, Hollander 13330-46, v. Schalkwyk 13347-50, Theron 13351-2, Geldenhuis 13353-4, Roux 13355-6, Moolman 13357-68, Nigrini 13392-3. du Toit 13518-21, Hofmeyr 13534, du Toit 13511-21, v. Schalkwyk 13562-3. Willowmore. — See '' Mount Stewart." Winter, dipping diuing. — See "Dipping, danger of." Wish of inhabitants, enforcement of Act against. — See "Partial Act." Wire-worm.— Wainwright 154. Oosthuizen 397-9. Atkins 582-4, Thompson 873, Coetzee 6990, 6994, v. d. Walt 7742. 7740, y. Rensliurg 7985. Sluiter 8079, G. Barnes 8565, J. Stoinekamp 9453, v. Heerden 9828-9, Vennaak 10085, J. Vermaak 10144-7, v. Pletzeu 10380, Er.i.smus 11129-34, Swieger- 11186-8. Badenhorst 11333, Neeser 11.509-11, Ebden 12581-3, Steytler 12781, Deyeni.sh 12910-1, Steyn 13877, Rcelofs 15222. Woodcutters. — See "Bartering." WOOL :— Effect of dipping on.— V. d. Vyver 15-16, 55-6, Weutzel 332, Lehmann 452, Collier 1292-1300, Duckies 1373-80, Oxenham 1438-40, 1475-0, Dodd 1503, Jack 1023-57, Christian 1808-74, Hart 2396, Watei-meyer 3797-8, 3811-7, de VUliers 4535, Auret 4025, van Heerden 4843, Gubb 5770-807, Grewer 5876-80, Bryan 6080-1, 6089-90, Bower 0107-8, 6118-9, Hall 0135-0, McHwraith 6175-6, 6182-4, Schertz 6258, Holt 6310-2, Vosloo 6680, Bennett 6879, Knight 7003, Bouwer 7134, Murray 7658. Watermeyer 7731-3, Every 7818-34, Oosthuizen 7951-3, Hobkirk 7972, y. Rensburg SOOS, Bep.don 9050. v. Pletsen 9421-35', Venter 9487-9, Schoenland 9500-3, Sutherland 9520, Vermaak 10151-2, Aucamp 10236-8, Gumming 10413, Bekker 10503, Cramp 11280-1, Eckerdt 11771, 11783, Malherbe 11S80-2, Ebden 12.559, 125P0-1. Devenish 12923, du Toit 13491, 13513, y. Schalkwyk 13537, 13547, Cook 14304, Herman 15609, Hunnau 16015, Stagg 16456-7, SpUhaus 16502-4, Ku.ssouw 10512-3. Sale and Manufacture of in London, &c. — Lehmann 423. 440-1, 455-63, 468, Amos 644-52. Danckwartx 702, Oakeshott 906, Collier 1260, Duckies 1367-72, Oxeuham 1462, 1170-4, Dodd 1511, Blumer 1527-30. Webster 1567-8, Malcomess 1580, 1583, 1595-6, 1601, 1015-21, Proadfoot 4191-3, Grewar 6046, Bryan 6082-3, 0090, Bowen 0102-5, HaU 6138-46, Mcllwraith 6171-2, 6178, Schertz 6251, 6267-75, Holt 0294-8, 6305-14, Sluiter 8071, 8075-8, Bailey 8600, Cloete 9663, Dugmore 9774-5, Humphries 11105, Ebden 12535, v. Wyk 13283, Wiener 16377, 16396-8, 16404-17, 16422, Spilhaua 10496-7. See "American Market." Sale of, and price in Colony. — V. d. Vyver 15-17, 56, Wainwright 167-8, Wentzel 332, Lehmann 430, 453-6. 460-7, 471-3, Amos 046, Danckwartz 702, Reid 712-8, Oakeshott 884, 904-5, Sem 1027-9, 1031-2, Collier 12.50-1301, Crowe 1305-19, Duckies 1331-92, Everitt 1393-1405, Oxenham 1434-78, Dodd 1481-92, Blumer 1512-46, Webster 1550-61, Maloome-ss 1575-84, 1596-1600, 1617, Christian 1839, 1874, Hart 2288, Watermeyer 3767-817, Neeser 3969-74, Proudfoot 4173-4, 4178-95, Gubb .5772-7, Bryan 6079, Bowen 6107-9, Mcllwraith 6167-70, 0181, Schertz 6247, 6252-4, 6266, 6281-9, Holt 6294-8, 6305-14, H^ydenrvch 6695, Coetzee 6987, Cloete 7446, 7465-7. MuiTay 7689. Murray 7845, Oosthuizen 7952, Bailey 8610-1, Hughes 8705, Harding 9254, Naude 9310, Sr.yman 9380, y. Pletsen 9427-33, Pelzer 94'80, Visser 9493, Schoenland 9498-503, Dugmore 9774, 9777, Botha 9781, deWet 9787, 9808-11, Venter 9917, Rorich 10221, de Wet 10051, 10670-1 Danckwerts 10703-21, Henning 10726, Humphries 11077, Era.smu.s 12325, Voskule 13138-40, Zandberg 13206, v. Wyk 13283, Nigrini 13370, v. Schalkwyk 13571, Howie 14123-32, R. Hopley 15463, Wiener 16385-6, 16399-401, 16407, Stagg 16433-4, Spilhaus 16498, Russouw 16510. Worcester.— Meiring 16110-94, Cloete 16195-216, J. Meiring 16217-8. Xalauga.— Beadon 8996-9053, Wilhelm 9054-65, McGregor 9066-79, Gaylard 9080-5, Brown 9080-9, 9090-119, Hagelthom 9120-.S5, Moolman 9186-204, Kokemoer 9205-9, Kruger 9210-23, v. Wickerdt 9224-7, Hart 9228-50, Harding 9251-6. Wisgill 9257-9, Venter 92G0-7, Dargie 9268-71, Naude 9279 9296-8. " , [G. 1— '94.] CAPE OF GOOD HOPE. SCAB DISEASE COMMISSION. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. ^rpsratri tn twtlj Imm of ^.^nrlinmrnt hif rnniinniiii nf lis i-irrllrnrt( tljt (Snmrnnr. 1894. Queen's Town, Monday, 7th November, 18i2. PRESENT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. Mr. DU ToiT. Dr. Smaktt. Mr. Francis. Mr. Hendrik Christojf'el van der Vyver examined. 1. Chairman.'] You are a sheep farmer living in the Queen's Town division ? — Yes. 2. And have farmed there for many years .-' — Since 18.52. 3. You are aware that the object of the Commission is to inquire into the working of the scab act } — Yes. 4. First with regard to a general scab act. The Queen's Town division has been under the present scab act ever since it was passed ? — Yes. 5. Do you find any diificulty in cleaning your sheep from scab ? — Yes. 6. Do you find that dipping them properly cures them of scab ? — During the last two years I have dipped them extraordinarily well, and have cured them ; but in about two months after being dipped it breaks out again. 7. Can you account in any way for the scab breaking out again in two months ? — No, I cannot say what is the cause. I have taken care to keep them in a clean kraal. 8. Are all your neighbours' sheep free of scab ? — I cannot say whether they were all free at that time, but as a rule they complain of having a good deal of scab amoDgst their sheep. There is always some scab in the neighbourhood of my farm. 9. Do you think the scab is spread, as one reason, for want of a simultaneous dipping ?— As regards that occasion I cannot say, because my sheep were not mixed with others then. It appears to me that it breaks out spontaneously. 10. Do not Kaffirs fre<|uently move along the roads in your part of the country with small flocks of sheep ? — No. Kaffirs with small flocks had passed at that time, but they had aU been dijiped. 1 ] . They may have been dipped, but did you notice any scab amongst them, or were they clean y — They had passes to say they had been dipped, and I coidd see myself by looking at the sheep that most of them had been dipped. 12. But do you not notice a gi-eat many sheep in small flocks moving through the district of Queen's Town, and when you are in the town do you not see them liere in the street '? — I am seldom in the town, and I have not noticed them. lo. Then I take it from what you say that tlie scab act, as it at present exists, is almost useless '? — Yes, because for the last two years the scab has troubled me a great deal more than it did jireviously. 14. When the scab act was first introduced into the district, and the inspectors were careful, were j'ou not freer of scab than you are now? — Wlien the inspector first came to my place, he found my sheep clean, and gave me a clean bill. I heard much le.ss of scab in those day.s than I have during the last two years. 15. How do j'ou accoimt for that .-' — I don't know. When sheep are not dipped the wool is better ; dipping injures the wool, and I get a lower price for wool that has been dipped than for the other. 16. Then I take it the sheep you dip are free of scab V— Yes, they ai'e free of scab, and the wool is stronger. 17. Then if you coidd keep all your sheep clean and free of scab, you would get a very much better price for the wool ? — Yes, that is certain ; but I want to know how I am to [G. l,-'04.] keep them clean. I think it depend* on the climate, and during the last few years there has been more rain, and that affects them badly. 18. Do you think it woiild be advisable to have a general scab act thrtughout the country, in order to try, by simultaneous dipping or something of that kind, to wipe out the scab ? — I don't know, because I don't know how you can insist upon a man (lipping his sheep if they are perfectly clean, and therefore I don't know whether it would be advisable. 19. Don't you tliink thot sheep farmers throughout the country, if they could realize the fact that by shearing their sheep in the early spring, and dipping them occasionally, clean or dirty, they could stamp out scab, would recognize the good it would do the country ? — Yes, if it could be done, it would help, but I don't think that would stamp out the scab altogether. I cannot say whether that could be carried out, because I have not travelled about enough. 20. Do you not think a good deal more might be done if the sheep were dij)ped simultaneously throughout certain neighbouring portions of the Colony ? — 1 don't tliink it can be done, but I don't know. 21. Mr. Francis.'] Did you dip yoiu- sheep before the act came into force? — Yes, during the last six and twenty years. 22. Were the sheep freer fi-om scab after the act came into force than before ? — Yes, it •was not as bad as it is now, although I only dipped perhaps twice a year before the act came into force, whereas now I sometimes dip four times in a year, and it is worse than before. 23. How do you account for that ? — I can't say, because they have become more thoroughljred. 24. What do you think the scab is caused by ? — I think the sheep have got an internal fever. 25. Mr. Botha.'] I understand you have six farms'? — Yes. 26. Are they all in the Queen's Town division } — Yes, and one in Tarka. 27. Have you dipping tanks on aU the farms where you have sheep .'' — On three farms I have, but not on the Tarka station. 28. But there are dips on the different sheep-farms ? — Yes. 29. How many sheep have you and your children on the different farms ? — About 6,000. 30. Ai-e you acquainted with the condition of the sheep in the district of Cradock and other adjoining districts where the act is not in operation ? — No. 31. You said you formerly dipped sheep less, and yet had less scab ; and that you think scab is some internal disease in the blood ? — Yes, I think so. 32. Do you believe with others that the effect of dipping is to drive the disease inwards, and that eventuaU}' it breaks out again ? — Yes, dipping only checks it for a time. 33. Do you think it is also necessary to use internal remedies ? — Yes, in order to drive out the fever. 34. If the act were more stringently enforced in regard to trekking and the duties of inspectors, do you think it would be more to the advantage of the farmers or not ? — No, it would ruin them. 35. Tlien you think it would be prejudicial to the farmers if Parliament made a more stringent act than that now in force ? — Yes. 36. Dr. Smarft.] You have an idea that dipping wiU not eradicate scab i* — It wiU not do it completely ; I tliink it is an internal disease. 37. You said that you dipped your sheep extraordinarily well ? — Yes. 38. There is a great difference of opinion as to what would be called extraordinarily good dipping. Would you have any objection to tell us what you consider extraordinarily good dipping, and how you have dipped j^our sheep within the last three or four years ?— I have tried several dips, patent and others, but I have found the best to be sulphur and lime. 39. We are glad to know that, but what I particularly want to know is how you cured them ? — I make the dip strong enough. 40. How many sheep do you generaUj' dip in a day ? — Perhaps 500 or 600 ; it is not always the same number. 41. "WTiat sort of tank do you use, and how do you make your dip ? — I used to boil the dip until it became black. 42. Wlicn you are going to dip your sheep do you measure exactly the quantity of water you require ? — Yes, I know by the size of tlio tank the quantity I have to put in. 43. How often do j'ou dip .-' — Sometimes I fiud it necessary within fourteen days. 44. But sometimes if you dip a flock of sheep, and in fourteen days time thej' appear to be perfectly clear of scab, then do you dip them again ? — No, I don't dip them again so soon. 45. There is a strong feeling, not onlj' amongst farmers, but also amongst veterinary surgeons, that it is useless to dip sheep unless you dip them twice within a period of fourteen days ; knowing this, you would not I suppose give youi- evidence so strongly that you had dipped 3-our sheep extraordinarily well, if what I have described is cTrer with regard to the que.sticm wliether it is advisable to increase the scope of the act ly making it general, or in any other way ? — Yes. 76. Do you agree with what he has said or not ? — I would rather have questions put to me. 77. Have you any objection to teU the Commission how many sheep you have ? — I, and my children have about 4,000, sometimes more. 78. The Commission wants to find out from you whether you think it would be advisa- ble to extend the scab act, or not ? — No, I object to that. 79. Do you object to the present scab act in force in this area } — Yes, I am opposed to the act. 80. WiU you give your reasons why you object to the scab act being enforced? — My first objection is that so far as I have seen the working of the act. Government pays the money used in its administration for nothing. Secondly, it does not improve the condition of the sheep, and the scab is as bad now as it was before the act came into force. Thirdly, our fi'eedom is restricted : in moving our sheep from one place to another our actions are crippled, and we are obUged to get a permit firom an inspector. I don't object to the inspectors we have now, but we may get men who wiU not be as lenient as these. But we are imder the inspectors, and when we have a bad season, and dry times, we cannot move our sheep whenever we like, but must get a permit from the inspector before we can do anything. The inspector says you can't move your sheep until j'ou have dipped them, so that if your sheep are too poor to allow of them being dipped, you must let them remain where they are, and this may ruin you. Another reason is the scab act says in case you have one sheep with a small spot of scab on it, the whole ilock is considered to be scabby. This injures me, because I may want to sell to the butcher, and I am unable to do so on account of this one sheep having the scab, although all the others are clean. I was one of the first men to ask for the scab act, but not on the same lines as the present act. We are now separated fi'om the rest of the Colony by this permissive act, and I call this class legislation, because it only embraces certain areas. We are not protected in any way : all the roads and thoroughfares are open for anybody to trek over as they like with sheep. A main road runs through my farm, and I can prove that on many occasions sheep rotten with scab have been left on my farm, and when I look for an owner I cannot find one I cannot send the sheep to the pound because of his condition, and I dare not cut his throat. These are my reasons for objecting to the present law. 81. Then you think the law ought to be more stringent with regard to the removal of sheep ? — Yes, for the man who treks, but not for the man who moves sheep about in the district in which he lives. It should be more stringent in regard to unproclaimed areas, so that sheep should not be allowed to come from them to proclaimed areas. 82. Then you would altogether prohibit the removal of stock from unproclaimed areas into proclaimed areas'? — My opinion is the stock should be kept on the border for a time until it could be seen whether they have scab or not. Sheep are brought out from an unproclaimed area with a clean bill, but when they reach here the scab breaks out; and I can prove that sheep which were clean, have had the scab break out on them after being driven some distance. 83. Do 3'ou mean that if you take a clean flock of sheep and drive them, the scab will break out ? — Sometimes, but not often. 84. Don't you think that is caused by their sleeping in kraals or places where they get it ? — That may be. I cannot say what the reason is. 85. Do you think scab will break out amongst those sheep spontaneously, without their coming into contact with it in any way ? — No, I don't think it would break out unless they came into contact with scab in some form or other. 86. Then, don't you think that before sheep are allowed to come from an unproclaimed into a proclaimed area, they should be thoroughly dipped '? — Yes, properly dipped ; and twice is better than once. 87. Holding these views, don't you think it would be very much better if we had a general scab act for the whole Colony ? — If I thought a general scab act would help the whole Colony, I would support it thoroughly ; but I don't think it would help us more than the act we have now. 88. Mr. Francis.'] You said you were one of the first to desire the scab act. What sort of an act did you want '? — I meant a general act. I object to the areas because they work badly. 89. Mr. Botha.] Do you think the farmers object to the inspectors having the power to go into the kraals, and inspect the sheep without permission from the farmers? — I don't object myself, and I have not heard anything of that sort. 90. You have no objection yourself ? — No, and I have heard no complaint from others. The inspector is quite welcome to go into my kraals. 91. You say yon object to sheep coming from unproclaimed into proclaimed areas. Do you think any ill effects would result from slaughter sheep being brought from an unproclaimed through a proclaimed area by rail i — I think so ; I think that is objection- able because the trucks may be infected with scab, and I or any farmer may buy a few sheep, and bring them by rail placed in the same trucks, and so they will become infected with scab. 92. Do you mean in the same truck with the sheep, or in a truck out of which sheep have been taken ? — I mean that the truck is infected by the sheep which have been in it. 9.3. Dr. Smartt.^ Don't you think that it is not only dangerous to allow sheep to pass thi'ough proclaimed areas in trucks, but, also, skins which are scabby ; and that very valuable sheep may be put into those trucks before they are disinfected by the railway department, and might not that be a means of giving your sheep the scab ? — I think so. 94. Don't you think that, whether a man's farm is in a proclaimed or an unproclaimed area, if you were a careful farmer and had spent a good deal of money in keeping your sheep free of scab, and a public road passes through your farm or camp, you should be protected from a careless neighbour, or from anyone travelling over your property with sheep absolutely rotting from scab ? — No. 95. You consider it is not necessary to protect farmers, whether they are in a pro- claimed area or not, whose sheep are free from scab, from persons trekking over their I)roperty ? — Yes. 96. Don't you think it would perhaps be advisable to have public liipping tanks on all the public transport roads in the Colony ? — Yes, because if a man treks, and his sheep are found to be scabbj-, it would be a great convenience to have a Government tank in which he could dip his sheep without coming to a private individual, many of whom would not allow him. 97. Mr. du Toit.~\ You said you have not got the act you asked for ; that you asked for a general act ? — Yes. 98. Do you still want it ? — No, not now. 99. Then, have you changed your opinion with regard to a general scab act ? — Yes, because I have had so much trouble with the present one. I have tried my best with the sheep. 100. Do you object to the act because stock is allowed to come through from unpro- claimed areas ? — Yes. If we are to be properly protected, we should have a general act. If we get protection on the border of the proclaimed area, and it does not help us, then I don't see that a general .scab act will help us either. Therefore I want to find out whether, if you protect the proclaimed area on the boundary, it improves the position of affairs before I would give my opinion in favour of a general scab act. This trial should be made first. 101. I understand j'ou are not now in favour of a general act, but woidd first like to tr}-, by protecting the proclaimed area, whether a general act would, be likely to succeed or not '? — Yes. 102. If your sheep are once thoroughly clean, do you think they will remain clean if they are put on clean ground, and are not brought into contact with scabby sheep, and that it would then be unnecessary to dip them for four or five years ? — I have had my sheep clean for two or three j-ears, and I cannot say how they get the scab. Sheei) are constantly trekking through my place, and I frequently detect scab on them. 10.3. How many times do you generally dip in a year? — 'V\Tien I am shearing my sheep, and find one with scab, I dress him, and then I dip him three times at intervals. Before dipping, and after shearing, I hand-dress him. 104. If you dipped your sheep, and got them thoroughly clean and separate from any infected sheep, on clean veldt, do you think they would remain clean? — Just as long as they remain clean in Australia. 105. Suppose all the insects on your sheep and farm are killed, and the sheep never come into contact with others on which such insects exist, do you not think your sheep will then remain clean for many years to come without dipping ? — I think not, because I have heard that flies coming from places where scab exists settle on clean sheep and spread the scab in that way. I am bound to believe it, because I have seen that they get infected again without mixing with others. 106. Suppose scab is stamped out in the whole country, do you think it will break out again ? — No, because the insects will be aU dead, and there will be none left to carrj' the infection. I understand the insect sometimes becomes a fly, and so goes from one district to another. 107. But the veterinary surgeon says the insect never turns into a fly, like the phylloxera. Do you then think that these scab insects can be carried about by our common flies ? — Yes, because with a magnifying glass I have seen smaU lice of some kind on flies and other things, and I think they can be carried in that way. 108. Do you think the scab will go and settle on a fly ? Every living thing has its own parasite Do you think the insect which is a parasite of sheep will go to a fly ? No ; I think it gets on by accident, and is carried in that way 109. Do 3-ou think this contagion coidd be carried by scabby sheep rubbing against a tree or stone wall ? — I think it might be, but I don't know positively myself. 110. Chairman.'\ Do you think it would be a good plan to have a simultaneous dipping in certain areas ? — Yes, I am in favour of that. "We had a meeting of farmers here, and we 8 found tliat some slioared at tlio lieginning of summer and others at the end, and we con- sider that if those who shear at the beginning of summer dipped simultaneously, and those who dipped towards autumn, it woiild answer the purpose. 111. Don't you think it would be very much bettor, in order to try and stamp out the scab, if the farmers in one area would agree to shear at one time of the year, and dip alto- gether ? — If it could be done I think it would be a very good thing, but I doubt whether it could be carried out, because I think there are many farmers whose means would not allow them to leave the wool on for twelve months, as they require the money to carry on with. 112. Mr. Botha.~\ Do you think if live or six districts could get enough farmers to shear their sheep at one particular time that it would answer the purpose ? — There would be a difficulty about that. 113. Mr. Francis.^ If you were certain that by using a great deal of energy, and taking a great deal of trouble for a couple of years we could get rid of the scab entirely, would you be willing to have an Act for the purpose ? — Yes, if I were certain it would stamp it out I should be very glad. 114. Dr. Smartt.^ If you were certain that by compulsory dipping you would eradicate the scab, would you not, as a farmer, sooner lose 15 to 20 per cent, on the value of your wool, irrespective of the time of shearing, and be compelled to dip twice two years running ? — Yes, if I were certain that the sheep would never get scab again. It costs me a good deal more now to dip than it would to do that. If all the sheep in the country were once entirely cleaned of scab, my belief is that they would always remain free from it. If the disease could be thoroughly stamped out once, and we were protected from infection from outside, I do not think it would ever break out again. 115. Chairman.^ Have you anything else to say on the subject? — No. Mr. Hmry Wainwright examined. 116. You have been farming at Turvey's Post in this division for some years? — Yes, for 17 or 18 years. 117. And have been farming all your Hfe ? — Yes. 118. Do you wish to give some evidence before this Commission? — I wish to call attention to a letter I received from the Tarka inspector, Mr. L. H. Walker, dated Tarka- stad, 14th September, 1890, refusing to grant me a permit to removal sheep into that area until I could produce the certificate of two land-owners in my field-coruotcy that my sheep were free of scab. This letter was the occasion of my sending a communication to the Tarka Serald, which was published in the issue for the 4th November, 1890, calling attention to certain defects in the scab act, esjiecially with reference to the difficulties in the way of moving sheep, and quoting my own case where, on the occasion just referred to, I was obliged to shear and dip 1,500 sheep, 1,000 of which had young lambs by their side, and were in a weak and impoverished state, causing me a loss of 220 sheep. [Letter read.] 119. From the general tenour of your letter it would appear that you are in favour of a general scab act ? — I am in favour of a general scab act ; but what I have always been in favour of is a compulsory dipping act. We will erase the word " Scab Act." 120. Then you believe that if we had a general compulsory dipping act, wo should stamp out the scab ? — Tliat would remain to be proved. 121. What do you think yourself? — I think, as your experience has no doubt taught you, that we should have some difficulty. 122. Can you suggest any mode by which the scab act could be more efficiently administered than it is now ? — It would make it more acceptable to the farmers, and would answer the purposes of the Colony much better if you were to erase the word " Scab Act " altogether and substitute " Compulsory Dipping Act." Farmers would be content to have a dipping act which could not prohibit them from moving their sheep in times ol drought, it being sufficient to dip the sheep to enable them to be moved. But they do not like the system we have in the Queen's Town district now. 123. If there were a compulsory dipping act, you think you should be allowed to remove your sheep with scab or without ? — I mean we may minimise scab very much, and yet be able to move the sheep about. 124. You think a farmer who had his sheep thoroughly clean would not object to a flock passing over his farm that had had scab, although they had been dipped ? — There would be no necessity for scab if there were a compulsory dipping act. There would hardly be any scab. 125. Would it be stamped out? — No, but it would be minimised. 126. Don't you think your sheep pick up scab from infected sheep, or in some other way that you can hardly account for ? — There is no doubt scab is very infectious, but there are times when it is not, and I can prove it. I moved over 1,800 sheep to the Karoo in May ; they were thoroughly dipped in Queen's Town, and my Karoo farm is live miles beyond the area, unfenced, and surrounded with scab. On this farm I have some water which runs across my veldt and into my neighbour's, and there my sheep which have been well dipped and are free of scab came into contact with his which are scabby. Including lambs, I brought out of that farm 2,500 sheep, out of wliich I had to dress two the day before leaving, and when the inspector looked at the sheep he could not find any scab among them. 127. Did they actually come into contact with the other sheep?— They must have come int J contact with the scabby sheep. Mine had just been shorn and thoroughly dipped and 9 were qiute clean, and thoy kept free of scab, more or less. Now and then I had to dress one, but not sufficient to report, but even if I liad wanted to report there was no one to report to ; but when I was ready to move I had a thorough inspection, and reported to the inspector. 128. Under the act he could not give you a permit ? — If the act stojis 2,500 sheep for the sake of two, I object to the act in its present shape. 129. What alteration would you have ? — Compulsory dipping. 130. Nothing else } — What else could you have ? 131. Do you think the farmers of this country woidd agree to a compulsory dipping act ? — I do not think tliey are entirely averse to the scab act, but they say they would not mind a compulsory dipping act which would allow them to move their stock, and which would not prohiT)it them from removing stock like the scab act does, so that the stock sometimes die for want of water. 133. People in the proclaimed area ? — Yes, even in the Queen's Town district to-day ; and I think many who are here who are opposed to the scab act as it exists at present would be in favour of a compulsory dipping act. 133. The only alteration you would suggest is a compulsory dipping act, by which farmers would be compelled to dip at a certain time ? — Simultaneous compulsory dipping might be inconvenient. I would let each man shear his sheep and dip when it is convenient. 134. Then how will it be simultaneous ? — It will be compulsory, but not simiiltaneous. 135. But don't you think if you could have a simidtaneous dipping at this time of the year throughout this area you would stamp out a great deal of the scab ? — What would be the use of our stamping it out when others did not ? 136. But let us deal with the area. If you were to have a simultaneous dipping, would you not be able to stamp out the scab ? — For a time, but the question is whether it would remain so. 137. You think we could stamp it out? — I don't know if we could do it on every farm. 138. If every farmer tliroughout this area dipped his sheep efficiently and properly twice, as you say you do youra, in an acknowledged dip, do you think you would be able to stamp it out ? — I think it would depend on the condition of the sheep. My experience has taught me that if sheep are in good condition it does not take much dipping to cure them, but when they are impoverished the scab progresses. 139. You don't believe it comes spontaneously? — I could not say, but the veterinary surgeons say no. 140. You believe it is an insect ? — There is no doubt about that. 141. And every insect must have progenitors ? — Yes. 142. Then it cannot be spontaneous ? — Every insect must have something to live on, and in every country where there are merino sheep, there is scab. I doubt very much whether you could stamp it out altogether. If the extrai^ts I have read from newspapers are to be believed, there is still scab in Australia ; but if they are not, and I am to believe Mr. HeUier's report, and the report of the stock inspector from Australia, then I would say they have no scab there. They have scab in England, and also in New Zealand. But if my brother and I could produce a clean flock of over 4,000 sheep the tirst time the inspector came round, bj' dipping, as we did, twice on two occasions in the year, why should not all the farmers minimise scab in the same way imder a compulsory dipping act ? 143. What I want to know is, do you think it would be advisable to make a law compelling the people to dip at those times ?— I shoidd bo very sorry to see a man bound to dip within a certain time, because his sheep may be lambing, or may have long wool, and I would not dip in winter with long wool. 144. If the farmers were certain thej- could stamp out the scab by simultaneous dipping, would they not do it ? — If you could give me positive proof, to-day, that by dipjiing the sheep for two j'ears simultaneously throughout the Colony you would got rid of the scab, then I would agree ; but you woidd not get rid of it, you would minimise it, but it would come again. I should like to see the Government buy a farm, enclose it with a wire fence, put another fence 500 yards from the outside one, burn every particle of grass between the two fences, and then buy a flock of sheop, dip them thoroughly, put them into the inside camp, and take no more notice of them, and see how long they will remain free of scab. 145. Do you think they would remain free of scab? — My experience has taught me thoy woidd not. 146. Mr. De Wet believes flies carry the scab. Where do you think the contagion comes from ? — I don't agree with all Mr. L)e Wet says. 147. That is his idea, but of course other men have their own ideas as to the way in which scab is spread. — I have even heard it said that the siab blew up from the Vlekp'oort district with locks of wool, by the wind, but I think tliat is rather far-fetched. 148. Mr. Francix.^ From what you have said, I presume your principal objection to the present act is the difficulty in moving stocky — Yes, aud luivingtodip in season and out of season, having to apply to thei^inspec^tor if you want to sell a few sheep, or as soon as you want to move them, it does not matter where io. Sometimes j-ou send and he is not there, and perhaps you have to wait a fortnight, or send to the nearest field-coruet. I have several times been detained by Inspectors. 149. Would you give the Commission any suggestions how to overcome the diflicidtics presented by the existing act ?— No, I don't see how, because I am dead against this act. It has done me no good whatever, and I want it repLi jd by ,ompidsory dipping. 150. How would you regiUate the tiuie of dipping ? — As I say. it would be awkward to 10 arrange that, because you have to guard against loss from unseasonable dipping, long wool being damaged, tlio sheep being in poor condition, or lambing ; therefore, it would be a difficult matter to appoint any particular month, but it would be better to force each man to dip at his leisure, or at his earliest convenience after lambing or shearing. 151. Under what inspection would this dipping take place ? What would you call a legal dipping under the act 1 — A man would have to buy his dip at some store, and prove to the inspector that he had dipped his sheep thoroughly, and with a proper dip, failing which, he should be fined £25. 152. Do you think such an act would eradicate scab? It would minimise it, but eradicate is another word. 153. Mr. Botha.'] You were a sheep farmer in the Queen's Town district before the scab act was proclaimed here } — Yes. 154. Was there more scab in this district before or after the act was put in force? — When I was, comparatively speaking, a young man, I never dipped at all, but only hand dressed, and I had a good deal of scab. When I got older and had more experience, I and my brother went in for dipping ; we found we minimised scab to such an extent that after- wards there were some seasons when we had no scab at all, and by carrying on the same process, our sheep were in better condition as regards scab than they have been since the act was proclaimed. But during the last three years our sheep have been diseased with wire-worm. 155. But has the scab act reduced .scab in the Queen's Town district, or not? — I firmly believe it has reduced it ; it is bound to, because although most of the men in this district were gradually getting into the way of dipping, I know an odd individual here and there who would not dip at all ; but when the act was brought to bear upon them they were obliged to, and the sheep are therefore freer from scab now than they were. On the other hand it may have done harm by forcing people to dip when the sheep were in au unhealthy and poor condition. 156. Br. Smartt.'] You have made some statements in your evidence which might cause people to form erroneous impressions with regard to Austrsilia, and you referred to certain extracts from Australian newspapers with regard to scab there. As you are no doubt aware Australia is a very largo country. In Now South Wales there are 60 millions of sheep, and in Victoria about 30 to 40 millions. Have you soon any extracts from any newspaper stating that within the last four or five years scab existed in New South Wales or Victoria, or are you not referring to a few isolated cases of scab in the far western districts ? — I don't take any Australian papers ; the extracts are taken from Colonial papers ; but if Mr. Van der Byl is to be bolii^ved, ho said ho went to Australia, and at one place he found scab had broken out, and if I remember rightly Govermnent destroyed the sheep, and the hurdles they were penned in with, and compensated the owners with upwards of £20,000. 157. But were not those sheep imported into Australia, and did not the Australian sheop farmers rise in a body and demand that the Government should quarantine and destroy them, burn the hurdles and also the clothes of the people who wore in charge of the sheep, and compensate the owners to the full extent ? — No, that is not the case. The sheep were introduced and contracted scab while in quarantine, and were authorized to be destroyed by the inspector. They were destroyed and the owner claimed £25,000, and I think the Governmout jiaid £15,000 less £2,500 that had been paid before. 158. But is there any other authenticated case of scab existing in Victoria or New South Wales during the last four or five years? — I have no proofs at present. I am only speaking of what I have read. 159. That there is scab in Tasmania everybody acknowledges, but are you aware of any scab in Australia except in the western states ? — I have not been to Australia, and can only take these extracts as my guide. If they are to be believed, then there is scab in Australia ; if not, then I must take the inspector's reports as correct. 160. Then do you believe that, if scab wore thoroughly eradicated from all the farms and flocks in South Africa, and we were protected from contagion, it woidd break out de novo ? — Yes, I believe it would, and I maintain scab is found in aU countries amongst merino sheop, and that to a certain extent it must be an insect that breeds on the sheep, or else you would not find it there. 161. Chairman.'] If you destroy the insect, where does it come from afterwards? — I don't know, but I have noticed that I can plant a lot of cabbage plants in my garden; they seem to be all right, but in a short time they are covered with lice. Whore do they come fi-om ? 162. But I understand you to say that the scab is always bred by a merino sheep. The same scab insect will not breed in a goat?— No. 163. You must have sheoji to breed scab ? — Yes. 164. If then you stamped the scab out on the sheep, where does it come from again ? — Where does it first come from ? In the Bible you read that they put it down in man to age, but I don't believe everything. ^ 165. Mr. du Toil.] Do you believe that such an act as you propose would be accepted throiighout the Colony ? — I believe if influential men were to call meetings in certain districts, and represent the matter properlj', that a majority would agree to it. I am speak- ing from experience, not at random. I have a farm in the Cradock district, and there is no doubt that a majority of the Dutch there are opposed to the scab act, but most of them have said they would agree to a compulsory dipping act, but want to be fi-ee to move stock in times of cbought. It 1C6. Do you believe, from your experience, tiiat such a meaaure would result in keeping the scab down aufBciently ? — No, I wmld not go as far as that, because in my opiniou, when you talk of getting rid of it entirely you go as far as they aay they have gone in Australia, but I believe you would minimise it considerably. 167. You believe it would minimise scab to such an extent that there would be no complaint ? — It would depend on who you have got to deal with. We have a bad name now, and the chances are that even if we did minimise scab there would still be complaints about South African wool. 168. But would there be any complaint about our wool being lower in value ? — So far as regards scab, I fail to see where the necessity would come in to complain if we dipped after shearing, and used the proper dipping stuff, and I think I have had a little experience in dipping. 169. Br. Smartt.'] You seem strongly in favour of compulsory dipping? — Yes, I always have been. 170. You believe scab is contagious ? — Certainly, and more so sometimes than at others. 171. What provision would }-ou make for the fairner who had all his sheep perfectly free from scab, so that there was absolutely no trace of it, in order to prevent him being infected by a man living in a compulsory dipping area who had free right to trek over his property ? — I would not make any provision for him, because we live in a country where we are obliged to move our sheep at different times, and if one man has the misfortune to have scabby sheep I don't see why he should be prohibited from going over the farm so long as you know he has tried to cleanse his sheep. But if you knew he was a lazy man, and had taken no measures to cleanse his sheep, then I would put the law on to him. 172. CJiainnan.^ When you first commenced farming you dressed, and did not find it successful ? — Yes. 178. Do you think now if scab broke out amongst your sheep that you could cure or minimi'io it to any extent by hand dressing ? — I would not do it, but I know a man who does, and it is a mystery to me how he does it. 174. Mr. Frani'is.l In regard to a compulsory dipping act, don't you think it would be very hard on a man who has had clean sheep for years to be put on an eqiiality with a man who has been continually having scabby sheep ? — If that man was so fortunate as to have had such clean sheep, there would be ao necessity for him to dip. 175. Then where is the compulsory dipping act ? — There are always exceptional cases. 176. 3/r. Uotha.^ Would you apply the compulsory dipping act to scabby sheep and clean ? — To scabby sheep. 177. Br. Smartt.'] In case there was a large concensus of opinion in favour of trj-ing a compulsory scab act, would you be opposed to such a trial ? — What would you call a compulsory scab act ? 178. One that applied to the whole Colony, but in wliich facilities were given for the removal of clean sheep ? — There is no doubt that as we are now situated a compulsory scab act would answer better than the permissive act has done, but even a compulsory scab act may reciuire amending, and very mucli too. I am not against a man trying to cleanse his sheep, and I think there ought not to be any scabby sheep. Mr. Johannes Hendrik de Lange examined. 179. Chairman.'\ You are a sheep farmer in the Queen's Town district ? — Yes, I have been farming here all my life. 180. You are aware of the object of this Commission? — Yes. 181. And you have heard the evidence given by the gentlemen who were here this morning ? — V es. 182. Do you agree with them on all points, or are there some points you would like specially to 7-efer to ? — I agree to some extent with Mr. Wainwright. 183. On what points do you specially agree with him? — When he spoke against the present scab act. 184. Wliat would you propose to substitute instead of it ? — I have no idea what to put instead of it. 185. What are your chief objections to the present scab act? — The act does not answer its object, and therefore I am opposed to it. The object of the act is to eradicate scab, but scab cannot be eradicate by the present act. 186. Can you suggest any alterations or amendments of the act to make it more effectual or workable ? — No, I don't know how it can be amended to work well. 187. Do you think scab can be eradicated from sheep ? — I think so, but it cannot be stamped out of the country. 188. But would not the natural effect of eradicating scab from sheep be to eradicate it from the country ?— If we knew the origin of the disease we might pos-sibh' eradicate it. 189. Do you believe scab to be an insect ? — I believe there is an insect on the sheep, biit I cannot say whether the insect produce the disease or the disease the insect. 190. But the scab itself is an insect ?— So I believe, but I don't kuow which comes first. I know that each kind of animal has its own parasite, cattle, sheep, horses and so on, but I also know that such animals are for years in succession tree from them^ and I think it is the same with sheep. Sheep also are free from scab for a considerable time, and then all at once it appears again. [6. ai '93.] q [G. 1.— '9i.] 12 191. Do I understand you to say the seal) disappears from sheep without dipping or hand-dressing ? — I do not tliink it gets cureil by itself, but after they have been cleaned they sometimes remain clean for two years. 192. If the country, or an area, is once cleared from the scab, you don't think it would remain so ?— No. 193. Do you think it would come again? — I think it would certainly come again. Although scab may disappear from tliis area for a time, I believe it will come again spontaneously. 194. 3fr. Francis.~\ — You say you object to the present act because it was an act made to eradicate scab, and it has failed in doing so. Would you support an act which you would consider would eradicate scab, a more stringent act '? — If it were possible to pass an act which would eradicate scab, I should be in favour of it, but I don't think it is possible. 195. If you were convinced that scab had been eradicated from a country where there were ten times as many sheep as there are in Sonth Africa, woidd you then believe it coidd be eradicated from South Africa ? — If I were convinced it would do so, I would agree to it, but I don't know how I could be convinced of it. 196. You say even if your shoep are cleared of scab, it wiU come out again. How do you account for that '? Where does it come from ? — If I know that, I should be in favour of an act to prevent its recurrence, but as I don't know, I cannot say that the act would help us. 197. Are there any public roads passing through your farm ? — For a distance of about 500 yards through a corner of my farm. 198. Are you much troubled with sheep passing along that road, mixing with your own ? — No. 199. Mr. Botha-I — Has the present law a good or bad effect in Queen's Town ? — fhave not been through the whole district, so cannot speak for it, but in my own case it did not help me. 200. Has the scab become less, or has it increased since the law was put into force ? — So far as I know only one place is clean out of ten or twelve fanus in my neighbourhood. 201. Canyon suggest anything to remedj' this state of things? — I have nothing to suggest to improve the act, but there are some grievances in the working of the act I would liked to have altered. 202. Wliat grievances?— About the appointment and action of the inspectors. In the first place, the areas are too extensive to be properly supei-vised by one inspector. I won't say I am opposed to the appointments of inspectors wliich have been made, but I think there are too few of them. Then the inspectors ought to be chosen by the farmers themselves, and the areas should be smaller, say, to consist of a single ward, and an inspector in each field-cornetcy. 203. How would it answer if every policeman were to be an inspector ? — I don't think it would work. I don't think the policemen would be suitable persons to administer the act. 204. Br. Smartt.'l You say you would not bo opposed to a general scab act if you could be convinced that scab could be eradicated ? — No. 205. What would you call convincing evidence ? If you get a report from a body of men who have nothing whatever to do with sheep-farming, whoso word is above suspicion, from the leading wool-brokers in London and the leading manufacturers in England, and they were prepared to declare ujion their honour, liaving no object whatever to serve in doing so, that at an ordinary wool sale in London they passed from 240,000 to 400,000 bales of wool through their hands, and that not one of those bales of wool for the last six or eight years had a trace of scab, whereas nine-tenths of the wool from this colony does ; and, if that opinion were backed mp by sheep farmers like yourself, whose interests were the same as yours, and if they also stated to you that they had seen a country in which there was no scab, where it had been eradicated by a stringent act, would you believe that to be conclusive evidence ?. — I would not say in the face of such evidence that it was not true, but I should say it was a very fortunate land. 206. If you could get jiroofs of this, would you be in favour of giving such an act a trial here ? — If the act would work as well in our country as it has done is Australia, I should be in favour of it. 207. What protection would you proj)ose to give to men, living outside the area, whose sheep were clean ? Say, a man has a clean flock of sheep outside the area, on which he had spent a good deal of money, what protection in justice would you give to that man against a neighbour with scabby sheep trekking over his farm ? — If I were convinced that infection was spread only in that way, I would vote for some protection of that kind ; but I hold the opinion that that is not the only way in which scab is spread. 208. In what other way do you consider sheep become infected, besides catching it from other flocks ? — I have heard experts say that the wind carries the insect. 209. You seem inclined to hold the idea that scab can break out of its own accord ? — My idea is that if sheep are not c[uite healthy they get scab much more easilj' than sheep in good condition and healthy ; but I cannot say how it happens. 210. But does not your own experience teach you that any animal in a low condition is much more subject to disease, especially a disease caused by irritation, than it would otherwise be ? — Yes. 13 211. Don't j'oii think that will account for sheep in low condition being much more aflfected with scab than sheep in good condition '? — No, I don't think that is exclusively the case either. 212. Have yon sometimes seen deau slieep mixed with scabby sheep without becoming infected ? — I have known them to be mixed for three months before they became infected. 21.3. "WTiat was the length of wool of the clean sheep? — From seven to eight months. 214. Are you certain it was the case that they got mixed with scabbj' sheep, and remained clean for three months ? — Yes, quite certain ; and there w as a gentleman in this room a little while ago who will bear me oiit. 215. Were they only mixed for a moment by accident, or did they remain some time ? — They were mixed for several days, and on several occasions. 216. Then j^ou don't think the disease is as contagious as it is generally supposed to be ? — No, it is not so contagious. 217. Are you aware that infected shyep become healthy after dijjping ? — I have seen single sheep become healthy after dipping, but not a whole flock. 218. Have you had ewes lambing with scab, but get well while suckling their lambs ? — Yes, after the lambs have beeu sucking some time I have seen ewes get weU without dipping. 219. How do }-ou' think that happens ? — I think they get impoverished by rearing their lambs, and that ma}- be the reason why they lose the scab ; but it is difficult to answer such a question. 220. But are you sure that this is a fact ? — I am sm-e a few of them get free of scab in that wa\-, but the troop does not. 221. Did you hear Mr. Wainwright's evidence? — Yes. 222. Do vou think the Colon\- would gain by abolishing the scab act and replacing it by a compulsory dipping act ? — Yes, I don't think that it will thoroughly eradicate the «'ab, but I am convinced it would do a great deal towards it, and it would be a good tiling if everybody were compelled to dip. 22;?. Do you tliink it would do more good than the present scab act ? — Yes, I believe it would be very much better. 224. Don't you think it would be difficult to make such an act work weU ? — I believe it would. 225. What would be the difficulty? — Different farmers shear at different times. 226. Could you not compel every farmer to dip at a certain time? — Yes, but I think it would answer very well if it were loft to each farmer to choose his own time to dip. 227. Do you think it would answer if the act were made in such a way as to compel a man to dip within fourteen days after shearing, irrespective of the time of 3-ear ? — If such an act were in force we should have much less scab than we have at present. 228. Don't you think it would be better to have a simultaneous dipping in a certain area ? — I think that would be difficult, because some places are so much colder than others. 229. But you agree to compelling farmers to dip twice within fourteen days after shearing ? — Yes. 230. And you think such a compulsory dipping act would be acceptable to the jieople of the whole Colony ? — I don't think it would be any hardship to compel a man to dip in that way after shearing. 231. Will you teU us where the sheep were dipped which had seven months' wool and were mixed with scabby shci^p for three months ^vithout becoming infected, because if they had just been dipped it was a very natural consequence ? — -Many were dipjied in the begin- ning of June, and in July and August thej- were mixed with scabliy sheep. 232. Does not that prove to you conclusively that they did not become infected earlier because there was sufficient dip in their wool to kill the j)arasiteB? — It may be so, but it is not my opinion. 233. Is it not the opinion of many practical farmers that with a dip containing sidphur especially, sheep after dipping can run four months with the worst infected tlcjcks without contracting the disease ? — As far as my experience goes I am not aware of that. 23-1. But do you think that would account for these sheep yo.i spoke of not being in- fected .-■ — If those people speak from experience in that way I woiJd not dispute it. 235. But don't you think that was the reason why these sheep did not become in- fected ? — That is not my opinion so far. 236. Mr. (he Toit.^y What were they dipped in ? — A patent dip. 237. Dr. Smartt.'] Do you consider it would be adv-isable for the Government to have public dipping tanks on all tie public thoroughfares in the Colony in the event of a com- pulsory dipping act being passed ? — I don't think such tanks would do much good, but I think there are farmers who woidd not alL iw scabby sheep to come on their propertj", and it woidd be a good thing for small lots of sheep that pick up scab on the road. 238. But how woidd you manage with the speculator who comes along with two or three thousand sheep ? You would not allow him to come on your place witli scabby sheep ? — It is for these reasons I object to any scab act at all. I think the public tanks would be a good thing if a man could get the use of them and a dip by paying. 239. Chairman.'] Is there anything you would like to suggest, either to improve the scab act. or with regard to inspectors, or anything else ? — No, I have nothing more to say. 240. Have vou any objection to say how many sheep you have? — From about 1,000 to 1,200. C2 14 Mr. Carl David Wenizel examined. 241. Chuirtnan.'] Yon are farming in this clistrict ajid have V)oen I think all your life ? — Yes, with slioep. I have 1)et\voen l,10(i and 1,200 shnep at pre.sent. 242. You have heard the evidence given this morning? — Yes. 243. And jou know the object of the Commission, to enquire into the working of the Bcab act, and anything in connection with it ? — Yes. 244. You have been living here all your life, and for the last eight or ten years have been under the sca1> act ? — Yes. 245. Have you been able to keep your sheep clean during that time, or not? — I found I could keep theiu clean, and they are ileaii to-day. 246. Are there any roads or thoroughfares running througli you farms? — There are two roads across tlie place. 247. Is there much traffic on thorn with sl-.oep ? — Yes. 248. Where do they principally come from? — Mostly natives passing backwards and forwards. 249. Then you think it is possible by careful dipping to keep j'our sheep free of scab } — Yes, I do. 250. During the last few years have j'ou ever had cases of scab amongst your Bheep from mi.xing with others ? — Yes. 251. Are these scabby sheep your neighbour'.s or trek sheep, or both? — No, it has always been by mixing with my neighbour's sheep ; I have never had trouble with trek sheep. 252. And I .suppose as a matter of fact the roads through your farm are very short ? — They are not long. 253. And that natives never sleep on your farm ? — They do sometimes, but I find the trekkers are mostly clean. 254. Then as you can now keep yoxix sheep clean, do you suggest any alterations in the act ? — Yes, in the first place the act presses on the man who does his best, and does not touch the man who does not do his duty. That is why I object to the act. 255. How does it press upon the man who does his duty ? — Suppose a man's sheep are clean, but he finds perhaps one or two scabby ones among thera and does not report it at once, although he may not have seen his flock for some da3's, he is run in ; whereas the other man who does not do his duty gets a licence for three months, and when that expires he gets another three months, and so on from eighteen months to two years, and I say in that respect the act does not work well. 256. Do you suggest that the time allowed for a man to clean his sheep be shortened? —Yes. 237. AVTiat time would j-^ou give for the first licence ? — My idea is if a man has scab in bis sheep, he should pay for his licence every month as long as he likes to farm with scabby sheep. 258. In case of neglect, would j'ou have the amount of the licence fixed or increasing ? — It must be doubled every month, and if a man went on like that he would soon find out it was better to clean his sheep than to farm with scab. 259. Do you think the farmers who are now endeavouring to clean their sheep, and keep them clean, would object to an alteration of the act in that direction ? — I daresay they would agree to it. 260. Then you tliink if the act were better administered, we hhould soon have a differ- ent state of things in this area ? — Yes, I think the act would be good then, but there is a great deal of alteration needed in it, as it stands now. That is not the only point. A man who does his duty should not be fined at once if scab broke out amongst his sheep ; he should be allowed to take out a licence for a month, like the other man. 261. But under the act he is allowed to do so provided he reports? — If one or two break out, he should be allowed to dress them without reporting, but if he had to dress five or six, he should then have to report ; failing which he should bo fined per sheep, not by the flock, but so much for every scabby sheej) ; and I think you will find a great many people who will agree with that. The great grievance we have against this act is when one or two scaViliy sheep are found amongst a flock, say a half-dozen, a man is fined for the whole flock, \\nien scab is found amongst the flock, however few, the whcjle flock is treated as infected, and that is why many people object to it, and say he should be fined for just as man}' sheep as are infected, and no more. Another point is that the areas for the inspectors should be smaller ; there should be an inspector in each field-cornetcy, with less pay than the inspectors receive now, and more liberty should be given to people who wish to trek with sheep, especially in droughts, or whenever they want to trek. These are ail the points I object to. 262. You say your sheeii are free of scab ? — Y''es. 263. Don't you think you should have some protection from scabby sheep passing over your farm if ycurs have been free of scab for some time ? — Scabby sheep passing along the main road would not trouble me at all 264. You think they could pa.ss over your farm without infecting your flock ? — Yes, unless thej' are allowed to sleep on the place, and my sheep were to lie on the same place. Then, of course, they woidd become infected. 205. lint suppose they Ciime into contact with your sheep in passing over your farm, ^d accidents of that kind often happen ? — Then thejf would do harm. 15 266. And suppose they came to your farm, and permission was asked for them to sleep there ? — I would give them a place to sleep. 267. But you say by sleeping there they would infect the place? — I would give them a place where my .sheep would not sleep. 268. Would you not run a great deal of risk ? — I don't think it would do much harm. 269. Then you don't think scab is as infectious as people make ou' 'r* — No, as far as my experience goes, st(jck trekking over tlie farm does not do much harm, unless they have really a very great deal of scab, and perhaps one or two lie on the place. Then they would do harm, but that is seldom the case. 270. In order to improve the administration of the act, you suggest that the number of inspectors should be increased, and one appointed to each field-cornetcy ? — Yes. 271 . Do you think you could get inspectors at a small salary for each field-cornetcy ? — I think tliey could be paid like field-cornets are, so much per day when employed, and if he did no work, he would get no pay, like field-cornets. 272. Under that system do you think the farmer .shoidd give notice to the field-comet if scab broke out y — He should be compelled to do so. 273. And if he did not? — He must be fined. 274. Then if scab broke out on one of his sheep, and he did not give notice, he would be fined ? — Ho should have the right to dress up to five or six. 275. Don't you think it would be ver}' difficult for a scab inspector to know under those circumstances exactly when a farmer ought to have given notice ? Would it not be better to give notice directly scab breaks out ? — That is where the trouble comes in. The farmer may not find the scabby sheep before the inspector turns up, and if he had to report when scab broke out on one sheep, he would have no chance. If it comes to my notice, I ought to have the right to dress one sheep without reporting it. It might happen that the owner would not notice that sheep, but somebody else might turn up and report him, and then he would be run in, and that is where the grievance comes in against the act. 276. Suppose a single .sheep in your flock is scabby', and someone sees it and reports you, and you say you have not seen it, and it must have broken out only the day before, then you think you shoulii not be interfered with. But don't you think you ought to report it when you do find it out ? — I think it should be reported when four or five are found to be scabby. 277. Don't you increase the difficulty? — I think there would be less difficidty. 278 Yo\i think the act could be worked bett'^r through the field-cornets? — Yes. 279. Your evidence applies now to the proclaimed area ? — Yes. 280. But suppose you were living outside the area, do you think a man with a clean biU of health should nave some protection fi'om a person moving stock across your farm ? — If I were outside the area, and wanti'd protection I should try and come under the act. I don't see how protection could bo givi^n otherwise. 281. Then do you think it would be advisable in the interests of the sheep farmers of the countr}' to make this act general tlioughout the Colon}- ? — I think it would be. 282. Very much better than going on with areas and isolated cases in the way we are now ? — Yes, I think a general act would answer better. 283. Do j'ou think we should then have a fair chance of ridding the country of scab ? — I think so. 284. Mr. F/-ancis.~] Do you think the present act has done good since it has been in operation? — I don't think so, because it did not answer. 28.5. Do you think there is less scab amongst the sheep in the Queen's Town district now than there was when the act came into force ? — About the same. 286. What sort of seasons have we had lately as regards moisture? — A great deal of rain. 287. When Wd have a very rainy season does it tend to spread the scab? — I don't think so. 288. Then you think the act has been of no benefit ? — No, as far as I can see. 289. Has it been properly carried out in this district ? — Yes. 290. You say your sheep have once or twice become infected by your neighbours' sheep. Did you take any action in the matter ? — No. 291. Generally speaking, as regards your neighbourhood, when sheep have become impregnated with scab by a neighbours' sheep has any action hoen taken ? — I think so, but none that I know of personally. 292. It is not generally done ? — No, not as a rule. 29i. Would it not be a protecrion for a man outside the proclaimed area if that section of the act were enforced by which he coidd summons a neighbour for damages up to £20 if that neighbour's sheep infected his with scab y — No, I don't think it would help him. 294. Mr. Botha.] You have always managed to keep your sheep fairly clean, and whenever you found it necessary to dip them, it had the desired I'fiect? — Yes, I have always been able to clean them bj- dipping tht>ui. 295. So the dips usi'd by you are eifectual ? — Yes, for the time being. 296. To what d^i you attributo it that so many people say that dipping wiU not clean their sheep? — That is what I can't make out. It cleans mine. 297. Is it not that some people do not propi^rly understand how to mak^^ and apply the dipV — That may bi' ; I think a gn^at deal depends upon how they work it. 298. Do you kuow whether the inspectors ali'ord the owners of sheep all necessary information about the use of dips ? — I am not aware. 16 299. Don't you think it would be a good provision that scab inspectors should give the necos'ary instructions to people who wish to loam from them liow to get rid of scab ? — It might do good to thos(! who wish to learn, but every farmer knows how to cure scab if ho only wants to. 300. Are you acquainted with the .surrounding districts of Albert, Aliwal North and Cradock, where there is no scab act? — I have traveUod througJi them. 301. Do you tliink the flocks in the Queen's Town district are cleaner than in those, or are they the same 'i — I tliink thej' are more or less the same. 1 may mention that I hav*! travelled tlir(5Ugh a portion of the Free State, where there is a scab act in operation, and found the .sheep tlier(^ more or loss clean, and outside I found the sheep \Fith scab. 302. Some farmers are in favour of compulsory dipping, but there app(!ar8 to. be a difficulty in regard to shearing at the same time in every district, in consetjuenee of the difference of climat(\ Then there would b(^ a dilliculty in getting suificient hands to shear all the sheep at the same time; but don't you think that miglit l)e overcome, by providing that all flocks infected with .scab shall be dipped at lea.st twice every year if tliey are sheared twice, but only once if they are sheared oucc^, when the wool is short, each dipping to be continued until the sheep is clean 'i — I don't think that would work. 303. I)r. Smarti.^ You spoke about men being compelled to give notice if scab broke out in their flocks to the nearest field-cornet or inspector. What then would you propose for the man that failed to give notice l* — I would say let him pay a shilling for every infected sheep. » 304. You said you wore not troubled with sheep trekking over yoiu- farm. I presume'' the farms in the Qui'en's Town district are not of very large extent ? — Yes. 305. But don't you think it would be very dangerous to a man's sheep, if he farmed 20,000 or 30,000 morgen, if infected sheep trekked across his farm and close to his home- stead, especially if they had to sleep on his property, it being two or three days across it ? — I said if they had to sleep on the farm, the owner could show a place where his own sheep would not sleep. 306. You are speaking particularly of grass veldt? — Yes. 307. But don't you think there iiroidd be a great danger of infection if very scabby sheep were passing through a bush country ? — I have no experience of bush country, but in that case I dare say they would infect the buslies. It is seldom you find scabby sheep trekking ahing the road in sucli a scabby state as that. 308. With regard to the scab being as prevalent in the Quei'n's Town area under tlie act as it is in other districts which are not under the act, what is yeur opinion? — I think it is so, and it is because the act does not answer. 309. Don't you think the act is very efficiently aeon dipped twice? — No. 317. If there were no public dipping-stations upon the uiain roads, what guarantee would you have that those sheep had been twice dipped, and dipped properly ? — Theysliould have a permit from a field-cornet or magistrate. ' 318. Of what use would the permit be ? The field-cornet would give it on hearsay ? — Then he would not bo tit for the position. 319. You would have a penuit given by the field-cornet, who mu.st absolutely state he has seen the sheep properly dipped twice ? — [No answer.] 320. Do you consider that in a proclaimed area, if your sheep are perfectlj- free from scab, you ought to be allowed to remove them on your own responsibility, and staud the consequences ? — Yes. 321. Do you think there ought to be gi'eater freedom for men mo\'ing their own sheep, ■when clean ? — Yes. 11 322. Do you consider the present act wh'u'i '.hiiges a man to get a permit from an in- spector presses unduly hairl upijii tlie man wliose floiiks are freo from scab ? — No, because he may get a permit from two land-owners, and when I have a clear bill I remove them ■without a permit. 323. Is not that contrary to law?— Yes, but I do it in the area. 324. But how about the man outside the area ? — Of course you get a permit then, and I don't see how it would press very hard. 325. You don't think it presses unduly hard upon the community ? — No, but there are some strong feelings against it. 326. Do you think it would greatly modify the feeling against the act if farmers were allowed to move sheep on their own permit ? — Yes. 327. And what tine woidd you suggest in case they moved unclean sheep ? — One shilling for every infecti'd sheep. 328. Mr. du Toit.~\ You said you don't think much danger is to be apprehended from people trekking over your farm with iufected sheep, unless they sleep there. Then you don't think scab is so infectious as it is sometimes said to be ? — My experience is that sheep got infected with scab when they get mixed, or sleep on the same place. 329. But not if they go along the road, and perhaps touch a bush here and there, and rub against it ? — Not unless they are very bad. 330. Do you think the infection would be carried by flies or the wind from one farm to another ? — No. 331. With regard to the difficulties in the way of a simultaneous dipping under a com- pulsory act, don't you think it would be overcome by allowing each farmer to shear at the times he thinks most suitable, but providing for two dippings vrithin fourteen days after the shearing ? — No, I don't think so. I don't think it woidd work. I believe in dipping the sheep when they are infected. 332. Don't you think it would answer as a preventative ? — I don't think it would work, because suppose one man shears in November and dipped as you say, his neighbour perhaps does not shear until April, and by that time the sheep which were sheared in November may have been infected again. So I think the only way is to make every man dip his sheep wheu he has scab, and if he does not, make him pay for a licence. My ex- perience is that lime and sulphur can be used as a dij) with even six months' wool, and if carefully worked it will not injure it. In 1888 I dipped my sheep in lime and sulphur four times about June and July ; they were sheared in the jirevious November, and in the follow- ing November I sheared and got the same price for the wool as other farmers. 333. l^ut don't you think a compxdsory scab act would work which provided that every farmer after shearing should dip his sheep with some recognised dip twice within a month, with an interval of fourteen days, and also whenever he sees scabby sheep in his flock ?— I object to being obliged to dip after shearing, scab or no scab. I never dip unless I have scab. 334. Not if it was only for a couple of years ? Prevention is better than cure ? — I don't think so. 33.5. Chair7nan.^ You don't agree with a compulsory dipping act ? — No. 336. Jfr. Franci'g.'] I understand you to say you are quite confident you can eradicate scab from your sheep ? — Yes. 337. Thon if you can do it, do you think others can do it also if the act were properly framed '? — Yes. 338. Then you are in favour of a general compidsory act ? — Yes. 339. You believe scab could be eradicated from the Colony ? — Yes. 340. You think it would be better to have a general stringent act by which there would be a chance of eradicating scab within the next two years, than to keep on with the present act ? — Yes, but it would take more than two years. 341. But it would afford a chance of eradicating it, and it would break the back of the scab disease ? — Y'^es. Mr. John Gewge Nicholas van Gass examined. 342. Chairman.'] You are a sheep farmer living in the district of Queen's Town ? — Yes. 343. And have been for many years ? — Yes. 344. And you are still carrying on sheep farming ? — Yes, but I have not so many now. 345. Have you any objections to say the number of sheep on your farm now ? — Eight hundred. 346. You have heard tlie evidenci' given by Mr. Wontzel ? — Yes 347. Do you agree with what \w s-\id'? — Not at all 348. Will you then state what yon wish to say with regard to the working of the act ? — I agree with Mr. de L'lnge. .'!49. Ml', do Laiige lliitiks the act should be repealed and replaced by a general dipping ad V — Yes, I am opposed to a scab act altogether. .■550, Do you believe in a general dipping act? — That would work bettor, but I think it would give n groat deal of trouble. 351. Thon do you believe in allowing scab to go on unchecked? — Yes. let it go just as it will. 352. But surely j'ou must believe it would be in the interests of the farmers to do something to prevent its spreading in all directions ? — I think the scab act has done a great 18 deal of harm : the more you dip out of seaaon, tin more scab you have, and if it was only compulsory to clip .sheep in the spiiiig, it wculd work better. 353. i?ut supposing there was an outl)reak of scab amongst your sheep in February or March, what would you do ? — As a farmer I should try and clean them, as I did before the act was in force. 354. And if your neighbour will not do anything until autumn ? — I will go according to the poimd law, and have him summoned. 355. 8trange sheep from these scabby ones would undoubtedly get amongst yours. Would you simply send them to the pound and go on dressing your own without interfering ? — Just so. I have travelled through an unproclaimed area, and found the sheep cleaner there than with us. 356. Then you think if there had been no attempt to prevent scab in the Queen's Town district it would be just as clean as it is now ? — A great deal better. Then we should not be bound to dip our sheep at unsuitable times, and could dip them when we wished. 357. Could you suggest any alterations in the working of the scab act in regard to inspectors, or any other point ? — The Crovernment should undertake the dipping and cleaning of sheep, and keep them clean, and we would pay for the cost of dipping. 358. Would not the farmers here object to the inspector coming in and dipping their sheep in that way ? — No, not at the right time. 359. Then do you think the farmers don't use the dip in the proper way, either by mixing it too weak, by not keeping the sheep in long enough, or in some other way which prevents it being effectual in curing the scab ? — Mr. Wontzel, I find, can cure his sheep, but I cannot ; so I think some farmers make the dip too weak, or at any rate there is some reason why they can't cure it, which I cannot understand. 360. You can suggest nothing more than that you believe it would be a good thing if the Government would take it over and do the dipping. Should not the Government then erect public dipping tanks for the purpose of dipping the sheep ? — Yes, if the act is continued. 361. Mr. Francis.'] You don't think any larr would be strong enough to stamp out the scab ? — Not in the Cape Colony, because our farms are too small, and we are obliged to run the sheep on infoctefl ground. 362. Do you believe it is possible in other countries differently situated ? — Yes, that may be. 363. Mr. Botha.'] Have you seen sufficient of the surrounding districts to be able to say that they are not worse off there as regards scab than you are here in the proclaimed area ? — They are better off there. There is less scab there than liere. 364. Br. Smartt.] What do you think is the reason of the scab being less prevalent outside the area ? — Because they don't dip them out of season. 365. Then do you consider a previous witness was mistaken when he said that if he dipped his sheep twice running at any time of the year he cures them? — Ho is certainly mistaken ; I can teU it from my own sheep. I shear every six months, and then send the sheep some distance away, and they have remained clean a year and a half. On one occa.sion the scab broke out among them at this place, and I dipped them there; shortly afterwards I came lack, and a month later I dipped them again twice before I could get a permit for removal. I took them to the sea and sheared them, and could not get anything for the wool. 1 was obliged to throw it away, and after all I did not cure the scab, which is still there. 366. Did you dip them again after shearing them? — No; I only sheared them last week, and I intend to dip them now. 367. What did you dip them in ? — A patent dip 368. How strong did you make the dip ? — According to the directions on the tin. 369. Are you sure you dipped them in a patent dip and made the dip exactly according to the directions on the can?— Sure. 370. Are you certain to a few gallons what your tank holds ? — Yes, every drop of water. 371. How long did you leave the sheep in the dip? — A little over a minute. 372. And this had no effect on the scab ? — A little, but it did not cure it. I dipped them first once, and a month later I dipped them twice within fourteen days in order to bring them home. 373. And that did not completely eradicate the scab ? — No Mr. Philippui Rudolf de Wet examined. 374. Chairman.] You are farming in the Queen's Town district ? — Yes. 375. Have j'ou any objections to teU us how many sheep you have? — About 3,000 sheep without the goats. 376. You were fanning in this district before the act was passed ? — Yes. 377. Was there less scab the first two or three years after the act was passed than there had been before ?— No. 378. You think from the very commencement of the act the scab remained about the same ? — On my farm there has been more scab during the last two years than when the act was first promulgated. 379. So that for the first few years the act was in force scab diminished ? — J cannot say it was in consequence of the act, but on my farm it was less. 19 380. Can you account for it in any way that during the last two years there should be more scab than there was then ? — N«. 381. Did you think the farmers are as energetic now in attending to their sheep as they were then? — I think it is just the opposite. For my part, I do as much as I did before, but my sheep have gone backwards in condition, and accordingly have more scab. 382. Then do you think it is the scab which causes the sheep to be in such low condition, or is it some other disease ? — My opinion is, it is the unseasonable dipping. 383. You don't think there is any disease amongst them besides that ? — Yes, there is some disease too. 384. Don't you think it is this disease which causes them to be in low condition more than the dipping ? — I dipped my sheep in June, twice ; they were in good condition at that time, but afterwards they got poor. Mine is a cold, open farm, without any shelter, and I attribute the poverty of the sheep to the cold caused by the dipping. 385. Mr. FrancisA Then you are not in favour of the present act ? — No. 386. Do you think it would be better to have no act at all ? — Yes. 387. Do you find you can cure the scab by dipping your sheep ? — If I dip at the right time of the year. 388. Don't you think it would be a great advantage to the country and the farmers themselves if we could entirely get rid of the scab ? — Naturally. 389. Since you can cure scab by dipping at the proper season, would it not be a great advantage if everyone were obliged to dip in the proper season and cure the scab ? — No. 390. Although you think it would bo a great benefit to yourself and the country, and you know by your own experience that you can clean your sheep of seal), you don't think there ought to be a law to make men do so ? — No, I don't think the act would do any good. 391. Why? — Because we have been under the present act for six years, and it has not hi^lped us. 392. But you say you can cure the scab if the sheep are dipped at the proper season. Why, then, do you oliject to an act to make people dip at the proper season ? — Although vou might dip at the right season, and cure it for a year, you could not exterminate it. 393. In your opinion what causes the scab ? — That I cannot say. Mr. Jacobus Christian Oosthuhen examined. 394. Chairman.'] You are a sheep farmer in this district ? — Yes, for the last 18 or 19 years. 395. Have you any objection to give us the number of your sheep ? — Twelve hundred at present. I keep them down to that. 396. You have heard the evidence which has been given this afternoon. Do you ag^ee with any of those who have spoken ? — I differ very much from some of the evidence. I am against the present act because it does not work well, but I am in favour of a compulsory dipping act for the whole Colony, if it could be made workable. I believe I can cure my sheep 3 I have time, but if I have not time to io it quickly they get .sick. Thousands of sheep have died from dipping since tlie act has been in force, and I think the act has done a great deal of damage to sheep, and it would have been much better if so much sickness had not been caused by dipping the sheep out of season. 397. Don't you think there are other causes of sickness, such as wire- worm, and so on? — There are wire-worms, but we should have cured them better if it had not been for the dipping. 398. In what way do you think the wire-worms affect the sheep, or the dipping the wire-worms ? — It has been found by exj)orience that the wire- worm is increased by moisture, and if it injures healthy sheep to be dipped, of course the sick sheep feel it much more. 399. You know that the wire-worm is in the stomach of the sheep, and the scab is in the skin ? — What I mean is that the sheep have both scab and wire-worm, and dipping them for the scab so weakens them that we can't cure them from the wire-worm ; and that is the reason why I say the scab act has not worked weU. 400. But I understand you to believe the scab is in the blood as an internal parasite. How can you cure any internal parasite by dipping ? — The disease is internal, but it shows itself outside in the wool in the f<^rm of an insect. 401. How do you account for a disease which is internal eventually turning to a scab insect externally ? — I believe you must treat them first with medicine internally, and that is why I say I can cure scab if I have time. I dose them internally, and dip them externally in a mixture of lime, sulphur and salt. Sometimes it is ikpcessary to have them dosed twice or more, but I give them the medicine internally until the scab comes out on the skin, and then I dip them for the scab ; but I will take any healthy sheep and give it this medi- cine and will bring out the scab on the skin. 402. Mr. Botha.'] You are opposed to the sc*b act, but in favour of a dipping act if it can be done ? — Yes. 403. What do you mean by a dipping act? — That every owner of sheep should shear whenever he chooses, but after he has shorn he must dip his sheep twice. 404. Would you compel a man to dip whose sheep are not scabby ? — -No, only those which are scabby. 405. Dr. Smartt.] Do you know any sheep in the Queen's Town district which are per- fectly free from scab r — No, I don't know of a healthy flock mine were clean, but now they have got scab again. Qfl. 24 '03.j p [G. L-^94.] 406. If it is impossible to cure scab without dosing the sheep internaU;, account for the cases of dozens of farmers who clean their sheep perfectly of scab without ever giving them anything to take internally ? — They can clean them for a time, but it will break out again, and when it does break out it is worse than ever. ■107. How do you account for people dipping five or six years running, regularly after shearing, and their sheep have hardly any scab on their skin, and yet they give no medi- cine at all ? — Because their flocks are not so bad. I farmed for fom- years without any scab, and gave very little medicine, and in light cases they may remain clean. 408. You said the scab is a blood disease ? — Yes. If you take a flock of ewes and divide them, and put scabby rnms with one half and healthy rams with the other, the lambs that come from the s('al)by rams will liave scab, whilst those that are born from healthy rams are healthy, and you can keep them for eighteen months without their having any scab. 409. Then you believe the rams contaminate the lambs, and they arc bom with scab ? — Yes, I am certain of it ; I have proved it. 410. Have you over seen a lamb born with scab ? — No, I don't know I have ever seen one born with scab, but I have seen them with it when eight or ten days old. 411. Have you ever seen lambs fourteen days old having scab, unless the ewes have it ? — No, but I have dressed a ewe and cured it of scab, whUe the lamb still had it — only this one lamb born from the particular ewe. I don't believe scab is so contagious externally as it is infectious internally. 412. Chairman.'] Would you rocommend any alteration in the law? — I have no objection to the inspectors, in fact I am rather thankful to them because they don't carry on the act as stringently as they might, or thousands of sheep would have died that are now alive. The act is so strange that I can't quite understand it. I know a man who had a lot of scabby sheep which were caught by another farmer on his land, and sent to the pound. Tlie owner of the sheep woidd not release them, and wont to the magistrate, and the man who liad caught the sheep was obliged to release them from the pound and pay the expenses, and it cost him about £16. Mr. du Plessis is the man. Mr. John du Plessis examined. 413. Chairman.'] Are you farming in this district ? — Yes, and have been for a long time. I have 800 sheep. 414. You have heard the evidence just given? — Yes. I agree with Mr. de Lange, Mr. Oosthuizen, and Mr. van Gass. I am opposed to the scab act, but in favour of a dipping act. 415. Do you wish to make any statement with regard to the sheep just referred to as having been sent to the pound ? — Yes. Six months after the act had been proclaimed I found a man trekking with about sixty sheep in the wagon road from Wodehouse across my place. Every one of thom had scab. I stopped the man, and would not allow him to go any further, and he said very well, I could take charge of his sheep, and he left them. I was obliged to send them to the pound, and I received a letter from the Resident Magistrate of Lady Frere to say I had no right to stop the sheep, and that I must give them up. I would not do it, and I received a second letter, but I woidd not give them up, and he came and released them. I went to an agent, and he advised me to settle it, and it cost me £16. 416. Do you think the owner of a farm should be allowed to stop scabby sheep from going across his farm ? — I don't think so. I don't think there ought to be any legislation on the subject. .417. Do you believe in having a dipping act? — Yes. 418. Br. Smartt.] What do you consider a workable dipping act? — To allow a man to dip whenever he likes. 419. Would you compel him to dip a month after shearing? — Yes, if his sheep had scab. 420. Chairman.] Have you anything more to say ? — No. EAST LONDON. Tuesday, Mh November, 1892. Present : Mr. Fbost (Chairman), Me. Botha, „ Df Toit, Dr. Smartt, Mb. Francis. Mr. Albert Lehnann osainined. 421. Chairman.'] You are Chairoian of tlie East London Chamber of Commerce? — Yes. 422. You are aware that the object of this Commission is to iniiuiro into the working of the scab act ? — Yes. 42.3. The first point we wish to consider is the question of a general scab act. Are you prepared to go into that matter ? — Only from a commercial point of view, both as a buyer and seller of woul. I have been connacted with the trade in this country for sixteen years, and three years with tlie Australian and Suutli American trade in London and on the Continent, and my experience has taught me the following : — When I first went intii the wool trade eighteen years ago, the relative value of Cape wools as compared with Australian and South American wools was ten, fifteen, and in some cases, twenty per cent, better than it is now. I attribute this very largely to the fact that for years this colony was without any scab act at all, wliile the competing countries I have just named have lieeu most in- dustrious in stamping out the scab. The act which this colony has at present, although it is a beginning, I consider unsatisfactory because it does not apply to the whole colony. The details of a general act are a matter for the legislature, hiut it is unnecessary for any- one to point out what it means to a country like this, whose chief income, nest to diamond 5, is derived from the exportation of wool, whou there is a relative deterioration of from ten to twenty per cent, in the value of its wool, nor what this must result in in the course of years. That is the actual deterioration, the deterioration in the value of the staple, but that is not the only loss the colony suffers — it is considerably worse than that. In this way : that is the loss we suffer in good seasons, such as the present one, when the bidk of o\xi wools, especially those from these parts, are fairly good, and when the scab is not so bad ; but when we come to seasons of drought, I need not tell a farmer that his stock will become more easily attacked by scab, and when the wool market weakens it is the faulty stuff which suffers first, and in a rising market it recovers last. Therefore in bad seasons and with bad markets we suffer out of all projiortion to what we ought to, even consideriug the quality of the wool. The actual loss is very diflicidt to estimate, but in the figures I have put before you here, the direct loss may be calcidated with almost mathematical correctness, and I reckon it would be between £.500,000 and £600,000 a year. What further indirect loss we suffer depends very largely on the seasons. Mr. Plewman, in the statement he made for tlie Select Committee of the House of Assem- bly, makes the whole up to £820,000, but with a season like the present one, or those of the last few years, with fairly good prices and a fairly good market, I should say that osthnate was a little beyond the mark. In bad seasons, however, I should say the loss might be put down anywhere between £7.50,000 and £1,000,000, depending very much on circumstances. I had a very good illustration of the way we suffer when I last attended the London wool sales in 1886, for in bad seasons our wools have got such a bad name that — I say it without the slightest exaggeration — you can g(3 through one warehouse after another and see strings of Cape wools of 500 to 600 bales exposed in the morning for sale and in the afternoon, with the bales hardl)^ cut. I remember in particular on that occasion one lot of 14,000 bales of Karroo wools lying in the London docks, long and short, from the Graaff-Eeinet district, which was then very scabby, and where I see tliey are trying to introduce the scab again, Murraysburg, .Jansenville, and about there. This wool was lying at the docks, and about 140 of the bales had been cut so as to be properly examined. A buyer comes to a bale, cuts it open, and puUs out a couple of handsfuJl of scabl>y wool, and he says at once, what is the good of his buying scabby Cape wool when he can buy good Australian and .American ? The result is the wool is declared unsaleable, and I am afraid to say how much rt'o lose in a bad market. A general scab act, if properly worked, coidd only have the same effect here that it has had in other countries, that is, to stamfi out the disease ; and I am perfectly certain if it were known in the London and Coulineutal markets that the Cape legislature had passed an efficient general scali r.ct, which was to be put in f )rce at once, that with Jut any rise in the m>irket taking place our wools would immediately command additional attraction from the large and b'tter class of buj'ers. The bon iit to be derived from that need not be en- larged up. in. What I have now said with re cd to wool I have induced several of the Other buyers and sellers hero to give evidence oon before the Commission while it is sitting at ^, — uv/ i.i.,u xc^aiu tu BKiuH. »v luit 1 uave siatoa applies wiUi equal toice to Ti.otiair, and with almost greater force to skins, bocauso scabby wool is w rth goniotlurifc,-, but a scabby skin is frequently woi-th hardly anj^liing. 424. You have been a large exporter of wool for many years irom I^.,.., ",„„ -Yes ; from both East London and Port Elizabeth. I liave also been iu the office of a wool importer in London, who was largely connected with the Australian trade, as well as having had experience in the working up of wool in one of the largest manufacturing towns on the Continent — Vervicz. 425. During the last fow years you have been resident here ? — Yes. 426. And have taken your wool chiefly from liere ? — Yes. 427. I suppose you have purchased wool not only from the East Londoa and King William's Town divisions but also from the Free State and beyond 'i — Yes. 428. Did you find any difference as regards scab between the wools from Komgha and the lower districts, and from Queen's Town, Burghersdorp and beyond ? — During the last two years the wool from the lower districts has been comparatively free of scab. 429. Whicli are the lower districts ? — There is very little wool in the East London district, but, say, about Maclean, and in Komgha, about Kei Road, Stutterheim, Cathcart, and those parts well this side of Queen's Town. It is when you get about Tylden and Queen's Town way, and towards Tarka and the Free State that scab is much more prevalent than in the other places I have just named. 430. And you find you can place them on the East London market much more satis- factorily than the up-country wools '! — Decidedly. 431. Do you find any difference between the wools you purchase in Tarka, Queen's Town and Wodehouse, and wools in the Free State ? — During the last few years I have seen Tery little scab in the Queen's Town wools. 432. You don't get much down here ? — Not much, but what I have seen has been free. 433. Your trade is chiefly confined to the border? — Yes. Free State wool goes chiefly to Port Elizabeth. 434. Do j'ou not get a great deal from the Transkoian territories ? — Yes. 435. Do you find more scab iu native wool than in ordinary farmers' wool ? — Not dur- ing the last few j'ears. 436. Do you find that during the last few years the natives have taken to dipping their sheep much more, and keeping them much cleaner ? — Yes, their wools are improving, and there is a good market for them ; they are well sought after. 437. Do you find the same improvement with skins as with wool? — Yes, in the same proportion as the wool. 438. The Transkei and the lower districts are freer from scab than the upper districts ? —Yes. 439. And for this season you strongly advocate a general scab act ? — Yes. 440. Mr. Francia^ I suppose it might possibly happen that if wool becomes cheaper the weakest would naturally go to the wall, until eventually it might come to this, that it would not be worth while to ship our worst wools to England ? — That is so ; the difference between running a business profitably or unprofitably is very much the same as between farming profitably and unprofitably. If you can get 10 or 15 jier cent, more than you are drawing now you make a profit, but 10 or 15 per cent, less would mean ruin in a few years time. 441. It is not only that the parcels of wool which are infected with scab fetch low prices or are unsaleable, but the very fact that scab prevails in a country deteriorates all the wool from there .-■ — Decidedly. 442 If we have a general compulsory scab act tliroughout the country could you suggest any means by which we could prevent infection being brought over the borders by skins and wool, so that we should not always be liable to re-infection from the outside by things in transit ? — I think a means could be found ; there must be similar laws existing in European countries to meet those circumstances. 443. Mr llotha.~\ Do you mean that mohair is infected in the same degree by scab as merino wool? — I don't know whether the percentage of goats infected is the same as sheep, because there are not large mohair districts about here, but I know they are very largely attacked, and that the price very fi-cauontly suffers considerably. 444. Are you acquainted with the mohair produced by the principal angora farmers in Bedford, Graaff-Eeinet aud that direction? — With some of them, but not during recent years — not since 1886. 445. Of course you know that all the principal goat-farmers are very particular about scab ? — Yes. 446. Do }"ou mean to say the mohair of such farmers is also infected by scab .'' — I would not be prepared to say tliey are now, but I have seen some of them infected by sc&b when I was living £4 Port Elizabeth. 447. Do you think the Free State wool compares favourably with colonial wool as regards scab ? — Yes, but not with the lower districts, Komgha and thereabouts. They are quite as good as regards scab in some small areas. 448. In those small areas peojjle did their best before the scab act was introduced, so they were in advance of the rest of the Colony ? — I would not subscribe to that, that they did their best. I know a good many farmers who have clean sheep now who had not before the scab act was enforced, because they found it was no use to try and keep them clean. 449. Ait> you acfjuaintt'd -witli the wools coming from Graaff-Reinet, Aberd3en and Mu-rav<:b\irg ' — For itrj-* of ten years I was very well acquainted with them, but •If.' J%OJC i50. What 13 your opinions of those wools ? — As regards quality, they partake of the general ciiaracter of Kar. oo wools, fine, very heavy, and, speaking of ten years ago, generally very scabby. 4.5 1. Do you think it possible that a wool produced in the Graaff-Eeinet district could take the first prize for snow- whites at an East London Agricultural Show ? — More than possible ; I think it ought to. 4.52. Then you woidd not be inclined to doubt it if I say that has been the case ? — Not at all. In any scabby district you can always get some fine wool, and it is weU known in the trade that with Karroo wool, whether from Graaff-Reinet or Muxraysburg, you could pick up some 10, 1.5, or perhaps 100 bales free from scab, and get what would make a beautiful snow-white ; because in this countiy where hardly any chemicals are used in washing, the Karroo wool possesses certain qualities which give a better colour than grass veldt wool. So the fact of ten or fifteen bales of snow-whites from a scab iiLfected district taking the first prize at an East London Show would not weigh with me the value of that hat. 453. I suppose you are aware it is a common complaint that wool-buyers don't make the distinction between good and bad wool which they should do ? — Yes, and I know that it is unfortunately the case in up-countrj' towns, and you will know the circumstances which have led up to it. Unhappily we still live very largely under the old system of barter ; the farmer says, You buy my wool, and I will buy your goods, and in this way wools up-country are frequently not bought on their merits. 4.54. Do j-ou think there would be the same result Lf wool is sold on the open market ? — If sold in a market Hke Port Elizabeth or East London, unless the seller does not know what he is about, ho will get as much for the parcels as they are worth. 455. Dr. Smartt.'] You have just told us, what I m3'self believe to be a fact, that the annual loss to the Colony through scab is at least half-a-miUion. From your experience and knowledge, not onlj- in the South African but also in the Austrahan and South American wool trade, would you be able to give us an idea how that loss accrues ? Many people upon reading your evidence might tlunk that it was too big a loss on our yearly export of wool ; but what I should like to come at is, is there not a tremendous loss accruing to us as a wool producing country from the want of security which the London buyer has when dealing with a clip of Cape wool ? — Yes. 456. From your experience, is it not a fact that very often if I were to put a hundred bales of wool on the London market with a Cape brand, and there were a hundred bales of wool from Victoria or New South Wales of exactly the same quality as mine, the Bradford buyer, having full security that the Australian wool is free of scab, would give up to 2d. a pound more for that wool than for mine, just for the want of that security V — Not perhaps 2d. a pound more, but he would give more ; how much more or less woidd depend on the state of the market. If the price is low, the buyer manufactures a certain article, and very frequently before he has manufactured it has already made his contracts for the coming season. For the sake of argument, we wiU say he wants grease wool which shall when washed run him out at 2s. a pound. When his contracts are made, Australian wool stands at 2s. 3d., South American 2s., and Cape first 28. ; consecjuently he turns e(jual attention to the lower Cape wool as he does to the South American wool of the same length, because the Cape wool will fit in with his price. But in a declining market a man who has contracted to deliver so many liundred thousand yards of cloth or blankets finds that instead of buying Capes he can buy Australian wool, and give his customer a better article than he actually expected, and in that way secure further business. He at once buys Australian or South American wool, and so Cape wool becomes neglected, and falls immediately into a lower class trade, and that is when you very frequently suiler a loss of 2d. a pound, or perhaps more. As I have said, I have seen thousands of bales of Cape wool unsaleable. I have seen wools bought in Graaff-Reinet at 4Jd. put up at the London sales in April, and fetcliing in London 4:^d. to 5d., and a quantity was unsold, because nothing higher than 3Ad. was bid for them. That is how it affects you when you get into a Ijad market. 457. To take an illustration, say, a man has a clip of really fijst-class wool on the Lon- don market, free from scab, does your experience lead you to think the buyer will not give that man the absolute commercial value of the wool for the want of security, as we suffer in this Colony from scab ? — That is my opinion. 458. Of two clips of unquestionably equal value, the Australian will fetch more, because that country is free from scab ? — Yes. 459. Some people at Queen's Town stated in their evidence their belief that scab has not been eradicated from many Australian districts. Can yoii say from your experience whether that is so or not ? — I can only give you my experience from three years on the London sales, during which time I examined many thousands of bales of Australian wool, and I came across no scab. 460. Then do you think, if a compulsory general scab act were passed in this Colony, and it was known in the London market, that it woidd at once have the effect of improving the commercial value of our wools ? — Certainly. 461. The security which the Loudon buyer would assume he possessed from the fact of a stringent general act being in force would a^ once increase the value of our wools ? — Certainly. 462. Mr. du Toit.\ 1 understood you to say the cliief or only reason why our wool is so miicli lower in price than tlie wool in those countries where there is a scab act in force is that we have no scab act, and that both because our wool is scabby and because it comes from a country where there is no scab act we cannot compete with those countries ? — The chief reason. 463. Are there other reasons ?— There might be, but I think they are outside the scope of the inquiry of the Commission. 464. Don't you think it is also a material reason that farmers don't shear yearly, and, consequently, sell short wool ? — That won't help you. A long, scabby wool suffers relatively as much as short scabby wool. 465. Then it is not your o.xperience that long wool is better than short wool .'' — Decidedly, sound long wool is better tliau sound short wool, and scabby long wool is better than scabby short wool, liut the relative depreciation between scabby long wool and good, and scabby short wool and good is the same. 466. Do you think it is right for up-coimtry buyers to give the same price for short wool of six months as for long wool ? — No, I wish tliey would not. 467. Don't you suffer in that loss too? — No, because we buy wools on their merits ; btit so long as the conditions of the up-country trade are what they are, it is most unfortunate, and very bad for farmers who are at a distance from big centres, and who can't got their wools easily to market. 468. Br. Smarlt.'] It was stated at the Kimberley stock farmers' conference when the sorting of wools was dis(-u8sed, that a certain man's clip was put on the London sales, and tliat a few bales of beUios topped the price fetched by assorted fleeces for the same clip. Can you explain that ? — I can explain it in two ways, either the buyer did not know wliat he was doing or, which is more likely, it was in this way. For the sake of argument we will say you get 100 l)iilo8 assorted, and the last lot we will say two or three bales of bellies, and following tliat a big string of Australian grease wools which are very frequently allotted in big lots. Then the man who buys the last lot has the right to claim tho following lots at equal prices, and it has been my actual experience to have seen a lot of bales of Australian bellies, before a big string like that, come on for 4/- that were not worth 5d., in order that the buyer might get in on the big string. 469. Mr. Francis.'] You think it would be better for the whole country to spend a large amount on a stringent act for a few years to get rid of scab than to go on as at present ? — I think my figures prove it. Scab is robbing you of a large amount every year, and if I found I had half-a-dozen bad accounts in my business by which I had to write off £10,000 a year, I would rather face the loss at once by writing off £20,000 and be done with it. 470. The first loss is best? — Yes; put your house in order and then do your business. 471. Chairman.] In connection with this the question arises of the relative value of short wool which is well-grown and quite free of scab, and long wool, fairly well grown but scabby. Would the short, clean wool fetch tho better price ? — Frequently ; it would be a question of degree. 472. You consider it would be more valuable } — Yes, provided it was not too short. 473. Mr. Botha.] Is it not in some cases because the buyers want to buy short wool instead of long 'f — Not exactly. I would explain that it of course frequently happens a buj'er has orders to buy short wool, but the reason is that short wool can be bought cheaper and will answer the purpose, although long wool would answer better. 474. Chairman.] You are very strongly in favour of a general scab act? — Yes. 475. But we are told there are peculiar circumstances in connection with some of the outlying districts to the north-west, such as Namaqualand and beyond there, where it is impossible that a scab act could work. Under these circumstances do you think a line could be drawn somewhere embracing certain portions of the Colony .'' — I should not think it was impossible, but anything is better than nothing, and a limited scab act would be better than nothing at all. 476. Have you formed any idea in your own mind where such a line could be drawn that would give comparative security to those in the area, "aid not interfere more than is absolutely necessary with those outside the area ? Can you show me on that map, showing the existing scab areas, whtit you think .should be included in the area if tho whole Colony could not be brought under the act ? — So far as I know the country, I should say you might exclude Namaqualand, a portion of Oalvinia and Kenhardt. I don't think Olan- william should be excluded, but I would exclude the bulk of Griqualand Yv^est. 477. Br. Smartt.] But in working a stringent scab act, how would you arrange that people within the proclaimed area should receive absolute protection, the railway passing through Griqualand West ? Would it not be very difficult to exclude a largo portion of that province from the act ? — I don't think so ; the whole could uot, fiut a portion could be — Hay for i^^stauce. Generally speaking, I must say I don't like the exclusion of any portion, but if it has to be done, those are the places you coidd exclude best. 478. Chairman.] You woidd not advise the exclusion of more than these three districts ? — No ; Nauia. Mr. ISiitha.] If we were to exclude all those parts of the Colony which do not deal with Pi ut Elizabeth or East London the local interests would not be affected; and do you think it would be well, in order to get rid of the greatest opposition, we should confine ourselves only to those parts of the Colony which deal with the midland or eastern ports ? — ■ Of eoTi; -.ve sometimes to act on t'lio principle that half a loaf is better than no bread. Geii^i^Uy, 1 am not fond of a compromise, and I don't look upon this as a question affectinglocalinterestsin EastLondon or Port Elizabctli. From the figures which I have quoted, I thint you must see I look upon the question from a commercial point of view, and a very serious one, and my advice would be not to exclude any portion of the Colony from the operation of the act, unless by so doing you run the risk of having no scab act at all ; and if I may say anything to any members of Parliament wlio have the welfare of the country at heart, I would urge upon them not to lot it be thought they have the idea that if the whole scab act cannot be obtained, they will be (content with half or a quarter, but let it bo seen that they mean to have the wliole. 480. Chairman'] Supposing a scab act were passed lea^dng out the three or four divisions you spoke of, would you aUow any stock to pass out of them into the proclaimed area ? — No. 481. Under no circumstances whatever? — No. 482. And no port of entry? — There might be a port of entry at which sheep might be allowed to come in after being certified by an inspector, in the same way as is done here when sheep are imported over sea. 483. A port where they should be thoroughly dipped and cleansed and certified? — Yes, otherwise it would be a great hardship to those portions of the Colony which were under the act. 484. But they should not come out at any other point ? — No. 485. Dr. Sinartt.'] What provision would yoii make for the passing of wool and skins across the boundary, which might carry the sc'ab with them as easily as the sheep them- selves? — As I said just now, I shoidd endeavour to ascertain what arrangements were made in European countries under the same circumstances. The same matter has had to be dealt with in England, France, and Germany. When the scab act was introduced into Germany, there was no act on the Austrian border. So there i^ust liave been some provision of this sort. 486. Chairmanr\ But you look upon it as dangerous to leave any portion of the Colony out of the area ? — Yes, and it complicates matters, and increases the expense of working the act. 487. Dr. Smartt.'] Do you think it would be possible to work the act in certain districts of the Colony — I won't mention the names — where over three-fourths of the farming popu- lation are absolutely opposed to the act, and determined not to help in the working of it ? — I think it would be possible. 488. Without undergoing large expense ? — You would have to spend a good deal of money, I think, the first few years. It would be costly at first. 489. Chairman.'] And difficult ? — Yes, but not impossible. 490. Dr. Smartt.'] You consider it would be extremely difficult and expensive ? — Yes, the first year or two, but when people had paid two or three stiff fines, I think you would find the act would work all right. ■191. Do you think it would be a more satisfactory way of doing it than educating the people who Kve in the outside areas to see the improvement which a stringent act in operation in a proclaimed area effects in the growth of the wool ? — I don't Ijeliove much in the latter. I was in great hopes of this partial scab act, but though there is no doubt a great improvement has taken place in the districts where the Act has been in force, yet from the agitation which we have seen spring up during the last twelve or eighteen months, it does not seem to have taught a certain class of farmers anything yet. 492. Then your opinion is that, when certain farmers who have given evidence before this Commission state that the scab act has been in operation in their district without pro- ducing any result whatever, in fact that more scab exists there now than before tlie act was in operation, from your experience as a large buyer of wool, these statements are not borne out by the facts ? — Decidedly, that is my experience. 493. Chairman.] You said the natives in the Transkeian Territories have improved their wool of late years ? — Yes. 494. Do you think it would be to the advantage of the natives and the country if the Government were to erect dipping-tanks at different centres there ? — Decidedly. 495. Don't you think any farmer living in an unproclaimed area, who takes a great deal of trouble in cleaning his sheep, should bo protected from anyone trekking across his farm with scabby sheep ? — Certainly he should bo protected. Mr. Henry James Atkint, jun., examined. 496. Chairman.'] You are scab inspector in Area No. 6c? — Yes, it was No. 6a, but now two wards from King WUliam's Town have been added to it. 497. What portions does your area embrace ? — The whole of East London, and ward No. 12 and part of another ward in King WiUiam's Town. 498. How long have you been scab inspector over this area ? — Three years last September. 499. Do you find that scab has been reduced in this district during the last three years — Certainly, very much. 500. Have you much scab in it now ? — Not at present. 2e 501. Most of the flocks are not in quarantine? — No, most are iluan, and guue liauk to their own districts. They come down here to winter a good deal from the Cathcart district, and therefore I had a good deal of scab tliis winter. 502. Do the flocks in tho Cathcart distri(-t c^omo down here every year ? — Not every year ; this is the first year since I have been appointed. 503. Before those flocks came here were you comparatively free from scab here ? — Yes, quite ; and that was why they gave me two additional wards to look after. 504. Before last winter the East London district was free of scab, and it was in conse- quence of that you had a portion of King William's Town added to your area ? — Yes. When I was assistant-inspector I sent in my resignation, but Mr. Davison came round, and said if I remained he would give me a part of King William's Town, and take away some of the area I then held, but none was ever taken away. 505. When these sheep came down from Cathcart, did they bring a clean bill of health? — All had clean bills of health, and I had a notification from the inspector there to say that they were free of scab, but it broke out within two months after they came here . 506. Were they free of scab within your own knowledge ? — I saw one flock that came down badly infected ; they were detained by the weather, and when I saw them they were scabby. I proceeded against the owner for not reporting them, and put them in quarantine. 507. Will you give us some idea with regard to the working of the act, because you gave us a case in which you had an area free of scab, but owing to scab being brought in from another area you have again become infected ? — When the King William's Town portion was added to mine, some of the stock there had been infected for some time, but there is an improvement there now. 508. Can you suggest any way by which a district can be protected from another district when it is free of scab ?— My idea is that no sheep should be allowed to move from one area to another unless the owner has had a clean bill of health for at least three months. 509. In fact, you mean none should be allowed to remove sheep unless the owner has had a clean bill of health for at least three months ? — Yes, and the whole of the sheep on the farm should be free of scab. 510. Then you think the present system of granting passes for the removal upon a certificate by a scab inspector, or by two land- owners, is a very bad one ? — Yes, that is my idea ; I think the permit system should be done away with, and a man found moving scabby sheep should be heavily fined. At present a farmer is often unable to get a permit for removal, because the inspector cannot be everywhere at the same time, and any such delay breeds ill-feeling between him and the farmer. I think the permit system should be done away with altogether, and the farmer should be allowed to remove his stock upon his own certificate, and be heavilj' fined if he is foimd moving with scabby sheep. 511. You think the system of allowing a farmer to do exactly as he likes, but fining him if he moves scabby sheep, would work better than the present system of permits ? — Ido. 512. Suppose a man does move scabby sheep, and gets fined, what protection do you give to the man along whose farm he passes with them ? — As much as he has at present, £20 fine ; but I should make it as high as £50. I don't think £20 would recompense the man. 513. You think that would work very much better than the present system of permits from inspectors, field-cornets, land-owners or others? — I think so. I know cases where people have got permits from land-owners when the sheep have not been free of scab. Certain sheep have been picked out for inspection, but the whole flock has not been free. 514. Suppose a man sold a couple of hundred sheep out of a flock to a butcher, he would naturally pick out all the healthy sheep, and would ask his neighbours to come and inspect them ; but a few days after being forwarded scab might break out among them. Would you fine the butcher who has bought them in good faith for attempting to move scabby sheep ? — That would be rather a hard case, but when the land-owners granted a permit they might not have known the sheep would fall into the hands of a butcher or speculator. 515. Many do ? — Yes, but many fall into the possession of a speculator, and change hands on the spot. 516. But in the case of a private sale ? — It would be rather a hard case for the butcher. A great many are ignorant of the disease, and buy in good faith. 517. You would relieve the owner of the stock altogether, and place the responsibility on the unfortimate man who becomes the purchaser ? — Yes, that is true. 518. Can you suggest any further improvements in the act?— I think the working of the act would be improved by having somebody to supervise dipping in locations. There are a great many natives in my area quite willing to do all they can to eradicate scab, but when they want dip they just buy it at a store, and the storekeeper sells them a certain quantity, and says it will make so many casks. Then the natives dip the sheep, and two days later they are as bad as ever, and the natives lose faith in the dip. 519. You think it would be a great improvement if the Government erected dipping- tanks at different places, and charged for the dip, and also the expenses connected with dipping ? — That has always been my idea — I mean in the native reserves. 520. Mr. Francis.'] About how many sheep have you in your area ? — At present there are about 12,000. 521. And how many proprietors, approximately? — There is a part of one ward that I have not been into, but taking the others I should say forty to fifty owners, not counting the owners of goats. Including the King William's Town wards there are between 20,000 to 25,000 goats in small lots, there seldom being more than 150 to 200 in a flock. 27 632. Do you find you are able to carry out the aot as you would like to ? — No ; but I think if I had a smaller area I could do better. 523. You find it is impossible for one aian to carry out the provisions of the act. A'-cordinufto the act you are supposed to inspect sheep at once whea called upon. Can you do 8'1 ? — With a great deal of inconvenience I do, but I have to neglect other work. 524. But suppose you receive notice that you are wanted to inspect in six different directions at once, how can you do it? — I cannot do it. 525. Then you cannot carry out the letter of the law ? — No . 526. Have you found any diflBcultv with the natives with regard to the scab act ? — Not in my area. 527. They appear willing to carry out its provisions? — Yes, only they do not always believe in dipping. They require some assistance to supervise it. 528. I suppose it would be impossible for the inspector always to do this? — I have done it ; but to do it for everj'bodj' I should have to neglect other work. 529 Are infected sheep brought down from Catlicart into this district? — I won't say they were infected when thej- left Cathcart, but they were when they arrived here. 530 Was not one flock badly infected within a week of its arrival here ? — Yes, badly. 531. Had they a permit from the inspector there ? — I had a notification from him saying they were clean. 532. From whom? — From Mr. Fuller, scab inspector of area No. 4 B. 533. Have you had any previous difficulty with regard to the removal of scabby sheep from Cathcart ? — This is the first winter since I have come here that they have come down. 534. Do you think it would be better to have a general scab act instead of the present one ? — Certainly, that is what we want for the country. 535. Mr. Botha.'] Your area contains about 12,000 sheep ? — Yes. 536. How did you obtain your appointment ? — I received a telegram from Mr. Kettles, inspector for the King William's Town district, asking me if I would accept tho appoint- ment for this district, and if so telliag me to see the civil commissioner. 537. Then you were appointed on the recommendation of a scab inspector? — Yes. 538. \\Tiat is your salary ? — £250 a year, at present. At first I received £ 1 50. 539. Yuu speak of neglecting some work in order to be able to attend to other work ? — I mean suppose I was at Kwelegha and scab is reported to me as being at Koiskama, I should have to leave my work at Kwelegha and ride a distance of 130 miles for one flock. 540. Are you not continually on the move, always riding about the district? — Yes. 541. So that the only thing you have to do is to see where there is scab, and to take care that people carry out the act ? — Our instructions are to make a visit every six months right through the district, so I always begin at one end and work through so as to be readj' to start again. 542. You said you think the Government should step in and help the nat-ves in the locations, because they are misled ? — Yes. 543. What should we do in the case of white men who are as ignorant as natives ? — They are not so here. 544. Would you be in favour of class legislation for scab, which distinguished between Europeans and natives ? — No. 545. Therefore, you think if natives are to be protected, helped and instructed, the same should be done to white men when necessary ? — Yes. 546. Do you know of any white man who, for want of knowledge, does not carry out the provisions of the scab act as he should do ? — There are a few, but they always ask me when I put them in quarantine, an 1 I give them the exact quantities ; but a native has no means of weighing his dip, such as lime and sulphur. A white man will go to a deal of trouble about it, but a native does not care to. 547. And so somebodj' else should take the trouble for him ? — The dipping should be done under superyision. 548. 8hould not the same thing apply to white men ? — Yes, but a charge should be made for the supervision. I think very few men would apply for it. 549. You think the coloured man should pay for the dip ? — Evei-ybody should, black or white. 550. Yuu think we should have a general instead of a permissive scab act. But all the districts surrounding 3'ou are already under a scab act ? — Yes. 551. Then how could that interfere with you? — The sheep come ^rom unproclaimed areas by train. I have known of more than one lot coming from the Albert district and landed here iu East London with scab, which were conveyed b}- rail. 552. If the necessary machinery were there, and care was taken to protect the proclaimed areas against scabby sheep from outside distric s, do you think it is necessary to h ivo a general act?— Yes, I think men should be appciuted at different stations on the borders of these proclaimed areas to prevent any sheep coming in from unproclaimed areas. 553. Would you altogether prohibit sheep coming in from unproclaimed areas ? — Yes. 554. What would yuu do with the wool aud skins frum those uEeas? — I suppose most of the wool and skins would be carried bj' wagon or train, whereas sheep are often c:in-icd a certain distance by train and driven the remainder of the juxuney, thus spreading the disease. 555. Is it the custom to take sheep out of the train and drive them ? — Yes, my brother here is a Hrge speculator, and has -^ff"- done it. * [» 'Ai T J. •2X ;")■)(;. ///'. SiiKirii. -^ In ri rumiuDndiug tli'> ostalilishtnent o[ (liii^)ing tanks by the Government in native areas, in which sheep should be dipped at a (diarfje to cover expenses, WHS not your idea not so much from a philanthropic point of view to protect the native, as to protect the white firmer within the Colony from having his flicks constantly infected with scabby sheep crossing the frontier line ? — Yes. SS?. It was not so much to protect the native, as a native, as to protect the careful white farmer witliin tlie area whose flocks are often infected in the way I have mentioned? —Yes. 5.58. I understand the infection of floclcs on the frontier in tliat way has become a serious question ? — I know of one man in my area who is continunlly getting scab, and there is not a harder working man in the area, but there is a location near him. 559. Mr. Bo/ha.^ Are they not prosecuted? — Yes, and in some cases brought, before the King William's Tcwn magistrate and fined £3 or £4, but it does not remedy the evil. 560. Dr. Smartt.'] Seeing that scab has broken out on sheep moved from even a pro- claimed area, don't you think it must be due to the careless manner in which the present act has been administered in some places ? — Tliat is my idea. 561. Would yo\i not go further and say the present act is almost a dead letter in the majority of districts, owing to want of efficieut admiiistratiou ? — There is no doubt about it. 562. Do you think the complaints which have been made by many men with i-ogard to the prevalence of scab in the proclaimed areas would not have been possible if even the eScisting act had properly been carried out? — That is my opinion. 56;i Is it a common thing in your experience that flocks have been moved which really were full of scab ? — It is continually being done. 564. With regard to the proposal to abolish permits do you consider that any farmer who is prepared to declare that his sheexJ are free of scab should be allowed to re- move them, but subject to a heavy penalty if lie makes a false statement ? — Yes, as the act is at present I don't seo where the man who keeps his sheep clean has any advantage over one who does not. The man with scabby sheep has more privileges than tlie other. 565. J)o you think it would do a great deal towards removing th-^ dissatisfaction exist- ing in regard to the present act if a man had the right to sign a permit for the removal of his own stock, if free from scab ? — I think so, if a heavy fine were inflicted where scabby sheep were removed under such a permit; I don't mean a £20 fine, but a really heavy one. 566. I suppose you have no knowledge of the large sto('k farms of the colony, but are speaking particularly with reference to men having from 200 to 500 sheep ? — I have a little knowledge with regard to the King William's Town district, where some men have as many as 8,000 or 10,000 sheep. 567. Don't you think it would be more difficult and expensive to carry out the act in the up-country districts, where you find meu living on large tracts of country of from 10,000 to 30,000 morgen, with perhaps 4,000 to 6,000 sheep ? — There is no doubt it would. 568. And do you think it would^e possible to carrj' out the act in districts where the majoritj' of the fanners were opposed to the act without incurring very.heavj' expenditure? — I should think it would be almost impossible 569. To cany out the act efficiently, you think it would be necessary to have the honest support of the majority of tlie .sheep farmers in the country? — Yes. 570. Otherwise, if enforced contrary to the wishes of a large section of the people, you think it would bo inoperative ? — Certainly. 571. If the act were made partial, could you make any suggestion for adjoining areas, districts, or even separate farms being included in a proclaimed area? Or would you in that case suggest that individu il owuirs of farms, who were prepared to keep their sheep free of scab, could have their farms proclaimed a distinct area ? — If we cmnot get a general act, it would be well to have one nliich could be applied as you suggest ; and that a farm should be allowed to come in if the owner thought it would be to his benefit, even though not already adjoining a proclaimed area. 572. Do you consider that in case a partial act is proclaimed and a line of demarcation drawn between two portions of the colony that anj' protection should be afforded to the farmer who lives in an unprotected area who keeps his flocks free from scab ? — Yos, the same protection as the law allows at present, in a proclaimed or uuproclaimed area, by means of a fine. 573. If acompulsory scab actwas introduced either general or partial, do yo>i think it would be advisable to have public Government dipping tanks on the main thorouglifares of the country ? — Yes, you would be surprised to see the things many men dip in at present, and expect to cure scab. 574. Do j-ou think such tanks would meet the case of men travelling with stock amongst whicli scab broke out. and they had no opportunitj' of dipping them ? — No doubt many men would dip their flocks if they could. 575. And do you think the spread of ths disease is also duo in great measure to the fact that many travelling with their sheep liave no proper place in which to dip them when the scab breaks out ?— Yes, that is a well-known fact. 576. Do you think it would be impossiblo to eradicate scab unless there were some moans of cleaning the floek.s passing to and fro in the country ? — Yes, at present if scab broke out on a travelling flock, I don't think any farmer would care to have them on his place. And then, what is to be done with them ? •2!) •J77. Mr. (Ill Toit.j Wduld you be in favour of giving farms in tho uniiroclaiuied area, which did not adjoin the proclaimed area, tlie uption of being proclaimed as aa area? — Yes. ■578. Would it not bo very expensive to supervi.se these isolated proclaimed farms ? — Yes, it might be; but perhaps it might be arranged in some w.ay. •579. If such an act wfre passed, might not even farms in Calvinia, hundreds of miles away, ask to come under its provisions ? — I think it is very hard when a luan has a lot of sheep and wishes to keep them clean, but cannot do so on account of his neighbours. •380. Have you any idea what tLe e.xtra cost would be in case such an act were passed '? — I have no idea. •581. You think the permit system should be abolished, and a man fined whenever scabby sheep are found in his liock V — Yes. •582. Would it not be a great hardship to oblige a man to dip his sheep at any time, especijiUy at dry seasons, when the sheep were iu low condition, or in cold seasons, at lambing time, or when the sheep are sick with the wire-worm, which affects them very materially ? — He would not move them if they had scab. •583. Btit he would >)<; prosecuted for having them on his farm? — I am speaking of permits of removal with a certificate of freedom. •584. Is it the case in 3'our district that flocks often get in such a condition from sickness or poverty that it is not advisable to dip them ? — We have not had wire-worm, but there are certain times of the year when the farmer can hardly dip, though he can manage to do so within the three months. That is in my area. •58.5. In districts which continually suffer from such heavy droughts, and where those diseases are prevalent, do you not think it would be a hard.ship to have such a stringent act as you are in favour of '' — It may be, but I am not in a position to say, as I have not travelled about verj* much, and do not know how severe the droughts are there. My travels have only been as far as Kimberley, ami they don't suffer from such severe droughts there. •586. Don't you think there is a great difference between the country in this neigh- bourhood and up-country, where farmers have to move about and trek on account of droughts, and must have such large farms on account of the scarcit}' of water and food for the stock ■? — I think it is hard upon llie people with carefuUy-kept farms through which people move with infected flo(-k\ •587. But when moving about in their owu neighbourhood? — Aa the act is worked at present, I think it is almost a dead-letter. 588. You admit there is diffleulty in dealing with these districts ? — I daresay there is, but I can't tell from experience, as I have had none. I know of one man at present who has had his sheep clean for years until this year, and it is very hard that he should get it from others trekking through. The consequence is ho is in quarantine ; he had a fine lot of sheep, but cannot sell them. 589. Chairman.^ Don't you think the period of three months allowed for oleaniug sheep is far too long ? — I think so. If a man made up his mind to eradicate scab iu this area he could do it in less than three months. 590. And yet, after the three months, he gets an extension? — Yes, for as long as the scab inspector thinks necessary. 591. Do you do it? — I mostly give them a month, if I see a man has made some im- provement in his flock ; but if not, I bring him before the magistrate at once. 592. Do }-ou find you get rid of the scab more quickly that way ? — Yes ; if you keep on renewing licences for three months you will never get rid of it. When I took over the inspectci-ship, there were men in the district who never had clean sheep on account of con- tinual vonewals, and three montlis after I eime their flocks were clean, and thry had clean bills: of health, and they have remained c!^ an ever since. ■J93. Mr. Francis.'] You saj- there are often great diffiiulties and much dissatisfaction in connection with the obtaining of permits for the removal of sheep, and you suggest that ■\. fai-mer should be allowed to move them on his own responsibility, subject to a heavy fine if they are found to be scabby. Do you mean if the sheep he has moved are scabby, or if they have come from farms where there are infected sheep ? — I mean the sheep found moving. 591. But then would there not be a great difficulty in this way, that a man might have a thousand sheep, many of them badly infected ; out of these he might pick two hundred which showed no signs of scab at the time, but might arrive at their journey's end full of infection, and spread it all about ? — A man should not be allowed to move any sheep off his place unless the whole are clean. •595. Would you be in favour of an act providing for a compulsorj- simultaneous dipping within a short period to start with ? — Yes, start from a curtain point, and dip through the colony. 596. Instead of a man being liable to a fine if he has not diligently endeavoured to improve his sheep during the period of the licence, as at present, would you be in favour of a system by which at the expiration of that period he should be fined so much per head of sheep, and after another month a double fine ? — Yes. 597. Although you consider this act almost a dead-letter, still you get the sheep clean in your area ? — Yes. 598. Then you don't mean it has been a dead-lbtter in your area ? — I am speaking of the whole colony. 599. If it has not been a dead-letter in this area wliy should it be in others ? — That is my opiuioD, but there are scab inspectors and scab inspectors. £ 2 so • 600. Do you consider that the officers appointed to look after this work have not aone their duty ? — I think some could do more than they do now. 601. But you say you consider the act almost a dead-letter. Is it because it is not pru- perly carried out ? — Yes. 602. C/irt('nrt«w.] And the scab inspectors are too lenient ? — Yes, they give permits too long. 603. You were appointed through the inspector of the King William's Town division ? —Yes, as an ai?sistant-inspector. When the ant first came into force Mr. Kettles, of the King AVilliam's Town area, found he could not do the work and an a'^sistant was appointed, who afterwards resigned, and I was asked if I would take the appointment. Upon this I saw the magistrate and sent in a formal application. 604. You were not appointed on the recommendation of the divisional council ? — I don't think so ; not that I know of. I applied personally to the magistrate. 60o. Do you know whether Mr. Kettles himself whs appointed upon the recommenda- tion of tlie divisional council, or direct liy the Government ? — I cannot say. 606. Do you think the present system, by which the divisional councils virtually appoint scab inspectors, is working satisfactorily, or would it be better to leave it altogether in the hands of the Government ? — I think the he.-^t way is to get the opinion of the divisional council, who are best qualified to tell what niRu are fit. They ought to know almost every farmer in the district, and whether he is competent. 607. Mr. Hoiha.^ AVhat knowledge had you of the work before you were appointed inspector ? — My father was a sheep farmer ever since I can remember, and I was brought up amongst sheep. 608. Then your knowledge was from sheep farming. Had you no scientific instruc- tion ?— No. 609. Is it not a fact that a good many of the mounted police are also the sons of farmers, and may have received the same knowledge that you have ? — I daresa}' there are some, but not many in this area. I did not get my knowledge of farming in the East London district, but in Komgha. 610. You said you did give advice ainl assistance to some people in reg^ird to mixing and applying dips, but is not that a part of your duty ? — No, but if a man asked me, I should tliink it a part of my duty to tell him, as a Government servant. If a man did riot ask me, I should not take it upon myself to tell him. 611. What would you do if you saw him setting about it in the wrong way ? — Theb I would tell him. 612. And the same with natives? — Yes. 613. JJr. Smartt.'] As a matter of fact, if a man has scab among his flocks, and you give him a pf-rmit for three months, at the end of which period his sheep are still infected, is he not obliged to dip them in one of the recognise d Government dips ? — He is supposed to clean them in the three mouths. 6H. But if they are not clean, must not he use one of the recognised Government dips ? —Yes. 61.5. If so, are you not bound as a scab inspector to be acquainted with the composition of these different dips, and the method of mixing and applying them, and to tell anyone about it if he asks your advice ? — Yes. 616. Mr. Botha.'] Do you think that, at the expiration of a certain time, the scab inspector should have the right, and be bound, to go to the farm and take possession of the sheep, and have them properly dipped at the expense of ihe owner? — That would be the right nay of getting at them, if we could do it. I would agree with that. 617. It would make more work for the inspector ?---At first, but afterwards it would make his work lighter. At present his work is continuous. 618. Mr. Francis.] Would not that cause great dissatisfaction amongst the farmers ? — I daresay. 619. Mr. du Toit.] And would it not cause extra expense ? — No. 620. Would there not have to be moie inspectors at high salaries? — The ownbr might do it under the inspector's supervision. 621. Dr. Smartt.] Is not clause 23 of the Government instructions to scab inspectors a dead letter when there is no provision made for public dipping tanks ? — Yes. 622. Chairman.] Have you a copy of this revisod issue of scab inspectors' instructions, 1 892 ? — No, and I have never had any acts of Parliament sent to me relating to scab. Mr. David Amos examined. 623. Chairman.] You are a large buyer of wool in East London?— Yes. 624. And have been for some years ? — Yes, six years. I buy for Messrs. Eboll & Co. 625. You are acquainted with the object of this Commission, to inquire into the work- ing of the scab act, and to ascertain what has been the effect of it? — Yes. 626. Can you give us any information front your knowledge in purchasing wool whether there has been any inprovemtnt iu the quality of the wool since the »ct came in force? — I think there has been a very distinct change. Before the act came in force you could see a great deal more scab in the wool, but now, especially in those parts of the country which are under the operation of the act, we tee very littlt indeed. 31 627. Do you buy wool outside the district of East Londou ? — Certainly. 628. And as far as the Transvaal ? — Yes. 629. In the districts in which the 8ca^l act i.s in force j-ou consider there is a d'stinct improvement in the wool — IComgha, E:ist London, Oathcart, and how far up ? — Certainly to Qui'en's Town ; but I should say tliere is undoubtedly more scabby wool sent from the Frei' State than from tl.e districts near here. 630. Have you noticed the wocl in Wodehouse, Albert, and Aliwal North ? — Yes. 631. Do you iind more scab in that wool than in wool from the proclaimed area } — I don't know. The wools that are free.st from scab come from the district of Queen's Town and downwards, and the wools with most scab come from further up-country, like last year in the Free State and thereabouts. 632. I suppose you have not purchased very much wool this year from up-country, as the sheaiing has not long commeiiced ? — No, very little. 633. Are you aware whether scab has been more prevalent the last two or three years? — I think there has been a fair indication that there will be very little scabby wool coming in this year. 634. Then you consider the scab act has had a very beneficial effect upon the whole countrj' y — Certainly. 63.5. Do you think it would be advisable to extend the operation of the scab act, making it either a general act, or applying it to a larger portion of the country than at present ? — I think it ought to be a compulsory act throughout the colony, to stamp the fcab out, and that is the only « aj'. You don't sec scabby wools from Australia. 636. Have you any knowledge of Australian wools ? — Yes. 637. Are you acquainted with any of the north-western districts, such as Namaqua- land, Oahania, Prieska, and so on '? — I cannot say I am acquainted with them. I am so slightly acquainted with the wool that it is not woi-th while my saying anything about it. I have seen wool from there, but have verj' little kuiwledge of the conditions there. 638. Suppose it was found to be extrenely difficult to carry out the pi-ovisious uf the scab act in certain portions of the colony to the nirth-west, such as Xamac|ualand, Prieska, Calvinia, Van Ehyu's Droji, and places along the western border, owing to the conditions listing there and the strong objection on the part of the farmers, do you think it woidd be cdvisable to strike a line excluding those districts fr.m the operation of the act, or would you still compel them to come under its provisions? — No, the act should be made to extend over the whole colony. 639. Do you think it will be impossible to stamp out scab unless you compel all to come under the act ?— Yes, it would not answer to draw the line you speak of. 640 But on our northern border we have the Free State and the teiTitory beyond the Orange River. Would you exclude stock from that part of the country from coming into the colony ? — If they were scabby. 641. Would you altogether exclude stock coming into the colony from the Free State, whether scabViy or not ? — I think that would be going rather far. If the sheep are free, and are passed as free by the scab inspector, I don't see there is any objection to their coming in. 642. If I told you that we have had it in evidence, and knew it to be a fact, that sheep have had permits for removal with clean bills of health, but on reaching their destination some few days afterwards are found to be scabby, would you still consider it advisable to allow sheep to come in as you suggested ? — If you have found by experience that that is the case, I shoidd .s.y not. 643. Would you interfere with the ordinary cou'se of trade with regard to sk^na, and so on ? — No, I don't think there would be any necessity for that. 644. With regard to the London wool sales, have you found any diii'ereuce in the prin' of wool there when it has been declared as from tliis proclaimed area as against wool purchased from the unproclaimed area in which wool is scabby ''. — Not unless the wool is scabby. If it is scabbj*, it will not, of course, fetch tlie same price 645. But do you Imd you obtain a bettor price for wool from the proclaimed area? — Certainly, becau.'^e those wools are freer from scab. 646. Mr. Fraiicis.~\ If jou have two lots of wool brought to East Ijondon, of the same quality of fineness, the same length of staple, and in all respects ecjual. but the one lot affected with scab and the other not ; about what difference in price would you make per pound ? — If the one lot were bailly affected with scab I should say ten per cent. 647. Can j^ou form any estimate of the anntial loss to the colony at the wool sales in London from the fact that our sheep are affected with scab ? — I have not worked that out. It is more a question for farmers, what they lose in the quantity of wool from sheep affected with scab. Fanners ought to know what their average clip is fi-oni their sheep when there is no scab, and also how many bales of wool the sheep produce when they are scabby. It is the loss of the quantitj- of wool produced more than the loss of value of the quantity produced. 648. But wo must come to the nxerchauts to know the difference in value between scabby wool and cli^an wool ? — To arrive at the loss sustained by the colony from scab you must, in the first place, arrive at the quantity of wool which might have been produced had there been no scab. The farmer loses not so much in the price as in the quantity. 6h9. Are you of opinion that, where it is known in the home market that wool arrives from s colony or country where the flocks are infected with scab, merchants will give 1»» for that wool tlian thej' would for the same class of wool froiu a country they knew to be free of scab, even tlunigh they see no scab on either lot ; but that the mere fact of the one lot of wool coming from a country where there is scab lowers its price':* — I can hardly say it would, because jieriple at Lome buy wool on its merits, irrespective of whore it comes from. They can tell if the staple is affected by scab, and that is sufHnient for their purjwses. 6o0. Dr. Sm(irtt.'\ With reference to the London market, you say the wools are bought on the merits of the (lifferent t-lip-s 'i -Yes. 651. But is it not a well recognised fact that buyers of wool in the London market are bound to take a great deal for granted, as a man buying IJO bales cannot cut them all open and examine them "r" Would not the fact of that wool coming from a country which was known to be perfectly fteo from scab increase its value from a knowledge of the fact that all wools coming from that country were free from scab, as in comjjarison with wool coming from a country in which scab was known to exist to a largo extent ? — I adhere to what I have already said, that when you consider the quantity of wool offered in London, and whiit a small portion of it comes from the Cape, they don't have much time to find out where the wools come from ; in fact, no buyer ever buys wool on the London sales without examining it as far as possible, and whether it comes from one district or another they would be guided more by wliat they saw of the wool than by any other facts which may be within their knowledge. 652. But does not the guarantee that the Victoria and New South Wales wools are absolutely free fiom scab cause those wools to fetch a higher price (m the London market than Cape wo. 1 of the same qualify and condition, the Cape not being a country noted as free from scaVi V— Yes, I think Australian wools sell better for that reason, because there is an absence of scab. I thought you were referring to different districts in tlie colony. I there was no scab in Cape wool it would have a better name and fetch a higher price. 053. You referred just now to a matter which, if a general .scab act, were introduced, would be of vital importance to the country— the moving of sheep across the border. The removal of sheep across the border might cause scab to be carried into the procluimerl area, but might it not be a very serious thing to prevent large flocks of sheep being so moved, and do you not think it would answer all i)urpose8 if the flocks, before they passed into the proclaimed area were quarantined for a certain time, and dipped, thus making it impossible f or the disease to break out shortly after they came across the line ? — T think that would answer so as to make sure. 654. Do you receive into the East Loudon district a large quantity of wool from districts outside the proclaimed area .'' — Yes. 655. Had you any knowledge of the working of the railway <1 partment here regarding the trucks which carry wool into the proclaimed area from outside ? — No. 65G. You don't know whether any instructions exist that all these trucks shall be tiioroughly disinfected before they are sent up country again ? — I never heard of them. If they did it, it is quite new to me. I sluuld like to say something with reference to sheep skills, of which there is a considerable export from tliis colony, and in which we see the effect of scab and the depreciation in value ciusod by it more than we see in the wool. A week ago I returned Irom England, where I spoke to several fellmongers, who will have nothing to do with scabby skins. Last year scabby skins were very plentiful, especially from the Free State, more plentiful as far as I can gather than they had been for several years, and a good deal of money was lost in working up these skins simply because the purchasers had not sufficiently estimated the depreciation caused by scab. Sheep which die of scab get of course very poor, and the wool is not only poor, but as the skin^ jv-^ bought by weight the very scab on them is paid for. Not only is there loss wool pulled from the skins in working it up, but there is so much waste, and the skins themselves, the roan, are absolutely valueless. I heard a great many complaints about the tremendous amount of scab in the .shipments last year, and this scab greatly diminishes the value of the colony's exports. 657. M-- Francis.'] What difference in price would you make at present betweeu a lot of scabby skins and clean ones ? — It depends to a groat exteut upon how much scab there was : but a long wool .skin which might be worth 5d. in East Loudon to-day would fetch perhaps about 2d. if it was as .scabby as some we saw last year, because there is so much waste on account of the scab, and there is so much weight in the scab. 658. And the skin itself is useless ? — Yes. 659. Dr. Smarft.~\ The leather is valueless ? — Yes. 660. Chairman.] You buy the skin for the wool? — Yes. 661. If there were no wool on a'scabby .skin you would not buy it':'— No. 662. But you do buy healthy skins ? — They are very valuable. 663. You don't buy scabby skins at all ? — Not if they are very badly scabby. 664. Do you do much business with tlie Trauskei '?— Not so very much hero ; our tirm in King William's Town deal principally with wools from the Transkei, and though I have heard about them I would not like to express any oi)inion. 665. Would you like to give any opinion on the working of the act ? — Only that I think it should be made general. 666. Mr. Botha.'] Do you make any marked difference in jnice between skins coming from Aliwal North, and so on, and those coming from British Kaffraria, without any reference to the wool ? — We do make a difference ; we would rather pay more for the good 3.i Kii/.i'arian skins tlian Imy skiii^ from Aliwai uikI northwai-ds. We buy skins here assorted, tlie .--cabby skins are thrown out at a lower price, aud iu the skins from up-country there are fo manj' reductions that the averag-e price for a iiai-cel of- skins, sa}- from Aliwai North and beyond, is much loss than we should pay here for Kaffrariau skins. ()f)7. But parcels from Aliwai and tliose places contain healtliy skins as well as scabby. Would you make any difference in price for liealthy skins from th:it part and from any otiier part ? — There are more .scabby .skins from Aliwai Nortli, tlie Free State, and so on, which have to be thrown out at a less price than there are in the p:i.rcels bought in Kiffraria and fi'oiu which consequently fewer scabby skins have to be thrown out. 668. Is there any marked difference in the quality of the skins produced in those districts where the scab act i.s in force and those where there is no scab act ? — Yes, in favour of the fornipr. 669. Dr. Smiirtt. | When you say there are more restrictions upon skins coming from Aliwai Nortli and thi? northern territory outside the area, I understand you to mean that there is a much larger percentage of scabby skins from those places? — Yes, and those skins are bought at a^iuch lower price. 670. Aud that on a coufiigument of 20,000 skins from Aliwai North and 20,000 from hLaffraria, the average value of the Aliwai skins Would bo much less all round because there is more scab in those skins? — Yes. 671. Mi\ Botha. '\ But we have it in evidence from a Queen's Town witness, who is in favour of the scab act, that there is more scab in the Queen's Town district than in Aliwai North ? — I don't think so. 672. As a sheepskin buyer, are you aware there is mon' seal'i iu the district of Queen's Town than iu Aliwai North ? — No. 673. Do ycni think there is less in Queen's Town than in Aliwai North ? — Yes. 674. Dr. S>narti.'\ From your experience as a buyer of wool and skins, are you con- vinced that in East London and the neighbouring districts, which are under the ojjeration of a scab act, there is less scab tlian in districts outside the area, and where the act is not in operation ? — Most distinctly. 675. J//-. (Iu ToiL'\ I understand you to say the most scabby .skins you haye bought linve come from, the Free State? — They came ;■/« Aliwai Nortli, and were most probably Free State skins. 676. But. j-ou know a scab act is in force in the Free State ? — I don't know whether it was in force at that time. 677. Then this was some time ago?— Yes, about tne beginning or middle of last year. 678. ChairmaH.'\ When you say these skins came via Aliwai North, you conclude they came from the Free State ? — I know they came from the Free State. 679. Mr. du Toif.^ Have you any expeiieuce in skins coming from the Karoo ? — We don't buv iinv Karoo wool or skins here at all. Mr. Berthold Victor Danchwart% examined. 680. Chair m an. ~\ You are a large buyer of wool and skins ? — I buy for Messrs. Malcomess & Oo., and have had about twelve j'ears' experience in Kaffraria, between King William's Town and East London. 681. You have heard the evidence given bx Mr. Amos in regard to the wool and skins on the frontier, and beyond ? — Yes. 682. Do you agree with all he has stated ? — Fully. 683. Is there anything you would like to add to it, or to qualify it, or is there any information you would like to give the Commission ? — I am iu favour of a very stringent scab act, and that sheep brought from distri(;ts not under the act ought to be placed in quarantine a certain time. For a time this might cause a loss, but I think it would be an advantage in the end. 68). Then you would allow sheep to come in under certain quarantine regulations ? — Yes. 68-5. Iio\\- are you going to can-y out a stringent scab act if yoa allow sheep to come in from an outside area, because directly you open the door for stock to come in, do you not open the do.>r for scab to come iu with it ? — They ought to be put in quarantine before they C(Hne across the border, and be thoroughly dijiped for so many moutlis. 686. You would keep tliem there until you were assured there was no scab among them? — Yes, I would not allow them to cross the bonh r until the owner would prove that they were free from scab. 687. Would you extend the provisions of the act throiiglxuit the whole colonv ? — Most decidedly. 688. You don't think it would be advisable to draw a line through the colony extend- ing the north-western districts? — Certainly not ; have an act for the whole colony. 68J, You don't think we shall ever be able to stamp out scab until the whole colony is protected? — No. I believe there is a scab act iu the Free State, but with an act of this kind everything depends upon its adminstration, and I don't know how the Free State act is worked. 690. Have you no knowledge of how it is worked there ? — No, I cannot say ; but judging from the produce I have seen from there I should say it is not worked properly. 34 I don't kaow how long it kas been in force there, but comparing the produce from the Fref State and from Kaffraria, I should say there is a va'jt difference in favour of Kaffraria ae regards scab in bith wo >1 and skins. 691. Have you any knowledge of the Transkeian wool trade? — Yes. 692. Do you sh > any improvemont in the wool and skins from the TraQskei during the last two or three years? — In curtain parts, but not in all ; tliero his been au improvement in the quality of the woal, which I attribute to the scab act. 693. And the skins ? — I should not like to say that about the skins, because as a rule the skins from the Transkei are very miserable. There is a large sale of skins among the Transkeian naiives checnselves, and we actually get the worst here. 694. Thp natives use the best themselves ? — Yes. 695. The skins you d.) buy from there may be very inferior, but is there as much scab among thorn as there use 1 to be a few years ago ?— No, I don't think there is. 696. After visiting the Transkei, which I take it you do, have you an}' idea how they dip their sheep, or work with them? — No, I have never been in the "Transkei since they have come under the net, that is, the native portion. I cannot say I have been there since they have dipped. 697. Do you think it would be advisable for the Government to erect dipping tanks at i:ertaiu places for these jjeople to use ? — Tin ioubtedly. 698. Do you tiiink the natives would be willing to dij) their sheep under Government inspection, pa\ ing all the exjjenses, iu preference to the way they are going on now ? — Certainly. I cannot sa)' I have heard it directly from natives, but imlirectly I have heax'd that those of them who have dipped their sheep, have recognized the benefit uf dipping. 699. D^^ von think they would be grateful to have their sheep attended to by a qualified person ? — Yes. 700. Mr. Francis.^ Are you of opinion that the colon}- suffers a heavy annual losa owing U) the existence of scab iu it ? — T am quite sure of it. 701. Do you think we might save that money if wo could eradicate scab by a general scab act ? — Yes. 702. Chairman.'] Is there anything you would like to add ? — I fully agree with Mr. Amos with rigard to the sale of Cape wool in the London market, that buyers, knowing the wool to come fnon a scabby country, discount it, so to speak, to a great extent ; and if we wish to remedy that we have the remedy in our own bands. Eatt London, Wedneaday, 9th November, 1893. PRKSENT : Mr. FaosT (Chairman). Mr. Botha. | Dr. Smautt. Mr. i)V ToiT. 1 Mr Fkancis. J//-. Alfred TJ'aUacf lieid examined. 703. Chairman,] What is your occuxiation ? — 1 am a partner in the firm of Gassou and Company, and also produce salesman for Messrs. Hiiker, King- & Co., East London. I was formerly with Lippert & Co., of Pmt fcilizabetii, as prod nee buyer. 704. How lung liave you bei'n in Ivist London ? — Here and at King William's Town for about eight years. I left East London for a short time, and \mt someone in charge here. 705. And how long were j'ou with Lippert & Co. ? — Three years. 706. Are you aware of the object of this Conmussiou ? — Not entirely. 707. To inquire into the working uf the scab act, which I do not propose to ask you about, and to ascertain whether any benefit, has resulted from tlie operation of the existing partial scab act, whether it sliould be made a general act, or how to iinjirove the couilition of the wool-producing distriets i^f the colony. When you wore at Port Elizabeth as buyer for Messrs. Lijipert & Co., 1 suppose all the skins and woo! passed through vour hands ? — Yes. 708. At that time, did you find the skins and wocd very much infected with scab ? — A''ery much. 709. When you came to East London, did yon find any difference here?— Not in the early day?, but lately they have been much better. 710. Can you fix the time when this improvement bocanie a2)parent ? — Xot from memory. 711. But at the time you came here, it was niucli the same as at Port Elizabetli ? — Yes. Speaking from memory I think the impnjvenient must liave set in about 1886, because about the middle or the end of that year jiroduce was very bad indeed ia quality. 712. Do you mean the quality of the produce as affeeted by scab ? — As affected by scab, I suppose. I think that had sometliing to do with the lowness of prices about that time. 713. Of course the wool market fluctuates without reference to scah ? — Yes, but I think the scab had something to do wifh the lowne-s of prices, because the stuff was so bad. 714. They fetched lower prices than they would liave done had iliey be^jn in a better cimdition? — Yes allhough trade w.ss bqd at the time. 715. Has any iniprovem-nt taken place since then ? — Yes, a great improvement. 716. Do yiiu find the skins and wo'd you purchase now very much freer of scab? — Very much, from those di.-.triits where, as I understand, the scab act i< in force. 717. Do vou do business with tlie upper districts beyond the proclaimed area ? — Ye-^, right through to the Free State and the Transvaal. 718. Do you find the wool and skins you purchase from the Free State and the Transvaal are more infected with scab than those you purchase witliin the colony V — Wo are geiting so little wool from the Free State and the Transvaal now that I could not give an opinion with regard to that. 719. Do you find the produce vou get from the districts within the proclaimed area is better and cleaner than that from outsi'le? — I cannot tell with regard to the pioclaimed area ; I know the wools from the different districts. 720. The districts at present under the operation of the scab act arp marked on this map (mail produced). Can yon say, after reference to that, which gives the best produce ? — -Yes, the wool from th ■ proclaimed area is much cleaner. 721. What tli~tricts do you do business with outside the area? — Aliwal North, Burgher- dorj), AVod house, and Albert. 722. Do most of the wool and skins fi-om those three districts come to East London ? — No, I think the bulk goes to Poi't Elizabeth. 723. Do j-ou do an}' business with the Transkei ? — Very little. 724. Have you any knowleHge fif the jiroduce from there ? — Yes, I suppose a part 'of it, arriving through Queen's Town and King William's Town. 72.5. And you trace it as arriving from the Transkei? — Yes, it is called native wool, and the goais' skins are called Kailir goat skins. 726. Do you find wool and .skins from there much infected with scab ? — During the last few years they liave been fairl}' free. 727. Are j'ou aware that the scab act is even now only partially in force in the Transkei ? — No, I did not know that. 728. So the improvement has. to a great extent, been effected without a scab act ? — 1 don't know how it has been effected, but I know there has been an improvement. 729. J/>. Franci^.l Do you mean lately? — Yes, about the last two years. 7oO. Chairman.^ I understand you deal more largely in skins than in wool In purcha-iiug skins free of scab, do you make any great difference in price between skins infected with scab ?— A great difference. 731. Can you give us any id''a of the difference? — I produce a sheep skin, extra long combing wool, but it is scab>)y, and quite unfit for tanning purposes; and it stands to reason that anj'one buying a skin for tanning would not buy one with that mark on, as to use the skin that part woidd hive to be cut right out. When sound that skin was worth 4Jil. a lb., but now it is worth only 3yd., a difference of a penny a lb. Here is a good skin, a " liogsback " scabby skin, which if sound woidd have fetched 6id. a lb., equal to Is. A\d.. for the wh'^le skin, now it is worth onlj' .5d. nlt'>gether, on account of its being scabby. This causes a loss to the farmer or lljd. on ons skin, und fo prove that even the .5d. we pay is too much, notwithstanfling all our trouble, and the complaints that we give too little, we find from our reports that those skins are worthless to seud homo. I have not their letter with me, but my people wrote to advise me that it would have paid me much better to have thrown those skins into the sea. Here is a Queen's Town nitive skin. Thesfi skins were valued at \(i. to Ad. a lb. ; our shipping expenses on skins are about l.^d. a lb., and j'ou will see from the report I put in from mj- people in L mdou, dated the 29th January last, that i n this lot of 4,342 skins we not only lost the original cost but ulso a prmny of our charges on each skin. They are described as " Rather badly scabby, short and clipped hair." Here is another specimen of a badly scabby goat .'kin. Here is a long angora scabby skin. 732. When you purchase long angora skins like that, do you ship thfin in that way ? — No. I dip them. I get very few. You get far ni )re f or the hair than for the skin. The skin is worthless. 733. Dr. SmartfJ If you buy a long angora skin which is scabby, you clip the wi;ol off, and throw the skin away as being valueless ? — Yes. If that skin were clean, it would be worth 4fd. a lb., and these skins weigh on the average IJ lbs., or 2 lbs. for large ones. Here is a sheep skin, very slighllj' scabby, but the .scab would show up in tanning unle-s worked right out. 734. Chairman.] In buyina: skins like the one you now produce, damaged short-shorn sheepskins, you examine them very carefully and put the scabby oues on one side? — Yes. 735. Wliat is the difference in price between sound and scabby skins of that descrip- tion ? — I will give you the price we get at home. We have contracts to deliver th>se to fellmongcr^, and for a ."kin like that we get 3Jd. a ib. delivei-ed in Europe, and for a sound ou'- 4Jd., a differfuce of l^d. a lb. 7 !6. Do you consider all d imaged stins now are .so ibby ? — Yes, very fow are torn now from cutting. Here is another long >vool sheepskin, badly scabby, and to show you how bad it is I pidl out the wool easily with my fingers. A practical man can see from the pjlt [G. 1,- '^4.] F. 36 if the skin is scabby, the skin being gf^norally raised. I find in my last four shipments of sheepskins, of 600 bales, the percentage of damage is from 10 to 18 per cent. 737. J//-. Francis.] Cnu you give us any idea what the peicentage was a couple of years ago ? — No. I havo not gone into that. 738. I suppose the fact of scab being in the skins causes a vor}' heavy loss to the coutitry ? — Very heavy.- 739. You could not give us an approximate idea of what that loss is? — No. 740. Could you give us an idea of the lo.^is to your firm from scabby skins ? — The value of the 600 bales was £3,600, and the loss on the scabby ones was about 13 per cent, on that amount. I worked out the result of our Inst shipment of goatskins, and the loss to the fanner on those 12,409 skins through scab was about £170, but the loss to us was some- thing terrific. I don't know exactly what it was, but I think about £300 on 98 bales of skins. 741. Chairman.'] But had skins fallen? — No, it was mostly on account of the scabby ones. We ought not to have shipped them, but thrown them away, and then the loss T.ould not have been so heavy, Viecau«e the bulk even sold in London at Jd. a lb., some fetching 2]d. Tliey did not bring first cost, any of them. 742. Mr. /■'riinci ■ales « hiili were only good for glue, and a small pile of sound skins, and even some of those left marks of the scab, and tlie man had to lose money 011 them. When the skins are sout to uji-country storekeepers, tliey pass tliem, and we lose. Mr. John Louis Morton examined. 7.53. Chairman.] You represent the firm of Messrs. Mosenthal & Co. ?— Yes, I am produce buyer. 754. liave you been buying long } — Eight years for Messrs. Mosenthal. 755. Wtiere does the produce generally come from .' — The eastern districts and the Free State. 756. Have you any business with the Transkeian territories ': — Yes. 37 757. Is yoiir principle business in wool or skiu ? — We perhajjs do ratlier more with wool, but it is nearly equal. 758. When j^ou coiumeiiced here eight years ago, did you had tlie wool aud skins much affected witli scab .-' — Yes. 759. All throiigli 'i — Yes. 760. Have you uoticed any improvement dui-iug the last few years .^ — Certainly, and particularly in Kaffraria. 761. And in the Transkfi .-* — Not very much ; not in the skins, at any rate. 762. And in the nther districts, such as Queen's Town and Cathcart .' — They aU show a great improvement. 76.3. What ab )ut the districts beyond, Aliwal North, Albert, and the Free State, outside tlie proclaimed area? — There is more or less improvement in some p irts of the Free State. Albert is as bad as it was eight years ago. 764. Have you been buying many skins fnnn .\liwal during the last year? — We act as .sellers for the different storekeepers, and I sliould say we got a good half of the skins which came from that district. 765. Do you S"ll them here or ship them? — We always sell them. 766. Before selling tliem do you sort them ? — Yes, tho sound at one price and the damaged at another. 767. What is the difference in value? — It depends on their condition. If they are very bad there may be only one man in the market who cares to have them, and the difference may be lid. per lb., in otlier cases perliaps Id. 768. There is always a reduction of at least Id. ? — Yes. 769. In other districts you say skins have improved? — Yes. 770. In sorting them, you don't quote so many infected with scab ? — No. 771. Do you tlunk it would be to the advantage of the counti-y that the pro!;laimed area should be extended ? —Certainly, I think there ought to have been a general scab act years ago. 772. Do you think the colony and the farmers individually .voald have been benefited by a general scab act throughout the country ? — Yes. 773 Is not the loss ou these scabby sheepskins borne by, the farmer?— Not as a rule ; I think it is generally borne by the up-country shopkeepers. 774. The shopkeeper buys indiscriminately? — Yes. 775. But knowing he will get so much less for scabby skins, why does he give the same price ? — It is a question of retaining custom : he is obliged to. 776. Can't you get your constituents to separate good skins from bad? — We have written al)out it thousands of times, but it is no use at all. They say if they attempted to do that tliey woidd lose their custom, ami th.e next man would do the trade. 777. That is the way the trade in that \\ViXt of the country is carried on ? — Yes. 778. Mr. Botha.~\ Did you say tin- profit on skins depends on the number of t)uyer8 in the market ? — Not the profit, but tlie price of damaged skins would be affected. < )f course we know the current price in London, and the price here is based upon that. 779. But you said the price depended on competition ? — Yes, for damaged skins. 780. Would not the same apply to good skins ?— Good skins have, more or less, a market value at all times. 781. What would you do if the local buvers in the market here clubbed together and only offered a certain price ? — If the}' offered less than what we considered to be their value, we should not sell them. 782. AMiat would you do ? — Keep them, because we should know very well that a ring Uke that would not last, but if it did we sh ■ iM shij) the skins home. 783. So that after all you are not in th iiands of local buyers ? — No. 784. Consec[uently, you only sell when you can get a fair price ? — Yes. 785 Can you explain how it is that up-country buyers of i>roduce are in the hauils of tlieir cu;oni:ns to such an extent that they must buy whether the article is worth buying or not ? How do those men manage to remain solvent ? — I shoidd say that was a trade secret. 785. Then these people carry on their trade on sucli business lines though you cannot say how it is done, that the)' can buy their skins at a loss 3'ear after year without becoming insolvent ? — I did not saj- they bought every skin at a loss. 787. But they do buy skins that are unfit to be put in the market? — Because they buy the damaged skins too. 788. Then would you say they do not buy skins that are not marketable? — They give a Uttlo more for damaged skins than they ai'e worth, but it does not follow that they give an absurd price for the same skins ; the all-round price may leave them a profit. 789. Mr. Eeid has just said they buy skins for more than they are worth for fear of losing custom, and I asked him in what way are they afraid of losing custom, or how they make up for the loss, because if a man buys produce for more than it is worth for fear of losing custom lie must have some other means of getting back the loss ? — They would get a profit on the goods they sell to those farmers. 790. Do you know how people can manage to do honest business up countrj'? — In the ordinary way of trade. 791. Then you think the up-countr}' buyer buys with a fair prospect of making a profit on the produce he buys ? — Yes. 792. So that he need not necessarily become a dishonest trader for the .sake of making up what he has lost in buying produce ? — Certainly not. F 2 38 793. Br. Smarlt.'] I should like you to re-consiiler your answer to the Chairman's question in which ynu said that the loss occurring upon scabby sl;iiis wns bun'! by tii« ^torc- kfliipiM- and no: by the i'avmor. Did you not moan to convoy th;it tlio conditions of trade in thi> country are such that the st rokoepiu- to retain his trade is tiouiul to bnj' all chii^ses of produce brought to him by his customer, but that to covtn- any parlieulor loss ho is bound to have, in tlio onlinary course of leniiinr:itc) business, a larger margin of profit must be allowed on tlio merchandise which he sells? — Yes. 791. Tlien as a business man, do you iu)t believe that the absolute loss occurring to the country by these damaged skins i^ borne by the producei'? — Certainly. Down liere every- thing is bougbt in its merits. 793. Mr. du Toit.~\ Have you noticed it as a fact that more scabSy skins csime from those place* which are not under the act thou from the proc.laiiaol area?— There is no doubt about it. 706. Havo you not soaietimes observed that jmt as good skins coma from an unpro- claimod area? — Some skins do come from, th ho. Of coarse in many of these unproclaimed areas there are enterprising farmi3rs who have good ilocks, but speaking as a goneral rule the larger proportion of damage skiui come fi'om the nnproolaimod areas. 797. At any rate, your experience le ids you to be more suspicious of skitis coming from unproclaimed areas ihau from proi-hiim.-d arons? ■ I don't know that wo should bo suspici- ous, because every skin is examined, no matter whero it comes from ; they ai'e all classified for shipment. Mr. John Thompson examined. 798. Chairman.^ You are a farmer living in the Komgha district? — Yes, I have lived there for 32 years, and have about 2,500 sheep. 799. The district of Komgha has been under the scab act evor since the act was passed ?— Yes. 800. Before the act was put in force h:id you more scabby sheep in tlie district than now? — There was ^carcelya fl^ck of clean sheep in the district. 801. And at the present time ?— I don't think there is a single flock infected among the ri'.sideuts of Koniglia. H02. Have you no scab in the district ? — None, except from people who trek down from Stuttorluiiu. A couple of infected flocks came from there, but they were not allowed to move until the sheep wore clean. 803. Th'>n have you a clean bill of health for the whole Komgha division? — Yes. 804. How long is it since you had that clean bill of hcaltli ?— I think about three years. There may have been some scab introduced into our flocks that 1 have not hoaid of, but generally speaking it. is as T have said. 805. Of course you attribute this to the scab act being in force ?— Altogether. 800. Have you had any sheep during the present season coming from Oatlicart through Komgha to the .'^iside ? — Yes. 807. Were they clean when they came down? — -That I cannot say. Directly they have moved in the i!'sp.-Jctor goes througii thein. but some break out soon after they get down. 808. What did the insjioctor do with those sheep that came from Stutterheim with scab ? — He quarantined them and they were dippeil ; then he inspected them again, found them all right, and they got their pass to move back again. 809. And now they have yone back to Stutterheim?- — Yes. 810. And as far as you know, the district is again free of scab ? — Yes. 811. Were any sheep infected by them ? — T have not hoard of any. Wo are fenced all along the roads, an 1 I don't think the flocks of people living there were infected, but other troops ()as.sing ttirougii might have been. 812. From your experieut-e o^ the scab act, do you think it would be pos-iible to stamp the scab out altogether provided yoa could prevent any other sheep coming into the district ? — Most decidedly. Th'jre is no douot at all about it. The only alt (ra'ion I w-.mld make in the act is that if upon inspection a m in's sheep ara n )t found to be clian, they should be cleaned by the inspector at that man's expense. If iny neighbour is careless, I may have to go through tlie whole thing again. 813. Then you consider it would be to the interests of the country, and especially of the sheep farmer, to have a general, stringent scab act thr jughout the colony ? — I think it is the farmers' fatilt if there is anj' scab in the country. 814. Is that your expoi'ienoe of the last three years of the district you live iii ? — It is my experience ever since I worked with sheep. 815 Do you uiider.stand how scab inspei^tors are appointed? — No. 81-6. I may inform you it is usual for the divisional councils to recomiueud a man for the posi, and although the G-.-vei-mnent is not obliged to apjioint him they usually accept the council's reiMiiimeudation. Do you think that is tlie best way of appointing scab in.spoctors ? — I don't see how jou can improve upon it. 817. Suppose soiiieono who had a good deal of influence with the divisional council wer • appoi lite 1 scab inspector, but was afterwarls found n >t to b-a an ellicient mm, how would you propose to deal with him? Woeld you leave it in th * hinds of Uie G iveruiaeut to dismiss him and a[ppoint another, or sliould the divisional council appnnt another? — In suoh a case I would leave it in the hands of the Government. 39 818. Do you think it would he better that the spah inspector for the district of Koiuglia shouhl he a man nhnost unknown to tlie district, and liave no friends in it wlien ajipointed. or sliould he he a n sident ?• — If he were a good man I would appoint hiin wh(^:lier a resident or not, hut as a rule a man who did not como froni the district would he liotfer because he would he unacquainted with the pe iple, and wouhl be more inipjr'ial. There is a good deal of that lenience coming in which would make it preferable to have an ontire stranger. 819. Then do you think it would he hotter, for instanc(',*to station a Komgha man another district, and bring a man ia from another district for Komgha? — Yes, I think so. on the whole, hec^.use he would liave no excuse at ail. At present we have a splendid inspector at Komgha. 820. You would he sorrv t > lose him?— Very sorry. In my opinion, shoop should not be allowed to come from distiicts wlii<'h have not a clean bill of health into those that have. 821. Supjiosing it is iuipvacticable to hav.' a general scab act throughout the country, T understand, with your knowledge of the country, you would not care to select a line of demarcation between the proclaimed and unproclaimed area ; but in districts where no scab act is in force, do y(ju think it would be advisable to protect the owner of a farm, or the owners of two or three farms, provided they had a clean hill of health, bj" preventing stock being driven across their farms, or in any other way ? — I think it would be only justice if stock were prohibited frojn being driven across the farms of men who held clean hills nf health, although ihi-y were in an unproclaimed area. 822. Do you think scab will he stamped out as long as stock is allowed to come from unproclaimed areas into proclaimed areas ? — Since the act has been in force in Komgha we don't know what scab is. 823. Mr. Francis.'\ Do vou consider tlie act has been well carried out in your district ? —Yes. 824. Owing to having a very good scab inspector ? — Yes. 82'). Have there been many conviction-: under the act? — No. 826. Then I presume the farmers have done their best t ) assist the inspector ? — Yes, but the irispector would have tlie Hocks clean, and if one can do it, why not another ? 827. Have you many natives in Ivomgha ? — About 7,000. 828. Do you know if they are willing to work to eradicate the scab ? — Yes, they work H illingly enough. 829. Do they complain about the law ? — Oh, no. 830. .Does anyone render them any assistance in dipping .-* — In the Komgha distriet there are not many natives with sheep, and the few who have them are allowed by the neighbouring farmers to dip in their tanks. H31. Then the farmers are quite willing to assist the natives as far as possible to get rid of the scab? — Yes. 832. And owing to the fact that you have a good inspector, and that the farmers work willingly to help him and assist the native^, you are free of scab .■' — Yes. 833. And you believe that the same thing, under the same circum.stances, coul 1 be clone throughout the cohmy ? — Yes. 834. Have yo i heard many compliints about the difficulty of getting j)eriuit.s f.ir unjving sheeo ? — Xo, becaise when sheep are clean we all have our clean bills, and can move out of our district. 83.5. Then »\-h it you complain of princi[)ally under the act is sheep being brought in fi'om other di--tricts y — Yes, sheep that are not clean. 836. Is it a fact that men send in sheejJ without any visible signs of scab on them, but that it breaks out afterwards ? — Yes. 837. Under smh cir.ai;nstances a permit ought not to have been given? — ("'artainly not. 838. If she^p moved by n itives or othovs along t'ae roads infect those belmgiug to the owners of tlie faruii, don't you think it would bn a bonotit if Government had taaks erected at certain places for dipping them y — Most decidedly. We have one in the Komgha district. and when dirty sheep are found on the road they are impuunded and dipped there. 8 i9. Do you thmk it would he a good thing if the G-overnment were to erect tanks in the Transkoi for the purpose of assisting the natives in carrying out the act ? — It would b.- to the advantage of the colony at large. 840. Mr. Botha.'] How many inspector.-; have you ? — One. 841. How many sheep has he in the district ? — I cannot teU you, but last winter about 30,000 were moved through the district to the coast. 842. But this one inspector gives full satisfaction ? — Yes. 843. Are the sheep, which are being continually moved through, from the adjoining districts ? — Yes. 844. Also under the scab act ? — Yes. 845. Is tlio Komgha district to your knowledge the only district free of scab ? — The only one I know of. 84G. You are strongly in favour of a general scab act because it is in the interest of those places already under its provisions, since as long as there are districts not under the act you always run the risk of having ,scabb3' sheep through your district But dcm'tyou think it would be sufficient security for your intere>t3 if all those distric^ts beyond the present scope of the act through which the railway runs were to come under it, those districts which do business with this part of the country ? — Y'es. 40 847. Dr. Smart/, j If you wore told that, ia a district under the scab act, its provisions had been perfectly inoperative in diminish in<>^ the disease, do you believe it would be possible for that to bo the case if the net had been efficiently administered ? — Decidedly not. If the act were jn-operly carried out there would be uo scab in the district. 848. Can yoii offer any suggestions w ith a view fo improve the present act, especiallj' with regard to the tliree mtrnths' licence ? — Th«t is the weak part of the act. When an inspector finds scab in a flock of sheeji, and order.? them to be dipped, if fhey are not clean at the end of the three months' time allowed, they should bo dipped at the owner's expense. There arc some people who won't take the troulile to do it, and a fine will not cure it, V)ecause so long as one man's sheep continue infected, his neighbours' are all liable to get it again. 849. For what time would you suggnst the licence should be granted on the first oc- casion ? — I think two mouths it quite long enougti. 8.50. And do you mean that at the expiration of those two months, if the sheep are f whole tleeco falling off sometimes ; but the skin is perfectly soft and the wool healthy. That is caused by a fever. 866. Have j'ou seen cases in which the whole sheep gets hard, cannot bo cured by continual dipping, and according to Wv. Hutcheou cannot be cured without some internal remedy? Have you seen anything of that kind ? — No. 867. Can you cure the ordinary scab at any time by dipping? — Yes, as easily as possible ; there is no dilfieulty if you attend properly to your dipping. The dip must be of a certain strent^th, and the sheep must l)e put thr .ugh twice with a certain interval. 8o8. Is it easier to cure scab when the sheep are in good condition ? — Yes, because when they are in good condition, the scab hus not so much hold of them. But a .scabby sheep cannot be in very good condition. 869. What would you do if your tlocks were very poor in a heavy drought, and got 41 scab ? — I should not advise dipping them then, nut should wait until the veldt was V)Hgiuning to shoot, because T think you would kill almost half of them. 870. If there were a general .scah aot, what would you do in my jjart of the Colony under sucli circumstances, wliere we suffer from heavy droughts lasting for six or seven months '? Would it not he very hard on such farmers ? — It would all depend upon the scab inspector und the farmers themselves. A severe drought woidd be altogether against it, but as soon as the drought broke up you could cure them in two months. 871. Then you would suggest a clause in regard to the two months' time?--Te8, in a case of that sort. I speak of dipping when the sheep are in good condition, and there is no drought, otherwise it would be ruin to dip. It would be hopeless to dip sheep in a drought. 872. Would you dip sheep when they are lambing ? — Yes, it does them no harm, lambs, sheep, and all. 873. Would you dip she&p infected with wire-worm ? — All. 874. But not when th'^j"- are poor? — No, you might lose a good many 875. Do you believe the scab is so contagious as many people say ? — I do, and know it from experience. 870. Do you believe that it can be carried about liy flies, or the wind ? — No. 877. At the time when you got them clean were your sheep in poor condition ? — No, in good eoudition. I could never keep my shi>ep cl^an until I fenced, on account of my neigh- bours. My shoop have been very jioor t'xis last wiitsr, but there was no scab amongst them. The insjDector went through them. 878. Chairman.'\ Do you think Komgha would have been free of scab if the flockowners had not unanimously come forward and a.ssisted the ia-*peotor t > clnan it '?^Tf they had not sec to and dippe 1 their sheep, they would not hav ■ been eloar, no matter what inspector they had. It was simply because they all took it iu hand. The iaspector could not possibly have got them clean without the assistance of the farmers. 879. Mr. Francis.'] Do you think in the summer time one month would be quite enough to elean sheep ? — Quite. 880. Don't you think a s\'stem of finiug a man if he has not kept his sheep clean would be a good thing ? — No. they should be dipped at his expense. ^^r. Albert Cecil Ou,l;c>iig iu that capacity ? — Out here three or four years. Before that I was with them at home iu the produce department in London ; altogether seven or eight years' connection with the ti'iu in the produce department. 883 Is the business of the firm he e chiefly confined to the East Loudon district?— I have correspondents in m ist of the towns up the line, who buy for me. 884. In purchasing wool au 1 .skins do your buyers up-country make any difference in the price for health j' produce":' — A very great difference. 885. Are those your general instructions to them ? — Decidedly. 886. Can you give us any idea of the difference iu value between skins that are good, sound, and healthy and skins affected witli scab or any other disease ? — We mnke a penny difference, but it should be more than that. On our sound skins we make a profit, but a serious loss ou the damaged imes. As far as the damaged skins are concerned we would rather not take them at all, but we are obliged to. 887. Why ? — Because if we don't others will and we lose the business. 888. But I suppose you don't buy the damaged skins by themselves ? — No. 889. You buy them mixed with other skins? — Tiie parcel comes down mixed up, but I sort them before I buy them, and biiy them at two prices, rendering my account sales so much sound and so much damaged. The damaged skins have a value if you can get them low enough to make a profit. 890. In slii[iping them to England you p ly a penny a pound less ^ — They fetch less than a penny a pound difference at home. 891. We have it iu evidence that damaged goatskins are sold here at so much each? —Yes. 892. Whereas good sklus are sold at so much a pound? — Yes, we dii business ia the same way. 893. 8o that out of a lot of skins bought at all round prices j'ou mvke a f lir profit on g.jod skin.s, liut los ; mouey ou the bad ouei? — Ye<, subject to the fluctuations of the market. 894. Does it equalise itself ?— We try to make a profit in the total, but very often if you get a had lot i;iie loss ou the dirty skius takes away the profit on the sound. 895. But virtually y >u are obliged to pui'chaso th'3 bad skins iu or.ler to (v.irr}- on your business? — Yes; all buyers would rather refu«e to buy scabby skins at all if they coull get the sound ones -.vithout them. 890). Umler these circumstances, do yini not think it would be very much in the interest of the country and farmers geuoraliy if you could stamp out the scab ? — Yes. 897. You think the loss now sustained by the farmers on damaged skins and wools is so great that they would profit even more than the merchants ? — Yes. 49 898. O ) you find any differenoe in the quality of the skins you purchase from places ill tlio prool nil iipil area and those beyond it ':* — A great difference in rogard to quality in ivspect of ecah in certain districts, as far as my experience with skins is cuncerned. I find the Barkly skins fiirly fiMo from scab ; that is far above all th i others Tiie Tarki skins <(intain a good di^il of scab; Queen's Town a fair quantity; we expect a good manv s'cabby skins from Aliwal North ; Cathcart, not so much, they are fairly clean. From Komgha, Stutterheim and East London there aro very few datnagod skins. Komgha is n ally free of scab. 899. I) ' you deal with skins from the Tr.mskoi ? — Yes, 75 per cent, of those are damngi'd. Si aro the King William's Town natives, but not the farmers there ; the wkins from the King WiUiani's Town farmers are very good. 900. Then you say the Transkei is vorj' scabby? — Yes. 901. What about Albert V — We get a good deal of .•-cub from there. We deal a good d al witli the Free State, and taking it as a whole the skins from there are more scabby tlian those from tiie colony. 902. Are there any suggestions you would lilce to make .-* — I should say it was very desirable in the fanners' interest that the s tab shouhl be st imp-fd out, 903 A'-e y > i in favour of a geue-al s;ab ict thn>u.fhout thi colony ? — Yes. 90-1. ^fr. Fiaticis.'\ Do you buy wool as well jis skins ? — Yes. 90.5. And I suppose what you hav i said with reg.ird to skins applies to the woid? — Yes. 906. What do you think would be the difference in price hero between two parcels of wool otherwi-^e equal, but one badly infe;te(l with s"ab anl the o'.hw not? — T could not say without seeinjj it. It is a very hard question. P.'rha|)<. roughly spoakinj;', about jd. per lb. 907. Are you of opinion that the very fact of its being known on the home market that scab is preval-nt in the Cape Colony would be a cause why wool from here fetches a lower price than it otherwis'^ would? — I have seen buyers in London piss a Cape lot and go on to the ne.ict. My own instructions are to leave scabby wool alone unless I can get it very cheap. 908 Mr. Botha.'\ Ai'e you quite sure that you make less profit on inferior skins or other produce than on that of a better ([uality, even if you buy it at a low price ? — Yes, at the price we pay. 909. Notwithstanding that you pay a lower price for the inferior article, you make h'ss profit ?— We make no profit ; as a rule wo lose. 910. But you make a (listinction in price between good and bad produce ? — Decidedly. 911. And do you giv.- the same instructions t) your country buyers ? — Yes. 912. Dr. Hmartt.^ You have had some experience with the Lindon market ? — Yes. 913. And your experience leads you to think tliaf, if a clip of a huudred bales of wool came from South .Africa absolutely free of scab, the knowledge that it was South African wool would caus^ the buyer to ilisoouat it to some e.^ctcut because it c i.me from a country where scab existed? — Many buyers would neglect it entirely, but a buver Inv Cajie wools w luld see it was all right and pay full price ; I know there is a difficulty in London in di -posing of South African wools. 914. Chairman.^ Have you any further stig-j^estious to make ? — Only that I should like to see a general scab act. Jfr. Williafii Jenii'i/, Assistant Traffic Manager, examined. 91.D. Chdiniian.'] You are assistant traffic manager on the East London line ? — Yes, and inn fit ]iresotit acting- for the ttiiffic manager. 916. We wish to know whether you lu.ve any instructions to cleau.se trucks that have carrio 1 .stock from up-country down to the c >ast, or vice versa ? — Instructions have been issued fo that effect. 917. Arc3 tlie trucks always cleansed after stock has been carried in them ?^The instructions are th it immediately after the stock is off-loaded the truck is to be cleansed. 91S Does lliat apply to outside stations ? — To all stations. 919. Are means provided for the purpose at all the stations along the line ? — Not at th ■ small stations. 920. So thai if stock were off-loaded at one of those small stations and gojds.or wool put into that truck, the truck would not be cleansed? — The truck wou.d be cleaned if goods were to be loaded in there after the stock had been off-loaded, but it might not be cle uied if it was sent away from there empty. 921. Woul i it be cleaned if a load of woid was taken up ? — If it was dirty. 922. As far as you know, are the instructions carried out ? — Yes. 9.'3. Mr. Francin.'] What means are generally used to disinfect the trucks':' — White- wasli. 92 1. Tlieti a truck might be loaded with stock, and after the stock was taken out at a small station and the truck sent out containing gMods, it might mi-re much scab in the area ? — There was a great deal in parts. 1042. Amongst the natives? — Yes, almost the wliole of my area is pojjulated with natives. 1043. How many sheep are there in your area ? — About 52,000. 1044. You think there was more scab when you took it over than there is at present ? — Yes. 47 1045. How do you account for that ? — A good many dipping tanks have been buUt, and I dip a good many of the natires' sheep myself. 1046 How many dipping tanks are there in the native portion of your area ? — About 30. 1047. — How long have they been built '? — Some within the last six months, but in 1888 when I was assistant inspector there were a good many. 1048. You were assistant inspector previous to being appointed inspector? — I was assistant inspector in 1888, and then I resigned. 1049. When you were assistant inspector, was there less scab in your area than there was when you took it over last year ? — No, there was more in 1888. 1050. And since then the natives have taken to dipping their aheep pretty regularly? — Yes. 1051. As a scab inspector, do you assist them? — In every way I possibly can. 1052. — AVho generally mixes their dip ?— Whenever I can get the people to agree to dip, I go and mix it mj'self . 1053. Don't you often find the natives make mistakes in mixing their own dips ? — Very many of them do. 1054. And in this way the dipping is rendered almost worthless, owing to the dip being too weak, or the sheep not being kept in long enough ? — Yes ; where they are trusted to dip themselves they often don't dip all the sheep, and these people are con- tinually moving about. 1055. Do you think you will be able to stamp out scab in your area if that sort of thing is allowed to go on ? — No. 1056. Would you recommend the compulsory dipping of native flocks at a certain time of the year under the supervision of an inspector or some authorized person ? — Yes. 1057. In order to carry out compiilsory dipping, do you think it would be necessary for Government to build tanks iu your area, or are there enough already ? — There are not enough now. 1058. Are there any Government dipping tanks in your area? — No. 1059. Do you think it would be necessary to build any there ? — Yes. 1060. Although you have thirty already built ? — Many of them are small, and it would be a difficult matter to dip a large number of sheep in them. Some are hardly more than tubs, and though a man holding a few sheep could dip in them, they would not do for the sheep of a location. 1061. Do you think it advisable that Government should build tanks there, and that there should be a simultaneous, compulsory dipping ? — Yes. 1062. If that plan were adopted, do you think the scab would be very materially reduced, or completely stamped out in your area ? — Yes, I think so, provided that no scab is imported. 1063. Do you think it would be advisable to prevent scabby sheep coming from an unproclaimed area into a proclaimed area at all? — Yes. 1064. And so long as they are allowed to come in, whether scabby or not, j-ou think the scab wiU come too ?— Yes. 1065. Then I presume you think a general scab act would be very much better for the whole colony ? — Yes. 1066. Do you think the time allowed uader the present act for sheep to be cleaned is too long y — Certainly. 1067. What time dc you think would be necessary to give a man to clean scabby sheep ? — Thirty days is ample. 1068. Do you think that could be applied at all times and seasons of the year ^ — Yes. 1069 In regard to your location only ? — Yes. 1070. Do you think a farmer would suffer severe loss by having to dip sheep in the winter ? — No. 1071. Would it be perfectly safe for him to dip ewes and lambs in the middle of winter if scab broke out among them ? — -Yes. 1072. Do you think the sheep would be likely to be improTed by stamping out the scab ? — In this way it would ; that if they wero allowed to go on, the}' would become so bad that in the cold weather they wotild die, as they would suffer so much from poverty. 1073. Then you think it is to a man's interest to dip th»m? — Yes. 1074. Is there any other amendment you could suggest ? — I think the fines might be more severe. I have known a man to be brought up the first time and fined £1, and the third or fourth time £'4 ; and I think one severe fine would have a far better effect than several small ones. 1075. Suppose your area was comparativel}- clean, and scab broke out in it. would you bring a man up and have him severely fined if he had scab in his sheep ? — If he did not take immediate measures to try and check it. 1076. And if he commenced to work with it at once ? — Tlien it would be very hard to fine him. 1077. Do you think the present method for the appointment of inspectors is best, upon the recommendation of the divisional council, or shotild tlie Government appoint them without reference to the council ? — '1 here are often men in the divisional councils who liave no experience in regard to scab, and I think it would be better if such api>ointments were left mi)re. to the farmers. The Government could always get a recommendation from the farmers' association. 48 1078 . Do you think the farmers themselves in a district are the best to recommend ? — Yes. 1079. But are not the divisional councils the representatives of the farmers? — Yes, but they represent the town as well, and speaking particularly of King William's Town, if onlj' three or four country members turn up, there is an equal number for the town. 1080. Suppose through favouritism the divisional council recommended a man who did not prove satisfactory, should the Government remove him without applying to the divisional council ? — Yes, I think so. 1081. If it is found impossible to have a general scab act throughout the colony, do you think any one farmer living outside the proclaimed area should be protected to the extent that no scabby sheep should be allowed to cross his farm, just as though he was in a pro- claimed area ? — Yes, I think he would be entitled to every protection. 1082. Mr. Francis.'] You have rather a large area? — Yes. 1083. Do you find you can carry out the act as you would like to do ? — No. 1084. You can't act up to the letter of the law ? — No. 1085. If you received notice of scab in sis directions at once, jrou could not inspect them at once ? — No, but I think I oould within a reasonable time. 1086. Is there not sometimes great inconvenience caused to the farmers through not obtaining permits for the removal of sheej) ? — Not in my area, because when a man requires a permit, even if I have to neglect other work, I always make some arrangement for him immediately. 1087. Would you advise that public tanks be placed on niaiii roads at certain places for the benefit of travellers ? — It might be done at outspans in the case of scabby sheep moving along, and if an inspector found a scabby flock of sheep being moved through his area there would then be some chance of having them dipped before letting them proceed. 1088. Do you find the natives are at all opposed to the act? — Some of them are, and the opposition is increasing. As a rule it is the negligent ones who are opposed to it. 1089. Do you find they are more inclined now to assist you in carrying out the act? — Generally speaking they are more inclined to comply with its provisions. 1090. They have begun to see the benefit of the act ? — Yes. 1091. If you were to poll them, would there be a majority in favour of continuing the act ? — Yes, the general feeling amongst them is in favour of the act. 1092. Have you had many prosecutions under the act ? — A good inaoy. 1093. Have you found auy difficult}' in obtaining convictions? — No. 1094. Do you think the act as carried out at present is really lessening the amount of scab ? — Yes. 1095. Are you of opinion that under the present act scab could be completely eradi- cated ? — I think we ought to have a more stringent measure. 1096. Would there be a chance then? — Yes. I think also there ought to be more protection for those people who do keep their flocks clean. 1097. In what way .-" — By inflicting a very severe penalty on anyone bringing in scabby sheep. 1098. You know that a farmer is allowed at present to summon anyone who allows his scabby sheep to mix with that farmer's, and may receive damages up to £20?— Yes, but native locations are on crown lands, and I think thepo people are also entitled to protection. 1099. Do you think the fines should be heavier ?— Yes. 1 100. But do you think it would act, instead of inflicting these fines, that a man should be allowed a certain time in which to cleau his sheep, and if upon its exjiiration they were still scabby he should be fined s i much per head, and should they be still scabby upon the expiration of a second period, double the amount? — I don't think so, because if a man had a small flock of 20 sheep, and anotlier had 500, it would be very much easier for the first wan to cleanse 20 shoep than for the other to cleanse .500. 1101. But would not the man with 500 sheep be in a better position to cleanse his flock than tlie one with 20 ? — I don't think so. 1102. If you had the proper means, do you think you could cleanse any sheep within a month y — Yes 1103. Then don't you think a man with 500 sheep could do so? — Yes. 1104. And if he did not, it would be through his own neglect? — Yes. 1105. Should not a man be fined who neglected to carry out the act ? — Yes. 1 1 06. Mr. Botha.] Do you think natives are sufficiently intelligent to look after their own interests in cleansing sheep if they are under the care and have the advice of an honest scab inspector ? — I think so 1 107. Do you think a scab inspector should be allowed to do any other business for his own benefit besides attending to his duties ? — Not if by so doing he neglects his duty. 1108. And would you allow him if it did not interfere ? — Certainly ; amau might carry on a farm and be a scab inspector. 1109. You have 52,000 sheep under your care, and some scab iaspactors have more. If you cannot attend to 52,000, how can others attend to more and do something else besides? — I have a native population to deal with whose flocks are very small, but one farmer may have 6,000 and give you all the assistance in his power. 1 110. It is the peculiar circumstances of this districtwhichmakesthoworksodifficull ? — Yes. 1111. Some of the locations have already ouiltand paid for dijjpiag tinks? — Yes. 49 1112. If some can do it, are not all the locations more or less in the same condition ? — No. I don't think so. It is a very difficult matter to arrange. If you go into a location, perhaps some of the men are prepared to subscribe provided the others will join them, and they are not always in a position to do it. 1113. If the inspector had the power to say what had to be done, could he not have tanks in every location ? — It would be a very difficult matter to force those people to build the tanks. 1114. Some have done so ? — Yes, we have persuaded them. 1115. Have not the others the same facilities, and could they not be forced ? — They have the same facilities. 1116. With regard to fines, don't you think some people are really too ignorant to know how to comply with the provisions of the act in dipping their sheep, and that they don't clean the sheep more from ignorance than unwillingness ?— No, because I am prepared to give any man in my area all the assistance I can, and any instructions that are necessary to carry out dipping. 1117. If a flock can be cleaned in thirty days, would it not be very much better if the law authorized the inspector to go himself or appoint a suitable person to have sheep dipped that were not clean within the given time, and have it done at the owner's expense, rather than fining him ? — Yes, but in that case none of these people would try to clean their sheep. 1118. Would not a man be able to do it of his own free will at less expense than it would be done by the inspector, and would not that be a sufficient inducement for him to do it himself ? — I think it would. 1119. Dr. Smartt.^ Would you recommend that one large, efficient dipping tank should be erected by the Government, or several smaller ones scattered through the location ? — One large tank. 1120. If fanners in a district where the act has been in operation for some years said that it had not been efficient in stamping out scab, and that scab is more prevalent now than it was before the act was put in force, would your experience as an inspector lead you to think that, if such is the case, it must be due to the inefficient administration of the act in that district ? — Yes. I think so. 1121. Supposing a general scab act was not carried out over the colony, would you be favourable to allowing the same conditions to be operative on all places which were perfectly free from scab which are operative in proclaimed areas ? — Yes, provided the sheep were clean. 1122. Would you recommend that at the expiration cf thirty days' quarantine, all flocks, whether belonging to farmers or natives, in any portion of the colony where the scab act was in operation, should, if found on inspection to be infected, be dipped by the Government at the owner's expense ? — Yes. 1123. Mr. du Toit.'] Where would you have the additional tanks to be supplied by the Government ? — In the locations in my area. 1124. Besides in your capacity as an inspector, have you experience as a sheep farmer ? Yes. 1125. Do you believe all kinds of scab on sheep are caused by an external insect ? — Yes. 1126. Are you aware of more than one kind of scab on sheep ? — Certainly not. 1127. Are you not aware of a kind of scab which is caused by internal parasites, such, as worms ? — No. 1128. Fever caused by steekgras getting through the wool into the skin ? — No. 1129. Do you think it advisable to dip sheep when they are in poor condition in consequence of protracted droughts? — Yes, in tLis area. 1130. Do sheep get poor here from long protracted droughts? — They get very poor sometimes. 1131. Do you believe scabby sheep win infect others without mixing with them but merely by crossing the land } — Yes. 1132. Will scabby Cape sheep infect clean merinos? — I have had no experience with Cape sheep. 1133. Do you believe scab can be entirely stamped out from the colony? — Yes. 1134. If no general scab act is passed, do you think a line might be drawn to the northward of all the lines of railway, so that all railway communication is within a proclaimed area, and that it would be possible to entirely stamp out scab in such area ? — Yes, with a strict quarantine on the frontier. 1135. Would you then be in favour of a more stringent act for such an area than the present act, or would this act meet the case ? — I think we should require a more stringent act. 1136. Have you ever been in Victoria West or Carnarvon, or those parts ? — No. 1137. Chairman.'] Is there anything you would like to add? — I think if the scab inspectors carried out the dipping they might receive more assistance from the Government, and that men should be appointed to do it, because the natives are willing now to do it. It is very difficult for inspectors to do this in addition to their own duties without any recompense. 1138. You are strongly in favour of compulsory dipping for the natives ? — Yes. 60 Kinq TriUiam'i Town, Friday, Wth November, 1892. PEESENT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. Mr. Du ToiT. Dr. Smartt. Mr. Fbancts. Mr. Johannes Coenrad Froneman examined. 1139. Chairman.~] You are a sheep farmer living on the Bontebok flats near Cathcart.' —Yes. 1140. I understand you have come here to give some evidence with regard to the working of the scab act .' — Yes. 1141. Do you object to the act ? — Yes. My greatest objection is that we are fixed, and cannot move our sheep about, and this is ruinous to the sheep farmers. 1142. In what way .?^ — When you want to move your sheep you can't get hold of the inspector ; last year I had to send seven times to get him, and after all he did not come. The seventh time I went myself and found his brother in Cathcart, and he said if I had a permit from my neighbours I could give it to him and he would hand it to his brother ; but in the meantime I could not wait for that because my ewes were lambing, so the inspector's brother said I could go and he would make it all right with his brother. I had to wait so long that it was impossible to move all my ewes, so I moved about 200 of them and left the others to lamb at home, and since then until now, nearly two years, the inspector has never visited my place. I wanted a permit for those which were left behind, but as the inspector never came I never got it, and suffered a very heavy loss in consequence. 1143. Who was the inspector ? — Mr. Brown, of Cathcart. Afterwards I went again to the inspector for a permit, but he said as I had already moved some of my sheep I could do what I liked with the others, but I was afraid to trek upon that as ho might have prosecuted me. 1144. Mr. Botha.~\ What changes do you propose in the act .' — We want to be allowed to get a certificate from two landowners that our sheep are clean enough to move ; but my idea is that every field-cornetcy should be an inspector's area, and then he would be come-at- able at all times. 1145. How should inspectors be appointed.^ — The sheep farmers themselves should have the recommendation. 1146. Are you acquainted with the native locations in youi- neighbourhood ? — Not well, but I know something about them. 1147. Do you think the natives are in a position to build their own dipping tanks.' — Yes. 1148. If they say they are too poor, would you believe it .? — No. 1149. Do you think the natives in their position are as well off as the poorer class of European farmers ? — Yes, better. 1150. Mr. Francis.'] You had a great deal of trouble and expense in tr%nug to get those sheep moved, and the cause of this appears to have been entirely due to the fact that you could not get the inspector to give you a permit } — Yes. 1151. If you could have got at the inspector at once, or if there had been more inspectors, you would not have had that trouble .'' — No. 1152. Then it was the fault of the inspector, not the fault of the act } — Yes, they don't do their work properly. 1153. Do you mean aU the inspectors, or just the one you know 7 — All that I know ; they are all birds of a feather. ' 1154. If it were not for this difficulty in getting a permit, do you think the act would otherwise be a good one ? — Otherwise it is a good act. 1155. Br. Smartt.'] How would the farmers in a district recommend the inspectors } — When the farmers think the field-cornet is not fit for the post they should select a man among themselves. 1156. Would j'ou be in favour of the plaa tliat the civil commissioner should call a meeting of the farmers in the field-cornetcy at which they should select a man to recommend as inspector } — Yes. 1157. Would that be a better plan than the one now in vogue by which the civil com- missioner receives recommendation from the divisional councils .'' — Yes. 1158. Or do you think it would be still better if the Government, who are responsible for the proper administration of the act, should have the responsibility of appointing suitable men ? — No. 1159. Do you think it is a good plan to appoint men as scab inspectors in a field-cor- netcy who are known there, and have many relations there, or that they will can-y out their duty impartially ? — I think so. 1160. You seem to think the natives are in a position to build dips for themselves ? — Certainly. 1161. But don't you think in the interests of the white farmers surrounding the locations it would be much better if the Q-overnment built tanks, and had the natives' sheep dipped 51 under proper supervision, charging them a reasonable tariff to cover the initial cost of the direction of the dipping and the amount of dip used ? — I don's see what good it would do or how it would work. lli'2. His it ever come to your notice that any farmers in your division have had their flocks infected by native scabby sheets straying amongst them ? — They say so, but I have not seen it. 1163. From your experience of the working of the act, do you think it would be advis- able to extend it to the whole colony ? — No, there are farmers in the western province in such dry districts that for want of water, and also for other reasons, they would not be able to carry it out. 1164. But you are still in favour of the act being applied to a certain portion of the colony? — Yes, I believe there a certain portions of the colony where it should still be applied. 1165. 'WTiere should the dividing line be drawn? — That will not help us until the Transkei is brought in, because it is chiefly through the Transkeian natives that the scab comes in. 1166. Has the act had any effect in stamping out the scab in the part of the country where you live? — Xo. 1167. Does your experience as a sheep farmer lead you to conclude that the act has been perfectly inoporative in vour district ? — Scab is j ust as prevalent there now as it was six years ago. I cannot say anything else. . 1168. Do you think, if the act was better administered, it would have any effect in stamping out the disease ? — Yes. 1169. Then do you think it would be better tc make the act more stringent .' — No, it must be made to work more easily. 1170. Yuu said just now theact has h;id no effect in stamping out scab, because it was iuefBciently administered, and that if it was administered better, it would tend to stamp out the disease. Then how can you now say it should not be made more stringent ? — T don't object to its being made more stringent, but the farmers must have more libertj'. 1171. Do you mean the farmers with clean sheep should have more liberty to sell? —Yes. 1172. Would you suggest that a man having a clean bill of health sliould be allowed to move his sheep on his own permit ? — No, all I want is easier access to the inspector. 1173. Don't you thiuk it would relieve a good many men, who have a dean bill of health, if they were allowed to move on their own pemiit, subject to a hea^-y penalty if they removed scabby sheep, which they declared to be clean? — I am in favour of that. 1174. I take it your evidence refers to Cathcart, the district in which you live, and no to King William's Town ? — I refer to Cathcart. 1175. Would you be in favour of a general compulsory dijjping act in conjunction with a scab act ? — Yes. 1176. Should it be applied to the whole country at the same time or in certain areas to suit the climate ? — In areas. 1177. Do you think by a simultaneous dipping in areas it would be easier to stamp out the disease ? — No, because my sheep have been clean the last two years, and if T were to dip clean sheep it would injure my flocks. 117B. What protection would you afford to farmers living outside a proclaimed area, who had clean sheep, and had spent a good deal of money in getting them clean, from farmers trekking over their property with scabby sheep ? — There should be a law to protect a man who keeps clean sheep on an unproclaimed area. 1179. Do you think it would be only fair to a man who kept his sheep clean at great expense in an unprcjclaimed area, if he was allowed to prevent any man trekking over his property with scabby sheep 'i — I cannot say otherwise. 1180. Would you apply the same penalties to scabby sheep mixing with that man's flock as if in a proclaimed area ? — Not to the same extent, but he should be punished to the extent that he should be compelled to clean the sheep. 1181. He should be obliged to pay for the dipping of the sheep which were infected by his own scabby sheep ? —Yes, that is only ri^lit. 1182. Mr. flu Toit.'] Are you aware of more kinds of scab on your sheep than one ?— I have seen a disease' with a swelling like a boil ; but that is not what I call scab. It is just as bad. if not worse. 1183. Can you cure it by dipping .^ — I have heard of people dipping for it. and not curing it, but I have no knowledge of it myself. 1184. Does the wool come off from siuh infected skins in the san.o way as fi-om scabby sheep ? — Yes, my opinion is it is an internal disease and only requires internal medicines. , 1185. Don't you think it may often he very difficult for inspectors to distinguish this kind of scab from the other ? — I have heard so. 1186. Where ? — In Komgha, Mr. Sparks the inspector. 1187. In whose flock was it that he found this kind of scab .'—Mr. Jvrog of the Bonte- bok Flats. 1188. Have you seen him yourself .-* — Yes. 1 189. Did he teU you about this peculiar kind of scab ? — Yes. 1190. How many times did he dip to try and cure it ? — At least five times, and it may have been six. [G. 1— '94.] H 1191. J Hdho rei)oit tliis case to the inspector? — Yes, and he came there about three times. 1192. What was tlie result ? — I don't know. 1193. Could ho nut advise the farmer or givo him some remedy to cure it ? — The in- spector wroto to tlio veterinary surgeon and asked his advice, but I don't know about an insect. 1194. What became of the flock afterwards ? — They are on the farm. 1195. Arc tliej' soimd .•' — No, but notwithstanding they get permission to trek from Komgha bad; to the farm. 1196. Wliere was the flock when tins scab broke out .^ — In Komgha, on Mr. Krog's winter farm. 1197. Did lie report to the inspector of the area where his farm was that the sheep wore infected ? — Yes, and to the inspector of Komgha also. 1198. Did tliat inspector give him any remedy? — I don't know, it is only about a week ago. ' . . * 1199. As far as your experience goes, do you think that, except this kind of scab, all other scab known to be caused by an insect, can be cured by good dipping ? — Yes, in a way. 1200. If you dip according to instructions ? — Yes, if it is made properly. 1201. By making the dip good, and dipping in time, is it your opinion that scab can be stamped out ?— For a time. 1202. Why for a time ? — Because it is fever which causes scab. I am almost certain of it. 120.3. Then you don't believe scab is caused entirely bran external insect ou the skin ? — The scab juoduces the insect, not the insect the scab. 1204. Chairman.'] You think you get reinfected here because the Transkeian territories are not under the act ?- Yes. 120.5. Do the sheep come from the Transkei into the colony, or go from the colony into the Transkei? — There is traffic backwards and forwards. 1206. Do any sheei) e?er come fi-om the Transkei into the colony ? — Yes, often. 1207. Mr. Francis.] How many sheep do you generally keep? — Aboxit 500; I have given up sheep-farming. 3fr. Adam FVoneman examined. 1208. Chairman.] You are a sheep farmer? — Yes ; sometimes I keep 1,500 sheep. 1209. You have heard the evidence of Mr. J. C. Froneman ? — Yes. 1210. Do j'ou agree with him that it is impossible to stamp out .scab ? — No. 1211. Will you give us your reasons? — I believe it can be cured by dipping. 1212. And if 3'ou dijijied them, kept them clean and separate from others, would they get it again ? — Never. 1213. Then you don't believe the scab comes from an internal fever? — No, it is an insect on the skin, and can be cured by dipping. 1214. J)/)-. Jlofha.] Have J'OU any suggestions for the improvement of the present scab act?— Only to pa.ss a general act. 1215. Where the act has been iiroclaimed, has it answered its purpose? — Yes, but there is still a great deal of scab in Cathcart. 1216. D030U think the present method of appointing scab inspectors is a good one? — I think the farmers shoiUd recommend to the divisional council, and the council to the Government. 1217. Would it answer for the magistrate to call a meeting at which a man should be chosen to be recommended ? — I think that would work the same way as the other : I see no difference. 1218. Do J'OU know much about native locations ? — There is one close to mj' place. 1219. Are they able to have enough sheep dips of their own ? — Yes, because there are over 8,000 sheej) in that location. 1 220. 'I'hen when a man has sheep to dip, he is able to provide for the dip ? — Yes. 1221. Dr. Sinartt. J From your experience of the working of this act, do you think, if a general act were applied to the whole colony, we could in a few years stamp out the scab ? — If it was properlj- worked. 1222. Do you think a ccmipulsory dipping act should be worked in conjunction with a scab act ? — I don't think so, because the time fixed for the dipping of all sheep might not suit some farmers. 1223. If in the general interests of the couTitry a scab act were to be proclaimed over a large portion of the colony, don't you think a comijulsory dipping act to be put in force for a couple of years, compelling men to dip in certain areas, would not onlj' greatlj' help to eradicate scab, but would soon repay the initial loss sustained ?— Everybody is not in the same position to do it ; and there are bad seasons. 1224. ^^'ould you be in favour of Government erecting dipping tanks on all the large thoroiighfares passing through proclaimed areas, with a view to dealing efficiently with any sheep which might show signs of scab when travelling ?— Yes, 1 think that would be a very good thing. 1225. If it were found impossible to apply the act to the whole colony, what recom- mendations would you make for preventing the areas under the act from becoming infected 53 by outlying areas. Would you have Government dipping tanks all along the border ? — If it is impossible to put them under the same law as ourselves, I think that would be a good plan. 1226. Under the same circumstances, would you afford protection to a farmer in an unproclaimed area having clean flocks ? — If he keeps his sheep clean, I would protect him from a neighbour with scabby sheep. 1227. Mr. da Ihit.'] Ai-e you aware of the circumstances connected with these sheep of Mr. Krog's .'' — No, it is a long way from me. 1228. Have you ever met with such a kind of scab .-' — I only kuow of one scab. 1229. Do you think it unadvisable to diji a flock when the sheep are in poor condition '; — If they are in very poor condition you are sure to lose some of them. 1230. And if you don't dip them ? — They might die of scab. So I say keep them clean always. 1231. Your nuiin objection to a compulsory dipping act is that all farmers cannot very well shear at one time f — Yes; it would be a loss to me to dip twelve mc.mth.s' wool. 1232. Do you think scab is very contagious ,^ AVill clean sheep get infected by only going on the .same ground as infected sheep without mixing with them .-* — Not so soon, but I am sure scab is spread in that way. 1233. You thoroughly believe scab cannot come spontaneously.-' — I do. 1234. And that it does not come from fever ? — No, it is an external insect. Sizint examined. 1235. Chairman.^ You and Mnyanda liave come to represent the Quggwala location, and Jeremiah Boneo with Tyatyaza the Mount Coke location, and I understand you are to be spokesman ? — Yes. 1236. How many sheep are there in those two locations ? — Mr. Kettles would know. 1l has improved in condiliou and (juality since the ac/t has been in force i—A. good deal. What has inijirovod it most is the evenness : that is, if you have clean wool from a Imle you can depend on the whole bale being clean. 1339. In purchasing a clip of wool, would you give a higher price for one which was free of scab than for one in which you found scab, no matter whether it was a little or a great deal ? — Yes. 13-10. I suppose you generally calculate from the merchants' point of view, and the farmer has to suffer the loss? — You judge by the farmer; he tells you about his sheep, and then 3^ou decide. 1341. Suppose that wool was iwt on the market for sale, and nobody knew whose wool it was, Init on opening the bale scab was found, would it fetch the same price as another lot of equal conditions but without seal) ? — No. 1342. Of course you are also large dealers in skins ? — Yes. 1343. Does what you have said a'loit wool apply to skins in the same or a greater proportion ? — Damaged skins are worth less than sound skins. If you see scab on a sheep- skin it is classed as damaged, and is taken out of thn ordinary run. 1344. Do you purchase damaged skins in the .»ame way as sound?— Skins are sorted, the sound fetching so much a lb., and the others so much each. 134.i. I suppose in sending these to the home market the sound ones are all sorted out, and the others are sent separately ? — Yes. 1346. Do you find you have more trouble and difficulty in dealing with damaged skins than with sound ? — No, because they are classed as damaged, and go at a less price. 1347. But you don't exactly know what you are going to get for then? — They are valued like the sound one.s, but on a lower level. 1348. Is the farmer the individual who suffers the loss of these damaged skins ?— Yes. 1349. Prom your knowledge of the wool trade in these districts, do you think ii would be to the advantage of the country to extend the scab act ? — Yes, to eradicate scab. 1350. Then I take it j-ou would prefer to have a gen^^ral scab act over the whole colony ? — Yes. 1351. Suppose it is found impossible to have a scab act in some of the most western portions of the colony in consequence of the loss it would entail in times of long droughts, and because of scarcity of water, do you think the nest best thing would be to draw a line to isolate the prcjclaimed from the unproclaimed districts ? — Yes. 1352. Have you any idea how you could draw that lir.e geographically ?— No, it would depend upon what the districts were. 1353. Do you think it should embrace the whole i-ailway system of the colony and be drawn on the western .side of the western railway ? — It depends on where the people live who cannot have a scab act. 1354. Would it do to take the line leaving out the western railway ? — If you are going to carry scabby sheep in railway trucks, unless the trucks are kept exclusivelj' for scabby .sheep you will carry scab amongst the others. 1355. If you carried scabbj' wool and skins in trucks, do you think it would have the same effect upon clean sheep unless they were projiorly cleansed ? — I don't think there would be so much danger, because bundles of skins and I'ales of wool ivill scarcidy part with the scab in theui in transit. 1356. Supposing it is impossible to have a general act, do you think there should be total prohibition of the removal of stock from an unprochiiuieJ to a proclaimed area? — ■ Yi-s, you must, keep in the infected siM'pp, but they might go ii sound. 1357. Is there not always a liability of soumi sheep luiving scab ? — It depends on who you buy from, whether they have been running or not. 1358. Suppose I buy a flock of sheep to bring them into a proclaimed area, examined them carefully without finding any sign of scab, but two or three days after I have brought them in scab breaks out What would you do? — I think before you bring stock out of an infected area into a clean one you should dip and quarantine them, and should be perfectly sure the stock are clean. 1359. But there would be no inspectir to inspect them, and thej' might get infected on the way? — If you have a line j'ou will not keep it. We could not keep a line here for cattle when they had red-water, and as long as there are men who want to have their own ends served you will never keep a line. For that reason I think there nnist be a general act. 1360. If a line were drawn, would you recommend ports of entrj' being established through which, only, sheep should be allowed to come iu ? — Yes, with dipping and quarantining; but 1 don't believe in it iny.self. I watched the red-water arrar.geinents here, and they showed me what is possible or i-i-possible in this couiitrj'. You may isolate one farm, or two, but you will not be able to watch two or three hundred miles of country. 1361. J/>-. Francix.~\ Has thon^ been any improvement in the natives' wool since the act was put in force ? — I have not taken mucli heed of tlie local native wool for the last year or two, and there ims hardly been time to see the effect of the act in the Transkei. There hus been a decided impmvement iu farmers' wool. 13G2. Owing to the scab act? — Yes, and since they have ceased Icr.ialing their sheep. I have seen some beautiful wool this season. 58 1363. Do j'ou think if only a part of the money annually lost to the colony through seal) were used for eradicating the disease that it would be a great benefit to the colony ? — Yts, and especially to farmers and sheepowners. The production of wool from the same number of sliecp in the Transkei would be easilj' increased if the sheep w ere free ot scab. Ever}' year there is a heavy loss in consequence of this disease. 1364. Mr. Botha.'] You buy the best wool in the Kaffrarian districts where the scab act is in force ? — Yes. 136.5. But 3'ou also do business with the native districts beyond the scab areas? — Yes. 1366. Are you aware of anybody in this place who does bus'iness with places beyond the Orange River? — The wool comes here, but I have not handled much lately. 1367. Do wool and skins shipped from East London fetch a higher price on the English market than those shipped from Port Elizabeth ? — Some do. 1368. Do they ever get the same price for good wool and skins shipped from Port Elizabeth to the English market as for those shipped from East London ? — There is a great variety of wool and skins shipped from both East London and Port Elizabeth, but if produce of the same quality is shipped fi-om Poit Elizabeth as frojn East London, it will fetch the same price. 1369. On the English market ? — They simply judge the ardcle on its merits. 1370. They don't care whether it comes from a proclaimed area or not ? — They look a the wool. 1371. Dr. Smartt.] What I understand you to mean is that the majority of the Kaffrarian clips being of a superior quality and free of scab, and being shipped from their port, East London, they fetch a higher price in Lmdoii thau the majority of clips grown in Albert and Aliwal North because the latter are not free of scab ? — Y^es, and nut such good wools. 1372. You don't mean to say they fetcli a higher price because they are shipped from East London, but because Kaffrarian wools are better in consequence of the scab act, and East London is their port ? — Yes, the sheep and the wool are cleaner. 1373. Mr. Botha.~\ We have been told that goo i Karoo wool in grease makes a better snow-white than grass-veldt wool? — I have not handled Karoo wool, greased, for twenty years. 1374. But being in the trade, I suppose you are in a position to know ? — From what I have heard, some of the Karoo wool makes a beautiful snow-white, but one lb. of grease wool will not give you one lb. of scoured. 1375. Mr. (lu Tuit.] Would you give a lower price for good wool wliich had been recently dipped, irrespective of the kind of dip used ? — Recentlj' dipped wool is more likely to be heavy with grease and diit, and to have less net weight, so that the price given might be lower although the wool was not affected. You calculate wool bj' the weight, when washed. Of two parcels, one heavy and one light in lleeee, you will give a higher price for the light because you hare more wool in a bale, and some dips seeui to hold more grease and dirt than others. Lime and sulphur seem very difficult to get out of the wool, and I have heard from home that there is a prejudice against wool badly dipped in lime and sulphur. It does not scour, or take certain dyes. 1376. But tlie only drawbacks to the other kinds of dip is that they make the woo heavier ? — I have seen some wool where all the lij)* of the wool were burnt. 1377. Dr. Smai-tf.] But I understand you to say that long wool dipped in a chemical fluid which did no deteriorate the fibre of the woid, say a month or two months before shearing, would be bought by you altogether on its merits and thiinkage. Toe mere tact of the wool having been dipped would not make you give a lower price, except in respect of the weight it would lose in washing, but the dip would not interfere with the fibre of the wool? — If the dip did not injure the uuol in any waj-,. we should discount the extra weight, and give a priee accordingly. 1378. Mr. dti Toit.'\ But still you hold there may be some kinds of dip which will injure wool of a considerable length ? — Yes, though I could not name any except lime and sulphur. 1379. Chairman.] If y.u had two clips lirought to you of the same quality, one dipped about two months previously and the other not dipped at all, would you give a higher price for the undipped wool? — Yes. if clean 1380 Although the other apparently was not affected ? — Yes. it is better to buy clean undipped wool. loSl. Have you any further remarks to make ? — 1 am more especially interested in the Transkei. The act has now been extended to Fingoland and the Iduty wa Reserve, the natives co-operating very well, tiie dipping being, I believe, generally done by the traders, and I think tliat should be encouraged. It will be better for the traders to do it than for the Government. 1382. Would \ou not recommend that the (xoveriiment should erect dipping tanks in the Transkei ? — Only where there ave no others ; not where tho traders are doing it already. 1383. D ) you think it would be in the interests ot the natives if Government were to erect dijiping tanks in the Transkei, and dip the sheep under supervision ? — Not if the tradcr.s will do the dipping. They can do it quite as well as, and much cheaper than the Government, and they are doing it now. 1384. But where the traders are not doing it, do you think it is advisable to leave it to the natives themselves ? — No ; dipping is a big thing, and a man with a few sheep cannot '"in afford to make a dip fov liimsnlf. and thorefove if tlie Grovernment iindw such circumstances dipped the sheep, the natives couid pay for it. 1385. In addition to that, do you think it would be advisable to have a compulsory simultaneous dipping- act in the Transkei ?— You could not do that. 1386. Don't thoy all sliear at one time ? — No, they work at it for months. 1387. Don't they generally shear twice a y^ar ?— Yea, in sprinop and autumn. 1388. Tf th"re were government dipping tanks in the Transkei, and every native was obliged to dip twice during the next six weeks, would it not materially assist in stamping out scab ? — I think you are getting on with the present system. 1389. Would not that facilitate it very much? — Yes, if you could do it, but I think it is practically being done now by the traders. 1390. If the act is properly carried out in the Transk-^i, do you think the scab will be very much reduced there during the next year or two ? — Yes. 1391. Mr. Botha.'] On the whole, do you think it would be to the advantage of the natives if dipping by traders were encouraged ? — Ye.s, there is a certain amount of emulation among the traders to do the best for^heir customers. 1392. Are the natives weU able to pay for what tdey receive ? — Yes. Mr. Alfred Pac/e Eceritf examined. 1393. Chairman.'] You are a wool and skin buyer in King William's Town? — Yes, I liave been in the trade in this town the last eleven years. 1394. Do j'ou shiji most of the wool and skins you buy, or do you re-sell them ? — I shijj nearly all. 1395. Have you noticed any perceptible change in the quality of the wool or skins during the last few years ? — Yes, there has been a great improvement the last three or four years. 1396. Do you buy much from the Transkeian territories ? — Yes. 1397. Is there the same improvement there ? — The act has only been in force there the last twelve months, but still there has been a slight improvement in some di.stricts. It ie noticeable. 1398. Do you purchase wool and skins from Albert, Aliwal North, and the Free State, beyond the proclaimed area? — Very seldom ; the bulk of the wool and skins from there go direct to East London. 1399 Then vou only deal with the Transkei, King William's Town, and Cathcart ?— Yes. 1400. Do you notice much improvement in the Cathcart wools? — Oh, yes, a wonderful improvement as regards scab. 1401. We have had it stated in evidence that scab is just as prevalent in that district now as it was four or five j'ears ago. As a purchaser of wool, do you find that it is freer of scab now ? — Yes. 1402. Then you would say the statement that the wool from Cathcart is not freer of scab now is one which is not borne out by j'our experience ? — I have not noticed it. I have liought wool from that district for years, and I have not noticed it for some j'ears past. 1403. You would have been sure to notice it amongst the farmers' wools if it had been there '? — Yes. 1404. If you had not noticed it your people at home woidd have informed you ? — Y'es, or other buyers would. 1406. So you don't believe there is much scab there? — I can hardly credit it. 1406. Do you also deal in skins ? — Yes, especially in goatskins. 1407. Do you find any improvement in them ? — Yss, both among farmers and natives in the Transkei ; there is not so much damaged. 1408. Do you class aU scabby skins as danaged } — Yes. 1409. And they are put in at so much lower value ? — Yes ; in fact I sometimes would sooner not have them at all ; they are not fit to ship. 1410. But in the way of trade y(ju are obliged. I suppose, to purchase scabby skins ? — Yes. 1411. As a rule, do you ship them or try to get rid of them in the country? — Some- times I do, and then somebody else gets stuck with them ; but if I can't do that I ship them. 1412. Does the same apply to the purchase of good skins? — We prefer shipping them and always do. Some damaged skins won't pay the freight. 1413. Then why do you send them home? — Because if I sell them in town I may get stuck with them again, so it is better to send them home and get them out of the country. I knew an instance where badly damaged skins wore thrown off the jetty into the sea. I have seen them do it. 1414. When you say damaged, do you mean scabby? — Yes, they go by the name of liogsbacks, and are all more or less scabbj'. Damaged skins are classed at home in three classes, and the price is regulated according to the damage. 1415. Do you think it would be in the interests of the counti-y to have a general scab act ? — Certainly. [G 1.— "J'4.] I 60 1416. Would you confine it to certain areas? — No, have it right through the countr/. 1417. Are you aware that in certain districts it i.s stated it is impossible to car. v out the provisions of tlie scab act, and supposing this to be correct, do you then think it would be advisable to draw a line separating that portion of the cnuntry from the other porfions ? — I don't see how you can draw such a line, because some farmers are bound to get through with their sheep. 1418. You don't think even by a rigid system of fines and patrolling that the border could be kept ? — No. 1419. But I suppose you would consider that if it were possible to keep tlie border-line, and ports of entry wore allowed at one or two places, there would not be any very serious difficulty in keeping out the scab ? — No. 1420. In that case, would you allow no sheep or goats to pass from the unproclaimed area into the proclaimed area except for the purpose of being slaughtered ? — No, not under a certain time. ' 1421. And there should be dipping-tanks at the ports and a proper quarantine system? — Tes. 1422. Under those circumstances you think scab miglit possibly be stamped out, but you don't believe in it ? — No. 142.3. Mr. Dotha.~\ For trade purposes, do you ever make use of any other railway except the border-line? — No. 1424. Is there a chance that your firm might liave bought scabby wool without knowing it ? — I don't think so. 142.5. Then if some people, and even inspectors, tell us that in some parts of the proclaimed area scab has been increasing to a large extent, they must be mistaken ? — I should think so. 1426. Br. Smartt.l If farmers stated that the act had been altogether inoperative in stamping out scab in their d'stricts^ would your experience lead you to suppose that, if true, this was due to inefficient administration? — Yes, if farmers say that, it must be due to ineflficient administration. 1427. Chairmnn.^ Is there anything more you can bring before the Commission which would assist us in the inquiry ? — Wlien I went through the Transkei about twelve months ago, I noticed that some traders had dipping-tanks and dijijied the natives' sheep at a small charge, and I thought it was a very good plan, and if it could be carri'd out throughout the country it ought to be encouraged. 1428. Then you think the dipping of the natives' wool in the Transkei may be safely left to the traders ? — I think so. 1429. There would be no occasion for the Government to go to the expense of building tanks ? — No. 1430. You think if the act were properly enforced there they would cleanse their sheep? — Yes. Mr. Alfred Harold Oxenham examined. 1431. Chairman. 'I What is your occupation? — I am a wool buyer in the finn of Ebel & Co., a Port Elizabeth firm with branches all over the colimy. In fact we are the largest shippers of wool in the colony. 1432. How long have you been purchasing for this firm? — For about six years, three here and three in Port Elizabeth, and before that I was at home. 1433. From your e.xjiericnce in the colony, do you notice any dilference as regards scab between the Kaffrarian wool and the wool you saw in Purt Elizabeth? — I consider these wools are cleaner. I saw samples of these wools in Port Elizabeth about three years ago, and they are freer of s^cab now than they were then. 1434. Do you mnke any purchases of wool in the Transkei ? — Yes, largely. 143.5. Arc the Transkeian wools also freer of scab now than they were three years ago? — Y'es, within the last year we have already noticed it. 143(). To what do you attribute this — the working of the act in the Transkei } — I don't know what else to put it down to. 1437. Is it very much cleaner and better this year than last ? — Yes. 1438. In jjurchasing long wool do you make any difference in the price between dipped and undipped wool ?— Yes. 1439. I suppose you prefer undipped wool? — Certainly. 1440. And give a much better price for it ? — Yes. 1441. Do you deal largely with skins? — To a certain extent, chiefly sheepskins. 1442. Do you class them in the same way as the other merchants here ? — Yes, there is one rule. 1443. Do j'ou agree with the previous witness ? — Yes. 1444. Have j'ou visited the Transkei? — No. 144.5. Mr. Francis. ~\ What difference do you make in price between scabby and clean wool? — About ^d. a lb., the reason being that the staple of scabby wo:)l is not fit for c )mb- ing purposes. Scabby wool always breaks away, and even that is hardly fit for use. 1446. Consequently every year the country is losing very heavily owing to scab ? — Yes. 1447. Can j'ou give an approximate guess at the yearly loss .-' — I should not like to. 6i 14-18. Do you think if we had a general compulsory act throughout the colony, even though we spent a good deal in carrying it out, the country would greatly benefit ? — Yes, the money would be all repaid in a few j'ears. J 449. Mr. Bof/ia] To what cause do you attribute it that Kaffrarian wools are better than wools shipped fi'om Port Elizabeth ?~ I think it is because they are freer from .si at). 1450. Is that due to the scab act ? — Yes. 1451. Do you know there is a larger area under the scab act which deals with Po it Elizabeth than with East London ? — Yes. 145.3. Then you don't believe the act has the same good effect in those districts which deal with Port Elizabeth as in those which ship from East London ? — I don't think th" act is carried out to the same extent there as it is in Kaffniria. 1453. Is it not the same act? — Certainly, but I think the men here pay more attention to it than they do in the Karoo. 1454.— Can you give any reason for that opinion ? — I would rather buy the wools I get here than those wliich come to Port Elizabeth, because I think they are cleaner in every way, not only of scab but also of dirt. 1455. But can you hold the working of the scab act responsible for it'r — It may be the the fault of the country. Evei-ybody knows that the red soil does not yield like blue soil. 1456. So that one district might produce better wool in spite of not having a scab act, and another district might produce wool of an inferior quality in sjnte of the act V — -I woidd not put that down to the act so much as to the sheep. If you have a certain class of sheep you will get fine wool. 1457. But the breed has nothing to do with the cleanliness of the wool '? — No. 1458. Which port ships more wool, East London or Port Elizabeth? — Port Elizabeth. 1459. So it is quite natural that Port Elizabeth should ship more bad wool tlian Eist London ? — Yes. 1460. Independently of the scab act .''- — Yes. 1461. Br. Smartt.^ When you say Kaffrarian wools are freer from scab than Port Eliza- beth wools, I presume you to mean that the majority of districts which do bu.siness with these ports are under the scab act, but though a largo portion of the proclaimed area does business with Port EUzabeth a much larger extent of country doing business with Port Elizabeth is not under the operation of the act? — I can only judge from the Kaffrarian farmer's clips ; those I see coming here are free, while in the wool going to Port Elizabeth there is an enormous extent of scabby wool, especially from districts not under the operation of the act. 1462. Is it not almost a recognised fact in the London market that within the last three or four years Kaffrarian clips are acknowledged by London buyers to bi fner from scab than almost any other wools from South Afi-ica ? — Yes, and if they go on improving as they have done in the last three years, they will be able to compete, to some extent, with the Australian wooL 1463. Are there not many in the Kaffrarian districts who produce wool almost equal to the btdk of Australian wools ? — Yes. 1464. Mr. du Toii.'\ Do you also buy wool here with seed in it :" — Yes, what we describe as fluted wool. 1455. What kind of seeds? — Moits, burr and karoo seed. 1466. Which is the worst? — Moits, because beyond a certain extent you can't get it out. 1467. Do you find any xanthium spinosum ? — Yes. 1468. Is not that the worst ? — No, but it is a fault in this way, that the wool does not yield so much because it wei'.,'-hs more than the smaller burrs, but you can pick it out, and it does not get into the worl ng of the cloth. 1469. Have you heard it is very troublesome in working the wool with machinery y — I have never worked with machinery, and I have not heard it had that effect. 1470. Do you ever buy wool with steekgras in it? — Yes, that is a very bad fault, particularly in sheepskins. I have had samples returned from home, showing whore the gi-ass had gone through the skin and kiUed the sheep. The pelt is no use for leather at all. 1471. Then what is the faidt of the steekgras as compared with the others? — It kills the sheep. 1472. But is it not bad for the wool? — It can be combed out, but the burr has to be carbonized. 1473. But it is worse for the skin than the burr ? — Yes. 1474. Then you would not give as low a price for wool with steekgras as for wool with the burr ? — No. I should pay a higher price for wool with steekgras than for wool with burr. 1475. Do you give a price for wool irre.spective of any kind of dip which has been used ? — Yes, because dipped wo(d has to be washed twice, and undipped only once, and therefore the cost comes on the washing, although we have not to pay more for it as buyers. 1476. Woidd you rather buy wool with a httle scab th in clean wool tliat had been recently dipped ? — I woxdd rather buy dipx^od wool than any wool with scab in it. 1477. Chairman.'] Have you any further remarks to offer? — Only that the bulk of the woid from the Transkei has not come in yen, therefore we cannot judge yet to what extent the dipping in the Transk-i has improved" it. AVe shall be better able to juige later on, when the bulk of the clip is in, but the few bales we have seen show a decided improvement sines the scab act has been in force. We want another month to be able to decide. i2 62 147K. You are working forwiird to ijettinp; a much 1)Ptter clip than you liavo ever had? — Yrs, ami when wf have once got the dip out. «-r can get a lii^fher price for it. Mr. Jfarold Jonej)!/ Dodd exautined. 1479. Cliairman.^ What is your occupation? — I am a purchaser of wool aud produce. 1480. Have you been long engaged in King William's Town ? — Nine years. 1481. "WTien you purcha-ed wool and skins nine years ago, did you as a rule find thom very much affected with scab ? — I should say there was certainly in the majority of cases a fair proportion of scabby skins, and among.^t the wool — a much larger proportion than thrrc hns been during the last two years. It is an absolute fact which wo all recognise that botli wool and skins have very much improved, more particularly the natives' wool. It is much more marked ajnong the natives' wool than the Europeans. 1482. Do )-ou purchase large quantities in the native territories ?— Fairly large quantities. 1483. Or are you alluding to native wool ia King William's Town? — No, to all native wools. '"" 148<. I5ut you buy more largely from the territories? — The supplies are so much la7ger from there ; here they are con.paratively small. 1485. Have you noticed any diff<:ronce in skins? — The difference in skins is quite as . marked as in wool, and in about the same proportion. 1486. In purchasing skins, do you find a larger or smaller proportion damaged from scab ? — Distinctly there is very much less now. 1487. I suppose your evidence would be to the same effect as that given us to-day by previous witnesses in this respect? — I am only speakiug of my own personal observation. 1488. To what do you attribute this improvement in the skin and wool? — I know of no other cause except the benefit derived from the process of dipping. To the best of my knowledge the wool is in better condition, the skins freer from scab, and the quality of the wool is so much improved from the fact of the slieep having been dipped aud kept free of scab. 1489. And you attribute tliis to the scab act being in force in the Transkei and King William's Town ?— Yes. 1490. I)o 3'ou purchase any wod or skins from the districts beyond the proclaimed area, Albeit, Aliwal Xortli aud the Free State ? — A year or two ago we did, but now as a maltcr of fact that stuff goes to Port Elizabeth (U- East Loudon, so wo see very little of it. Throe years ago we got supplies of skins from these districts. 1491. At that time were those skins and wool freer from scab than the skins and wool you purchased down here?— I think the up-country skins were probably more scabby tbali tluise bi.ught locally. 1492. But they were scabby ?— Some wore very. I have known some to be so bad that it you held tliem up. the wool would come out in your hand. 149;!. Y'ou agree that there is a very serious loss sustained by the farmers owing to this stare of things ? — \''es. because the value of these skins, wliou damaged, is of course very considerably less than when sound, and the wool, whether it is shorn or taken oft" the skin at home, is woith comparatively a great deal less when scabby, and therefore weak, than when it is sound. 1494. Are scabby sheepskins sold by weight ?—Y''es. 148). Aud scabby goatskins? — No, they are sold separately at a very small juice per skin. The difference between damaged and soimd goatskins is greater than that between damaged and sound sheepskins. 1496. Do you tliink it would be to the interests of the Colony to have a general scab act ? — I do, indeed : and that in the immediate future everyone would benefit from it. I have been handling wool and skins here for the hist nine years. 1497. Y'ou would strongly advocate a compulsory general scab act ? — Yes. 1498. Are j-ou acquainted with any other portions of the ColonyJbosides the frontier ? — I have been in King William's Town almost all the time I have been in the Colony. I have visited the Free State, but know nothing whatever about the western portions of the Colony. 1499. Under all the circumstances, and in the interests of the farmer, the trader and the wool-buyer generally, you are of opinion it would be advisable to have a general act aud stamp out the scab ? — Yes. 1500. And by that I take it, you doubt whether it will be stamped out by any other moans ? — Y'es. 1501. Mr. Fnincis.'] What difference do you make in the price of scabby and clean wool whi n purchasing here ? — As a matter of fact you never find a whole bale of scabby wool, but if you find a scabby piece in a bale, it deteriorates the value of the whole bale, and I should think the difference is about .^d. a lb. 1502. Would theie be quite as much difference as that when it is sold on the home market ? — Y'es, because the scab makes the staple weak, and the wool cannot be used for the same purposes as when it is sound. 1 503 Whifli would you prefer to buy, a bale of wool infected with scab, or one dipped previous to shearing ? — I think I should prefer the dipped wool. 63 1504. "What dift'erence would there be in price between ten clean skins and ten wholly affected with scab ? — The differt-nce here would be about Id. a lb., but the difference at home would be more, because here we take skins affected with scab, and torn, with others not so badly damaged, and class them all in one lot as damaged ; so that as a matter of fact the real difference in the ralue of a scabby ^kin at home is much greater than here. 150o. All th.it you lose on scabby skins and wool is really a loss to thecoimtrj' ? — Yes, because we buy at different prices, and it is the jiroducer who loses. 1506. Do you tliink the country loses annually thousands of pounds owing to the scab ? — I do. 1507. Do 30U tliiuk the amouHt so lost woidd, if properly used, soon eradicate scab from the country? — Ye.s, it could be eradicated by judicious dipping, and the name the Cape wools would get in the home market w luld be so much be'ter. They have a better name now than they used to have. 1508. Mr. Botha.~\ Ai'e you, also, of opinion that on account of the scab act beiDg proclaimed in the surrounding districts is the cause of the improvement of the quality of the wool here ? — ^Yes. 1509. Does wool from pi ices where the scab act has been in existence for so ne time fetch a better price than wool from other places '? — Yes. 1510. So you think the East London market benefits ? — Yes. 1511. Does it improve the reputation of tlie East London wool trade to the same extent on the English market ? — Yes ; I think all the wool sliij)ped fi-om East London has got the wool a better name because of the judicif-us use of dip. Mr. Ludicig Blmncr examined. 1512. Chairman. J Are you buying produce here on your own account ? — I am buying for iles.srs. Maicomess & Co. 1513. Have you been long enga;:;ed upon it ? — Xot quite three years. \iy\i. Duiing tli.it time have you noticed ativ change with regard *o tho improvement or deterioration (f tlie produce as regards scab ?— It is only a short time, but I mu>t say I have noticed a decided improvement in both W':ol and skins. 1515. To what do you attribute it? — I shoulil think it must be owing to the action of the scab act. 1516. Wool and skius are freer 01 scab to-Jay tlian they were three years ago ? — Decidedly. 1517. I think Me.5srs. Malcomess & Co. are one of the largest wool buyers in this part of the country ? — Yes; we ship between 15,000 and 18,000 bales a j'ear, between this and East London 1518. Wiiere does this wool come from? — From all districts, the Free Stat-i, Barkly, Aliwal North, the Traiiskei and a very large amount of Kaft'rarian wool. 1519. Do you notice any difference between tho wool purchased in Kaffraria and that purchased in Albeit. Aliwal North and the Free State? — Yes, there is a great difference. 1520. In what respect ? — The wool grown in these parts is much superior as regards quality, couditiou and gft-iip than that grown h)gher»up. 1521. When j-ou speak of condition and quality do j'ou mean free of scab? — Cortainly. 1522. Might not that be owing to the veldt.- What I particularl}- waiit to know is whether you think these lower wools are fieer of scab than the up-coimtry wo lU ? - Since I have been liere I have not come across much scabby wools in these parts. 1523. You gvt scabby wools from U|j-ci,untry ? — Yes. 1524. And from tho Tramskei ? — Not lately: they have also improved con>iderably during the last twelve months. 1"'25. Have you noticed the same improvement with skins? — Yeci, the proportion of scabby skins is n ithing like what it used to l)i>. (Jf course, naturally, if the wool is freer of scab (he ."kins must also be freer. 1 520. Being a large purchaser of produci-, do you think it would be to the interests of the coviutjy that this act should be extended to other portions of the Colonj- ? — Most decidedly. In regard to the home market I may sa^- that a few years ago the same buyer would hardly thii.k of looking at Cape wo'l as regards long wool, but would only buv Australian wools, whilst of late years a good mai.y of those with whom I am personally acquainted buy Cape wooK in preference to Australian, or at all events quite as readily. 1527. Have j'ou had an)' experience of the London wool trade? — I was three or four years with a broker in l;Ondon. 1528 In what capacity .-■ — -I was an ordinary clerk, but I had to go round the ware- houses to value wool, and of cour.se we had the coutiueutal buyers who came to London to buy during the sales, who compared our valu iti1 you get, do you consider the wool and skins which go to Port Elizabeth are more affei-ted with scab than the wool and skins you get here ? — I should think so. 1559. Have you any idea of the price the skins and wool fetch here and there ? — There is not much difference in the average value, because we also get a lot of skins through here from the unproclaimed area. 1560. Have you any special dealings with the Transkei ? — Yes. 1561. Is there any improvement in the wool and skins from there? — I have noticed am improvement in the wool, but not in the skins. 1562. Are the skins apparently as scabby as ttey always were ? — I would not quite say that, but there is no marked improvement ; there is a slight improvement. 1563. Taking into consideration that the scab a'jt has only been in force in the Ti'anskei during the last twelve months, do you expact ;my improvemont this year? — No. 1564. You don't think the act has been in force long enough ? — No. 1565. l)o you think it would be aiJvisable tiow to enforce the scab act throughout the Colony '? — Judging from my knowledge of these districts I should certainly say so. There may be districts of which I have no knowledge where it may be impossible to enforce it. 1566. But as far as you can judge from your experience in the proclaimed area you think it would be advisable to extend the provisions of the act throughout the Colony ?— Yes. 1567. Mr. Botha.'\ Do you agree with former witnesses on this point, that on account of the scab act having been in existence here for so many years, and efficiently adminis- trated, has given Kaffrarian wool such a g jod reputation that it often fetches a better price than other wools coming from beyond the proclaimed area? — I certainly believe the Kaffrarian wools have a reputation, and that it has a marketable value. 1568. Has that the same effect on the English market? — Yes. 1569. I understood you to say that skins coming from the Free State are often very inferior and scabby ? — Very. 1570. Which do you think, on the average, are the better skins — -those from the Free State or the Transkei ? — The Free State. 1571. Chainnan.~\ You were present when the last witness gave his evidence. Is there anything you would like to add? — I don't think so. I have notice! a great improvement in the wool coming from Stutterheim, Komgha and Cathoart, and I believe if it had no*- been for the scab wt the depreciation in the wool market would have been very much more sevendv felt. Mr. Herman Malcomess examined. V 1572. Chairman.^ You represent the firm of Malcomess & Co. ? — Yes. l.;7;l. And deal very largely in produce, both wool and skins? — Yes, for the last 22 years. 1574. Do you deal chiefly with the Colony, or also with the Transkei ?— With all parts of the country, right up to the Transvaal. 1575. Then you are large purchasers of wool both in tlie proclaimed areas and the unproclaimed areas, and in tlie Free State ? — Yes, we buy all classes of wool. 1576. Have you noticed any improvement in the quality of the wool, and its cleanliness as regards scab, within the last few years ? — I can't exactly tell you how far it reaches, but I have particularly noticed an improvement in some districts. Some are the same as they were twenty years ago. 1577. Which are those which have remained the same? — I think Barkly East has been pretty statiouar}', also the greater part of the Free State; and within the last two years we have had some better clips from Bushman's Kop, and the eastern portion of the Free State. The most marked improvement has been in Kafifraria proper, that is, Komgha, King William's Town, Cathcart and Stutterheim. 1578. Do you mean an improvement in the quality of the wool, or in regard to the scab in it ? — I think scab is pretty much a thing of the past as a general complaint in KaSraria. Formerly when you opened wool you got pieces with the scab by the handful, and that is a thing I have not seen for years in these wools. 1579. Do you still get this same kind of wool fro{u Barkly East and the Free State ?— Yes. 1580. StiU very scabliy ? — Very suabb3- ; you can see it. I reckon there are three rounti-ies which produce wool, Australia, Buenos Ayres and ourselves. Australia has been getting the best prices for wool, but we couhl never grow twelve mouths' wool here before the scab act was in force, unless you had a lot of good seasons, and then the twelve months' wool was worth less than six months ; but since the scab act I can prove we have grown in Kaffraria wools which have fetched an average price of Australian good twelve months' combings. Last year and this year, when wools were very depressed, we sold KaffraiBMi greased wools, at 9d. a lb., and the average Australian price was 8kl. and 9d. for very ^omK wool, while many wools coming from Barkly East and the Free State, oven for decent wools, would not fetch more at home now than Od. or 6,ld. at the outside. "'' 1581. Do you attribute that almost entirely to the absence of scab in the wool you hail here ? — We never had twelve mouths' wool before the scab act. 1582. So you never knew its value ? — I have been ])rought up to the wool trade, but we could not get farmers to grow it because they said that, before it was ready to shear, tlm sheep got the scab. 1583. Knowing that the twelve months' wool is much more valuable than six months, you were very anxious that they should ? — Yes ; twelve month's combing wool is useful for all sorts of things, but six months' wool is only of limited use, for flaTUiels and so on. 1584. You don't believe it was possible for farmers to grow twelve months' wool a few years ago, but if sc.ab had been kept out, it could have been grown a* well then as noiv? —Yes. 1585. You do a good deal with skins ? — Yes. 1586. Do .you fiiiil that the value of skins afleoted with scab is very muoh less than hkins tli'it luo souud ? — Oi' course ; they are worth about half, and perhai)8 not that. Sound sheepskins fetch here about 5|d. a lb., and scabby skins 3.Vd. to 3Jfl. a lb. 1587. Do j'ou attribute this entirely to scab.? — Of coiirso. The value of goatskins ii much more diminished by scab. When sound, they fetch 6Jd., 7d., and even up to 1/2 a lb ; but scabby goatskins fetch only 4d each, an that. 1597. Do you ascribe that principally to the fact that one is more infected with scab than the other ? — That is a complex question. I firmly believe this Coh)ny will only exist as a sheep farming country witli a scab act, and will go to pi'^ces without it. 1598. You think the loss is due to sc ib ? — The greatest part of it, but there are other causes— bad farming, want of cleanliness, and so on. 1599. Probalily from oviT-pruduction wool seems to be greatly lowering in price, and it this continues I suppose the inferior wool is the first which will become utterly valueless ? — The lower portion of the Caj)o wool ; that is the lowe-t priced wool in the market except Egyptian wool. 1600. So there is really a possibility that, unless they are clonn(!d from scab, some of our wool may not eventually pay tlie carriage home ? — N'o, in the depression in 1886 wo were selling at 3d. a lb. ; but if the farmers will live like Kaffirs they can grow wool at Id. alb. 1601. Then do you think the colony is losing tlr.n>-ands of pounds every year simply because we grow scab ?— I n^ay say 1 have a very great iuterest in this que.-;tion, because I have always exceedingly regretted the fact, ever since I have been hero, that our exports are onlj' about one-quarter agricultural produc^e and three-quarters minerals, gold, diamonds and copper, and that is a very unhealthy condition ; consequently I have been ver}- anxious to see the quantity of agricultural produ<:e increased, l)ecauso we can always depend upon it fr^ year to year. Shortly after the introduction of tho scab act lierc I went to Johannes- bi^- about the commencement of 1888, and after I had passi'd Ciuecn's Town and canie to the hordcunf the Colouy and in the Free State I cannot say I saw a single fiock of what I should call merino sheep There would be a flock willi so many meiinos, bastard merinos, fat tails, a few goats, and so on ; and thr.;e-(puirters of the flocks did not carry moro than about one-half the wool they ought to have carried, and the other wool was simply p jverty- stricken stuff like the refuse from combing vvools. It would not have fetclied more in Europe than the refuse ef combing wools. 1602. I suppose the greater part of that is tho result of scab? — Nothing but scab. It is not only the depreciation in value, but a sheep like that cannot' grow more than six months' wool, and the quality will deteriorate. I never imagined the thing would be as bail as I found it to be. I think I saw 100 to 120 dilfereut flocks, ifou saw all kinds of breeds in the flocks. 1603. If a large part of the money which is annually lost to the colony on account of scab were spent in carrjdng out a stringent scab act, no expense being spared in the appoint- 67 ment of inspectors or in other directions for the eradication of scab, on which side of the account do you as a business man consider our account would be ? — The eradication of scab is a question to ua not only of deVjit and credit but of life and death. From Buenos Ayres the first fleeces were received on the continent in 1886 or 1887, and they were full of burr ; at present that country carries 100,000,000 sheej), while we carry 13,000,000, although at that time this was the great wool-growing countr}'. Since 1875 we liave made absolutely no progress in the value of our agricultural produce. Australia has five times the number of sheep it had 15 years ago. 1604. But some people do look upon this as a debit ard credit matter, and I should like your opinion whether we should still come out on the right side of the ledger if we had a stringent scab act, carried it out well, and did not grudge the mouey } — We have 13,000,000 of shfiep, which ought to grow 7 lbs. of wool each twelve months, say at an average value of 5Jd. If you reckon 13,000,000 infected by scab at 4 lb. per head of wool worth sny 4d, you will see the enormous difference in our exports as fh«y are and as they sliould be. Theie is so much competition in production now that if j'ou don't march with the times you must die. If I did business at 30 per cent, less for my goods than my n6ighl)0ur I should be insolvent in nine months. 1605. Mr. Botha.^ I understood you to recommend that if some Europeans are us likely til make as stupid mistakes iii reg'ard to dipping as natives, it would be as well for Govern- ment to look after them also in the iutere.sts of the Colony? — It a scab inspector is worth anything, I tliink he should have so much power that, it ho finds out a European who does not cure his slieep nf scab, Im .should have the right to do it for him. 1606. Do you think so]uo Europeans, through ignorance or disability, do not pr )perly eradicate .scab ? — I think so. 1607. You find some f^trmers in such a low state of civilisation that they are not to be trusted in their own i:.terests ? — In aU conditions of life you will always find some lazy people. You get it amongst whites, and why not amongst farmers, but I have no experience of how men dip their sheep. 1608. You conclude, therefore, that there are white farmers who are incapable of look- ing properly after their own interests y— Quite so, and they ought to be compelled f'.T the public good. 1609. And they .shoidd be supported when they want the money or energy ? — Yes, what is fair for the Kaffir is fair for the white man. 1610. With regard to skins, it is not only the iliiference between sheepskins and goat- skins, but is there not also a difference between goat and .^.ngora goat ? — Yes. 1611. What do you call goatskin ? — A Cape goat, and the other is Angora. 1612. Taking a first-class Angora and a first-class goat skin, i» there a difference in value when the wool is taken off? — The Angora is worth twice as mucli. 1613. Have you known Cape goatskins to be worth as much as 5s. to 78. in the colony ? — Y'es, I liave known them to fetch Is. 3d. a lb., and a big skin weighs 4 or 5 lbs. The western province goatskins are better than those we have here. 1614. Do you mean to say in spite of a district not having the scab act, kapatas, or any other cla. 1616. And the consequence is that wool exported from there fetches more than wool exported from Port Elizabeth ? — As long as the quaUty is good ; the buyers at home go by the quality. 1617. But if it is true that you produce better wool in Kaffraria, and it fetches bntter prices here, then it fetches better prices on the English market ? — Yes ; but this morning I saw quite short Kiiffrarian wool, which was not good, and would not fetch a high price. The last catalogues showed a clip of Kaffrarian fleece wool which fetched up to 9d., and no other wool from any other portion of the Colony fetched the same price. 1618. Br. ^martt.l Do you tliink the enhanced price would not be obtained for these choice Kaffrarian clips were it not for the operation of the scab act in these districts? — The proof oi the pudding is m the eating. Before wo had the scab act we never got those clips. 1610. They could not grow the wool befoi-e? — The farmers all told me that they could not grow it, and I saw that they did not. 1620. Jfr. du Toit.~\ Y''ou said that wool of twelve months' growth is very much superior to wool of six months, and re:ili>5es far better prices on the London market ; but is it not the case here th:it twelve months' growth is generally more seedy than six or eight months ?— 1 should not like to generalise myself, because some of our six months' wool fetches more than a bad twelve months. 1621. What would you advise in parts where seed grows which injures wool? Would you think it better to keep on shearing every twelve mouths, or to shear before the seed is caught up iu the wool ? — I don't believe that a farm which is really soed^- can grow six mouths' wool absolutely clean, auil twelve months' wool seedy. I believe that tivelve months' wool, .seedy, is less deteriorated than six mouths, seedy, because twelve months' wool is put into combs and the tojijs are piished out as refuse, and it is imly a fourth jiart of the long [G. 1.— '94.J ■ K 68 wool which is rendered seedy and valueless; >)ut the .--hort wool can only ho cai-honiaed. put iato acid and the ^eeds burnt out with sulphuric acid. It comes out black and has to b ^ ^^•ashed afterwnrds. Therefore I think twelve' months wool loses less in proportioji to its value than six inontha. 1622. Chairman.^ Is tliore anything you would like to add ?— Generally speaking you maj- not he able to prow the same wool on one furni a< you can on another, but you C"\n always grow better wool without scab than with if. For instance as long as sheep liave to be kraaled, and the ammonia of the urine gets in the wool, it would be bfttter to sheir every six months. Combing wool to be anything must be healthy throughout. .»o as not to break in the staple. Mr. Andrew Jaeh examined. 1623. Chairman.'] Have you anything to do with the purchasing of wool? — Nothing whatever, I am a wool-waslier, and have Iteen thirteen years in King William's Town. 1624. When you staited that industry ilid you find tlie wool that camo into your hands very much affected with scab '? — Vm-y much indeed. 162o. Both long and .short wo is ? — Comparatively a very small qu mtity of long wool passed through onr hands : it was principali3' sh.ort. 1626. Have you found any improveniei(t during the last ?ew years as regards scab? — Not from a wool-washer'd point of vi^w, bt^cau^e on account of the scab ai-t ttiey don't wash tlie wool so much. The six montas' wo il has so improved within the last five }'e;irs or so that at present the wool-washing industry has fallen nearly til'tv p t cent , but formerly wools were so scabby that there was no hesitation, they must bo sent to be washed. Native wools, especially, have so much improved that they canshij) them without washing, and the wools wo are washing no«- have improved so much that they nre losing in the wash from six to eight per cent, less than they used to do: much to our disadvantage. 1627. I)u you attribute that to the absence of scib in the wiol? — Certainly. 1628. Then tVie gr^'at loss in wo(d formerly was owing to the wooj being washed away ? — Yes, wo used to bargain on washing from 58 to 60 per cent, -n wools as the loss, and now it is from 48 to 51. 1629. Do you have much wool to wash from up-oounfry .•" — Tolei'a1)ly so from all the distriets from which this district draws its wool. lG3i). Do yon get any from the Free State? — Very little now : it gets less year after year. 1631. Can you explaiu tho reason of that? — No. 1632 Are the wools you get fi-om Aliwal iVorth and Albert and places up-country sis montliM' woid ? — All wools that come to u'l are about six montlis. It is a very exceptional tiling for us to wash long wool. 163.J. Do you find a much greater improvement in wools fronr Kaffraria than iu outside wools ? — I have not the slightest doubt of it ; we are getting liealthy wools to wash which give us comparatively speaking no trouble, but wools from tlie outside give as a great deal of trouble. We pull it to jiieees to begin with. 1634. Where do you get such wool as that from now ? — From round the Aliwal North district, and sometimes from the Transkei. 1635. Have you noticed any difference in tho Transkeian wo'Is ? — Yes. 1636. Have they improved very much ? — Yes, and they impn.'ve yearly. 1637. I suppose you have nothing to do with the skin trade ? — Nothing. 1638. You only deal with wool as a wool- washer ? — Yes. 1639. If the scab act were extended to those districts beyond the proclaimed area, in fact to all the districts j'ou have anything to do with, it would be very much to your advantage as a wool-wa'-lier ? — Yery much to our disadvantage. 1640. Why? — Because wo should have nothing to do ; it wordd all be sent home. 1641. Then althougli it would probably ruin your industry, you think the interests of the Colimj'- would be very greatly served if the scab act were enforced througliout the whule Colony ? — Very much indeed. 1642. Mr. Francis.~] Have you liad any experience with wools from the Albert district ? — At one time we had a great deal. 1643. Do 3'ou get any now ? — There has not been any this season; there may have been a little last feisou. 1641. You woidd have no opportunity of judging the prevalence of scab in the Albert division ? — No ; it used at one time to be a vorj' favoui-ite corner for it. 164.'). Chairman.] Is there anything j'OU would like to add? — I can only sav that, as far as it has come under my experience, the enforcement of the scab act has Keen a decided success, and no one seems to s-ee it more quickly than the natives. It si cms to affect them in the right way — in the pocket. They are greatly improving their wool, and it would be one of tliofinrsi things for the Colony if the scab act could be made general throughout the country. 1646. Have you had great experience iu dipped wools? — Ye.s. 1647. Do they materially affect the value, or interfere witli the wasliing? — Very little, if the dip i.s properly applied. » 1648. How is the lime and sulphur dip ? — That is tlie dip the wool-washer likes best, il properly applied. Some of the farmers have a reiiavkable habit of stirring the pot up, 69 anrl giving the sulphur and lime as well as the dip, so much so that in the first process of washing, in the hot wiiter tank, you '.rill actually find sulphiu- and limt-' in a slimy nrisa Ij'ing on the bottom of the tank. 1649. If a lime and sulphur (ii[) is properly mixed, al!'.\v(Hl to sottle, and is then drawn off, is it iujurious? — No, in all my experience of wool-vvushiug I have seen no ill effects from it. l(i.")0. It is only when it is improjierly put on, and not allowed to .settle that it is taken into the wool? — Just s:> 1C51. Does that apply to otht-r (iips '? — Yis, to all ; and mor ; especialh' if the sheep have been allowed to run some time afier shearing before being dipped. 16-D'2. Does a tobacco dip, in which there is no sediment, interfere with the washing? — No, but it is a very unequal dip In one jiarcel of wool yuu will find wool fiom sheep tiiat have evideit^y been dipped in a ueak solution, and others in a much stronger .-olution. lG;5;i W'ouid yuu account for thi:t by the man putting more water to his dip? — t-'omethiu^- of Ihat kind. It would not matter to us, but we want to begin wi*h the worst dipped po;tiou fii>f, because we should be prepared for it. We have to use a certain amount of chemicals to overcome the effect of the dip, and if we have prepared our washing solution for a lighter dip the badly dipped one does not come out quite so well. 1654. Does that ajiply to other dijjs besides tobacco? — Yes, but that is the worst of tlie lot. The wool takes the brown stain so easily. 1655. You don't find any gi-eat difficulty in washing wools dipped in the oidiaary dips, if it is properly dipped .•" — No. 1656. Br. Smartt.'] Do you find that some of the patent dips, if properly applied even to long wool, do not have a deleterious effect ?- No ; no dips which have come under my notice seem to deteriorate or injure wool if properly applied. Natives have tried at first some mixtures of their own, which were bad. 1657. Mr. dii Toit.~\ Did you s:iy that if the lime and sulphur dip is allowed to settle properly, and the water drawn off, wool ^rith a c msiderable growth upon it could be dipi)ed without injury? — It would not injure the wool, but the dip would not be so effective because of the dense gz-owth of the wool. Mr. Arthur Daniel '/'/luiiipson examined. 1658 (h/tirin'in.j You are scab inspector (jf area No. 6 A, and are stationed at Kei-kama iloik ? — Ye.s. 1059. Is your firea chiefly natives? — There are ten European farmers. 1660. Do vou find any ditficullv in carr\-ing -out the provisions of the act in Keiskama H..ek?— No. 1661. Neither with Europeans nor natives? — No. 1662. Is your area free of sca,b ? — Not altogether. 16()3 Has it ever been ? — N<>. 166-1. How long Lave you been inspector? — Two years, but only since December for rlis an a. Formerly mj- area w 's larger. 16r5 Are many sheep brought inlo your area from outside ? — Not many. 1666. Are those '.hat are brought in generally frfe fi'om scab ? — Yes. 1667. Where do they come fr('i.. ? — From proclaim' d areas. 1(68. So you don't attribzite your inability to stamp out scab in your area toother .. cp re-infecting it ?— No. 1669. To what then ? — To dilatoriuess on the part of the natives in dipping. I'iTO. Do j'ou mean that the time allowed by the scab act for cleansing their- sheep is too long ?— Y'rs. 1671. Can you .suggest any means for enabling the inspectors to carry out the act more efficiently ? — I would suggest that the areas be made smaller, so that the inspectors can superintend the dipping themselves. 1672. What time would you give a man to clean his sheep? — I generally give tbiity days. 1673. Do you consider a man can do it in that time ? — Yes. 1674. Do the natives dip properly? — Not aU. 1675. In what way do they go wrung? — B}' niaking the dip too weak. 1676. Do you think it would be advisable for the Government to build tanks in your area for the purpose of dipping sheep under the superintendence of the inspector or some authorized person ? — I think there are onl}- three locations that have not dips cf their own. 1677. If 3'ou or some competent person were to attend to the dipping of the sheep and see it properly done, do you think you would be able to stamp out scab ? — Yes. 1678. Y''ou have no doubt in your own mind that you can stamp out scab if the dip is properly applied ? — No. 1679. Is there scab among the flocks of Europeans in your district ? — They are aU clean except one. 1680. I suppose they dip their sheep in the usual way? — Yes. 1681. Is that one flock scabby for want of proper attention, or has it been re-infeoted from outside ? — It is from neglect. K 2 70 1682. Do you find that under the time now allowed by the act you are unable to compel him to cleanse his sheep ?- — No. 1683. But you give tliirty days ? — Yes, if the sheep are infected ; and perhaps if badly infected a further thirty daj's. 1684. And if they are not clean then ?--I prosecute him for neglect. 1685. This man's sheep wore dean and became re-infeoted, and now you have given him three mouths ? — Yes. 1686. Then what becomes of yoiu- rule ? — This man is only slightly infected. 1687. Then if he ia very slightly infected why give him three montha? — I give them thirty days when they are infected a sec'ud time. 1688. Could you suggest any other improvement in the working of the act by the inspectors.'' — Only th.il: the time for cleansing sheep sliould be made shorter. 1689. Afr. Franfis.'\ Do you find any difficulty in carrying out the act in your area ? — Not with dipping, but the area is too hn-ge 1690. How man}' sheep are there in it .' — About 50,000. 1691. How many proprietors ? — About 700. Some flocks consist of only six or seven slieep. 1692. Do the natives generally assist you in your duties, or do you have trouble with them ? — Orcasionaly I do. 1693. Do the njajority seem inclined to support yon ? — The intelligent ones do. 1694. I suppose it is cnly a few wh'i are to a certain extent opposed to the act ? — Yes. 109.i. Do you tliink they are gradually becoming used to it and in favour of it? — Certainly, they are beginning to see the benefit of it thems-lve.s. 1696. Wcmlil you suggi'St any other method for the appointment of inspectors'? — I think the present s^'stem is satisfactoiy. 1697. Are there any complaints in your area about the difficulty of obtaining permits of removal'? — iSone whatever. 1698. Have you any difficulty in obtaining convictions? — I have only lost one case. 1699. How many cases Inive you hail during the last year'? — About 50. 1700. Are you sati-fie 1 wi'h the fines wliich are imposed ? — No, I think they should be heavier. 1701. Do you think it would be better if, instead of tha present provision, a man should receive his first licence for ti'ree months, and if the sheep are not clean, then fine so much per sheep, and afterwards double the fine ? — I think it would have a good effect. 1702. Would you advocate the building of public dipping tanks on main roads for the benefit of travellers ? — Yes. 1703. Mr. Bot/ia.^ C-in sheep be dij^ied any day in the twelve months'? — When they are in low condition, or heavy i^i lamb, I should not like to dip them. 1704. So it is possible that scab might break out at a time when it would be injurious to the sheep to dip tliem at i.)nce "? — Not unless it in close on lambing. 1705. But it is possible?— It would be the owner's fault if they got into that state. 1706. If you had given a man a clean bill, and just when his shoej) began lambing, scab broke out tlir >ugh no fault of the owner, what would you do Lf the law ouly allowed j'ou to give him thirty days ? — Of course, in that case I could not give him longer. 1707. Consequently it would not be safe to restrict the law so that the inspector would have no scope to act? — It would be hard to press a man iu that case. 1708. Under the present act, if you can prove that the owner of scabby sheep has n'.t used all diligence to clean them, you can prosecute him. What fine can the magistrate giv« in the first instance ? — £5 ; but as a rule they get the minimum of £1, which is too light. 1709. That is not the fault of the law, but of the magistrate? — Yes. 1710. And if the minimum remwued at £1, but the maximum were increased to £10, still the magistr.'te m'ght only inflict £1 ? — Yes. 171 1. Dr. .b'/rt^r^^] If you had a troop of sheep, even oE ewes about to Iamb, aad they got scab, do you consider if you had thirty days to dip them, it would be better, even if they were iu poor (tondition, to dip them carefully, and suffer the first loss rather than to let them run on with scab ? — It would be better to dip them. 1712. Chairman.^ Then you don't think it would be injurious to dip sheep heavy in lamb if it were carefully done ? — No. 1713. Dr. Smartf.'] Would you rather dip them carefully previous to lambing than let the s ab take its chance ? — By ^ill means. 1714 Mr. Botha.'\ Do you carry on any other occupation besides discharging the duties of s^ab inspector ? — I do a little farming, but not much. I have cattle, but no sheep. 1715. Mr. Francis.'] Who takes charge of your farm when you are away on duty ? — My son. who is quite able to look after it. 1716. Chairman.] Have you anything further to suggest ? — I wotUd only repeat what I said about restricting the size of the areas. 71 King JFilliam'f Town, Saturday, \2th JVovember, 1892. Present : Mr. Frost (Ciiairman). Mr. Botha. | Dr. Smabtt. „ Dv ToiT. I Mr. Fkancis. 3lr. James Bouchier Kettles, Seal Inspector^ examined. 1717. Chairman.'] You are scab iuspector for area No. 6? — Yes; I was the first inspector appointed over an area which now embraces four areas. I was appointed tive years and three months ago. 1718. I suppose the reason why the area was sub-divided and other insj^eutors appointed, was because it was found impossible for you to do the work of so large an area ? — Yes. 1719. When you were first appointed, was scab very prevalent in the whole area ? — Yes, there was only oue flockmaster in all four ai-eas who had clean sheep. 1720. Did you at that time find any difficulty in getting farmers to work with you iu attempting to stamp out the scab? — Not the large farmers, but a good many of the small ones. 1721. Particularly the natives ? — Yes. 17^2. During the last two or three years you have comparatively stamped scab out of your area ? — Amongst Europeans, but not amongst natives. 1723. Hon is it you have not been able to stamp it out amongst the natives ? — We have not been able to get them to go in for simultaneous dipping, and during the last winter an outbreak took place. 1724. How do you account for that ? — By sheep being introduced from other areas. 1725. But would not they be introduced upon a permit given by che inspectors in those areas ? — Yes. 1726. From your knowledge of scab, do you consider that when those inspectors gave the permits in question the sheep were clean ? — In several cases, but in one case which occurred last winter, I am sure the sheep must have been infected with scab when the permit was granted. In another instance I could see the sheep were bad with scab, and had simply been dipped to kill all living insects at the time, but it broke out again a few days after the sheep arrived. 1727. You think this particular flock was properly dipped once, but that it required a second dipping ? — Yes. 1728. And had these sheep been placed in quarantine, and not allowed to come into your area until they had been dipjaed a second time, no harm would have been done ?- No. 1729. Are you acquaioted with the areas of Komgha and Stutterheim ? — I have not visited those places, but I have come into contact with the peojjle. 1730. Have you any knowledge of those areas with regard to scab ? — I have been given to understand that Komgha is perfectly free now ; in Stutterheim I think most of the European farmeis are clean, but not the natives. • 1731. There is still scab in Stutterheim? — Yes. 1732. If the insj)ector in the Stutterheim division had c-irried out the act in the ynme way as it has been carried out by the inspector iu the Komgba divi.sion, do you tank Stutterheim would have been as free to-duy u.s Komglia? — The Stulterheim inspector ij at a disadvantage in comparison with Kumgha. The area is very mucu larger, and he cannot reach tie flocks iu the same time us the Komgha iuspector, wiiose are is so much smaller. 1733. If the flock owners in Stutterheim had worked with the inspector in the .same ■way as they have done in Komgha, do you think Stutterheim would have been as free as Komgha ? — Certainly. 1734. TJi' n you think the reason why Stutterheim is not so free of scab as the other is because the pc'. pie themselves have not assisted the iuspector to stamp it out? — They are too lax in dipping. Mauy of them don't dip unless pressure is brought to bear on them. 173.5. But the Komgha people were determined to stamp out scab in their division, and worked hand in hand with their inspector, and cleanoy a tpecidator who bought them at a sale. 1762. Have you any suggestion to make how breaches of the law of this kind can be prevented ? —Two similar cases occurod about the same time, and I prosecuted the people who brought in the sheep, but the court held it would not be right for the man \rho obtained the permit from the inspector to suffer for the inspector's ignorance, and the case was dismissed. 1 763. Would you suggest that even when a man has obtained a permit from an inspector to move his sheep into anotlier area, and scab is afterwards discovered among them, that he should be liable unless ho at once gave notice ?— If he knew of it. 73 1764 Have you had many prosecutions under the scab act? — A great manj*. 1765 Do you consider tli'^ fines which have been imposed sufficiently heavy to prevent breaches of the law ? — Not always. I find a heavy fine bus a better effect than a email one especially among the natives. 1766. Do you think the length of time for which licences must be granted is a fault in the act ? — I do, and [ think I he first licence should be for thirty days. 1767. Wouli it be better for the inspectors to have more discretionary power in gr.:nt- iiig licences, the farmer having an appeal to the magistrate in certain cases — say for an inspector to be able to givu fiom 14 days to three months, but if the time given by the inspector appeared to be too short, the farmer might appeal to tlio magisfrate ? — I think thirty days is quite sufficient ot any time of the year. Sheep can be cured in the winter just as well as in the summer, and if thirty days will answer the purpose in summer, it will in winter. The inspector has some discretionary power now. 1768. Do j'ou coT;sider any complaints j'ou have heard against th« act to be not so tnuch the fault of the act it^df as nf t'ne way in which it is adminisiered ? — I think that has a good deal to do with it. 1769. Mr. Botha.'] Can you always obtain access to the latives' sheep ?^In some ])arts we have difficulty, especially at certain seasms of the year If we have good seasons these people go in more or less for beer-drinking, and then we have a good de il of bother to get the flocks collected. 1770. What have j'ou to guide you, whether you have seen all the slieop or not y — If I am not satisfied about the number, 1 count tiieni. 1771. Do you know what number there ought to be ?- -Not invariably, because it is a difficult matter to got a number from a native. 1 have a pretty good knowledge of tiie number of a flock of sheep, and if I am not satisfied with the number lie trives me. I count them myself. 17';2. But can j-ou detect anything wrong g'iug on?--Often I find twenty or fifty short of the number, and they tell me the sheep are dead. Then I set to work to ascertain whether thi^ is true, or not, and I often trace theui i.) other 1 •cations, and then I pros cute. 1773. But I suppose sometimes you don't find them ? — Sometimes. 1774. Is there not an inspector of the location ? -In this district there are 280 locations, and one inspector. The clerk in charge at Middledrift is supposed to act as an inspector of locations in the wav of granting passes, but nothing else. 1775. Have the inspectors of locations a stock-Siook in whiih all entri6.i are made? — I could not tell you their duties, but I think that is a part of them. 1776. In the interests of scab inspection. Would you rcr-ommend that a proper record should bn kept on every location, by somebody responsible for the location, so as to be able to detect the introduction and departure of r4ock ? — I don't see liow 3-011 could do tliat in a district like this. It would assist the scab inspector to a great extent, bnt I think it would be a difficult matter to carrj- it out in the native locations. 1777. Whj'? — For instance, I said there are 280 native locations in this district with hf admen. 1778. Are the headmen paid by the Government ? — Yes. 1779. Dj you think it would be a greater security if Europeans wore employed to do the work in each location in^t^'ad of rative headmen ? — Europeans would be far preferable to natives. It would be a verv good thing in one way, but I don't think it would be neces- sary 1 1 have one in each location. 178 . But you think it is necessary to have .-iiperiuteudence over the locations by means of Europeans * — Europeans would do the work better, but it would not bo necessarj' to have one European in each location. 1781. You think there sh uldbe sufficient European supervision over all those locations to have a proper recor 1 of everything going on in the locations ? — Yes ; not orJy as regards .■icab, but gentrriUy. 1782. Don't ycui tliink tjie neces ity for G overnm.'nt to d;|> sheep would apply as much to a certain class of Enropeaus as to natives? — I .should c-rta nly apply it to the Europeans who were ignorant of the use of the dip. 1783. 'Vl.'orever the act is uot properly carried out, it shoidd be dime by Government at the owner's expense ? — Yes. 1784. Br. Smartt.] If no scabby sheep were allowed t^ be iutroducd into a proclaimed area, do you consider it woidd be possible to th'U-oughly eradiciit" seaK within a definite time, say two yc.rs ? — If the people would wnrl: together it ought co'tainly not t-s t.^1ce two years. 1785 Would your remark apply to the whol.. Colony if a gener;il i-tringent scab act were in force ? — I don't see whj- it should not. 1 1786. Do you consider it advisable in cer ai.-i portions of the Colony, especially the northern ones, where eheep are herded over hnge a:vas of country, rf the majority i>f the fanners there were strongly opp'ised to a scab act, m put it in force; ami do you thiuk it would be possible to carry out the act, except by going to enormous isxpense, uule^s the farmers loyally supported the scab inspectors? — Nnt unlrs-i a grrat deil of pressure were .')rought to bear upou the farmers, and then the inspect u-s woukl have to have more p.ower. 1787. In large areas like th:it, you tliink if a 1 :rg> uiaja-ity (if farmers were .sbsolntely iioposed t) the act it would be almost impossihle for the inspectors to carry it oiii, unless they had expensive machinery at their command? — I think so. 74 1788. In that case do you not think it would be better to draw a line of demarcation between these portions of the Colony and the portions favourable to an act? — Certainly. 1789. You consider iin act thoroughly a(lmiiiist( red over u large portion of the Colony would be better than an act not thoroughly administered over the whole Colony ? — I think so, subject to the conditions I stated with reference to the entry of sheep into the pro- claimed area. 1790. There seems to be a good deal of friction in other districts with regard to the reD:oval of stock. Would you allow a farmer who held a clean bill of health to remove his stock on his own permit, subject to a severe penalty if he removed sheep which were scabby ? — I think that might be allowed. 1791. Would it be workable ? — I think so. 1792. And would do away with a great deal of the friction which at present exists? — Yes. I have heard there is a great deal. 1793. If at the expiration of the thirty days, for which period you recommend the lirst licence should be given, the sheep should be found to be still infected, would you advise that in the interests of the owner, the inspector should be empowered to dip the sheep, under his own supervision, and charge all the expenses to the owner ? — I think it would be a very good thing to do so. 1794. It would be better than allowing another term ? — Yes. 1795. Why ?— Because, in the meantime, the sheep would be getting worse every day, and it you give another extension they may infect the whole neighbourhood. 1796. If a scab act was enforced over a large portion of the Colony, or the whole of it, would you be in favour of dividing the country under the act into areas, according to their climates, in which areas simultaneous dipping could be carried out within a specified time, with a view of thoroughly eradicating the disease at once? — Yes. 1797. Do you think the loss which might accrue to one or two farmers, whose sheep were clean, would be more than crimpensated for bj' stamping out the disease? — Yes; I feel confident any loss would be recouped in the end. 1798. Would you suggest that amendment in the law should a new bill be drawn up ? —Yes. 1799. That annually, until the disease is stamped out, there should be a compulsory simultaneous dipping in certain areas ? — Yes ; but there would be this difficulty. In thia area I consider scab has been eradicated in many parts, some sheep not having been dipped for four years, and I think it would be harJly necessary to compel those people to dip again. The matter could easily be arranged, as the inspectors would know all the circum- stances. 1800. If a compulsory general scab act were introduced for the whole Colony, don't you think, unless at the same time provision were made for the removal of stock to the large centres of consumption, there would be a serious interference with the food supply of the country ? — I think there would. 1801. Would it be requisite to make temporary provision so that the food supply would not be interfered with ? — Yes. 1802. Mr. du Tott.'\ I understand you are not only an inspector of considerable experience, but are also farming ? — Not at ^.resent ; but I have been 1803. Are you aware of the peculiar kind of scab I have already alluded to to-day? — No : I am only aware of one kind of scab in sheep, but it has struck me from your descrij)- tion that the disease j'ou spoke cf might appl to another complaint which I have seen in sheep. They get hard lumps all over them, but it is quite distinct from scab and can be easily distinguished. I sent two pieces of skin to the veterinary surgeon. 1804. At any rate it does not prevail here ? — You see it now and again on a single sheep. 180.5. Are you not aware of a whole flock of sheep, belonging t' Mr. Krog, being in such a state? — No. 1806. Do you think it would be difficult to enforce a striug.iit scab act in parts of the country where sheep sometimes get scab of the kind I have referred to ? — If it were the case, perhap • the3' would require more time, but they should be able to cure them. I never heard of anything of the kind before. 1807. You have already said you would be in favour, under certain circumstances, of drawing a line, so as to leave a portion of the country outside the operation of the act. Don't you think the proclaimed area could be kept clean just as easily b}' not allowing any sheep to come in unless they had been twice dipped within fourteen days? — Yes. 1808. And that with an act .slightly amended ,in regard to time and quarantine, and efficiently administered, you wouLl be able to thoroughly eradicate scab in the proclaimed area ? — Yes. 1809. Although the act may not be extended over the whole colony? — Provided scabby sheep were not allowed J;o enter. 1810. Would you be in favour of a compulsory dipping act only, for the areas not under the act ? — 1 would be iu favour of an outlying district having a compulsory dipping act where it might be impossible to carry out the scab act. 1811. But t suppose you are in favour of a general simultaneous dipping act? — I would certainly go in for simultaneous dipping. 1812. Don't yuu think it would be impracticable to have simultaneous dipping, even in small areas, on acrount of the difflcidty of getting shearers to do the shearing within a period of two or three months ?— - We find no difficulty here. 1813. Might not such an area fontain a Krge tract of country, perhaps 400 or oOO farms ? — I should call that a large area, not a small one. 1814. Would they not find a fliffieulty in such an area of getting shearers within the period of three months? — I don't think so, but I have no knowledge of the circumstances there. 181.5. Don't you think it would be more advisable to leave it to every farmer to shear when he likes, but that he should be bound to dip twice within fourteen days after shearing ?- In that case [think very little good would be effected, because I know the trouble I have had even in this district. Onn man might dip to-day and another aot for a fortnight or three weeks, and the pood done by the first man's dipping is undone bj' the o'h'^r. Although it might bo awkward at the start. I think you should have a simultaneous dipping within six months or two months. 1816. By ha\'ing a similtaneous dipping only in the uuproclaimed areas, do you think the people there would be graduallv educated up to asking for the sc.ib act? — Yes, and if they carried out the dippinsr properly thej- would soon cltan their flocks. 1817. You think it would be a good thing to open the door wide at first to get them to come in ? — Yes. 1818. Chairman.^ What is the number of sheec in vour area? — My books show at present 126.366 sheep and 13,230 goats. The majority of these are clean. 1819. Br. Smartt.~\ And almost all the sheep belonging to Eui-opeans are clean ? — All, except the sheep on one farm. There are 85 European farmers and only one of tho.se has infected sheep. There are 8.50 native flork-masters in the area. 1820. Chairman.~\ Is there anything j-ou would like to add? — I should like to put in a statement I have prepared showing the beneficial results of tlie working of the scab act here 'Appendix A), and also copies of some letters obtained by me through the kindness of Mr Everitt from Me.-srs. Helmuih, Schwartz & Co., and Messrs Charles Balme & Co., of London, with reference to the Kaffrarifin wo(ds fAppendix B). And I would like to suggest that a minimum penalty for contravening the 5th section of Act No. 33 of 1888, relating to the removal of sheep without an inspector's permit, be fixed at £6 for the first offence and £10 for the second, instead of as now provided in the tenth section, a penalty not exceeding £20 at the Magistrate's discretion. Also, that in section five of Act No. 28 of 1886, providing for the inspection of flocks and the issue of a licence to the owner, the words •' or person in charge of the sheep " be added after the word " owner." Further, I would like to say that I think you would get better men as inspectoi s if those ofiicers were grouped into three classes with proportionate rates of pay ; and that as inspectors working amongst natives are put to a much greater expense than those working amongst Europeans, this should be considered in their rates of pay. Mr. George BeUaniy Christian examined. 1821. Chairman. \ You are a merchant living in King William's Town ? — Yes, for forty years. 1822. Have you noticed any difference in regard to the quality of wool and skins diuing the last two or throe j'ears ? — Decidedly, there has been an improvement. 1823. In what particular? — In man}- ways. Wherever the scab act has hi>c\\ enforced, and there is no scab in the sheep, the wool is very much improved. Fencing has also had something to do mth it. 1824. Have skins improved also } — Yes. 1825. Do you do any business outside the proclaimed area' — Mj' business is confined to Kaffraria and the Transkei. 1826. During the last two or three j^ears j'ou find there is very much less scab in wool and skins than there was ? — Yes. 1827. Do yi)u attribute that solely to the ojieration of the scab act ? — Yes. 1828. Is there the same improvement in the Transkei? — Of course there is some improvement, but a gi-eat deal of wool comes Irom there which is not quite up to the mark. 1829. Have you noticed any perceptible improvement there during the last twelve months, since the act has been in force? — Yes, the last twelve or eighteen m nths there has been a decided improvement in the wool. 1830. Does that also apply to skins ? — Yes; I don't do much in skins, but I see a good many, 1831. And you thiuk they have improved 'i — There i< no douVit of it. 1832. From what you state I conclude you think the scab act has been of great benefit to the farmers in this part of the cauntry ? — Undoubtedly. 1833. Would you go as far as to say that the scab act should be made general throughout the colony? — Decidedly, bat it should be made far nmre stringent than the present law. 1834. In what way? — I would make it compulsory, and fine every man who had scabby sheep to the utmost extent of the law, because it is nothing but cHrelessness that brings it on. 1835. Are you acquainted with other wool producing districts besides these? — Yes, Middelburg. 1 836. Victoria West and Beaufort West ? — Xo, I don't know much about them. [G. 1— '94.] r> 76 1837. Supposing it was stated that there are certain districts in the Western Province where it would be impossible to carry out the scab act for want of water and other causes, what would you saj- ? — I don't think it is impossible at all. 1838. If it is state 1 by the farmers there that sometimes they have no water for their sheep to drink, and none for dipping purposes, .ind that on account of drought and other causes they are obliged to be c mstantly moving about with their stock so that it would be ruin to them if a scab act were put in force there, do you think it is correct ? — I don't think so. I think there would be very little scab there if they had the scab act in force, because tlien the}' would be compelled to give more attention to their stock. 1839. If the scub act were effieiontly admiuistoruil all over the Cwlony, you think scab would be a think of the past ? — Yes. On one occasiun scab broke out on one flock of sheep belonging to a farmer in this district, and he was obliged to dip them two or three times. This man had always obtained the highest price f^r his wool on the London market, and I shipped the scabby wool with the good wool, putting exactly the same mark on the bales, but t^king note of the respective numbers, and there was a difference of 3d. a lb. between the two clips. The scabby wool fetched 3d. a lb. less than the sound wool. 1840. But with regard to those we-tern districts which say, they cannot possibly carry out the provisions of a soib act, supposing i is pr 4n detect the use of is lime and sulpher. 1870. Do you think one kind of dip is more injurious to long wool than others ? — Lime and sulpher is very injurious to long wools. 1871. But not others ?- -Some of tlieru. 1872.^ You don't like to name them? — No. I sell dip myself, and I should not like to back mine up in my evidence. 1873. If a farmer had the misfortune to get scab among his sheep shortly before shearing, would you advise him to shear before dipping ? — I would advise him to shear at oncH, and dip immediately afterwards. 1874. Would you rather buy wool a little scabby than wool free from scab which had just been dipped ? — No, I would rather buy the wool that is not scabbj-. 1875. Do you believe the fleece of wool is injured by simply a smair spot of scab somewhere on the body ? — Oh yes; you cannot tell. If you have a spot of scab it affects the nii(le fleece more or less. 1 876. Do yuu mean if they are packed together in a bale ? — Yes. 1877. You cannot sort it then? — It could be done, if the}- would take the tiouble, but so many fanners will not do it. 1878. But if they did, would the sound j arts of the fleece be just as good as thr.so of a thoroughly sound sheep ? — No, certainly not. 1879. Dr. Smart/.'] Y''ou said, in repl}' to Mr. du Toit, that i^cab is comparativflj- samped out in the Australian colonies, aud I think there may be a little misunderstamiing in regard to your answer. Did j'ou not mean that there may bo some Australian di.stricts or outlying Australian colonies in which scab has not been stamped out ; but d-) not your experience and your communication with the Ausiralian colonies giv you to know, po>itively, that there is no such thing as scab in the colonies of New South WaL s or Victoria ? — Yes. 1H80. When yuu spoke of the disease bfing comparatively stamped out, did you not refer to the few isolated cases in Western Australia ? — Yes. 1881. Does not your com.mercial expf-rience lead you to know, positively, that for some years there has been no scab in either New South Wales or Victoria ? — Y'es. 1 882. Chairman.'] Would you like to say anything more with regard to the working of the act ? — Only that there ought to be a very stringent, compulsory scab act, with heavy fines for those farmers whose sheep are scabby. Jlr. Joseph Keth examined. 1883. Chairman.] You are a sheep farmer ? — Yes, in this district, near Blaney, where I have- been about nine years. I have 5,000 or 6,000 sheep. 1884. WTien you commenced farming there, were your sheep and those sm-rounding you free of scab ? — No, they were more i- less all scabby in my neighbourhood. 1 885. That was before the scab aut was in force ? — Y'es. 1886. Has any improvement taken place since the act has been in operation? — Yes, a great improvement. 1887. And at the present time ? — When I first started, I had to be continually shearing, and afterwards dipping twice ; and even when the act first came into force, the first year or two I had to do the same ; but during the last two years I have had less and less in my neighbourhood, and now I don't have to dip at all. 1888. How long is it since }'ou dipped last ? — I have not dipped the last three seasons. 1889. Do you shear your sheep once or twice ? — Twice a year. 1890. Do you think it is possible by a stringent ecab act, and the assistance of the farmers to stamp out scab in the Colony ? — I think so, because lately aU my neighbours liave kept theii- sheep clean, and there is no trouble ; all our sheep in that neighbourhood are clean. 1891. Do you think it would be advisable to extend the scab act to those portions of the Colony which have not got it ? — Certainly. 1892. To the whole Colony ?—Y''es, I would. 1893. Do you think you will be able to stamp out the scab unless you have a general act ? — I hardly think so. Sheep coming from one part to another will carry it backwards and forwards, and I don't think we shall ever stamp it out without a general act. 1894. But supposing a line were drawn, and no sheep were allowe 1 to cross over it into the proclaimed area without beiug thoroughly dipped and cleaned, do you think in that case it could be stamped out of the procluiiued area ? — Sheep coming out of the infected area may be dipped, and to all appearance at the time be dean, but still th»-y may have si ab in them. I- 2 78 1895. Then you think, if ihe whole C0I0D3' is not brought under the act, it would not ho advii-iiblf to allow any i^hcep to cross into tho proclaimed area under any circumstances whatever? — I tliiuk so. 1896. You think that would really be the only way of stamping out scab in the proclaimed area? — That is niy opiu on. 1897. You would not advise their being allowed to come in after being thoroughly dipped by au irspr ctov ? — I ^vill not go so far as that ; if the inspector supervises the dipping and is .ontisfied. I dinesay he would know better than I. But I have known instances where sheep liftve been sujiposed to have been properly dipped, and passed by the inspector, and scab has broken out ag:iin sbertly afterwards. 1898. Do you know ■whetliir they itore dipped twice ? — No, but I know they are dipped. 1 899. Have you any knowledge of the way the natives carry on farming ? — There are not many in my immediate neighbourhood. 1900. Do you think they would dip their sheeep properly ? — Not unless they- were com- pelled. 1901. If they are compelled to dip, would it be advisable to erect tanks, and dip their sheep for them under the superintendence of an inspector ? — Yes ; I don't think they will do it properly themselves. 1902. I supprse you consider that unless the sheep are properly dipped, they might as well be left alone ? — Quite so. 1903. Do you think it would be advisable, in connection with the working of the scab act, to have a compulsoiy and simultaneous dipping of all the flocks in the colony, if it could be carried out ? — Yes. 1904. Do you think that would do more to reduce the scab than anything else? — Yes. 1905. Sujipose it is found impossible to have a general act, and a line is drawn separating- the two areas, and a farmer with, say 5,000 clean sheep is living outside the pro- claimed area, do you think he should be protected to the extent of being able to prohibit scabby sheep going on any road across his farm ? — Certainly ; I would give him all the pro- teetion I could. 1906. Y'ou have been under the scab act the last six years. Do you think the pro- visions of the act are stringent enough, if properly carried out by the inspectors, to stamp out scab in the area ? — I think so if properly carried out. 1907. Do you think the time of three months for the first licence is too long ? — It is plenty ; it might be a little shorter. 1908. What time would you give a man to cleanse his sheep? — Half the time six weeks. 1909. Y'ou feel sure yourself that if scab broke out amongst your sheep now, you could stamp it out in six weeks ?— Yes. 1910. 'Would you much rather have that time allowed than the longer period ? — Yes. 1911. Mr. Francis.'] Do you think the method of appointing inspectors could be im- pioved upon :• — As a rule, when an appointment is made applications are sent in, and as far as I know, they generally take the best man. 1912. Do you think the fines inflicted under the act are adequate to prevent people breaking the law ? — The fines provided by the act are heavy enough, but the magistrate does not impose them. 1913. Don't you think it would be better if, instead of the present system of fines, a D)an was allowed, say, two months to clean his sheep, and if they were not clean at the end of that period he should be given so much per head, and given an extension of time ; and at the expiration of the second period, if the sheep were not clean, that the fine should be doubled? — I hardly think so, unless it was a very heavy fine. ]f scab breaks out among a man's sheep, I would give him three months, and if at the expiration of that time they were not clean I would fine him £200. That would make him sit up. 1914. Do you consider the act is well carried out in your district ? — I think so; the only point is that cases are not punished heavily enough, especially for people who have been brought up several times. 1915. Is that 3'our greatest complaint against the act? — I have no complaint against the act at all ; I think it works well. 1916 Mr. Botha] According to your experience, which is the easiest way to keep the sheep clean, by sliearing them every six or every twelve months? — Everj- six months. 1917. But the twelve months' clip is worth more than the six months'? — You get a trifle more per lb. for the wool, but I don't know whether it is preferable, because you can get more wool by shearing twice than once. 1918. Only the expense is more ? — It is ; but I prefer shearing twice. 1919. AV^hy ?• — Because I think it is more profitable. 1920. It has nothing to do with scab ? — I never tried twelve months ; I only let the lambs go one year. 1921. With what portions of the Colony are you acquainted as a sheep farmer? — Only round here. 1922. You have not travelled over the Colony? — No. 1923. So when you say the act should be applied to all parts of the Colony you speak of parts of the country which you have never seen ? — Yes ; but I say so because I know what a state our sheep were in before the act was passed, and I know what they are now that everyone is bound to look after them, and I can see the diflterence. 19 1924. You don't know the wants and requirements of many parts of the Colony ? — Not in oneway, but I think I know that sheep are just as liable to catch scab in Albert or Burghersdorj) or Beaufort as down here. 1925. But you have not been through the Karoo and the Midland districts? — No. 1926. As an experienced farmer, do you believe that a good dipping will clean sheep ? — Yes, two dippings. 1927. In those places where, as they say, it is impossible to have a scab act, do you think if thej' were compelled to dip properly it would be a good substitute ? — Yes. 1928. I)r. Smai-it.'^ How long have j-ou held a clean bill of health ? — Two or three years. 1929. Have you ever had the experience of your flocks getting scab in consequence of neighbouring scabby sheep s-traying in amongst them ? — Yes, unfc^rtunately. 1900. Do you consider this put you to more loss and inconvenience than the £20 fine would recoup you for? — Yes, if I have to dip 3000 to 5000 sheep in consequence of it; and I know for certain I have had my sheep clean and have got scab from m}- neighbours. 1931. Would you consider it to be a good alteration in the act if you were enpoweredto make a man whose scabby sheep had infected your clean flocks to be responsible for all the damages 3'ou might suffer .-' — I would not object to it. 1932. Would you consider it a good alteration ? — Yes ; it might be rather severe, but I would not object to it. 1933. If at the expiration of a thirty days' licence to clean sheep, they were fovind to be 6till scabby, would you empower the inspector to dip them at the owner's expense? — Yes. 1934. You think the mere fact of a man not having eradicated scab at the end of that time proves that he is not competent to do it ? — Yes. Perhaps he tries to save expense, or does not know how to do it. 1935. If at the expiration of six weeks the sheep are not found to be perfectly clean you would, in the interests of the community, author. ze the inspector to dip them with some recognized dip at the owner's expense? — Yes. 1936. Are you perfectly convinced that you get a greater money value for wool by twice shearing rather than b}' shearing once a year. Have you worked it out ? — No. 1937. It is only that it suits your own peculiar case? — I won't go as far as that, but I find that sheep twice shorn give more weight in wool than if they are once shorn. If a* sheep is shorn every six uionths the two clips weigh more than one twelve months' clip, and I am quite certain the difference compensates for the extra expense in shearing. 1938. Do you know it is a recognised fact that six months' wool always loses less in washing than twelve months' ? — Yes. 1939 Taking that into consideration, don't you think the twelve months' wool has the advantage from a commercial point of view ? — To the merchant, but not to the sheep owner. If I shear my sheep twice a year I get more weight of wool than if I shear once. 1940. Would you consider it advisable to erect Government dipping tanks on all the main thoroughfares over which sheep pass ? — Yes. 1941. As a means of coping with scab breaking out in travelling flocks? — That would be a very good thing- I have heard of sheep being driven along the road in a proclaimed area with scab on them, and they have had to be sent from the place where they were caught to some dipping place ; but if there were public tanks here and there, it would be a good thing. 1942. Are you convinced that to effectually stamp out scab it would be necessary to )idve public dipping tanks on the main thoroughfares ? — Yes, I consider it would be a very good thing. 1943. 31r. du Toit.'\ During the time you have been farming, have you found m- !■■ kinds of scab than the one kind which is caused by an insect in the skin ? — Ko, not what I call scab. 1944. Have you noticed some skin disease which makes the wool fall off juat the same? — Yes, but it leaves no scab. The skin is left clean and soft. 1945. It does not get moist ? — No. 1946. And the .sheep do not scratch ? — No. 1947. You don't know of any other kind of scab which makes the whole skin hard, so that even the legs and joints, and under the tails get hard and raw ?--I have seen sheep get like that, though not the whole sheep, but I think it is nothing but very severe scab. The ■first year I started sheep farming I bought some sheep here on the market, and I had one in particular in a condition similar to what you describe. I could not make out what it was. I had no experience, and kept on washing it, imtU at last all the wool came out. It took a long wliile, and I think it was neglected scab. I should think that sheep must have been scabby for twelve months before I bought it. i;'4H. Do you think sheep can live so long covered with scab ? — I think so. 1949. Tliat is the only case you know of amongbt your sheep ? — This one was particu- larly bad ; it was liard and crusty all over, but I consider it was neglected scab. 1950. How many did you buy in that flock?— Only 100, 19.il. And that was the only one so bad ? — Yes. 1&52. The others you cured in a much shorter time ? — Yes. 1953. How long did it take to cure the one that was so bad ? — About three months. 1954. Have you heard of any more such cases ? — No, I have never seen one since. 1955. Have you ever heard of a Mr. Krog, who had a whole flock in that condition? — No. 80 1956. If it was a fact that there are parts of the Oolouy where that kind of scab is prevalent, would you think it advisable to make the act as stringent as you proposed by giving ouly six weeks' time to cure, while in your own case you required at least three months to f»ire that very sheep? — I don't know how that sheep looked three or twelve months before I bought it. It was rotten with scab. 1957. But that is only 3-our opinion : it may have become so within a fortnight ? — Not judging hy my experince, nnd I havp had nine years and never saw such a thing. 1958. But might it not be a different kind of scab? — I don't believe it unless I see it. No sheep of mine would get into such a state. 1959. But supposing that very one case which you have seen here is sometimes a general case in some parts of the country, would you then think it advisable to have an act as stringent in those parts as here ? — If any one could prove that flies carry the infection on to the sheep, or that the disease comes from the blood, I would give longer, but I don't Keliive it. If I thought what you say is the case I would not be in favour of such a stringent act, but I don't think it is the case. 1 960. As far as your experience goes, and from what you have read of other countries, you believe that scab can be entirely stamped out ? — From what I have read, it is more or less stamped out in Australia, in fact, almost entirely. There may be odd cases, and I daresay we have them here, but as my experience goes, before the act came in force, you never saw a clean flock, and now you do. 1961. But you are not sure there is any country in the world where it has been stamped out so entirely that no more dipping is required ? — I am not sure of it. 1962. Not even in some of the Australian colonies? — I am not sure whether it has been stamped out to such an extent that they will never want any moie dipping. It may break out again, but as far as. I can gather from the newspapers, I find that scab is stamped out in Australia. I go on ray own experience in this Colony, that scab is being eradicated here, and if the countrj' is fenced 1 think it can be stamped out altogether. 1963 In regard to public dipping tanks along the roads, do you think it is worth while going to that expense for the number of travellers who are likely to use them ? — I think so, because one flock of infected sheep passing along the road may do more harm than all the- 'cost of building the tanks. 1964. Would it not be very expensive, because we can't take one place before another ? — It pays the farmer.s, and you cannot estimate the damage which may be < aused by one ecabby flock of sheep coming in. 1965. You have no idea what it would cost? — No. 1966. Nor the extent to which they would be used?— No, but I know for a fact that sheep have been driven along the main roads when scabby, and if there were such things as public dipping tank.i it could have been prevented. 1967. Chairman.^ In regard to this one sheep of yours. Do you mean it took three months to cure that sheep, or that it took three months before the wool began to grow out ? — Three months before the wool began to grow out. 1968. Do you think it took three months to kill the scab in that sheep ? — No, not to kill the scab, because I think two good dippings will kill the insect and the eggs; but that sheep was in such a state before I could get the crust off, and it took three months to make it a clean sheep. H69. Although you believe you killed the acarus in two dippings, the old scab remained in the sheep ? — Yes, I used fat to get the scurf off. 1970. Do you think there was any infection in tliat scurf after it was properly dipped ? — No. 1971. Is there anything you would like to add 'r — I consider the scab act has done any amount of good round here, and I should be only too glad if it were carried out all through the Colony. Komgha, Monday, iith November, 1892. rRESEST : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. | Dr. Smartt. Mr. uu ToiT. I Mr. Fbancis. J/r. Genrge Graxj examined. 1972. Chairman?^ You have been farming in the Komgha division for many years ?— Since 18P0. 197.J. The Commission has been given to understand that Komgha is entirely free of scab ? — I believe it is. 1974. And has been for some two or three years ? — I think the last three or four years, that is up to the coming in of winter. Unfortunately we get infected bj- sheep from other distriirts. 1975. Then are you free now .'—I believe so, because I think there is only one flock of sheep remaining in Komgha which has been brought in and not allowed to go out. Our inspector is very particular and insists upon two dippings before he will allow sheep to be removed. 81 1976. Have these sheep infected with scab infected any sheep in the division ? — I am onlj' aware of one flock here having been infected by them. 1977. And what has been done about that?— The flock was quarantined; I believe they are clean now. 1978. I believe you also have a farm in the Stutterheim division? — Yes. 1979. Can you say the .same of Stutterheim as of Komgha? — I am sorry I cannot. 1980. Is it afiected wifh scab ? — Very badly. 1981. Can you explain why it is that Komgha is free of scab and Stutterheim, under very similar circumstances, is infected } — There are two reasons. First, we have here enterprising, energetic farmers who would be ashamed to admit that their sheep had scab, and who ase their best endeavours to keep them clean. The next reason is we have a very energetic scab inspector ; and when the act was first put in force we had one of the most energetic magistrates who inflicted very severe penalties, so that altogether our district soon became alive to the fact that it was necessary to keep sh tep clean, and that it was more advantageous to have them clean than scabby. 1982. Then do you think if the farmers of Stutterheim had been as energetic ani determined as those in Komgha, and the iespector equally so, Stutterheim would to-day bj iu the same position as Komgha .-■ — One thing which militates against Stutterheim is that they have more natives there ; and I don't think they have as energetic an inspector as ours. It is also, I think, a good deal owing to the lenient seutences inflicted by the raagisti-ate there. The other day a man who was brought up there for the fourth or fifth time was fined ten shillings, and that does not tend to assist in stamping out scab. It is better for a negligent farmer to put up with a fine of ten shillings or a pound than to clean his sheep, because it is sometimes undoubtedly a tax upon a man to clean his sheep. 1983. "Was this man a native .' — A European, I am sorry to say. 1984. Then you don't attribute the continuance of scab in Stutterheim wholly and .-olely tc natives } — Not at all : some of the natives there are a credit to the native com- munity, and I know for certain have had all their sheep clean for the last three years. 1985. Taking them as a whole, do you think the natives are in a position to make their dip the proper strength and to dip their sheep irithout some supervision from the Govern- ment, or would you recommend that the Government should erect dipping-tanks, find the dip at the natives' expense, and dip their sheep under some supervision, either of an inspector or somebody else .-' — I think the Government should erect dips, and that those men sliould all dip at one time ; because, unfortunately, they hold their ground iu community, so that one mtin may dip his sheep and get them perfectly clean, and there is nothing to prevent another man in the same location having his scabby and infecting the clean ones. Even when a native is disposed to keep his sheep clean he labours under greater disadvantages than a farmer, because a farmer has the sole right to his own farm which the native has not ; but with simultaneous dipping the whole location would be cleaner, and I think it has been prove! beyond a doubt that sheep can be kept clean. Men in this district have kept their sheep clean for four years, and longer. 1986. Has a native living ten miles from the border of the location the right to move his sheep to any part of it \ — He can allow them to graze on any portion of it. 1987. And move them.-" — No, but he can graze them upon any portion of the commonage. 1988. You think it would be a very good thing for Government to erect these dipping- tanks ? — Certainly, but it would be no use utiless the dipping were done under competent supervision. 1989. You have not the slightest doubt that if the scab act were stringently enforced the districts under the act would be able to keep their sheep clean and free of scab, provided no infected sheep carae in .' — I am i.£uitp sure of it. 1 990. Do you think there ought to be a strict quarantine on the borders of the proclaimed area ? — I do. 1991. And no sheep allowed to come in? — I think some plan might be arranged Uke they have in Natal, that no sheep should be allowed to come in unless dipped on the border. 1992. Should there be dipping tanks at ports of entry ? — Yes. 1993. In the interests of the Colony would you limit these ports of entry to as few as possible ? — Yes. 1994. Then I take it you would consider it ad\'isable to have a general scab act through- out the country ? — I certainly think so ; it would be a bfiou to us as a farming community, and the revenue of the colonj' would benefit very largely indeed. The day when we get a general scab an the expiration of that period he should be fined so much per head, and if infected after the second period the fine should be doubled ? — Any course which would make a farmer keep his sheep clean, and I think that would answer, because 1 am sorry to say a certain amount of discretiimary power rests with those who administer the law, and as far as my experience goes the law is not carried out in such a way as to deter men from keeping scabby sheeji. Of course if an act is passed which is not going to be carried out, it will be a failure. 2009. Do you experience any difficulty in your district in consequence of sheep being moved in from other areas under permit .'' — I have alwa^-s had a clean bill except on one occasion when my sheep caught the scab from some sheep which were brought in from the Cathcart division. That stock was placed in quarantine for a mouth, and the inspector then came, and having inspecteil the flock he gave me a clean bill again. 2010. Were those sheep brought in under a clean bill.'' — I think not. The same man afterwards brought in some more from Cathcart, and was fined. 2011. Then your area does not suffer from sheep coming in ? — Komgha has siiflFered very considerably. 83 2012. Would you blame the farmers or the inapectorB who grant the permits ? — Th» inspectors, I think. 2013. If it was not for that, do you think this district would be perfectly free of scab .-■ — I don't think at all : I am perfectly satisfied of it. We have even asked to have our district inspected, and it has been found to be perfectly clean. We only get infected by sheep coming from Cathcart. 20 H. Is it that the sheep which are brought in do not show visible signs of scab wben permission is granted, or is it that the inspector is careless ? — I believe permits are some- times granted by telegram. 2015. Why do you think that ? — Because I heard of a man appljdng to an inspector . in that way. 2016. Then could the insjiector inspect the slieep before granting the permit .^ — I don't know, but the sheep came into the King William's Town district, and the owner was fined. 2017. Did he have a permit .' — No. A.n inspector on the frontier was applied to for a permit and declined to give it, but the Government sent him definite instructions to give one. He declined, and said no one could instruct him to do so, and resigned, and the Government sent up authorizing the oNvner of the sheep to pick out the infected ones and remove the others into the King AVilliam's Town district. Mr. Robert Warren, son of Mr. W. J. Warren, was the insjjector. The sheep so removed infected twelve or sixteen flocks of sheep in the King William's Town district. 2018. If the Government interfered in that way, is it not perfectly useless to have a scab act .'' — Quite so. 2019. Or inspectors either .•' — ^Yes. 2020. What was the date of that ? — I cannot say from memory, but I will let you know. [July or August, 1890.] 2021. Don't you think speculators and others moving with sheep along a public road are often placed in a very great difBcult}- when the sheep become infected with scab, and that it would be advisable to have public dipping tanks placed on the roads at certain intervals by Government ? — Yes, but if the inspector were energetic, I don't think it would be necessary to have manj' of them. 2022. If a man were travelling with sheep along a public road, and they became infected with scab, would you care to have that man come to your tank to dip them .'' — Gertainly not. 2023. What is he to do ? — I don't think it is necessary to go to a large expense, but a few tanks here and there would answer very well. 2024. You say the party was fined 10s. for a breach of the scab act, but are you aware that section thirteen of Act No. 33 of 1888 provides that for offences committed in contraven- tion of sections six and seven of the Act of 1886, the minimum fine for the first offence ia £1 .' — 'Quite so. 2025. Then how could anybody be fined lOs. ? — Mr. John Warren, who is a very energetic farmer, and has a farm in King William's Town, was run in by an inspector for having a solitary spec of scab amongst his sheep. He pleaded guilty, saving it was owing to the negligence of his servants, and the inspector remarked to the magistrate that Mr. Warren was one of the most painstaking farmers, that he quite believed him, and did not wish to press the charge. The magistrate shrugged his shoulders and said he could not get behind the act, and must fine Mr. Warren £ 1 . While Mr. Warren was still in Court, a native was charged under the same section and was fined 5s. That was Mr. W. B. Chalmers, in King William's Town, and if the Commission would like to have my statement verified, they can apply to Mr. J. Niekerk, inspector, King William's Town district. 2026. You say that as far as you know the sheep in this area are completely free from scab owing to the fact that you have a good, energetic inspector, and that the farmers have assisted him V — I believe that is it. In some places I understand the herbage tends to assist in the eradication of scab, if premier steps are taken, but here we have a purely grass veldt, and in that way it is not so easy here. 2027. Do j'ou think it would be far better if the act were so changed that the inspector had more power with regard to granting licences, and that a three-months' licence is too long ? — Certainly. 2028. Could you clean any flock of sheep in one month ? — In three weeks, if the sheep are sufficiently strong and healthy to submit to t iro good dippings. 2029. Mr. Botha.'\ Do you think it would be fairer to inflict fines according to the number of sheep, and how would you calculate that number } Would you take only the infected sheep, or the whole stock, or as many times as he is convicted ? — I think a man should be fined so much every time he is found guilty of the offence, but the man with the fewer number of sheep has the less reason for having them infected. 2030. Dr. SmarU.'\ Are you in favour of a compulsory general act ? — Yes. 2031. If it was found that a large number of farmers living in the northern territories, holding a great manj' sheep on large farms, were utterly opposed to the act, do you think it would be possible to carry it out without going to great expense .^^Most decidedly, under an energetic man. 2032. If such was found to be the case, do you think it would be more advisable to have a stringent scab act carried out over a large portion of the Colony, and to rigidly quarautine any stock coming in from the outside districts ? — No, I don't think so ; I am in favour of a general act throughout the Colony, because I am perfectly satisfied it could be [G 1.— '94.] at 84 done. The unfortunate part of it is that a great many people insist upon using an unsuit- able dip, and some men, owing to nearness, will put in as much water as t'ley possibly can —a system which I consider penny wise and pound foolish. The only way to eradicate scab is to dip your sheep and move them to clean ground. If you once have a run badly infected, it is not enough to let them go on the same run, because they will catch it agnin even by rubbing against trees or stones. They dip their sheep and put them back into the same kraal, and under those circumstances it is not common sense to expect to eradicate scab. 2033. If a general scab act were proclaimed over the whole country, do you think it would be possible to eradicate scab with a simultaneous dipping act .-' — I think that would be very objectionable because men shear at different times. You can't lay down any hard and fast rule in regard to farming in this country. 2034. I mean an act suitable to the different areas into which the country would be divided ? — I don't see any objection to simultaneous dipping in an area, but it would not do to apply it throughout the Colony, because the shearing is done at such different tini'-s. One man would be shearing his sheep when another might have six months' wool. 2035. I don't think anyone entertains the idea of applying a simultaneous dipping act to the whole Colony at one time, but that the Colony .should be dividefl into areas to suit the climate .-' — That might help, but I don't see the necessity of it, because if I as a farmer am inclined to eradicate scab, I think I am the best jurigo of what time I should dip. I should like to know over how long a period a simultaneous dipping might extend. 2036. Within a period of six weeks or two months ? — It is generally understood that the acarits propagates within fourteen days. 2037. But are j'ou aware that if sheep are properly dipped in a recognised dip, they are almost perfectly fi'ee fi-om any contagion for nearly three months, so that simultnneous dipping within two months would almost eradicate scab in any area? Nosv the scab act has been in force in some districts for years, but scab is not eradicated. I believe Komgha is the only place at present with a clean bill of health. Is there not therefore something radically wrong in the working of the act ?^Unforlunatoly many men dip sheep in such a way that they might as well have left them alone. Unless you use a proper dip it is no use, and my experience shows me that moisture increases the spread of scab, and simply putting sheei) into a lukewarm dip has no poisoning effect on the insect, but perhaps increases the scab, because you take out a certain amount of oil, which keeps the scab in check as much as anything. 2038. Then you don't tliink that simultaneous dipping would help to stamp out the disease 'i — It would help, but I don't think it is necessary. 2039. I take it you are in favour of reducing the period for a first licence to thirty days ? — That is ample for any man. 2040. If at the expiration of that time the inspector found a man's flocks still in'ected with scab, would you authorize him to thoioughly dip tlie sheep at that man's expense, or extend the licence for another thirty days ? — The man should be brought up under the act and fined, or the sheep should be dipped at his expense. 2041. But which would you do ?^ — I think if a fine were inflicted, and next time a heavier fine, he would soon be educated up to keeping his sheep clean. If I have a scabby flock, and know I am only going to be fined 10s., I may say it does not matter, and let them go on ; but if I were liable to a fine of £8 cr £10, I should say it was not good enough. . 2042. Complaints are made by manj' men all over the Colony, and especially by those who farm in large areas with large farms, that it is extremely diflicult to get pei-mits for the removal of stock even when they are perfectly free of scab. AVould you be in favour of allowing a man who holds a clean bill of health to move his sheep on his own permit, subject to a heavy penalty if the sheep proved to be scabby ? — The course adopted here is that whenever a man holding a clean bill sells stock, the buyer takes that clean biU with him. 2043. Out of your own area ? — Yes. 2044. If that is not the law now, would you be in favour of its being amended accordingly ?— If there were a penalty of £2.5, men would be very wary how the}' moved their sheep. 2045. If a compulsory general scab act is found to be impossible, and a partial act were introduced, what suggestions would you make to prevent tie proclaimed areas becoming infected by sheep coming in from unproclaimed areas ? — I would proliibit stock coming in altogether ; I think that is the only safeguard we have. I have seen so much of that sort of thing that I can think of no better safeguard. 2046. Might not that enormously hamper trade ? — It might for a time, but I feel satisfied myself that as soon as men found they were debarred fiom entering into competition with people in the area they would cleanse their sheep and ultimately come under the act. 2047. If a compulsorj' general act were passed, have you any suggestions to make how the large consuming centres of the Colony should be supplied ^rith stock during the first six or twelve months that the act was in operation ? — Under those circumstances I think the Government might for six months erect dipping tanks on the borders of the area, and have all such stock inspected and dipped. They should not only be inspected, but should be dipped even if they were supposed to be clean, and if not clean they should not be allowed to come in until they had been twice dipped. 85 2048. Under a general act for the whole Colonj- ? — It would be necessary for the sheep to be twice dipped under proper supervision before they were moved. Any sheep which were not clean, if necessary to be removed for slaughtering purposes, but it would not be necessary for breeding purposes. 2049. Mr. du Toit.^ Have you always been farming in this part of the country ? — Since 1860. When I was a boy my father owned sheep, and for a number of years I had an agricultural farm in Albany. 2050. Ai-e you aware of a kind of skin disease very much like scab, which is verj- difficult to cure sheep of ? — I think it is one and the same as scab, only some of the sheep get harder. I once got some rams from the Bedford district that had about the hardest scab I ever saw in my life. 2051. You are of opinion this is also caused by an insect ? — Yes. 2052. Have you heard of a kind of hard scab in your neighbourhood which could not be cured ? — No, I have never seen scab that cannot be cured. 20.5.J. Have you not heard of a certain flock of a Mi-. Krog, I think in this district, that even the scab inspector could not cure V — He must either have made away with them, or they must be cured, because this district is clean. 2054. Do you know Mr. Krog ? — Yes, I did— I suppose you mean the late Mr. Carl Krog from the Cathcart district. I heard he was very anxious to get out of this district, but had not succeeded in cleansing his sheep That is the first I have heard of it. 2055. If I teU you that in some of the Karoo districts that kind of scab is well-known, and that even the colonial veterinary .suigeon has examined it and believes it is not caused by an insect, but by an internal disease which must first be cured, and that in those parts there is a kind of steekgras which gets into the wool, irritating the skin and making the sheep bite and pull the wool, and that there are heavy droughts there so that farmers can- not dip whenever they like, but have to trek to get water, don't you think it would be very hard to force a general scab act on people living in those parts ? — You seem to lose sight of the fact that if those men had cleansed their sheep as they ought to, they would not be suffering those hardships. 2056. But supposing it is a fact that that kind of hard scab comes every other year, don't you think it would be very difficult for an inspector always to distinguish between it and the ordinary sc»b '? — I should recommend that, if the inspector did not know the flifference between scab and steekgras, the Government be written to at once and the inspector dismissed at once. We are subject to that here, and it is very bad and causes the sheep to bite ; and if you examine you \\-ill find the grass will often kill lambs, but any man who knows anything about sheep farming can soon tell what it is. 2057. But it cannot be denied that nearly every year the Achterveldt suffers from a severe drought, and sometimes for years in succession, and the pieople are very much opposed to a general scab act. Under these circumstances, do you not think it would be better to draw a line as j'ou said, and have a different kind of act for that part of the Colony, a com- pulsory dipping act, for some years, so as to educate the people up to a general scab act, and teach them by experience ? — I don't think there is anyone there more opposed to the scab act than a farmer was who lives here, but if you put it to him to-day whether he would like it repealed he would tell you it is the best act ever passed ; j-et when the act was first put in force I believe he distinctly stated he would shoot anyone that came to inspect his sheep. I am willing, however, to take half a loaf instead of getting no bread. Bj- all means give us a compulsory scab act over one portion of the colony if we cannot get it over the whole, because I am perfectly satisfied the others would soon see the benefits. If you had been farming here as I have, in years past when there was no scab act, and tried to keep your sheep clean, you would realize what it was for a man to keep his sheep clean when his neighbours did u(it. Twice a week aU my sheep were regularly brought into the kraal to be dressed, and the act has been a boon to us in this district which we shall never forget. Sheep farm- ing is becoming a comjiaratively easy life in this part of the country. The other day I was thinking of dipping mj' sheep for ticks, but as far as scab is concerned, with the one exception I mentioned, I have never had any since I received a clean bill. 2058. You find under the working di the act you can clean your sheep and keep them clean ? — There is not the slightest difficulty. 2059. But before the act was in force you tried and failed .'' — I couldn't keep them clean for any length of time, because my neighbours did not keep their sheep clean, and mine became infected by mixing with theirs, though I continually dressed mine. 2060. If a Une was drawn dividing the Colony into a proclaimed and an improclaimed area, should the railway be included iu the proclaimed area '? — Certainly. 2061. W'ould you quarantine all sheep coming in for at least a fortnight or three weeks and dip them twice before allowing them to enter ? — I am opposed to any sheep being brought into the area at all, but in the event of there not being a universal scab act through- out the colony, I woidd arrange for centres of consumption being supplied with food by sheep with a clean biU being dipped before they were moved, but I would prohibit any sheep coming into the area. 2062. Your opinion is that if a line is drawn, it must be provided no sheep should be allowed to come into a proclaimed area from an unproclaimed area ? — That is what I would suggest. 2063. Chairman.'] Do you think you would be able to keep the Komgha division perfectly clean as it is now provided sheep were being constantly moved along the roads by M 2 86 natives or others from other districts ? — I don't know that we could keep it clean, but we don't run anything like the amount of risk, because the majority of the roads are fenced ; but it would be far better if we could prevent it, because natives get passes from people authorized to grant them, not farmers, to bring scabby sheep in, and they have been caught. 2064. Do you therefore think there is a great deal of danger in even allowing sheep to travel along the roads although fenced ? — Yes. 2065. But not to the same extent as where they are not fenced? — No. 2066. You are aware that at present field-cometcies outside the area are allowed under certain conditions to come in. Do you think it would be better, instead of deciding the question by the votes of the farmers living in the field-cornetoy, it should be decided by the farmers there voting according to the number of sheep thej' held ? — I certainly think that a man who has a greater interest at stake should have more voice in the matter and should be entitled to two or three votes, according to the number of slieep he holds. 2067. Is there any further suggestion you would like to make ? — I should certainly like to see some act passed whereby those who administer the law are not allowed to g^ve such lenient sentences. The act has been tried now, and men who are inve8ted..with discretionary powers should not be allowed from unwillingness or inability to leave them in abey- ance. I think it should now be provided that the fine in case of a first offence should be fixed at a certain amount, and the same with second and third offences. At one time I was in favour of having discretionary power in regard to these thing.s, but I consider the act has been abused, and therefore it would even be better that one innocent person should »u£Eer than eight or ten guilty men should escape. 2068. You woiild propose that the fines be fixed and the magistrate should have no alternative ? — Yes. 2069. Mr. Francis.^ Have j-ou ever found that natives have moved sheep into the area with a pass from some official but without a permit of removal or a clean bill ? — Yes. 2070. What kind of officials, issuers of passes or magistrates'? — In one case an issuer of passes, and I believe in another case a magistrate in the Transkei gave a man permission to bring in scabby sheep. 2071. Then those officials were causing the natives to break the law and putting them in a position to be punished because of the ignorance of the officials? — Yes. Some sheep were brought here under a pass from Middledrift. Mr. Johannes Frederik Janse van Renshurg examined. 2072. Chairman.'] You are a sheep farmer in the Komgha division ? — Yes, I have been farming here about thirty 3'ear8. 2073. When you began farming here there was, of course, no scab act iu force. Now, up to the time when the act came into operation, was there much scab in the Komgha division ? — Yes. 2074. The act has now been iu force about six years ? — Yes. 2075. Since then, do you find any difference in the quality and quantity of yout wool ? — Yes, it is very much better in both respects. 2076. From your experience of the working of the scab act, do you think you will be able to keep the Komgha division clean, as I understand it is now, if other sheep are allowed to arrive in from other districts ? — You can't keep it clean when scabby sheep come in, but you could otherwise. 2077. Do you think it would be in the interests of the country to extend the provisions of the scab act to other districts ? — I think it would be a very good thing, but I am not prepared to pass an opinion with regard to the difficulties under w hich other districts labour. The act has been a very good thing for Komgha, but we cannot say whether or not it would be equally good for everybody. 2078. Surely you tan carry on your farming here much more profitably and easily since the scab act came in force than before ? — Yes. 2079. And you are convinced in your own mind that sheep tan be cured of scab and kept clean ? — Y'es, if you work as j'ou should with them. 2080. Then as you are deriving so much benefit from the act your.'self, don't you think it would be to the advantage of other districts to be put in the same position? — Certainly ; if the circumstances iu other parts of the Colonj- are similar to those here, it could be done, and it would be a very good thing, but I don't know whether the circumstances are similar. 2081. Don't you think the' farmers in the Stutterheim division are just as well able to clean their sheep as you are hero ? — I have not been verj- much about the Stutterheim division, but I think they can. 2082. You know that scab is still prevalent in Stutterheim ? — I have heard so, but I have not seen it. 2083. Don't you think if the farmers and natives there were just as determined to stamp out the scab as the people of Komgha it would have been done before this ? — Yes, I think so. 2084. Then I infer you would say there has been neglect on the part of the farmers or the inspector there, since we know that scab is still prevalent there ? — Yes, it is owing to neglect, and chiefly because the dip is not good. 87 2085. Do you think the Government should erect dipping-tanks and dip the sheep of those who dou't do it properly, whether Europeans or natives, and charge thein for it ? — They should be compeiled by law to^dp^i-t proyerly themselves. I must, and whj' should not they do the same 'i - . 2086. But will you not admit that all the natives are not capable of mixing their dips properly? — They have a dip at Peelton. 2087. But if I told you that we found a flock of sheep at Peelton this morning which were dipped ou Saturday and twenty or thirty per rent, were scratching, would you say that native dipped his sheejj properly .' — No 2088. Then do you think thVy should dip uudm- xXi.", supervision of the inspector or some authorized person? — Yes, it would be a good thing for the Government to kiep an eye on the dipping done by the natives. 2089. Do you think in that way there would be a chance of eradicating scab eooner from the Colony ? — Yes, I think so, in such cases as those mentioned by you. 2090. You are not quite in favour of a general scab act being in force throughout the Colony, because you fear we shall not be able to carry it out ; but supposing a farmer in an unproclaimed area has all his flocks clean, do you think he should be protected from stock passing over his farm with scab } — Yes, I think that is onlj* right. 2091. You know the arrangement under which fiold-cornetcies adjoining the area.? can come under the scab act? — Yes. 2092. Don't you think it would be a better plan if the decision of the ward were taken according to the number of sheep owned by the farmers instead of giving an equal vote to each farmer as at present ?— That would be an improvement 2093. Have you ever thought of the desirability of having a general compulsory dipping act in lieu of, or even in conjunction with, the scab act .' — Yos, I am in favour of such an act for the whole Colony. 2094. If such an act were enforced, do you think it would very materially assist in stamping out the scab ? — -Let it be first tried for a year, and if it is done properly it would be a very good thing. 2095. Mr. Francis.^ Do you think the present method of appointing inspectors upon the recommendation of the Divisional Council is the best ? — Yes, I think it works well. , 2096. You dnn't think it would be better to change it ?— No. 2097. Do you think the time of thi'ee months which is now allowed for a first licence is too long to clean infected sheep ? — No. 2098. How long would it take to clean your sheep ? — It depends on the weather ; if you can dip them at once it will not take so long, but if j-ou had bad weather it would take longer. Sometimes when you have dipped bad weather comes on before fourteen days, and so you cannot give them the second dipping at the proper time, and have to begin all over again. 2099. Have you ever known two mouths consecutive bad weather .•■ — Yes, it continues sometimes. A man should have a chance. 2100. Don't you think giving a licence for such a long time tends to spread the scab? — If the farmer did nothing it would spread. 2101. Supjjose your own sheep were clean and your neighbours" became iufected with scab, would you not think it better he should have to clean them in one month rather than in three ? — Yes, it would be better if he could do it. 2102. Mr. Botha.^ Do you uot think through bad weather or other unforeseen circum- stances it might happen that, notwithstanding the owner did his duty, he might not be ablo to clean his sheep in three months "- — I think he could clean them in thiee months u.ider any circumstances. 2103. I met an intelligent farmer in Graaff-Eeinet, a man who travels about a great deal, .speaks English, and is strongly iu favour of the scab act, who was unable to clean his one flock of sheep in twelve months, although he dipped them twelve times ." — He did not do it properly ; he must have only put them into clean water. 2104. If Government dips the Kaffirs' sheep do you not think they should also dip the Europeans' } — No, the Europeans should do it themselves. 2105. Would it be fair to clean the natives' sheep and not the white man's ? — The white meu must cleau their own. The natives should pay for cleaning theirs. 2106. If a native is under no master, do you think he should clean his sheep just like a white man does .•' — The native would make the dip too weak, but if the Government does it for him, the native should pay for it. It depends entirely upon whether the water is wai-m enough and the dip properly made. 2107. I>r. Smartt.'] If farmers in a district where the act has been in operation say that it has been perfectly inoperative in stamping out the disease, in fact that more scab exists in the district now than before the act came in force, does your experience of the working of the act in this district lead you to suppose that this must be altogether due to inefficient administration ? — That is my opinion : the reason is that the farmers don't dip properly. If the sheep were jjroperly dipped in the summer they would remain clean through the winter, and if the farmers you refer to had dipped properly their sheep would be clean. 2108. Would you be in favour of farmers in an unproclaimed area having clean flocks being allowed the same rights in regard to proceeding against the owner of scabby sheep trespassing on his farm and mixing with his sheep as tne rights now possessed by flock owners in the proclaimed area ? — Yes, 88 +■ V^'^' "v. V —. protect farmers in an unproclaimed ar-ja whose shoop wero perfectly ireo from scab by giving „ ^^^^^ ^^ J^^^^t ^ trekking over tho.r farm with scabby sheep?— It is no more th;.u i.g.i. ;.^ i,. ^..-.^.j^gj^ ^nd prohibit people with scabby sheep passing over their property. The man who has xiia ox...^, dgan must be protected. 2110. Mr. du Toit.'] Can sheep be dipped when they are in a. ,o.-y poor condition? — Yes, in summer. 2111. But nut in winter .' — No, it would do them harm. 2112. Now if .your sheep got infected in winter, would you rather dip them or let the disease go on ? — Under the circumstances I should dip. 2113. Do you believe that scab is as contagious as some people say, and that it can be carried by the wind, or by flies .'' — It is very contagious, but I don't believe the wind cau blow it about. ■2114. Do you think that clean sheep can be infected by simply grazing on the same ground as scabby sheep without getting mixed with them ? — Yes, because they would rub agiiinst the trees and so on. 2115. Chairmaii.'\ Is there anything you would like to add .^ — When I first dipped my sheep I used to put them back on the same veldt, and after several dippisgs I stamped the disease out of the veldt ; and that shows clearly that when you dip sheep properly you stamp out the disease. If you dip properly 3-ou can smell it six months afterwards when you get rain ou the sheep. 2116. Mr. du Toit.'\ Are you in favour of simultaneous dipping throughout the Colony? — Yes, in the summer months, and the outside time allowed should be three months. But I would not dip dean sheep, only in all the areas which are not perfectly clean. 2117. Mr. Bo/ha.^ Why should I be compelled to dip if my sheep are clean ? — Clean slieep should not be dipped. The inspector will know whose sheep are clean or not. 2118 Mr. du Toit.^ Then don't you think the act as it now works in the proclaimed areas is quite sufficient ? — Yes. 2119. Do I understand you are in favour of a compulsory dipping act only in the unproclaimed areas ? — Yes, and also in the proclaimed areas where scab exists. 2120. Chairman.'] If a compulsory dipping act was passed, which would stamp out soJib in a year or two, do you think the farmers throughout the Colony who have clean bills of health would object to their sheep being dipped provided it was thought advisable to dip ail the sheep in the country ? — I think they should all dip except those areas which are entirely free of scab, but in other areas even those whose sheep are entirely clean should dip, because they might infect others. 2121. How many sheep do you usually have ? — About 5,000. Mr. Gert Albertus Cruywagen examined. 2122 Chairman.] You are farming in the Stutterheim division .'' — Yes, ever since the scab act was proclaimed and before that. At present 1 have about 1,400 sheep. 2123. Have you a clean bill of health ? — Yes, I have held a clean bill for over three years. 2124. Ai-e most of the farmer.^ in Stutterheim free of scab ? — Eound about me most of them are clean, but higher up, t!: ^ Germans and natives are not. 2125. Do you think the act is being worked well in the Stutterheim division, or have you any complaints to make against it } — It cannot be being properly worked or we should be as free as Komglia. 2126 To what do you attribute that? — To the negligence of the inspector, and the leniency of the magistrate. 2127. You say the Germans' and natives' sheep are not free of scab ? — No. 2128. How do you account for that? — It is the fault of the in.spector and the magistrate. 2129. Do these farmers and natives dip their sheep regularly the same as you do } — Yes, when Mr. Sparkes was inspector for the two divisions, tlie natives were cleaner than they are now. 2130. If the natives pay for it, do you think it would be a good thing for the Govern- ment to take in hand the dipping of their sheep ? — I don't think so ; the natives have their dips. 2131. Can they mix thorn properly? — I think ic is the duty of the inspector to give them proper instructions. 2132. But the natives may not carry out his instructions? — Then there is the act to make them do it properly, or else tlie act is no use to us. 2133. Can you offer any suggestions with the object of assisting the inspector or the natives there to clean their sheep ? — My neighbourhood is not infected, but at any rate I think it would make theai keep their sheep clean if they were more stringent. I know of farmers who, at the expiratioin of their licences, always want them renewed, but if I can clean my sheep in the three months which is given, I don't see why they should not clean theirs, and if they cannot, they are not fit to be sheep -farmers. 2134. You think the law should be made more stringent, and less time allowed to clean the sheep ? — Certainly. 2135. And do you think if that is done, and these farmers are fined if their sheep are soabby, that they will clean them as well as you do yourself ? — Certainly. 2136. Dr. Smarttl 1 take it you are in favour of a oompulsory general scab act over the whole colony ? — Yes. 2137. If there is no general act, would you protect farmers with clean flocks in un- proclaimed areas ? — I certainly think so. 2138. If a compulsory general act were introduced with a view to effectually stamping out scab in the shortest period possible, would you be in favour of a compulsory simultane- ous dippingvact in different areas according to climate '^ — I think that would be a very good thing. 2139. From what you have seen of the working of the act in this division, you consider it would be quite possible to entkely stamp out scab in any division in which the act is put in force, provided it is properly administered .-■ — I can say that with a clear conscience. 2140. Mr. (lu Toit.'] Don't you think the people who have a scab act, might be satisfied with it, and that only a compidsory dijiping act should be applied to those districts where it is not advisable to enforce a scab act ? — You are speaking iu favoiir of mild measures, but I think everybody should come under the same act. 2141. But do you not admit there maj- be difficulties in other places ? — Yes. 2142. Then do you not think it would be as well in those parts of the country to be satisfied at first wdth a compulsory simultaneous dipping act, so as to educate the people to ask for a general scab act? — If you include the proclaimed area also, there might be some difficulty. 2143. Br. Smartt.'] But I take it from my answer to vox question just now that as far as you know it would be possible to carry out a general compulsory scab act, and you woidd be in favour of carrying it out ? — Yes, I have farmed in the Free State, in Barkly, a wet country, and in Stutterheim, and I am convinced you could stamp out scab in all those places. I think Barkly aud Wodehouse are the coldest districts in the Colony, and the most difficult in which to stamp out scab. 2144. Mr. F'aficis.'] When the act first came in force, were you in favour of it? — Yes, I was ; but I had to keep it very quiet. I was in favour of it because I had bought some sheep about as bad as they could possibly be with scab. I had to move aliout twentj' miles, and left three of these sheep beliind because they were so jioor with scab. I dipped them twice, and for eighteen months the whole troop remained perfectly clean. They ran in a corner, a sort of basin, where there was no possibility of their mixing with other sheep, iilthough it was not fenced. I sent them up to the Kabusie, before I bought the ground I am living on now, and within a month they broke out all over with scab, but in those days there was a great deal of scab. This clearly showed, before the act came in force, that if sheep are properly dipped, and put on clean groimd, they will not be infected again unless mixed with scabby sheep. 2145. Were there many people in Stutterheim opposed to the act at thit time ? — Most of them were. 2146. And now ? — I don't think you wiU find two against it. Mr. Mermanus Gerhardus Janie van Rensburg examined. 2147. Chairman.'] You are a sheep farmer in this division ? — Yes, I have farmed here U'^arly nineteen j-ears, and have about 2,200 sheep. 2148. The scab act has been in force here for the last six years } — Yes. 2149.; Have you found an improvement in your farming since then ? — Yes, it is better. 2150. If the scab act were in force throughout the Colony, do you think the sheep farmers would farm under better conditions than they do at present ? — It would be according t{j the kind of act ; if it was not too severe. — • 2151. Does the present act press severely on you as a sheep farmer ? — No ; if the act is not more stringent than it is here it would not V)e too severe for anyone. 2152. Then do you tliink, iu the interests of the Colony, it woidd be ad\'i8able to have a scab act throughout the Colony ? — The districts differ. In Komgha we have everything in uhundance, water, wood, sulphur and lime are close to our doors, but I don't know how it would work to put a stringent act in force in the back coimtry, such as Victoria West, and so on: and as the Colony must have a general act, I think you ought to give these people a cliance. They should be made to try and eradicate scab, because we must not think because Komgha is clean that -s^e are lr>je from scab ; it may visit us again. 215.;. But you don't think it will visit you again unless it is brought from some other district ? — That 1 would not saj'. It is certainly contagious 2154. Then unless scabby sheep or something with scab on it comes into the district and comes into contact with your sheep, you feel certain thej' will not get it again ? — Certainly. 2155. You feel sure yourself there is no danger of getting scab into the Komgha division unless it is brought here from some other district ? — 1 think so, because it is three years since I last dipped my sheep, and they are still clean. 21.56. Then you derive considerable benefit from the operation of the act ? — Certainly ; I cannot say otherwise. 2157. If it was proposed in Parliament to repeal the act would you object to it .' — I should not be satisfied if the act were to be repealed. 90 2158. When the act first oame into operation were you not very much opposed to it ? — Oertainly. 2159. But you have seen the advantage to the sheep farmer of having it .' — Yes. 2160. As you derive so much benefit from the act yourself, don't you think it would be well to put it in force in other districts ? — I don't see my way clear to that. 2161. Don't you think the other people who are now opposed to the act would derive as much benefit from it as you have done ? — I would give them another year to consider it. 2162. If you were living in an unproclaimed area and your sheep were perfectly clean, don't you think it would be right for the Government to protect you from scabby sheep passing over j-our farm ? — It would be only right. 2163. I am not asking you whether a general act should be put in force, but if you or any other farmer living outside a proclaimed area had your sheep free of scab, you think it would be right for the farmer to have the power to prevent anyone crossing his farm with scabby sheep ? — I certainly think it would be onl}' right. 2164. You are not in favour of a general scab act ? — Not just yet. 216.5. But as you say scab is very contagious, don't you think all the railway systems of the Colony shoiild be embraced in the scab area ? — I would not go against that. 2166. Do you think scab can be carried on the railway by skins and wool as well as by sheep ? — Certainly. 2167. Have you ever considered whether it would be in the interests of the country to have a general simultaneous dipping act .-■ — Yes, I should like to see it. 2168. Would you apply the act to the unproclaimed as well as to the proclaimed areas .-* — I don't see why we should dip in the Komgha district where we are perfectly cleaa. 2169. Do you think it should only be applied to the unproclaimed areas and to thoae districts which have not a clean bill of health ? — Yes, I think .so, but not to the districts 'where there is no scab at all. 2170. Mr. Franeis.~\ If your sheep became infected with scab, how long would it take you before you could get them perfectly clean again ? — If you dijj them to-day you must dip them again within fourteen days and then they are clean. I cleaned mine in that time, and I have not dipped now for three years. 2171. Then you could clean your shei^p in three weeks .' — Easily. 2172. Could not others do so also if the}' dipped their sheep properly? — Yes. 2173. Do your sheep stand in great danger of re-infection from sheep moving along the roads in the district ? — No, I am away from the trek paths. 2174. Do you know anything of that other sort of scab about which some questions have been asked ? — I know two kinds of scab. 2175. Will you describe them ? — One kind is dry and hard, the other is wet. 2176. Do you know what causes the stab.'' — I have never seen it. 2177. Do you think steekgras would produce scab ? — -There is none on my farm. 2178. Can you suggest any improvement in the method of appointing scab inspectors ? — I have no objection to the present method. 2179. Mr. £otha.~\ We all know that scab is contagious, but is it not possible that every sheep is liable to produce scab without being infected by other sheep ? — Scab is in the blood and can come spontaneously. 2180. If that is the case, woidd it not be well to give a man three months instead of one to clean his sheep ? — I think he should have three months in order to give him time to stamp it out. 2181. Are you acquainted with scab amongst goats .'' — Yes, I have often had it amongst mine. 2182. Have j'ou noticed whether goats get scab from poverty without being infected by other goats ? — Yes, I have seen a goat get scab through poverty -without being, so far as I know, infected by others. 2183. Br. Smartt.'l WiU you explain your previous answer to the Chairman's question when you said that if the division of Komgha were free of scab and the quarantine was so strictly maintained that no scabby sheep were allowed to enter the district it was certain the sheep in Komgha would uot get scab any more, although you have just said in reply to Mr. Botha that scab is inherited in sheep and can Vjreak out spontaneously ? Would you kindly reconcile those two answers, because it appears to me one or other must be incorrect .'' — I think the .sheep would be sure to have an insect in the blood whether it was infected or not. I believe it is born with the insect in its blood. 2184. Yet j'ou also think that if you once get a sheep perfectly clean it would never get the disease again uidess it is re-infected ? — That is my opinion. 2185. Are you in favour of Government dipping-tanks being erected on all the main thoroughfares of the Colony.-' — It would be a very good thing if Government also provided the wood and everything else. It would not cost much. 2186. Mr. (Ill 2oit..^ You said your e.xperieuce has taught you there are two kinds of scab, one hard and dry and the other wet, can both be cured by dipping just as easily ? — I cannot say whether buth ca.ii be cured by dipping. 2187. But, do those with the dry scab get well the same as those with the wet scab ? — • Yes. 91 • Mr. Walter Arnold Edmonds pxaiiiinofl. 2188. Chairmanr\ You are a sheep farmer here? — Yes, I have been fanning here between five and six years, and have about 4,000 sheep. 2189. When you commenced farming liere the scab act was in force? — Yes. 2190. When you came into the district did you find much scab 'i — A good deal. 2191. And now } — The district is perfectly clean. 2192. Do you agree witli the evidence winch has been given by Mr. Gray and others.-' — In the main. 2193. Do you agree with Mr. Gray that a general scab act would be an advantage to the firming industry of the Colony .' — Decidedly. 2194. If it is found impossible to have a general act, where do you think the dividing line sliould be drawn 't — The midland line of railway might be the line. 2195. Would you draw the line on the western side .'' — Yes, thw unproc-laimed area on the west, and the proclaimed area on the east. 2196. Do you think that would meet the case .^ — It would be better than getting no scab act at all . 2197. Are you aware whether the infection is carried by trucks on tlie Hue? — Yes it is. 2198. You know the trucks run ou all the lines of the Colony? — Yes. 2199. If the infection can be conveyed in the trucks 'm the different lines, and the trucks run on the Hnes throughout tiie Colony, don't you think it is rather dangerous to the proclaimed area to have trucks used on the several sections sent there ? — Decidedly, there would always be a risk of infection. 2200 As a TTiattei- of fnct then, do you think it would be better to include the whole railway system of the Colony 'i — If possible, I should say lake in the western line too. Let as large an area be proclaimed as possible. 2201. Extend it westward as far as possible? — Yes. 2202. If such a line were drawn, would you aUow stock to come in at aU .-• — Decidedly not. 2203. Under no coiditions whatever? — No. 2204. But must not some pi'ovi. But if all the country which deals with the lines leading to Port Elizabeth and East London is under the scab act. do you not think there need b'> no prohibitive laws against carrying skins over those lines .'' — T think for some time that matter maj" be left in abeyance. 2236. Rather than exclude the wool you would run the risk ? — Yes. 2237. Chairman.^ Is there anything you would like to suggest .'' — T should like to say that when a man's licence has expired, if he requires a further one he sliouM be taxed for it. Mr. JamcH Filmer examined. 2238. Chairman.'] Are you a sheep farmer in this district ? — Yes, for nearly twenty j-ears. I have about l,.5O0 sheep. 2239. When J'OU first farmed lierel suppose there was a g.' eat deal of scab? — A good deal. 2240. Up till the time when the act came in force did it d-'crease or remain stationery ? — Some seasons it was better and some woi-se. 2241. And since then? — The district has improved wonderfully. 2242. At the present time is it not quite clean ? — I believe so, 2243. You are aware a good many shetp corao into the district at certain times of the year from outside ? — Yes. 2244. Have you ever seen scab brought in here from another district ? — Not immediately upon their arrival, but .shortly afterwards T have seen scab bieak out among.st them. 224.3. Have anj' flucks been infected by them':' — Not to my knowledge. I am not on a main road. 2246. Do you tliink the farmers living on the main roads are more likely to get scab from trekking sheep than 3'ou are .■* — Yes. 2247. Do you think that this district being so well fenced has had much to do with its freedom from scab ? — Yes. 2248. Does your experience in fanning here under the scab act lead you to think that it would be advisable to extend its operation ? — It would be the greatest boon the Colony ever had. 2249. Woidd you extend it throughout the Colony ? — If possible. 22.50 And if that could not be carried out ? — Then I would be in favour of a simul- taneous dipping as a trial. It would be the tliiu end of the wedge. 22.t1. (Supposing it was agreed there should be .1 general simultaneous dippinj?, would you have all sheep dipped both in the proclaimed and the unproclainied area, including even the Komgha division wliich is free from Si.ab ? — As an individual I would nut, object to it at all, and it would induce the others to come under the act. 2252. If something of that kind was carried out do you think there would be a good chance of eradicating scab ? — Yes. 2253. Suppose you can't have a general scab act, would you give protection to anybody outside the area who kept his sheep clean ? — That would be very difficult. 93 2254. Would it not be fair to him to allow liim to prevent scabby sheep crossing his farm provided his own sheep were clean ? — I would fine them for crossing the farm, but it would be difficult to give him protection. 2255. Supposing this man was as anxious to come under the scab act as you are to re- main under it, would it not be very hard on liim to be allowed n : protection ? — If he was on the border of a proclaimed area I should say yes, but he might be in the centre of a division. 2256. If lie was on the border it might be possible to join him on to the area, but not if he were some distance in. Don't you think he coidd receive some protection ? — I don't know how it could be done, though I should like to do it. 2257. Yon know how farms and fieM-covnetcies are admitted to the area .-' —Yes. 2258. Instead of the voting being d(me by the number of farmers, don't you think it would be better if it were according to the uumbar of sheep owned ? — Yes. If two men owned 20,000 sheep and all the rest owned 15,000, I think the two men ought to carry it. I think it would be a good thing if all native locations and schools had a tank in the centre of the location, and that when the sheep wei-e dipped the dip should be prepared under the super- vision of some competent person. 2259. But suppose the natives had a dipping tank of their own, would you dip them there provided the dip was properly mixed under supervision ? — Yes. 2260. Would it be advisable to have dipping tanks on main roads for stock entering a proclaimed area?— I think that is one of the principal things. I was a member of a divisional council for some years, and advocated tliat all the time I was a member. 2261. If sheep were properly dipped and cjuarantined on the border, you think there would be no danger in bringing them in? — If dipped befoie starting fr. m home, and again upon entering our district, we .should be perfectly free provided it was properly done. 2262. Then you would not object to sheep from an unproclaimed area entering a proclaimed area provided they were quarantined and properly dipped under supervision ? — No, I should think it would be safe. 2263. Jfr. Francis.'] Do you consider a licence of thi'ee months too long to give a man t > clean his sheen ? — S iinotimes we have such changes in the weather that if a man has a lot of sheep, it would nbuost tike him three months ; and perhaps they may have to be shorn, so that I would almost say no. 2264. Suppose more power were given to the inspector so that in the winter he could give a man three months to clean his sheej), (".nd in summer bring it down to three weeks or a month, at the same time giving the farmer an appeal to the magistrate if he received only three weeks, and were dissatisfied with it, would it be beneficial and better than having an arbitrary three months aU the year r(jund ? — Yes, the inspector would act uj)on his own discretion, but I should be sorry to have an appeal to the magistrate. 2265. Do you think a system of paid licences would be preferable to our present system of tines for a breach of the act } — I think so ; I am in favoiu- of the fine being increased every time up to a certa'n amount, say £25. 2266. Do you think it would be a benefit if the Government were to jirovide tanks here and there on main roads f>r the benefit of travellers ? — I think it is very necessary. 2267. Mr. Botha.] Are you acquainted with some areas which are not under the scab act?— No. 2268. Can you believe that in those areas there are also farmers who keep their flocks us clean as any inside the area? — Yes. 2269. Then why should such sheep, which are thoroughly clean, undergo fourteen days' quarantine, and be twice dipped, whereas they might have been just dipped before they left honia ?— If they bordered on an area already proclaimed, it would be all right ; but if they jia.ssed through an area which wi:s not free from scab, they would be liable to pick it up on their way. 2270. But )-ou admit that you may find flocks as free from scab in unproclaimed areas as vm proclaimed areas? — Yes. 2271. Dr. Smarlt.] Would it not be justice to men having flocks in those parts to give them the absolute right to proliibit all scabby sheep from having pa--sage over their properties ? — Decidedly. 2272. Mr. du Toil.] Have you heard of certain material differences between the eastern and the north-western parts of the Colony as regards drought, scarcit}^ of water, and so on ? — I believe if our sheep hud not been clean in the Komgha district two years ago, we should have lost more than half of them through poverty. I have seen sheep die of old age and poverty without a .speck of scab. 2273. But were you obliged to trek ? — No. 2274. If you had to trek two or three hundred miles and your sheep became infected on the road, would you not consider it a great hardship if you ^ere stopped, and not allowed to go on? — It is for that reason I advocate tanks on main roads wherever a trek is necessary 2275. As there is such a great difference between this part of the country and the northern and uorth-western parts, and as the people there are so opposed to a compulsory scab act, do you not think it would be better to have a compulsory dipping act over those parts instead of a scab act ? — Yes, I think that would be the thin end of the wedge 2276. Don't you think that would eradicate scab to o certain extent even in those parts ? — If properly carried out, it would be the scab act in another form. 2277. Thou would you rather be in favour of giving these parts of the country first a compulsory dipping act, so that experience might teach them the advantages of it, and N 2 y4 afterwards have a corupulsory scali act V— I would accept it as being very much better thau the present state. 2278. You admit it would be far better thau forcing the act on a part of the people ? — I can't quite understand it. A compulsory dipping act is a compulsory scab act without a penalty. 2279. No, with a penalty, but they have simply to dip twice after shearing, and could trek freii ? — I •• ou't think (hat would admit tlifm into areas where there was no scab. 2280. But ill regard to the uuproclaiined areas ? — Oh, yes ; I feol quite convinced if the sheep lire twice dijjped projjcrly, thoy will themselves be content, they will see such an improvement. 2281. And ]ierli.ips after a couple of ypnrs' exporitnce if they see it does not go far enough, tlii>v ■s\ill come forward, and ask for a scab act? — I am quite sure it would bo very much better than the present state of things, and if they dipped their sheep twice in a really good dip, fliey will be so satisfied with the benefit derived that they will come under the scab act. Komgha^ Tuesday, \bth November, 1892. Dr. Smaktt. Mr. Fkancis. PEESENT : Mr. Frost (Chairman), Mr. Botha. Mr. Du ToiT. Mr. Joseph Hart examined. 2282. Chairman.^ You are a farmer in the Komgha division } — Yes, for thirty years. I generally farm with 5,000 or 6,000 sheep, and just now I have other stock elsewhere. 2283. When you commenced faruiing in this division thirty years ago had you scab amongst your sheep ? — Yes, there was scarcely a flock of sheep in the whole district without scab. 2284. Did that state of things continue until the scab act came into operation ?— I had my sheej) quite clean some j-ears before the act came in force. They were clean two years I efore, but got infected again hy coming into contact with scabby sheep after I had purchased a farm down here. 2285. Your sheep became infected after you purchased another farm } — Yes. 2286. Were your sheep clean w hen the act came in force '? — They had a little scab, but after the act came in force I cleaned ihem and they have now been clean fur over four years. 2287. Have you dipped them during the la.st four years .'' — Not once ; my tank is now so out of order that I shall have to re-build it before I can dij'). 2288. Have you found any imjirovement in the quality and quintity of wool since your shi ep have been entirely free of scab ? — I have fuund farming easy ; we are all fenced, and tlie farms pa'ldocked, and not having .scab among the sheep we have very little trouble. Before, we had to keep our sheep in the kraals once or twice a week to hand dress them as well as dipping them every six months when we sheared. 2289. Did you find you could keep down scab by hand dressing ? — Yes. 2290. Had the act been in force would you have dipjjed and stamped it out ? — Certainly. 2291 Then I suppose you consider the scab act has done a great deal cf good in this part of country .'^— There is not the least doubt about it. 2292. That being the case, do you (hink it woiild be advisable to extend it over other districts ? — Certainly, and a more stringent act than this one, throughout the whole country. 2293. And if that is found impracticable ? —Then I would have a division and prohibit those in an unproclaimed area sending any sheep into a proclaimed area. 2294. Don't you think it would be rather hard upon men in an unproclaimed area, who are now keeping their sheep clean and free of scab, to prevent them using the open markets of the country ? — It would be hard, but it would be better than allowing them to cross over. 2295. Don't you think that difficultj- might be met by having ports of entry ai certain places on the lines of railway where sheep could be allowed to c ime iu for slaughter purposes .'' — I would not advocate it. I would make the just suffer for the unjust. There would be a great risk if you allowed them to cross. 2296. Do you think scab can be carried on the railway by wool and skins ? — Certainly, and it should have been seen to long ago. 2297. But how would you prevent them coming on the lines of railway, not only from our own unproclaimed area, but also from the Free State aud Basutoland .'' — There is a certain amount of risk from skins but not as much as from sheep. 22^8. Then you would not prohibit the use of the railway lines for carrying wool and skins ? — I would if I could, but I don't see how it could be done. 2299. You are so convinced of the contagious nature of scab that you think it will never be stamped out unless very stringent measures are taken ? — I am convinced that it is extremi ly contagious, but that it can be easily eradicated from any country or district by united and simultaneous action by the farmeis. 2300. Would you protect a farmer in an unproclaimed area, whose flocks were all clean, to the extent of giving him power to prevent any scabby sheep passing over his farm } — 9o Certainly ; I would protect him in every possible way and give him the benefit of his labour. LoOl. Since you have been under the scab act, do you think it is stringent enough to stamp out the disease ? — No, and I would like to RUj^gest that when anj- i.rea is free of scab no sheep should be ullowed to enter it unles-s the owner who wislies to remove them shall have held a clean bill for at least six months previously. 2302. Do you think it would be advisable to have a dipping-tank o}i the border of the area where sheep c-uld be dipped and quarantined for a formight, or would that be long enough ? — I don't think it is advisable to do that, because we cannot always rely on the inspectors, anU these sheep might infect a clean area. Just as I woidd protect all farmers in unproclaimed areiis with clean sheep po I would protect a clean area. 2303. But suipose any man wishing to bring sheep into a proclaimed area dipped them under proper .■>up(.'rvioion, the supervisor being held responsible for the proper dipping, do you think there >^oidd be any risk ? — I think so in this way, that you cannot depend on the supervisors. 2304. But since you say yourself that two good dippings would clean the sheep, how would it be if that man w ere liable to a heavy tine if scab broke out amongst the sheep after they came into the area ? — It all depends on the state the sheep are in, because two dipjjings will not eradicate scab in very severe cases. Severe cases would be cured by two dippings, but not those very severe cases when the sheep get hard scales on them. 2305. Not if the dips are hot ? — No, it wants a third dipping. 230G. Then would you allow them to come in if in some cases three dippings were necessary .-■ — No, the act has been so long in force that it is only sheer neglect if they require dipping at all. 2307. Then if I tell you there are areas in which the scab act has been in force as long as it has been in Komgha, and yet there is a great deal of scab in those areas, would you think it was due to the negligence of the scab inspector? — To a certain *.-itent ; but it is often due to the farmer himself. There is a farm adjoining mine whiili belongs to a speculator who has more than once purchased sheep in Barkly and brought them to his place, where they have infected all his own sheep and my brother's too. 2308. How did he get the sca])by sheep in '? — I suj)pose he had a permit from the other side. I don't think our inspector would allow thfm in, but the Cathcart inspector did 2309. Would those sheep have cume in if tlie in.spector had done liis duty ? — I don't know whether an insnector has the power to prevent sheep being brought in from (jutside. 231u. As a matter of fact you know of your own knowledge that scabby sheep have leen brought in by speculators'? — Yes. 2311. And have not only infected the owner's Hocks but also others ? — Yea, and caused considerable expense. 2312. 'J hat is the reason why you are very strongly in favour of prchibiting sheep coming in from unju'oclaimed areas ? — Yes. 2313. Do you think the natives dip properly .-' — Not in my own ui ighbourhood. The week iiofore last I was in the Transkei, and went to stveral traders wheie the dijiping tanks are erected. Thcj- dip at so much per hundred, and the} try their best, ))ut tney have no experience, and the consequence is as long as the sheep come out looking a dark colour, the natives pay them and think it is all right. But I know it is not properly carried out. 2314. Is not that the fault of the trader? — Yes, but of course the native knows no better. He thinks it is the white man's doing, and he pays so mn( h per hundred for it. 2315. Do you think Government should superintend the dipping? — If (iovernment erected the requisite number of tanks in each location, and had the sheep dipped undrr proper supervision. 2316. Are you of opinion the natives will hu unable to stamp out the liisoase unlets something of that kind is done ? — It will be imponsible unless Government assists them in tome way, because the traders make money (/Ut of it and don't care. 2317. Do you think the native farmer is as anxious to stamp out scab as the European ? — In the Transkei, I am quite siu-e thej' are. 2318. And thiit they are willing to pay for it? — Yes. 2319. Mr. Fftowis ] Do you think the present method of bringing sheep out of one area into another is sati.-,f,ictory ? — No, that is why I •■•ugg sted that tliey should not bo allowed to come in xiLless they had a clean bill for six months. 2320. But taking two areas under the act, each of which is still infected with scab, do you think the present sj-stem of bringing sheep out of one into another is satisfactory ? — Not at all. 2321. 'What remedy would you suggest ? — That unclean sheep should not be allowed to move at all. 2322. Is not that the law at present? — No, the inspector gives youpermissiontomoveyour sheep provided you dip them a certain time before the removal takes place. The act may say unclean, but you cannot say the}' are unclean after they have been dipped. 2323. AVoidd you suggest the same course with regard to removing sheep out of a pro- claimed aiea, into an unprochiimed area ? — Yes. 2324. You say it is very dangerous to carry skins and wool in trucks, because stock may be infected in that way. I)on't you think it woidd be advisable if trucks cairyiug stock were disinfected before being used again ?--lt would be a vei-y good idea; and the tkins and wool should be properly packed and sewn up in bales, and not be left open. 96 2325. Would you he in favour of a sysiem of paid licences ? — I think it would have a great effect if the penalty were heavy eno^ig-li. 2.'i2(). Should the fine go on incn asing time after time? — Yes. 2327. Suppose a man had his .sheep thorougldy clt^ati, and they were re-infected from some cause, not his o^vn fault, would j'ou commouce again ? — I think he should have a remedy at l.iw if hi.s sheep became infected by coming into contact with others. 2328. Slight not his sheep tresi ass on auotlier farm ? — They miglit. 232!). 1) 1 you think the proposed system far preferable to the present one .-' — Yes. 2330. What do you thiukof the linos generally imposed for breaches of the act? — They are not adi quate. 2331 . Do they not have the proper effect ? — None at all. 23.'i_' H.ivi- you ever heard people say they would rather pay the hue than clean their sheep? — No, but it might easily be the case, a man would often rather pay a £10 fine than be detained en the coast. 2333. Do you think the present system of appointing scab inspectors is satisfactory ? — No, I agree «itli the suggestion made yesterday by Mr. Gray, that-they should be recom- mended by tlie farmers' associations. 2334. Do you think it would be a benefit to the public to have tanks built on the public roads ?— No 2335. Do y>ai think scab is more contagious and sheep more liable to catch it now than 25 or 30 year.sago? — No, 35 years ago we scarcely know what scab was. 2336. 3Ir. Botha.~\ Since the act has been in operation you have been quite free? — ^Yes, the whole district has been free twice. 2337. Would you ascribe that to the working of the act? — Yes, and to the stringent measures our iusjioctor has taken. Ho rather overstepped the act and put a good deal of wholesome fear into some people. 2338 If you had not had the scab act in force could he have frightened them .'' — No. 2339. The dread of the act lay in the fines ?— Yes. 2340. Therefore, the tines provided under the act had the necessary effect ? — Yes, to a certain extent. People don't wisli to be brouglit up and exposed. 2341. But if under the act scab has been altogether eradicated from the district, how can you say it has only had effect to a certain extent and not to the full extent ?— Before the act came in force the farmers here did their best to eradicate scab, but the3" did not dip twice within fourteen days. If tliey had, the vvliole district would have been clean withou* any act at all. 2342. Then it is not due to the act that you are free of scab ?— Yes, because everyone is now compell'-d. 2343. Does it provide for two dippings? — Yes, our inspector told us and we did it. We have gained experience since the act came in force. 2344. Then you will not say the fines imposed under the act have had no effect at all ? — Both the act and the fines have had a good effect, because of the natives in the district. 2345. And the result has been tliat scab has been entirely eradicated in this di.strict .•• — Yes. 2346. So I suppose you cannot e.Njieet more than that ? — No. 2347. Do you think it is possible to disinfect railway trucks after they have carried scabby wool or skins?— Yes, by using a proper solution of dip. 2848. Would it be just as easy as disinfecting sheep? — Yes. 2349. Br. Smarft.'] Do you consider the preseat system of granting a three months' licence is a good one .' — No, it is too long. I sh' uld say a month or six weeks would be much better. 2350. Could a careful farmer thorouglily clean his flock in that time ? — Yes. 2351. If at the expiration of that licence a man's flocks were not clean, would you authoiize the inspector to dip them at the expense of the owner ? — I think his duties would not allow him time to do that, but it would be a giiod thing if it could be done and the owner made to pay for it heavil}-. 2352. What provision would you make for such a case ? — I would suggest that the Government emjdoy an efficient jiorson to see to the dipping recommended by the inspector if the in^pector had not time to superintend it himself. 2353. You woidd not give the man another six weeks ? — No. 2354. If it has been found that scab is very prevalent in many districts of the Colony where the act has been in force for many years, do you not think it must be due iu a g^eat measui e to the dilatoriness of the inspectors ? — To a very great extent. Many inspectors are very negligent. 2355. Would you suggest that any inspectors who did not efficiently carry out the act to the letter should be peremptorily dismissed ?— Yes, and that the farmers' associations should take up the matter. 2356. AVould j'ou give the Government tlie right to dismiss an inspector who granted permits for sheep to travel which were not free of scab ?— .Certainly, to dismiss him summarily. • 2357. You appear to be in favour of farmers' as.sociations recommending inspect feed the difl'ercnt centres of the Colony-? — I think the proclaimed areas raise quite sufficient slaughter stick to sujipl}' all those centres, and I would n^t allow any slaughter stock from unprotected aress to enter. 236S. But under a tjeneral scab act, no sheep which were not perfectly free of scab could be reuiovi d from their own areas, and I take it the proclaimed areas would be utterly inadeqiuite to meet the demand ? — 1 think they would be adequate. 2369. KimVjerli V and Cipe Town for .six inonths^l' — I think S'l. 2370. As well as tlie markets they are supphing at present':' — Cape Town wjuld bp supplied fmrn its own district. I have never given the question sufRiient consideration, but I imagine that even if the act is proclairaeil over the whole Colony, stnck can be moved about in their own area, eve), th'jugh .scabby, am! it would be so with Cape Town. 2371 . But (ape Town is almost entireh- supplied by the north-western districts ? — True. 2372. Would it not be an inju-tice to the lest of the Colony, if a general scab act were put in force, imt to make some provision fur the usual supply of slaughter stock to large centres ? — There would be no great risk in taking the stock to centres where there is no stock. 2373. But I suppose they should be thoroughly dipped before moving ? — Certainly. 2374. If a general act were introduced, do you not think it would be advisable, in order to thoroughly eradicate the disease, lo divide the C'dony into areas arranged with reference to the large consuming centres, and to proclaim the districts in such a way that it was absolutely essential first t . clean th" outlying portions of tlie several areas, and gradually to extend the act towords the centres ? — I think so. 2375. J/>. dii Tnit.'] Do I understand you to expect under a general scab act that whcT we have got rid of scab we shall never get it again unless it is imported from abroad, and that we shall do away with dippir:r altogether'/ — Certainlj-, just as we have dune here the last five years. 2376. You don't believe that scab can come again spontaneously'? — No, certainl, not ; it is impossible. 2377. Have you farmed with goats':* — Yes, I had Angoras about thirteen years. 2378. Not Cape goats '/—N... 2379. You are n it aware thnt as a rule ( 'ape goats get scab if they lamb too often? — No, I have been on a farm in the Colony wlien- we had C.ipe goats, but I was not aware they would get scab from lanibiug or auytliiui; else unless tliey got infected. It is impossible. 2380. You are not aware that over a largo e.\teut of country the Cape goats were at one time quite clean, but that, po.s8ibly because one farmer continued keeping his goats too poor, or lambing too often, tiiey got scab there ? — It is impossible, scab cannot come from lambing even if they lambed fifty times a j-ear. •.i381. Thirty-five years ago you heard nothing about scab in the Colony, even amongst sheep ? — There was no .scao on the farm I was ou. 2382. Did j-ou hear of .^c ib anywhere ? — I was only i youth at the time, and did not go alout much, and had very little experience. 2383. Then you think sixt}' or seventy years back there was no scab 'i — My experience does not go back as far ai tlnit. 2384. I■^ it your opinion sca'i has been brought into the country from abroad ? — I am decidedly of opinion that it ha^ been introduced. 2385 You >aid there was one kind of sc ib, quite hard, which would require more than two dippings ? — Yes, it is so hard that two dijjpings would probably not be able to pene- trate sufficiently to destroy the insect. 98 2386. Are you aware that it is very often the case that sheep get badly suiibbv iu ihat way ? — Any sc ib wouM beoome hnrd soal) by negloct. 2387. You are not awaro that it may bo quite a separate kind of scab? — No, I think it is scab in a sovere form. 2388. And that it is also causwd by an insect,? — I am sure of it; I have seen the insect. 2389. You do not know of auy kind of scab which is not caused by an external insect, but is supposed to arise from imp^ri^y of the blood ? — No, I never heard of it. 2390. Siipposinf^ there is such a kind of scab up-country, which does not seem to exist in these parts, and whoro the nature of the country is so differnnt from this in consequence of protracted droughts and other causes, and where the people are unacquainted with the possibility of carrying nut fho scab act, would it not be very hard to force such a compulsory measure upon them ? — It would be for their own interests. 2391. Do you think it would do to force an act upon people, or that it could be worked well without a great incrf-ase in the cost, but that the case might be met by leaving thnt part of the country out of the proclaimed area, and giving them instead a kind of compulsory dipping act, by which every farmer should be obliged during two i>r thrive months in the summer to dip twice or three times w ithin three weeks ? — No, I am an advocate of a compulsory scab act, but not a dipping act. It would only be a mild form of scab act. 2392. "Would it not be better to go on by degrees, so that they would voluntarily apply for a general scab act ? — No, I imagine when n native will come to terms with a scab art, and see the benefit of it, there is no reason why a white man should not do the same. 2393. Do you not think there is a vast difference between those upper parts of the Colony and these, where you can keep three or four sheep on a moigen while we cannot keep one ? — I don't see that has anything to do with the scub. 2394. Would not the scareitj- of water, and the peculiar kind of penb I have told ytu of, make it more difficult to work the act ? — If your sheeji are kraaled or collected at the homestead every night it is much easier to carry out the act with you th:in it is with us, because it takes us some time to collect our sheep. 239o. Has your experience taught j'ou to prefer one kind of dip to another ?— Yes, we think tlu-rn is nothing to beat sulj^lmr and lime, because when you have dipped sheep in a strong solution of sulphur and lime o^a damp hot daj' the sulphuric acid rises, and that is also very deadly to the insect. 2396. AVould you dip with lime and sulphur with any length of wool ? — It is detri- mental to tlie wool, but I have dij)ped with six or sevy are or become infected, don't you think it would be advisable to have dipping tanks on publi(^ roads ? — Yes, at some of the outspannings. 2541. Would it not be beneficial if inspectors had some discretionary power, subject to an appeal to the magistrate ? Say that an inspector could grant a licence for three weeks, or up to tliree months, but that the farmer could appeal against the decision } — I think not, because the magistrate not being a sheep farmer would not understand sheep, and the inspector ought to know better than the magistrate in such a case. 2542. Do you think it would be better to continue the three months' licences ? — Yes, if it could be done in the way I suggest — three months gratis, and then a paid renewal at the discretion of the insjiector. 254;5. Have you liad any difficnlty with the natives in can-ying out the act .'' — No. 2544. They work willingly with you .'' — Yes. 2545. Can you tell by inspection after sheep have been dipped several days, whether the dipping was properly done .'' — Very often. 2546. Is it desirable to have slaughter stock dipped just before they go to the butcher .' Would not the butcher prefer sheep which had not been through the dip .-' — Decidedly. 2547. So you admit your proposal is opposed to the interests of the ownei's of slaughter stock ? — To a certain extent. 2548. Do you think the scab act is j)roperly carried out in all the districts where it is in force .-' — No. 2549. Br. Smartt.] With a view of quickly eradicating scab, do you think it would be advisable to have a compulsory simultaneous dipping act in the different areas in the Colony ? — Decidedly, in connection with the scab act. 2550. Mr. du Toit."] In the proclaimed areas? — Yes, but I am in favour of a general scab act. 2551. But you would add a simultaneous dipping clause to the scab act? — Yes, but not a dipping act alono, because I think that would be a waste of stuff. 2552. As regards that peculiar kind of scab or disease, what was the matter with the sheep ? — A kind of rash all over the body. It took the sheep under the shoulder blades, and between the legs ; the skin was very red, and little pimples appeared and afterwards burst and spread, and the wool all feU off, so that the skin was quite bare and perfectly soft. 2553. Have you had any more cases like that ? — No. 2554. May not such cases fi-equently occur? — There is a risk; but I have been a sheep farmer all my life and never know anything of the kind to happen before. 2555. Does it not appear strange to you that it had never happened before ? — It may have just happened then because of the continuous rains and cold winds, and because the sheep never got dry. TLe last u will oblige Yours truly, (Sd.) G. H. EDWARDS. P.S. — The sheep were out of the flock you inspected. (Sd.) G. H. E. Permit for Removal of Sheep under s. 10 of the Scab Act, 1886. No. 11. District Stutterheim. I certify that 15 sheep, the property of Helego, may be driven from RockdeU to Kentani, via Komgha. The above Permit is to be in fore-; for 4 davs. (Sd.) F. J. FULLER. Inspector. Date— 14-11-92. Brand and earmark noted on back — Brand, E3 ; earmark, wiuklark. They were tried to-day and fined 2s. 6d., although the act provides that the minimum fine is £1. Evidently the inspector only inspected one flock, but others on the farm may loe have been infected, and the act says that it' one flock on a farm is infected no permit may be gi-anted for the removal of sheep from any flock. 2577. Were the sheep scabby? — Apparently. 2.578. Do you think natives often go through Komgha under cover of a pass like that without being stopped ? — They used to, but I don't think they do now, because I have given strict orders to the Cape Mounted Riflemen at the bridge and out-stations to appre- hend all these people, and as they can't get through except over the Kei Bridge they can't pass. 2579. In another area where they could get through at twenty different places, sheep may often be brought through easilj', on a pass like this? — Yes, I have known them to go all the way bej'ond Cradook on a pass like that. One Sunday when I came to church I caught a native with a pass like that, and he abandoned the sheep altogether and I never saw him again. 2580. As long as this is being carried on, it is almost impossible to prevent scab being brought in ? — Impossible. Kei Road, Wednesday, l^th Novemher, 1892. PEE SENT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. | Dr. Smartt. Mr. DU Toit. I Mr. Fbancis. Mr. Cornelius Edward Dell examined. 2581. Chairman.'\ You are a sheep farmer living in the King William's Town district? — Yes, near Kei Road. I have been here about ten years, and at present have about 3,400 sheep. 2582. Before the scab act was in force, did your sheep suffer from scab at any time } — Frequently ; in fact they were always suffering. 2583. And since ? — On the farm I have never had any scab at aU, but I have frequently picked it up when I have moved the sheep. 2584. In what direction did you generally move them for winter or summer grazing? — I move them for winter grazing, and as a rule I go down towards Maclean Town, in the East London district. I don't always pick up scab, but I have done so when I have come out of my farm in this area. 2585. Then you find it very difficult to keep your sheep free of scab if you move them at all ?— Yes. I do. 2586. You are well acquainted with the working of the scab act ? — Fairly well. 2587. Do you think it works fairly well here, or could you suggest any alterations or improvements ? — It works generally well, but it could be improved. 2588. Will you give any suggestions ? — For the better working of the present act I would suggest that, instead of the minimum the maximum fine be imposed for any infraction of section 6, Act 28 of 1886, and seotion 5 of Act 33 of 1888. Also that provision should be made whereby an owner of infected sheep requiring the renewal of a licence should be liable to a penalty of £5 in the first instance, £10 in the second, £20 for the third anil every subsequent renewal of a licence until the sheep are found clean. Section 5 of Act 28 of 1886 provides that a licence of three months should be granted to an owner whose stock may become infected with scab disease, and I think one month's licence would better meet the require- ments of the case. I am also of opinion that as an inducement for the encouragement and better qualification of inspectors, they should be paid according to merit ; and I am pleased to be able to inform the Commission that, owing to the vigilance of our local inspector, Mr. J. B. Kettles, I have not had occasion to dip any of my sheep grazing on the farm I occupy for scab for the last four years. 2589. Would you applj' your proposed renewal of licences to a flockmaster who had only sixty fheep ? — Yes, if he had only one sheep. 2590. You think that without something of this kind the act can never be properly worked ? — No ; I think they should pay for a renewal of their licence. 2591. Under the present system they can just go on renewing? — Yes, because it suits their indolence better than getting rid of the disease. 2592. You consider a three months' licence too long? What time would you give? — Thirty days. 2593. Do you think any owner of scabby sheep can cure them in one month? — I am stire he can. I have done so frequently. I took some sheep away and they got badly infected with scab by sheep from other districts, and within a month I sheared ihem, dipped them three times, got them removed, and have now a clean bill of health. 2594. Then in your own opinion, no matter how badly sheep may be affected, they can be thoroughly cleaned within a month? — Yes. 2595. But suppose wlieu scab broke out the weather was bad, or the ewes were lambing, would you extend the time or still adhere to the one month ? — Perhaps in a case of that kind the inspector might be allowed to exercise some discretion, but such cases rarely happen. 2596. You would prefer having the one month ? — Yes. 10? 2397. Tou think the inspector might be too easy with the owner of scabby sheep ? — I think the act is too lenient ; it does not give the inspector a chance to work out scab. 2598. For one reason or another might not an inspector give a man rather loQger than was necessary to cure his sheep ? — It might be so. 2-599. Would it not put the Government in rather a difficult position if j'our suggestion of paying inspectors according to merit were carried out ? — I don't think so. The superin- tending inspector would be able to say who did their work in a very efficient manner, and who only did it in a medium manner, and those who gave most satisfaction should have it recognized in their rate of pay. 2600. In those districts where the farmers are convinced of the necessity of eradicating scab, and are in earnest ia trying to do so, would not the inspector have a very easy time, whereas in another district, in consequence of the laxity of the farmers and their unwilling- ness to assist him, the inspector could not possibly show a clean bill as soon as the other one although he might be as energetic as, or more so, than the first inspector ? — He should show in his report whether he did more work than the other. 2601. Still the merit would be there, and the one would have a clean bill and the other not. Would it not be rather hard on the man who ha'l an area where he recnved no assistance from the farming community ? — I think the result would show whether the inspector was doing his duty or not, and \vhether the farmers were indolent or otherwise they would have to comply with the provisions of the act, and if the inspector did his duty properly it would be shown in the state of the sheep. 2fi02. Do you think the inspectors as a rule do not enforce the act ? — In some cas-s they may not ; I cannot say so. It may be the fault of the act, or the magistrate may not enforce the full penalty, which is very often the case. 2fi03. Would not the inspector in an area where the magistrate inflicted heavy penalties for breaches of the act be better able to keep his area clean than one in an area where the opposite was the case, although the first inspector was really more active ? — Yes. 2604 Have you ever found sheep coming into this area from proclaimed areas infected with scab ? — Yes, vers- recently. 260.5. Had they a permit of removal from the inspector ? — I believe so. I never in- quired into the matter because it was not my business, but they had scab badlj' shortly after I saw them down here. 2606. When did you see them.-' — Probably about two weeks after their arrival, and they were then badly infected with scab. 2607. Might they not have picked scab up after they had left their own place ? — Possibly, but I don't think they would have broken out so badly if they had not had scab previous to their departure. 2608. Did they infect your sheep ? — Yes. 2609. Were they running on your farm ? — They were bot'i running oa a farm we hired jointly — the man who moved the sheep and myself. We hired grazing on the farm. 2610. Did you suffer any loss from the fact of these sheep having scab ':* — Yes. I kept my sheep down there thinking I should be able to place them in good condition on the market, but unfortunately owing to the scab I was not able to place any of them on the market. They were in good condition, and I should have been able to get 16s. a piece for them, but in consequence of the .scab breaking out I have only just got a permit to-day to remove them, and now I shall only be able to get 12s. If I could have sold them before, I should have got £440, put now I can only get £330, a loss of £110, besides th'i expense of dipping, which I reckon at £3. 2611. Then do you think sheep should not be moved unless they have been declared free of scab by an inspector for a much longer period than is now done ? — I think permits of removal should not be issued for sheep unless they have been clean for, say, a month previous. 2612. Had these sheep you complain of, come out of a proclaimed area? — Yes. 2613. From the information we have gathered we understand this portion of the district is free of scab. Is that so .-^ — Yes, I dont know of any scab within 15 miles of Kei Eoad in this district. I dont know of any scab in the King WUliam.'s Town district, but I dont say there is none. , 2614. If the King William's Town area was declared free of scab, do you think it would be advisable to prevent acy sheep coming into it fi-om any other district f — -No, but if sheep have been free of scab for a month previous to the time when the inspector was called to see them, and are found clean then, I say they might be allowed to come. 2615. Do you think it would be advisable to prevent any sheep coming into a proclaimed area from an unproulaimed area ? — I tliink so, except that we might have ports of entry at certain places, and all sheep coming from an area not under the scab act should bo dipped twice within fourt-'en days, whether scabby or not, and quarantined for a month, and if then found clean to the satisfaction of the inspector the3' might comn in. 2616. Supposing a farmer living in an unproclaimed area is free of scab, do you think he should be protected in the same way as you are protected in j-our area by being allowed to prohibit any scabby sheep crossing over his farm? — I certainly think a farmer who lives in an unproclaimed area should be entitled to claim the same damages as we do under the scab act, viz., under section S of Act Xo. 28 of 1886. 2617. Then do you think he sliould have the right to prevent any scabb3' sheep crossing his farm at all ? — Yes. [G. 1— '94.] p 108 2618. I conclude you are in favour of a general scab act throughout the Colony? — Certainly. 2619. Do you think it could be carried out? — Decidedly. 2620. But suppose it is shown that farmers living in certain of the north-western portions of the Colony, from want of water and so on. are unable to dip their sheep when required, do you think it woiild be advisable to brins; them under a general scab act, or to di'aw a line separating that portion of the Colony from the remainder ? — I hardly think circumstances of that kind could happen, that a locality could be so situated that it could not come under a general scab act ; but at the same time if it is the case we might have a line drawn. 2621. Would you embrace the whole railway system of the country ? — I would suggest to draw the line at the midland railwaj', separating the east from the west. 2622. In case of a line being drawn like that, don't j'ou think the farmers living in the proclaimed area would be very likely to get infected with scab by the conveyance of stock in trucks which could be brought from one sys(ein to another in the ordinary course of traffic ? — I think that couLl be easily prevented, because any sheep from an area not under the scab act, could bo dealt with in a proper manner and cleansed, just as sheep are usually cleansed and I don't think there would be any inf«»ction it that was done. 2623. Do you think in small up-country stations, and at all times, all over the country, that the railway department would be certain to have trucks cleansed in that way ? — I think so. 2624. Tou would depend on the railway department to do it ? — Yes. 2625. Take Kei Eoad. Do they clean them here ? — No there is no occasion to do so. 2626. AVhy ? — Because no infected sheep are allowed to travel in them. 2627. You cannot say that, because these trucks run right away to Cape Town and the Free State ? — Thc.n only certain trucks should be allowed to run in an infected area. 2628. Would it not then be very much better to earrj' your line farther, and embrace all the railwaj' systems ? — Yes, I perfectly agree with that. 2629. Would that be better than taking the midland line ? — Yes. 2630. Mr. du Toit.'] Your experience has taught you that scab on sheep can be usually cured by proper dipping in a remarkably shorttime .'' — However badly the sheep are infected, I can cure them in thirty days. 2631. Has j-our experience also taught you that they can be kept clean without dipping if they do not come again into contact with scabby sheep ? — They will remain clean if you can keep them on clean ground. 2632. Do you think the present act would work well if it was altered as you sug-gest ? — Yes, better ; but it would be better still if we had a compulsory act for the whole Colony. 2633. But you said if there were ports of entry for sheep coming in from unproclaimed areas it would meet the case ? — Provided we cannot get a compulsory scab act. If we can- not have a compulsory scab act let us have that arrangement and ports of entry. 2634. And by doing so, you can keep the area clean just as easily?— If it is once cleaned. 2635. You dout think it is an absolute necessity that the scab act should be proclaimed throughout the colony ? — I do think it an absolute necessity. 2636. How do you reconcile that ? — I mean we aU want a compulsory scab act, and if we can get that we want nothing else ; but if the Government is determined not to give us that, then I say for our owti protection in the area we want certain ports of entry. 2637. You dont think these well-guarded ports of entrj: would give you sufficient pro- tection, therefore you would rather have an act throughout the Colony ? — I think if we had certain port^ of entry well guarded we should not get scab introduced into our area. 2638. Then why should you be so anxious to have a sea') act through the Colony .•' — Well, there are the chances. I dont consider that would altogether prevent it, but it would to a great extent. 2639. Do you not think that, although by these means you might keep your area clean, it would be advisable in the interests of the whole Colony to have a general act ? — Yes, I think the whole Colony would benefit by a compulsory general act. 2640. But for the safetj- of the proclaimed area you would be satisfied with well-guarded ports of entry ? — Mj- opinion is we require a general scab act, but if we cannot get that the next best thing is a line drawn, and certain ports of entry. 264 1 . Do you think it would be unadvisable to force the act upon an unwilling popu- lation ? — No. 2642. Do you think it is possible for the act to work properly unless the farmers assist in carrying it out ? — Yes, because if they are compelled to comply with the law against their wishes, tliey will naturally get rid of their slieep, and farmers who don't keep their sheep clean are very much lietter \*ithout sheep at all. 2643. But in r.rdt-r to attain our object, do you not think it would be advisable to have an intermediate measure so as fo educate the people up to accept a scab act willingly? — As the scab act has been in force for five years, I think we have undergone that ojDeration already, and since it has now been proved that the act has benefitted this district, it should be applied to the whole Colony. 2644. Hut in the north-western districts they are so far away that they really do not know how well the act has worked here, besides which they suffer under so many difficulties, such as heavy droughts year after year, when tbej' have to trek for ten months at a time ? — If they have to trek about the country like that, it would be all the more necessary to have a scab ai.t, because th^ y would be more liable to pick up scab ; and knowing the benefits 109 we have derived from the act, it is our duty to lose no time in getting it put in force all over the Colony. 2645. Br. Smarit.'] Do you consider it would be advisable to work the scab act in conjunction with a compulsory simultaneous dipping act ? — I think a compulsory simultaneous dipping ace would perhaps be the best means of giving scab its death blow. 2646. Knowing the circumstances of the Colony, would you suggest that such an act should apply to the whole Colony, or would you divide the Colony- into areas according to their diflterent climates ? —If the times for dipping in the different areas followed so that the germs of the disease could not be spread about, perhaps it would be advisable to arrange it 90 ; but at the same time I think every farmer should have at least a year's notice before the dipping took place. 2647. But considering the enormous area we have to deal with in this country, and the great varieties of climate, do j'ou not think it might be dangerous to carry out a compulsory dipping act for the wliole Colony at one time ? — No, I don't think so. I think simultaneous dipping could be carried out late in the spring, throughout the whole Colony, provided the farmers had received notice that such a course would be adopted. They must be in a bad state to require dipping then. 2648. If when the water is exhausted, a farmer's flocks were still infected with scab, you think it would be due to carelessness ? — Tes, unless very special circumstances prevented him from dipping his sheep, such as a very heavy drought or anj^hing of that kind. 2649. Such being the case, under ordinary circumstances, do you not think it would work better if the inspector had power to order these sheep to be dipped under thorough inspection ? —Yes. 2650. Almost better than the fines you suggested before .' — No ; let the inspector use his discretion, whether to give one month or not, according to the state of the sheep, or whether they should be dipped under supervision, and if he comes to the conclusion the sheep may be dipped, and the man fails to do so, and to clean them within a month, then give the highe.^t fine. 2651. Tou would not leave it optional to the inspector to dip them at the owner's expense .-^^Certainlj', if it was proved that the owuer was incapable of dipping sheep, I would leave it to the inspector to have them dipped. 2652. Are you aware whether men with clean flocks suffer loss from natives trekking over their place with scabby sheep .-' — I cannot say from my own experience. 2653. If such is the case would you think it advisable as a means of protecting the frontier farmers, to have dipping tanks erected in all native locations .' — I wouM. 2654. "Would you have the flocks of natives dipped under thorough inspection, charging them a reasonable tariff to cover expenses ? — Yes. 2655. You think that would stamp out scab much more efiiciently than allowing them to dip as they do at present ? — Yes. 2656. With regard to the quarantine which you suggest on the boundary Une of a proclaimed area, would you carry it out on the farm where the sheep came from or on the border, and if on the border what suggestion would you make for gr.izing them during the month they were in quarantine there ?^If there was no Government land there, and you could not possibly quarantine them on the border, I should say quarantine them on the man's farm, and if he could not get into the proclaimed area without travelling over in- fected farms then he should not be allowed to come into the area at all. 2G57. You would not think the area would be perfectly safe if you quarantine the man's flocks on his own farm and he had to travel through a scabby district, if there were a Govern- m» thpy clean when you sent them from home? — Porfeetly. 266fi. And wh"n you g.>t ih m ba'-k woro they scabby ? — No ; T cleansi-d them beforo I brought them huiiie. 2667. Can you alwavs get the services of your inspector convenientlj' and without much tP'Uble, when ynii want iiini? — T liavo always found I could get my sheep inspected within a reasonnbh' time, eiihei- by the in.spoctor or the field-cornet by the in-ipect'ir's authority. 2668. What .listaiicj does the inspector livn fi-om the pLiie you have alluded to just now? — Abnit l;j mih's. 2669. A' d the fiild-cornet ? — About six or seven. 2670. Ill cdso the iiispcutor had bo. u abs' nt at the time, you would have been able 1o avail yourself of the services of the field-cornet ? — I have never been refused. I have had no difficulty. 2671. Dois 5'our inspector carry on any other business besides.'' — Not that I am aware of. 2672. Do }-ou know of any other inspectors in this neighbourhood .'' — No. 2673. Are you acquainted with any others ? — Yes. 267-1. With the Komgha inspector.'' — Only by sight. 267.5. Do you knuw any other inspector in the King William's Town area ? — Not in the way of business, only its acquaintances. ' 2676. Do you know how inspectors are appointed .-" — I think the farmers' assooiatioas and divisional councils recommend them. 2677. As far as yoa know, do you think the present system of appointing inspectors is a good one ? — Yes. 2678. 3fr. F)-ancix.'\ Do you think it would be advisable to have public dipping tanks on the main roads for the benefit of travellers ? — Yes. 2079. Would yiiu be in favour of classing inspectors in three classes .■' — Yes. 2680. D.) you think it would encourage them to do their duty better than they do now ? — It would be an encouragement to them to do their duty. 2681. Has it ever cume under your notice that passes have been granted to natives to remove sheep or goats without permits .-■ — Yes. 2682. Could jou give any particulars ? — I can give you particulars of a case which happened very lately, where a man had scabby sheep and applied to an inspector for a ])irmit for their removal, but the inspector refused, an.l the man moved them at night along (he main road, allowing tliem to mix on the way with clean sheep. 2683. Then he not only broke the scab act, but the cattle removal act ? — I am not acquainted with the cattle removal act, but he broke the scab act. 2684. Has it ever come to your notice that sheep have been removed with a pass but without a permit ? — In the case I mention I don't know whether the natives had a pass or not, but they had no permit. 2685. It has been said in evidence that magistrates and others have given passes to natives to remove scabby sheep, the owner having no permit. Do you think that would lend very much to spread teab ? — Certainlj-. 2686. If a dividing line were drawn as has been suggested, would you think it advisable to aHow anyone outside the line to come in if he wished ? — Yes. 2687. Could you suggest the best means for alhiwiug a district, or even a farm, on the border to come under the act ? — I should say by two-tliirds of the sheep-holders applj'ing to the divisional council. 2688. Do j-ou think districts, field-cornetcies or even farms should be allowed to come iu ? — Yes 2689. Do you think it would be better to give one vote to each sheep-holder, or let them vote according to the number of sheep they hold ? — The man who had 10,0C0 sheep would be a progressive farmer, and I would let them vote according to the number of their sheep. 2690. It has been said the Komgha district is perfec tlj' free of scab ; in your own evidence you have said the King William's Town district as far as you know is almost free, whilst many other districts are known to be badly infected. How do you account for this ? — Pro>) ibly it is owing to the laxity of the inspectors or the fault of the magistrate in not administering the act as it should be done. 2691. The f-ict is, in such cas^s it is not so much the fault of the act as of the way in which it is administered ? — Yes. 2G92. Are you aware tliat in some districts it has bom .said men have endeavoured, unsuccessfully, to obtain permits for removal for more than a month } — It never happened in our district, and if it liappeneJ in any other district there must be a screw loose, and some laxity in the administration. 2H93. Dr. Smattt.'l Wovild it not be advisable to allow any farmer adjoining a pro- claimed area to come under the scab act if he wanted to ? — Yes. Mr. Frederick Williayn Lmidrey, Field-cornet examined. 2694. Chairman] Yoti are field-cornet of ward No. 10, and a sheep farmer living n ar Kei Iv'oad in the King William's Town district ? — Yes, altogether I farm with about 4,500 sheep. 2695. Have you heard the evidence given by Mr. Dell ? — Part of it. Ill 2696. Are you well acquainted with the working of the scab act P^Fairly well in this district. 2697. Do you often give permits oa behalf of the iaspector for the removal of sheep to this and other districts ? — Yes. 2698. Do you have applications from farmers aud others to remove sheep affected with scab ? — 1 have had them. 2699. What do you do in such cases? — I refuse to grant it. 2700. Is that all ? — I report it to the scab inspector. 2701. I take it these peu])le are bound to cleanse their sheep before they get a permit; from you or the inspector ? — Yes. 2702. In your capacity as field-cornet, do you find any sheep come in from other districts affected with scab .-' — I have seen them coming in badly infected. 27('3. With a permit ? — Yes. 2704. Can you remember about how long the permit had been in existence before you saw the sheep ? — The case I am thinking of occured about three years ago, when about 1,600 sheep came down from Catlicart badly infected with scab. 2705. Did you think the sheep were inflected when the permit was granted .■' — I must say I think they were. I remember another case at a sale here, when some sheep affected with scab came under a permit from the inspector of the Stutterheim division, about the beginning of the year. 2706. How far had they been moved before they reached Kei Road } — About 15 miles. 2707. Must they have liad scab before they left the farm 'i — Certainly. 2708. Do you think the Stutterheim inspector examined them two or three days before they were removed 'i — The peimit was given two or tliree days before they arrived at Kei Road ; but if he examined them he did so in a very careless manner. 2709. You think the inspector was responsible for those sheep being brought into this district ? — Yes, he was responsible, as he gave the permit. 2710. What became of them? — They were brought to the sale here, and, as I was acting for the inspector that day, the owner applied to me for a permit to remove them, which I refused. They were then dipped hero and afterwards removed. 2711. Is there a public dipping tank here ? — No ; they were dipped in tubs. 2712. Were you satisfied that those sheep were fit to be removed after one dipping, in an area which is said to be clean .-' — I should not like to have them on mj' f^rm after one dip. 2713. But did you not give the permit ? — No, the scab inspector did. After I reported it to him he attended to the dipping. They were removed to the outspan, and, after a day or two, were dipped a second time, I think. 2714. Then, of course, you think the Stutterheim inspector was lax in carrying out the act, by giving a permit for those sheep ? — Yes. 2715. Do you think the present method of appointing inspectors is the best, or would you leave it entirely in the hands of the Government .'' — I think the best way is to appoint them through the divisional councils, as is done now. 2716. Several witnesses who have given evidence think the inspectors should be recom- mended by the farmers in the area. Do you think that would be a better plan than the present one ? — That would be a very good idea, but I don't know whether it would be better than the present system. I should be more in favour of the present system. 2717. Do you think inspectors who are recommended in that way, and who have many friends in the area in which thej' are living, are the best men for the work, or would it be better to have a stranger altogether, who had no friends or connections in the area '' — i am in favour of having a man appointed who is well acquainted with the district, in spite of his friends or connections. 2718. You don't think the Stutterheim inspector, who gave the permit you spoke of just now, showed any favouritism, but you think he either did not see them or examined them carelessly ? — I think it was carelessness. 2719. Do you think a man who is so careless is a fit person to be a scab in- spector ? — No. 2720. Do you think sheep outside a proclaimed area should be allowed to come in whether they are affected with scab or not ? — No. 2721. Would you shut them out altogether ? — Yes. 2722. Do you think the disease is so contagious that it would be impossible to ado[it preventive measures ? — The disease is so infectious that by allowing sheep to come in from an infected area you would spread it far and wide ovf-r the clean area. You would have no guarantee that these sheep were clean. 2723. I take it you -nould be strongly in favour of a general compulsory scab act ? — Yes. certainly. 2724. If some arrangement wer^- made on the border for dipping and quarantining sheep, don't you think sheep might be al'owed to come in, or would you keep them out in any case ? — I would keep them out in any case, and then you would compel them to come under the scab act. 2725. Suppose there were districts in some part.s of the Colony where, for some reason or other, the farmers say it is impossible for them to cfury out ihe provisions of a scab act would you force the act upon them, or would you draw a line embracing the whole railway system of the Colony, and allow sheep to come in after being properly dipped at certain ports of entry, which could be very few in number ? Would that be a sufficient «afe-guard lor the proclaimel area ?— I should think so. 113 2726. Would you apply that to slaughter-stock onlj', or would you also allow breeding Stock to be brought in ? — I would allow breeding stock to come in if they were properly dipped and passed through the quarantine. 2727. You are certain that with two proper dippings they would be cured of any scab they might have on them ? — Yes. 2728. Do j'ou think the time allowed now of three months is more than sufficient for a licence for scabby sheep ? — I think so. 2729. About what time do you think would be necessary ? — About a month. 2730. You think anyone having scabby sheep can cleanse them thoroughly within thirty days ? — I think so. 2731. Supposing a farmer outside the proclaimtd area has all his flocks clean, would you protect him by giving him the power to refuse to allow any scabby sheep being moved across his farm ? — Yes. 2732. I think you have a good knowledge of the natives living in this district ? — Yes. 2733. Do you think they are capable of mixing their dips, and dipping their f-heep properly ? — No, I don't. 2734. Do you think if they were assisted in some way or other, such as having a public Government dipping tank, and having their sheep dipped under supervision, it would materially assist in stamp-no; nut scab nmoTigst their flocks .-' — Certainly. 2735. Would you recommend that being carried out ? — Certainly; I think men should be'appointed to superintend the dipping, as the inspector could not well attend to that. 2736. Mr. du Toit.~\ Would you dip jour sheep when they are in poor condition or in cold weather ? — Yes, I have dipped my sheep in winter, when they were in very low condition. 2737. During droughts, might they not get into too low condition to be dipped.-' — I don't know. I have seen some sheep iu about as poor condition as it is possible for sheep to get in, and thej' were dipped and stood it. 2738. Supposing there is a part of the country which is opposed to the act, and there is good reason for this opposition, do you think it is advisable to force the act upon those people ? — Yes, I would. 2739. Are you acquainted with the northern and north-western portion of the Colony .■' —No. 2740. Not being acquainted with them, and being therefore, unable to decide this question upon actual knowledge of the country, would j'ou not be willing to draw a line, as already suggested, and give those people a kind of intermediate measure — such as a com- pulsory, simultaneous dipping act — and leave them free to trek with their sheep as they like?— If the veldt was infected, the sheep ^^ould be liable to break out again in a month or so, and then they should be dipped again. 2741. But would ):ot such a measure be calculated to minimise scab in those parts, and, at the same time educate the people up to apply, within two or three years, for a general scab act ? — No, I would force it upon them at ouce. It is for their benefit. 2742. Are you acquainted with a kind of skin disease which might easily be mistaken for scab, unless there are very able inspectors ? — No. 2743. You are not aware of a kind of skin disease which is verj' like scab, but is not scab .' — Anj' practical man can tell scab at once. 2744. Have you not heard of a Mr. Krog, whose sheep contracted a peculiar kind of skin disease which could not bo cured by dipping? — I know him, but I have not heard that about liis sheep. 2745. Dr. Smartt.'] Are you in favour of Goverument dipping tanks b' ing erected upon the main stock roads of the Colony f — Those small tanks supplied by the Government to the natives would answer the purp' se just as well, and that would be a good plan. It would be very awkward to dip sheep in tubs. 2746. Are you in favour of a compulsory, simultaneous dipping act being worked in conjunction with a compulsory scab act ? — I think it would be a very good idea. 2747. If such an rsct w re introduced, do you consider that even men holding clean bills of health should, for the general good, be obliged to dip with the others, the dipping act being in force for only a year or two .^ — Yes, I think for the good of the country everybody should be obliged to dip. It would be only for a year or so. 2748. Mr. Botha.'] If anybudy applies to you for a permit of removal, do you first make a personal inspection of the sheep .-' — Certainly, in every case. 2749. I suppose in such matters you must go to the places where the stock is f — Yes. 2750. Are you paid for that } — Seven shillings and sixpence a day personal allowance, and Is. 6d. an hour for horse hire, an hour being reckoned six miles. 2751. Do you know anj' scab inspector.^ who carry on private business at the same time, such as farming, speculating, or any other kind of business .-" — No, I cannot say I do. 2752. Can you say you do not f — That may be. 2753. Do you think it is safe in the interests of theii appointment that they should be engaged in any other occupation besides that of inspector } — No, I dont think they should. 2754. Mr. Francis.'] Did j'ou lose any sheep when you dipped them in the winter in poor condition ?— One or two died. 2755. Would you have lost more, if you had not dipped them and freed them from scab ? — I think so. 2756. Would you rather dip at any time of the year than nllow scab to increase amongst them .' — Yes ; I have dipped sheep about three weeks before shearing. 113 2757. How long was your wool ? — About five months' wool. 2758. Do you hold a general power to grant permits whenever necessary, or must you have instructions on every separate occasion } — On every separate occasion. 2759. Then before you can grant a permit the person appl3-tng must ask the inspector, and he must issue instructions to you .' — Yes. 2760. Is that not rather a cumbrous way of doing it ? — Yes, but I should not be in favour of allowing field-cornets full powers. 2761. Have you beard any complaints in your district of farmers having a difiiculty in obtaining permits ? — No. 2762. Do you ever grant passes to natives to move stock ? — Yes. 2763. I presume numbers of natives call at your place to report themselves with passes ? — Not in my official capacity, but I grant passes to my own servants as a farmer. 2764. Do not natives sometimes come to you and report themselves? — No, veiy seldom, there is a police camp close by. 2765. Have you ever met with any instances of passes being granted to natives to re- move stock when they had no permit to remove the sheep ? — No. 2766. If it is the case that scabby sheep are moved in that way, don't you think it would V>e a means of spreading scab about the country .■' — Certainly. 2767. How do you account for the fact that Komgha is entirely free from scab, King William's Town almost free, and yet other districts are badly affected ? — I think it is the in- spectors here do their work better. 2768. It is not so much the weakness of the act as bad administration? — That is about it. 2769. You have hear! my questions to Mr. Dell with reference to a farm, field-cornetcy "or district outside the proclaimed area having the right to come within the area. Do you ag^ee ^-ith his answers "? — Yes. 2770. Are you much troubled in this district with scabby sheep being brought in from other areas in the winter ? — Yes. 2771. I suppose such sheep generally come with a permit .' — Yes. 2772. Are you of opinion that great carelessness is shown by the inspectors who grant those permits } — Yes. Mr. Robert Warren examined. 2773. Chairman.'] You are president of the King WiUiam's Town district farmers' association } — Yes. 2774. And you appear here with Mr. William Manley and Mr. Alfred Hancock to re- present the association ? — Yes. 2775. How many sheep do you keep .-' — About 5,000. 2776. Do you live in this divi-ioa ? — Y« s, but I also have two farms in the Stutterheim division, 35 miles from here. 2777. How long have you been farming in this division ? — In the King William's Town division since 1866, indifferent places, and before that I was for some years in tlie East London division. 2778. When you commenced farming here, was scab prevalent? — Very. 2779. Was there any material alteration in it during the next ten or twenty years ? — Within fifteen years of that time the dipping tanks began to be erected in different parts of Kaffiaria, and great efforts were being made by the mord progressive farmers to keep scab down. 2780. Still, scab had a good hold on the district? — Even then there were some neglected flocks who had no time to feed, and who took all the time to scratch. 2781. When the scab act came in force, did you notice any great improvement ? — There was a wonderful improvement before th-it and some flocks in the district had been iree for years ; but when the act came into ff ■cab. 2841. Do you attribute this to the negligence of the inspectors or the carelessness of the farmers ?— To all parties. To the lenient sentences passed by ihe magistrate, a good deed to the farmers themselves, and perhaps the inspectors might be a little stricter. Tlie farmers are to blame a good deal. 2842. Do you think it is also owing a great deal to the removal of sheep, and the indiscriminate way in which permits are granted by inspectors and by two land owners under aot ? — Yes. I have been at a farm and have been asked to sign a permit for the removal of sheep, but when the sheep came in I refused. The owner had a certain number caught out and put on one side, the scabby sheep being left out. Afterwards a permit was signed by two others. 2843. Do you think those two farmers who signed the permit were aware that there was scab in the flock ? — No ; they only examined those which had to be removed, and they were comparatively free of scab. I should have done the same thing in their place. 2844. Thei you think before the permit is granted, all the sheep on the farm should bo examined ? — Yes. 2845. But if a farmer sells a lot of sheep to the butcher, and asks two of his neighbour-i to come over and grant a pass under the act, do you think it would be necessary to get »ll the eheep on the farm for inspection, or only that flock ? — I should not like to give a pass without seeing the whole. 2846. But suppose that flock was free? — How are you going to find out. 2847. In regard to bringing sheep in from an unproclaimed area, you are aware there are no inspectors outside the proclaimed areas. Do you think in such cases the land owners might grant a permit without examining all the sheep on the farm ? — Yes and give a certifi- cate to that effect. 2848. If this system were adopted, do you think it would protect the farmers within the area to a certain extent ? — Yes. 2849. But I suppose you think the best thing would be a general scab act f — Certainly, for the country. If I had my own way, I would not allow any sheep to come in from any unproclaimed area, not even for the butcher. 2850. As long as they are allowed to come in at all, you think you are always liable to infection ? — Yes ; flocks are not sold, as a rule, direct to the butcher, but they are sent for sale. Perhaps there would not be so much danger when sheep go direct to a butcher ns when they are sold to a speculator. 2851. If sheep went direct to a butcher, and you were sure they would all be slaughtered within a reasonable time, would you then have such an objection to it?— I hold to my own opinion ; I would not allow them to come in at all. 2852. Do you think it would be advisable to have a compulsory simultaneous dipping in the proclaimed area ? — Yes, two dippings ; but not without some kind of supervision, because I know of men who wiU dip 600 sheep in a gallon of dip. 2853. As a flock owner with over 8000 sheep would you be prepared in the interests of the country and to try and stamp out scab, to dip all youj sheep, although they had no seal), twice in the spring after shearing ? — Yes, I should be willing to do it if it was made law, although I have not dipped my sheep for four years. 2854. Do you think farmers generally would agree to that? — Most about here would. 2855. Mr. Fraticis.^ Do you think three months is too long for a first licence ? — Yes, any flock, however bad, can be cured in 30 days. 2856. Are you in favoiir of paying for a renewal of licences ? — I think it would help to eradicate scab. Cathcart, Thursday, 17 th Novmher, 1892. fbesekt: Mr. Fbost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. 1 Dr. Smabtt. Mr. -DV ToiT. I Mr. Feancis. Mr. William Krog examined. 2857. Chairman.'] You are a sheep farmer in the Cathcart division .'—Yes, As a rule 1 have about 1300 sheep. 2858. I think you are in the habit of moving your sheep from Cathcart, or lower, for winter grazing ? — Yes. 2859. Do you move them every year.'— The last five years I have done so ; before that for a couple of years I left off. „ 2860. Have you had any difficulty in getting a permit for the removal of these sheep i — ^The time before last the inspector was not to be found. 2861. When your sheep are clean and free of scab, you have no difficult s >— -No. 2862. I think you moved your sheep iu the autumn of the pre-cnt year to Komgha . Yes, about the end of May. 2863. Were they clean then?— Yes, I had a clean bill of health, y2 118 2864. Were they still clean when you reached the Komgha district ? — Yes. 2865- And for how long afterwards? — Many remained clean until about the 20th July. 2866. That would be nearly two months from the time when you left here ? — Yes. 2867. About the end of July they became infected ? — Yes. 2868. Can you account in any way for their picking up scab in Komgha ? — It must have been on the road. 2869. Then j'ou think during the winter the sheep might have scab on them for more than a month without showing it ? — No I don't think they would keep it as long as that before it showed. 2870. How long were you on the road ? — About six days." 2871. Then you reached Komgha in May .'' — I will not be certain whether it was the end of May or the beginning of June. 2872. And from the beginning of June until towards the end of July there was no scab amongst those sheep ? — No. 2873. How long do you think sheep could remain after picking up scab on the road without showing any signs of it ? — Sometimes it wiU break out in a fortnight, but sometimes it wiU be longer. 2874. Then although it was so long before it appeared on your sheep, you think they picked it up on the road .' — I don't see where else they could have got it. 2875. Why .'' — Because the neighbours were clean round my place in Komgha. 2876. "Was there any road crossing the farm you were occuppying there ? — Yes. 2877. Are you aware whether any sheep trekked across the farm while you were there ? — Not more than two flocks, belonging to the two Mr. Fronemans. They left here at the same time as I did. 2878. Then the infecHon could not have come from them? — No. 2879. Allien scab broke out among your sheep, you were put in quarantine by the scab inspector at Komgha ? — Yes. 2880. And you dipped them .' — Yes. 2881. Will you say how you dipped them, and how often ? — I cannot tell you the exact dates, but I can give the time on or about. I dipped them five times at intervals of from ten to fifteen days. 2882. Was it not longer ? — It may have been. The first time I dipped them was on the 28th July, and the last about the 8th or 10th November. 2883. Aiter the first dipping, did j'ou inform the inspector of what you had done, or when did you teU him ? — After the second dipping. 2884. Did you consider the sheep should have been clean, after the second dipping ? — In my opinion they were clean after the first dipping. 2885 Have you any idea of the number of days which elapsed between the first and the second dipping .'—Ten or twelve ; it was less than fourteen. 2886. And when you considered the sheep were clean the scab broke out again .'' — No, not after they wore clean. 2887. Then why did you dip them three times after that .? — There was something else which we thought was scab, but I don't think now that it was, and after the sheep had been seen by him a second time the inspector did not think so either. 2888. And then you dijiped them again ? — Yes. 2889. Can you give us any idea when you dipped them a fourth time, because it was after that you asked for a permit of removal, and the inspector refused to g^ve it .'' — The inspector was there two or three times. After the second or third dipping he came to give me a periuit, but could not do so because he said the sheep were not clean. 2890. When he visited you the time before last, when you wanted to remove the sheep back to Cathcart, he said the sheep were still infected and you must dip them properly ? — He would not let them go until they were clean altogether. 2891. When you dipped them the fifth time did you use a stronger remedy that befo e or the same ? — I used lime and sulphur, only stronger. It was only the second time I did, not use a strong enough dip. 2892. Then was not the second dipping almost thrown away? — I thought they did not require a strong dip, because I considered they were all right. 2893. Then the second dipping was almost useless ? — Yes that is what I thought. 2894. But the inspector stiU considered they were scabby ? — Yes, after the second dipping. 2895. When you dipped them the fifth time in lime and sulphur you used a stronger and hotter dip than you had made before ?— Yes, the first I used was a patent dip, and aU the others were lime and sulphur. The third and fourth dips were quite strong enough. 2896. After the third dipping, did you dip thorn again within fourteen days ? — If not within fourteen days it was not far off. I don't think it was longer. 2897. But you don't know ? — I am not quite certain. 2898. Was the Ume and sulphur strong or weak the third dipping? — Strong. 2899. After the third dijijiing did you apply for a clean bill of health, or did you wait for a fourth ? — After the third dii)piug I applied again, and the inspector refused. 2900. Did you apply again after the fourth dipping ? — No ; I dipped the fifth time be- fore he came. After the foui'th dipping I wont to him and asked him to come over, but I dipped them the fifth time before he came. 2901. Why did you dip them the fifth time when the fourth dipping was within four- teen days of the third ? — ^Because I sate something wrong. 119 2902. Which you considered scab ? — I thought so at the time. 2903. Then the inspector did not see them after the fourth dipping, only after the fifth ? — Yes, the third and fifth. 2904. The fifth dipping of lime and sulphur was stronger and hotter than you Lad u8od previously ?^I will not say it was hotter, but it was just as strong as the second and others. 2905. What weather did you have after dipping them ? — For about four day.s we had very heavy rains, so that Mr. Sparks did not come to examine, because I could not move the sheep, and Mr. Sparks doubted whether he could get through. I think the rain com- menced on the day I finished dipping. 2906. When Mr. Sparks examined them then, did he give you a clean bill of health ? — He gave me the ordinary permit to remove them. 2907. Are you aware whether Mr. Sparks wrote to Mr. Fuller about those sheep ? — He told me he would. 2908. And the inspector here examined the sheep ? — Yes. 2909. Do you think this was a different kind of scab ?^ — No ; I believe I hurt them with the first dipping — overdipped them — because I used one of the patent dips, but heavy rains followed immediately afterwards. If it was another kind of scab it would not have been cured without further treatment, and the sheep are all right now, although I have not done anything since. 2910. When your sheep reached your place here did they improve? — Yes, every day; they had little boils, something like the ring-worm. 2911. You don't think it was scab ? — No, I am convined it is not scab, but when I was dipping down there I thought it was. 2912. The same as ordinary scab? — The ordinary kind. 2913. We have heard so much about these sheep, and it was said by some people to bo a different kind of scab ? — I think I over-dipped them. If I had thought as you say, I would not have dipped them after the second time, but I thought there must be some mistake. 2914. Do you think lime and sulphur is injurious to the sheep if properly used ? — No, I don't think so, but I don't know what may be the effect of coming out of a hot bath of lime and sulphur. 2915. Do you think the sheep are liable to catch cold after such rain, if dipped ? — J dare say ; otherwise I don't think it would hurt them. 2916. Were you living in the district of Cathcart before the scab act was in force ?— Yes. 2917. Did you find your sheep here had more scab there than now ?— No, justabout the same. 2918. Used you to dip your sheep before the act came in force ? — Yes. 2919. Then you do not think the act has been effectual in effecting any improvement amongst your sheep ? — I think it is about the same among my own sheep, because I don't think I had much scab before the act was in force. I always kept them as clean as possible. 2920. Then I conclude you do not think the act has done so much good in the Cathcart division ? — No, I don't say that ; I say amongst my own sheep. 2921. Then you think the act has done good in the Cathcart district .'' — Yes. 2922. Then you think it would be advisable to extend it to other districts .-' — I tlink it would be a good thing to have a general scab act. 2923. But suppose in certain north-western districts of the Colony it is said to bo im- possible to carry out the act, owing to local causes, such as drought, want of water, or any- thing else, do you think it would be advisable to extend the act to those districts, or to stiike a dividing line, say to embrace the whole railway system of the colony ? — If it is to be done in that way, I think there are portions of the Cathcart district that ought to be left out as much as any other part of the Colony ; and if we can stamp out scab here they can do so there, and ought to be made to do so. 2924. But if, after full inquiry, it is found necessary to strike this line, would you allow sheep from the improclaimed area to come into the proclaimed area, or would you not allow them to come in at all ? — I would not allow them to come in if they are not under the act. 292.5. If there are farmers in the unproclaimed area whose sheep are as clean as those in the proclaimed area, would you recommend that they should be protected to the extent of not allowing any scabby sheep to pass over their farms ? — I think that would be good, otherwise they would have no protection. 2926. Do you think it would be advisable for the Government to erect dipping tmks along the main roads, for the purpose of dipping sheep being moved in case of scab breaking out among them ? — I don't think it would be necessary. 2927. If a troop of flieep were being moved in a proclaimed area and scab broke out amongst them, how would the owner arrange for dipping? — If people leave home with clean sheep, and only have two or three days to trek, I consider there will be no necessity for Buch dipping. 2928. Do you think the present method of appointing scab inspectors, upon the recom- mendation of the divisional councU, is the best, or do you think the owner of ten thousand sheep should have more to say in this matter than the owner of one thousand shoi p ? — I think it should be as it is. 2929. Mr. Francis.^ It has been given in evidence before the Commission that the district of Komgha is perfectly clean from scab. Can you account for the fact that, wh-le Komgha is perfectly clean, there is still a great deal of scab in the district of Cathcart ?— 120 There is no doubt there is more scab here, and I attribute it to the fact that the Cathcart people have to trek, and are therefore more liable to get scab. Besidee, the Komgha people are more cut off. 2930. It is said that Komgha has been clean several times, and has been several times reinfected from Cathcart ? — I have often moved to Komgha, and have never yet found that district ' uite clean. There were always some cases. 2931. If your sheep become infected with scab, how long would it take you to clean them ? — About a month, or less. 2932. Then do you not think it would be well to provide that instead of being obliged to g^ve three months for a first licence an inspector could only give one .-' — I think it should be as it is. 2933. Although you can clean your sheep in one month, you think everybody should have three months to clean theirs ? — I think they can clean them in a month, but there are times just before shearing when they would require a longer time in Cathcart, because of the cold 2934. Then it is only at times you can clean your sheep in a month, not always ? — Not always. 2935. Do you think it would be advisable to have a system of paid licences instead of the present system, so that a man should be given three months to clean his sheep, and if not clean at the end of that time he would have to pay for the renewal of the licence ? — That would not be bad ; I think it would work better. 2936. It has been brought to the notice of the CommissioB that persons charged and found guilty under the act have only been fined lOs. and 58., even for the second and third offence. Do you think that is an adequate fine ? — No, not for the third and fourth time. 2937. Should the fine be increased upon every conviction ? — It is difficult to say ; a man might get into difficulties by accident, and it would be hard to increase his fines, but if it was through neglect he should be fined. 2938. If it were found impossible to have a geneial compulsory scab act throughout the Colony, and a line of demarcation were drawn, would you allow single farms adjoining the proclaimed area to come under the act if they were willing to do so? — Certainly. 2939. If a field-cornotcy adjoining the line were allowed to come in if it wished, do you think the votes should be taken according to the number of persons in the ward, or should eaeh man have votes in proportion to the number of sheep he possessed ? — I think each mao should have a vote not according to the number of sheep. 2940. If the present act is amended, do you think it would be advisable to start a fresh act with a general compulsorj' simultaneous dipping ? — That would be a good thing and I should be quite willing to do it. 294 1 . If your sheep are thoroughly clean, do you believe that they will remain clean unless they become reinfected fi-omsome scabby sheep or ground? — In times of drought and poverty I think they are liable to get scab independently of c( ming into contact with other sheep. 2942. What do you think causes scab in sheep ? — I think poverty has much to do with it. 2943. Would you believe it if I were to tell you that .sheep have been known to die by thousands from poverty, and yet not have one spot of scab on them ? — I never saw it. 2944. Mr Botha.l I understood you to say that when you wanted the inspector he was not to be found ? — Not that he was not to be found, but I could not get him at the exact time I wanted him. 2945. Do you know where he was on that day? — No. 2946. How do you know he was not forthcoming ? — I did not go to his hou8e,but I spoke to him, and I wrote to him to come on a certain day and he did not. 2947. Whi'u you spoke to him how many days was it before the day you wanted him to come ? — I think it was about three weeks, and about eight or ten days before I wrote to him. 2948. Do you know whether he was sick, or what was the reason? — No, I don't think he was sick but that he was on duty in the district, doing his inspection. 2949. Are sheep sometimes in such a state or condition that it is not advisuble, and ia perhaps dangerous, to dip them ? — Yes. 2950. Is it for that reason you think it would be dangerous to make it less than three months for cleaning sheep ? — Yes. 2951. Dr. Smartt.'] You ueom to be iu favour of a compulsory general scab act .' — Yes, 2952. Do you believe if a compulsory general scab act were thoroughly and efficiently carried out all over tlie Celony, and tbe fBi-mers themselves loyally supported it, that it would be possible to ftamp out the scab?— No. 2953. Cuulfi you tell the Commission what was the strenght of the Ume and sulphur dip you used for llii. sheep you dipped in Komgha ? — I did not weigh the stuff, but I can say what I did with regard to the patent dip.I used 68 packages for 1,270 8heep,in- cluding 380 lam})s a month old. 2954. But you did aot weigh the lime and sulphur ? — No. 2955. In what proportion do you think you mixed that dip ? — In one instance there was more lime, but for the rest it was about the same. 2956. But you have no idea of how much lime and sulphur you mixed with a certain uantity of water ? — No. 2967. Such being the caee, do you think it qtiite probable that it would not hare beeu ( i 121 necessary to have dipped those sheep five times if you had dipped thfm the serord time in a thoroughly recognised solution of sufficient strength ? — Not for that peculiar disease which they had. 2958. Do you know what the general recognised strength oflirae and sulphur is? — About iiSlbs. of each for 100 sheep. 2959. But I mean to what quantity of watsr. As a practical farmer you know that sheep with nine months' wool will take two or three times as much dip as sheep with six weeks wool ? — Yes, I know. 2960. Then how can you regulate the strength of the dip according to the number of sheep, instead of by the number of gallons you have to mix with it ? — I don't go by the number of sheep, I go by the water. :t961. How would you prepare a limj and sulphur dip if you were going to dip a troop of sheep ? — I should put 25lb3. of sulphur and 25lbs. of lime to 150 gallons of water, and I should rep'^at that until all the sheep were dipped, boiling it fir.st for about fortv minutes. 2962. But you did not weigh the Hme and sulphur ? — Only the first, and I took the others accordingly. 29c3. In what sort of a tank did you dip them ? — In a stone and cement tank. 2964. Was it a graduated tank, showing the quantity of water it contained ?— No. 2965. Then you were obliged to guess the quantity of water you used as well as the quantity of Hme and sulphur ?— I measured the first dip, and afterwards I took same quantity, more or less. 2966. After the first dipping, there was always some dip left in the tank after each dipping ? — Yes, after the first hundred had gone through there was some dip remaining, and I always added to it for the next. 2967. Then if I tell you that the recognised lime and sulphui- dip is not less than SOlbs of Ume and 201b8 of sulphur to 100 gallons of water, carefully measured, is it not possible, even according to your own showing, that your lime and sulphur dip may have been below the orthodox strength ? — The second dipping was too weak, but the others were stiong enough. 2968. But according to your own statement you used 25lbs. of sulphur and 25lbs. of lime to about 150 gallons of water .' — I measured the water with a bottle, taking five bottles to a gallon, but I found out afterwards it ought to have beeU six bottles 2969. Mr. du Toitr\ What was the scab which was first seen ou your sheep before they were dipped.' Was it like the scab you knew before .'' — I did not open the wool to s"e, but as far as I know, it was the usual scab 2970. When did you become aware that it might not be the same kind of scab ? — I um not quite sure, but I think it was after the third dippirg. 2971. How did you ome to notice it ? — Because, although I dipped them, thoy ap- parently became worse, and also because I found some strange lumps behind the shoulder blades and between the hind legs. 2972. How did you account for that ?— I thought it was the bad weather aftei- the d4)ping. 2973. Had you not had a case before of bad weather after dipping ? — Yes. 2974. But it did not bring on that disease ? — Not amongst my sheep, and I have not heard of other people until after I had experienced it myself, then I heard that others had experienced the same thing. 2975. Could you give their names .' — I could if it were necessary. 2976. Do they live near here, or are a;iy of them present in the room? — I cannot see them here, but they don't live far off. One is Mr. Adrian Oudendal. 2977. Is that the only gentleman who has told you ? — Yes, no more. 2978. Did your sheep always get worse '™»Ye>. eight days after the last dipping they gradually improved, and eight days later I moved them to my own place here. 2979. Was that a different kind of veldt ?— Yes. 2980. What are they like now ? — Almost entirt^ly sound, and perfectly free from scab. 2981. The Commission intended to inspect that dock, but after hearing 3'our evidence they have concluded it is of no use going.'— I am sure there is nothing the matter with them now. 2982. Have you a clean bUl now ? — Yes. 2983. At what times is it so difficult to cure sheep from scab in this district } — We can cure them, but may have very heavy rains afterwards, and they may buffer from cold or poverty. 2984. Don't you think as a rule it is because sheep get poorer here than in other districts that they are more liable to get scab ? — Yes. 2985. Do you want a compulsory scab act throughout the Colony because, notwith- standing the difficulties you mention, you think scab could be eradicated? — I think we could very nearly eradicate it. 2986. Although we can't stamp it out entirely, you think it advisable to have the act to keep it down ? — Yes ; I should not be satisfied to have it almost stamped out if it could be done entirely. 122 Mr. John TweeUe examined. 2987. Chairman.'] You are a fanner in the district of Cathcart ?— Yes, I have been farming here about fifteen ypars, and have about 3,000 or 4,000 sheep. 2988. When you began farming here, and before the scab act was in force, did you find scab as prevalent as it was later on ? — Decidedly. 2989. Do you find any difficulty now in keeping your sheep free from infection? — Yes. 2990. Wliy ? — Because the infection is spread about the country, and the disease is always breaking out. For one thing, a road runs through my place. 2991. If j'ou could prevent sheep travelling along this road from other parts of the country, do you think you could keep your sheep clean when they had once been made thoroughly clean ? — Yes, if my neighbours did too. There is no difSculty in curing scab. The wire fence is a great source of contagion, but if your neighbours kept their sheep clean j-ou would be all right. The passage of sheep along the road is very trying indeed, especially when sheep are moving about the country which are not clean. 2992. Is that the greatest cause of infection ? — It is decidedly one of them. 2993. Have not sheep moving like that, always a permit granted ou a clean bill of health ? — All that I have seen. 2994. Have you ever known sheep infected with scab moving along the road ? — I have heard of one case lately, but I don't know whether that sheep really went along the road or not. It was one of the same brand as a flock which had gone along the road. 2995. Then you think this sheep belonged to an infected flock which had been moved along the road ? — Yes. I was told by the owner of the flock passing over my property that they were clean, and a few days afterwards my neighbour asked me to inspect a sheep with scab running amongst his flock, but I told him to apply to the inspector as I was too busy. I am not, however, prepared to say whether that identical sheep travelled with the others a few days before. 2996. Do you know where those sheep came from ? — Yes, they were in the same area. 2997. Had they a permit of removal? — I did not see it, but the owner of the sheep told me they were clean. 2998. How far were they moved ? — About eight miles. 2999. Could they possibly have become infected along the road? — No. 3000. Do you attribute laxity to the inspector in granting the permit ? — I did not go and see about the case ; I did not even see the sheep ; but I know the owner of the place tied up the sheep in his garden. 300 1 . Did the inspector visit the sheep ? — I left home and cannot say. 3002. Is that the only case of the sort you know of ? — I know of another instance where sheep were removed, I believe from the Glen Grey district, or somewhere there, and were c lught at Bolotwa where they were impounded by the poundmaster, and I think the man who moved thom had to pay very heavy damages. Those sheep were travelling with scab fiom one district to another. I covdd not say whether they had a permit, but they were im- poiuided at Bolotwa, and, I believe, were dipped there by the inspector, and then came on to Cathcart. 3003. Are you aware of cases where speculators have gone out of a district, purchased staughtor-stock, and brought it in? — I know it is done, and this was a speculator. 3004. Do you know whether they moved them under a permit from an inspector or two land-owners ? — I have never gone so far as to question them in that way. 3005. They do not pass over your farm ? — No. 3006. As long as sheep are allowed to come in in that way, no matter how the permit is granted, do you think there is any chance of keeping the Catlicart district free of scab ? — Decidedly not. 3007. Then do you attribute the continuance of the disease in this district more to the mo^'ing of sheep about than anything else? — That is one of the great causes, but not the only cause. The greatest drawback is the three months' licence allowed for cleaning sheep. 3008. Should it be reduced ? — It ought to be left to the inspector's discretion, because there may be special circumstances in the case, such as the want of water, and drought, but generally speaking the whole flock should be dipped at once. 3009. Tlien you would shorten the time } — Decidedly, and leave it to the inspector, but I would limit the time not to exceed a week. 301 0. How long would you give to cleanse them ? — Unless they are very bad, I consider you ought to be able to cleanse them in two dippings. 3011. That woidd be in fourteen days? — Yes. 3012. Have you ever seen any sheep you could not clean in fourteen days ? — No. 3013. Do you think it would be advisable to extend the scab act to the whole of the Colony ? — Decidedly. 3014. And, in connection with it, to have a general simultaneous dipping act ? — I think (I certain date should be fixed upon which all sheep should be clean, about the middle of (iiiiimer, and anyone found with scab among his flocks after that should pay so much per tliDiisand for a licence, increasing the payment upon each renewal. 3015. Are there any native locations in the district of Cathcart ?^ There is only a mission station at Goschen. 3016. Do you think the natives are capable of mixing their dips properly, and dipping their sheep efficiently } — No, they cannot calculate the quantity of water, or regulate the strength of the dip. 123 3017. Would it be well for the Government to erect dipping tanks for them, and dip their sheep under inspection, the natives paying all the expense ? — Deoidedlj'. It would be necessary for every native location to have an inspector to go round and see that their sheep are properly dipped. It is ignorance on their part, and until they get into the way it should be done for them. At present they waste the stuff ; there is no satisfaction on either side, and it irritates the natives. 3018. You think they would be willing enough to try and stamp it out ? — Yes ; the few natives on m}' place are the fir.^t to come and dip. 3019. Supposing it is found impossible t j have a general scab act, would you ag^ee to a line being drawn '? — I think so. In Australia, one colony adopted a s( ab act before another, and, when it was seen how it worked in the first case, others follDwed. If we had a proclaimed area, and worked a very stringent scab act within it, the people outside would see that scab could be eradicated. But I would not allow any communication from the un- proclaimed to the proclaimed area. 3020. We have had the act in force for six j'9»rs, and, as far as we know, the only district which is said to have a clean bill of health is Komgha, and I think 1 may say on behalf of the Commission that we saw fully 2.5,000 sheep (some with and some without wool) in Komgha and King William's Town, and we saw no scabby sheep at all. e.xcept in King William's Town, whereoutof nine or ten native flocks, wesaw a sm^U lot belonging to a native. Many of tliese flocks have not been dipped for three or five years. Do you attribute that to the fact that the district of Komgha is more isolated, and freer of trekking sheep than this and other districts, or to what? — Of course there is a good deal in having a uniform climate, and the condition of the sheep, and in Komglia they never have droughts like we do here. 3021. Is it not a good deal owing to the fact tliat the Komgha people have themselves worked willingly with the inspector to stamp it out? — Yes, they do; but still the Komgha inspector is a first-class man. When I have been there at the coast it would almost make a man swear the way he goes on. He will coine and stop two or three hours in the kraal examining the sheep. When I was down there on one occasion scab broke out among my sheep, and he was down upon me at once. It was on the ninth day, and I must have picked it up somewhere on the way, but I had taken dovvn a patent dip, and as I had three months in which to clean the sheep, and they all had long wool, I hand-dressed ihem, and thought there would be plenty of time to shear, and in a fortnight I foand no sign of scab. Bat I was told the inspector had been there twice since the sheep had come, and had e^:amined every sheep. I neither sheared nor dipped, and the sheep returned here free of scab. 3022. If you had had an inspector in the Cathcart division who had worked in the same way as the Komgha inspector, do you think j'ou would have been free of scab ? — No, there are more diificulties in this district. 3023. Has the act been carried out here in the same way as there .-' — Decidedly not, at one time. It may be so now, but tbe area was too large, and one man could not do the work. There are only 25.000 sheep in Komgha, and here there are 300,000, which makes a great difference, and there is a good deal of trekking from here in the winter. 3024. Do sheep trek into Komgha every year? — I am not in a position to say, except that a good many went last winter. 3025. If this line is drawn, do you think a man outside should be protected by being allowed to prohibit scabby sheep crossing his farm, on any public road ? — I would give him all the protection I could, because he deserves it. He is outside the area, and cannot get in by himself. 3026. If he adjoined the area, would you allow him to come in by himself, if he wished ? —Yes. 3027. And if he did not adjoin? — It would be impracticable. 3028. Do you thoroughly understand the working of the scab act ? — I suppose I do. 3029. Can you offer any further suggestions towards improving it ? — I don't believe in shifting sheep very soon after they have been dipped, and are supposed to be clean. If they go to a farm where there has been scab badly they may get the insect again, and I think a month should be allowed before they are moved, in order to see whether they are perfectly clean. 3030. Mr. Francis.'] Would it be advisable to have public dipping tanks on the main roads .•' — I think so. It would do no harm and would guard against infection. 3031. Evidence has been given that in many instances persons who have committed breaches of the scab laws have been lined os. and 10s., even on the second offence. Do you think these fines are adequate ? — No, I should make the fines heavier. Under the present fines, if I wanted to move sheep from one farm to another I would perhaps rather risk it, and pay the fine if caught. 3032. Have' you known of cases where men have done so ? — Yes. 3033. Do you think the present method of apijointing scab inspectors is satisfactory, or that the farmers should recommend persons for appointment ? — I think they ought to have a say in the matter. They know the qualifications of the candidates pretty well. 3034. Do you think, generally, that the scab acts have been carried out as they ought to have been ? — No, decidedly not. 3035. Do you think that has been one of the principal reasons why they have to a great extent failed ? — Yes, laxity. 3036. Since you have found no difficulty whatever in eradicating scab from your flocks, are you of opinion that if a general, stringent scab act were passed, and there was no ques- tion about the expense, scab could be eradicated from the Colony within the next two years ? [G. 1.— '94.] K 124 — A great deal of the infection is in the kraals, and I have known it to remain in kraals for at least a year. Clean sheep which have been put in an nrapty kraal, and one which had not been used for a year, have been infected. 3037. But not two years ? — You could eradicate the scab from the sheep, but I don't know whether you could clean the ground, kraals, and old places. 3038. Mr. Botha.'] You hoard Mr. Krog's evidence ? — Yes. 3039. Do you think it was the fault of his dip that he did not cure his sheep in a reason- able time ? — You could not dip sheep properly unless you measure the water and ingredients. 3040. Do you think it was the fault of the scab or the dip? — It must have been the fault of the dip or the dipping. 3041. Do you believe there are European farmers who don't apply the dip properly, from want 57. Mr. du Toit.] Do you thoroughly believe that if your sheep are clean it is impos- sible they can get scab again unless they are infected by other scabby sheep, or veldt ? — Yes. 3058. Do you think .'^cab is so coiltagious that it will infect clean sheep even if they do not mix together, but only go on the ground where your sheep graze .'' — Decidedly. 3059. Can you cure scab at an}' time of the year ? — There are some condilions in the shaep and veldt which are more favourable for cleaning sheep than others. Your sheep may get your sheep infected with scab sometimes when it will run like wildfire, while at other seasons perhaps only two or three sheep will catch it, aud you can cure them at an J' time, whether they are in poor or good condition. 3060. If your sheep were in poor condition, and scabby, would you rather let them run with the scab, or would you dip them, although by so doing you might lose some ? — Of course I should dip them at once. 125 3061. Is that because you would lose less by dipping than by letting them run ? — Tea. 3062. Do you admit there are some parts of the country where scab is more prevalent, on account of the climate not being of a uniform character ? — Yes. as I said when I com- pared Komgha with this district. K^mgha is near the coast, and the sheep are always in uniform condition because they have nice rains — the veldt is good and the sheep in fair condition. 3063. Do you think, therefore, that the act should not be so stringent in some parts as in others ? — I woiJd make no difference ; it is not so bad that they cannot clean the sheep. 3064. If the scab were cured in Komgha and Cathcart, do you think the sheep in Cath- cart would catch scab more easily than the sheep in Komgha ? — Sheep in low condition, with dry fleeces, are more apt to catch scab than sheep in good condition and fat. 306.5. Then if people tell us that the north-western parts are very different from these in their climate, would you force the act upon unwilling people there for their own good ? — I have farmed in the Karoo veldt, and it is as easy to eradicate scab there as here, if not more so. 3066. Although it may be more difficult to eradicate scab in some parts of the country than in others, you would be in favour of having a compulsory scab act throughout the Colony ? — Decidedly. 3067. Do you think an act would work well if it were forced upon an unwilling people ? — No, and for that reason I think it ought to be permissive; and if we have a stringent scab act in the proclaimed area the good results which will naturally accrue from a good and efficient act will cause the others to take it up when they see the benefit we derive from it. 3068. Are you aware of that peculiar kind of scab disease which has been mentioned in connection with a flock of Mr. Krog's. — No. 3069. Is that the only case of the kind j'ou have heard of ? — Yes. 3070. Are you aware of sheep, having been dipped on cold and rainy days, catching cold and getting a certain kind of skin disease ? — I have not heard much of those patent dips, that may have had something to do with it. I have heard of severe losses in conse- quence of heavy rain foUawing on dipping. ^ 3071. The losses were not in consequence of their getting a certain skin disease ? — No, they were killed by cold, and the effects of poisonous stuff on the body. 3072. What dip do you use ?— Lime and sidphur. 3073. Mr. Fra>ieis.~\ You used the word " permissive." Do you mean that we should have a general permissive act, or do }'ou mean that those who were in an unproelaimed area would be allowed to come in under the act ? — Yes, even a single farm. 3074. Consequently, if thuy were able to come under the act, any inconvenience they suffered from not doing so would rest uj)on themselves ? — Decidedly. 3075. C/iairman.^ Have you anything further to suggest ?— Sheep in a Karoo comtry are verj^ easUy cured, in fact, they sometimes almost cure themselves by the different grass and bushes. In the Fish river neighbourhood I have seen sheep rotten with scab, for which we always dressed, but a neighbour told me he never did so, and they all came right, and I saw them myself. This was entirely due to the change of diet, and I have seen the same result in the Karoo veldt. Sheep don't cure themselves here. 3076. Br Smartt.'] From your knowledge of the Karoo and grass veldt, do you consider that sheep are more subject to scab in the grass veldt, especially when sour, than in the Karoo ?— Yes. Mr. Wt. J'er IVhittal examined. 3077. Chairman.'] You are a shee[i lai-mer in this district? — Yes, I have farmed here about five years, and have about 2000 sheeji. 3078. When you came here the scab act was in force ? — Yes. 3(>79. While you have lived here have you noticed any improvement as regards scab ? — There was a very great improvement about two years ago, but it is getting bad again now. 3080. How do you account for that .-'—I cannot account for the amount of scab we have now. Whether it is that farmers have got careless, seeing the disease is not stamped out as they anticipated, or whether it is due to the great amount of moving sheep which took place about two years ago, when we had very severe droughts, I cannot say, but I think it began to get bad again about that time. 3081. How long do you think it takes to stamp scab out of a flock? — If the proper methods are adopted, it can be stamped out in a couple of months ; but you cannot get people to do it. 3082. Do you attribute that to the farmers themselves?— Yes, and in many cases it is due to want of intelligence, because there are always some of those people who don't believe in it. They dip because the law compels them, but they don't do it in a way to clean the sheep. 3083. If the farmers had worked Ln imion with the inspector, do you think there would now be a very different state of things in this district ? — Decidedly. 30S4. You don't attribute this spread of scab to the laxity or negligence of the inspec- tor? — I say the act is by no means carried out, but the inspector could not do it if ho tried. The are i was too large. « 3085. You heard the evidence given this morning ? — Yes. 308'>. Do you agree generally with Mr. Tweedie, if not, on what points do you diaagree? — There is one point on which I thoroughly agree with him ; I don't care how large the area r2 126 if", hut not a single sheep must come from the unproclaimed into the proolaimefl area, elenn or not, for any imipose whatevt^r. That is a cardinal point. With regard to the line, I have thotight a great deal of it, and my idea is that the western line of railway should be lelt out of the area in order to carry food supplies to Cape Town and Kimberley. I don't rhitik the jieojile who live nhmg the we>-tprn line want a general scab act, so if you can ex- chide it altngctlier that railway could carry slaughter stock to Cape Town or up-country. 3087. You are aware that under the present system, the railway trucks are carried over all tlie lines in the Colony ? — Then I should say spray the trucks with dip, and disinfect them. 3088. Holding the strong views you do, do you think it possible to disinfect all those trucks at the different small stations on the line ? — They need only be disinfected when they cross the line of the area. ;5089. Would there not always be a danger ? — Yes, there would. .309i>. Might not a truck go from here to Kimberley, be used on some other line for a time, and come back here by and bye ? — Unless sheep are put into the trucks they need not be di)siiifected. a091. Would you know which trucks had hold sheep, and would not that increase the danger ? — We feel the danger of infection very severely, and every now and then we have a native coming across with sheep reeking witli scab from head to foot. Once, at a time wlien we wore almost clean, I saw some scabby sheep like that come into Cathcart from the Transkci with a native. He had a pass from a magistrate there for Alice. Ho was run in and fined, and sold the sheep here to pay for them being dipped, but he had travelled fortj' miles already. 3092. Then do j-ou think the system of allowing sheep to come from outside the area under a pass or permit from a land owner or magistrate in the territories, should not be allowed ? — It destroys the effect of the scab act. As it is worked at present the act is not worth a farthing. 3093. Are you aware of any sheep being brought in for slaughter purposes through this district from an unproclaimed area ? — Gertainly ; I know of a case of 900 head at Dohne. divided into two flocks of 400 and 500. The owner sdd the 500, and they went all over the country to different butchers, and the scab inspector found scab on the flock of 400. It came to my knowledge that he had .sheep very bad with scab at Kei Drift and gave them to his boys to slaughter. He sold his slaughter sheep, and at the same time I had au offer to deliver sheei^ at the station here at 16/ a piece, lut could not do it because I had a spt ck of scab among mine. 3094. Then do you think any sheep coming in from an unproclaimed area should be dipped and quarantined on the border before entering ?— Yes, under the present act ; but il the act is amended I would stop any importations whatever, clean or not. 3095. And would you have the owner heavily fined if any sheep were found iu the proclaimed area not properly dipped by somebody appointed to superintend the dipping ? — Quite so. 3096. Is there anything else you wish to add ? — It is easier to clean sheep in Komgha lliaii here, because if a man has sheep there they are scarcely so thin in the months of June to August but that he can dip them at once, and so they do, and the scab does not spread. I agree witli Mr. Tweedie about the three months licence ; some men don't begin until the last fortnight, and meanwhile he may have infected half a dozen flocks. But though there may be real difficulties, I would agree with pleasure to Mr. Tweedie's proposal 3097. AVould you agree that if a man did not aftimpt to clean his sheep within fourteen days he should be fined ? — Whatever we may wish I don't think it is possible to do that ; but the Australian plan is a good one, and the licences might be renewed in the way sug- gested by Mr. du Toit. It is the Kafirs with small flocks who bring scab here. 3098. Mr. Francis.^ Do you think the partial failure of the present act is not only due to faults in the law, but also to imperfect administration ? — Yes. 3099. Was not the magistrate who gave a native a pass to move sheep with scab break- ing the law, and leading the native into trouble and expense? — He was outside the area. 3100. Mr. Botha.'] Do you hold a clean bill at present? — No. 3101. Have j^ou been fined for not keeping your sheep clean } — No. 3102. So it has been proved that you have diligently tried to keep your sheep clean, but it has been impossible? — Yes. 3103. Were j'our two inspector.-) appointed by the Government upon the recommendation of the divisional council? — The first was, but the second was appointed by the Government although he had not a majority of votes in the council. 3104. Have either of your inspectors any occupation outsido their duties as inspectors? — The senior inspector has had no other business whatever during the five years he has held the appointment ; the' other was carrying on farming, but I am not in a position to say whether he is now, because there is a brother of his living on the farm. But I don't think myself he has any spare time for it. 3105. What do they do if they want co leave the district for a time ? — I presume they would applj' for leave. 3106. Has either of them been absent at any time ? — Yes, Mr. Brown went to Natal for two or three weeks. 3107. Br. Smartt.'] Would you have any objection to an inspector being a farmer if his farming operations did not interfere with the efficient discharge of hjs duties ? — Certainly not, as long as he did his work effloiently. 127 3108. In fact, if you allowed many of these men to carry on such :in occupation might you not get a better class of men than you otherwise would ? — I think so. 3109. Has it ever occurred to you that Colesbeig is on the midland system of railways, on the main road to Johannesburg, and that during a large portion of the year, almost entirely during the winter months, the food supply of Johannesburg as far aa sheep are concerned comes from districts outside the area ? — I was not aware of that. 3110. How would you feed these people.^ — My impression is it does not come from there. 3111. If I tell you that from about April to August more than half the sheep sent to Johannesburg are from tlie north-western districts, would you malie any allowance for those sheep going through b)' rail ? — No, I must stick to m}' guns ; not a sheep goes over the line. 31 12. Then do you think the sheep farmers of this portion of the country would be quite, equal to meeting the emergency of feeding all these places .'' — I think so, certainlj'. 3113. Although at the present time they are barely able to supply their owu market? — No, there are lots f f sheep here. 3114. Do you object to sheep coming through on the principle that it endangers the spread of scab in the proclaimed areas ? — Yes, that is the weakest point in the act. 3115. Would you object to wool and skins going through, because as a practical farmer you would, I suppose, acknowledge the danger of infection would be equally great ? — It would be dangerous in one waj', but it would not be as bad as sheep ; there is no telling what may happen when once you allow them to come in. 3116. Wou'd you aUow the wool and skins to pass through? — I don't see why they should. 3117. Then would you, in the interests of a certain section of the farming population, disorganize the whole commerce of the country ? — No, why can't the wool and skins from the unproclaimed areas go down the lines which lie outside tlie area? 3118. But how about the Free State wool and skins.-' — They have a scab act there. 3119. Mr. du Toit.~\ You have not a clean bill at present ? — I have for (me flock. 3120. How long is it since you had a clean bill throughout? — Not long; I got scab about two months ago. Before that I had a clean bill for about twelve months for one flock and about two years for another. I never allow my sheep to remain scabby . 3121. Are your sheep clean now ? — Yes, perfectly ; they Lave been dipped twice. 3122. How do you account for the outbreak of scab ? Was it caused by infection from others ? — I don't know. All I know is the sheep had been there some lime, perfectly clean, and suddenly there was an outbreak of scab. There were sti-ange sheep t.ei-e, but I could not detect any scab in them. I am puzzled to know how it broke out. 3123. Has it happened more than once that you did not know whore the outbreak came from ? — Yes, frequently ; I used to think my flocks caught it from a neighbour's goats, and that may be the cause now. They used to get through my fence and mix with my sheep, and there was always scab over there amongst both the sheep and the goats. Mr. William John Fuller examined. 3124. Chairmati.^ You are scab inspector of area No. 4 B, Cathcart .''^Yes, the district has been divided into two, and I have been inspector for live months. 3125. Before then were you farming in this division ? — Yes, and I still have sheep. 3126. Are you farming on your owu account or in connection with anybody else ? — My brother has had possession of my sheep since I have been appointed inspector. 3127. Do you see any difference in the sheep in this district since you have been appointed ? — Certainly. 3128. Is scab less prevalent than it was ? — Ye?, according to my books ; there was a great deal of scab when I 'took over, and at present thoro are only thirteen farms with visiLle scab, and there are" some doubtful ones imder licence. When I took over the district there were 49 under licence. The 13 which have scab now have all dipped except two 3129. How many farms are there in your area .'' — 109. 3130. So that nearly half of them were under quarantine ? — Yes. There are now ;7.'),035 sheep in my area. 3131. Do you attribute the reduction in scab to the fact that the farmeis luive now shorn their sheep and dipped them ? — Yes, thej' have all dipped but two, and they have no tanks, and have refused to build them. I have had to licence them in the usual « ay, find cannot proceed against them until the three months are up. I reiireseuted the matter to head-quarters, but it seems nothing can be done in the matter. 3132. Do these two men refuse to dip ? — Yes, they have up to the presi nt time. 3133. WTiat are they doing to their sheep ? — I don't believe the\' are doing anything, f :om the inquires I have made. 3134. Is the scab increasing in their flocks ? — One flock is very bad ; the other is not BO bad. 3135. In a case like that do you think the Government should have the power tou don't make this man cleanse his sheep ? — You have to gi\'> them three months, and at the expiration of that time there must be clear proof that the owner did not use diligent efforts to cleanse them, and unless that is proved the case is dis- missed. This man has dipped his sheep several limes--though not under my supervision — and the sheep are not cured, so I have refused to grant permission to remove them. I 139 believe the dip was not made according to the proper strength. 3161. If you had had a public dipping tank here, I suppose you would have dipped them yourself ? — If I could. 3165. Do you think it would be advisable for the Government to erect dipping tanks on the main roads for the purpose of dipping sheep brought in from other areas ? — Certainly. in certain localities. 3166. In working the act, you find a difficulty owing to the length of time granted for licences. Can you suggest any amendment ? — I should say leave it to the inspector to give three months or otherwise. In summer I think it is folly to give a man three months because it is a recognized fact that sheep can be cleansed in tsvo dippi#gs. In summer. I would give a reasonable time, say a month ; and in winter it all depends on the condition of the sheep whether it should be three months or less. 3167. Even if the sheep are in low condition, do you think the farmer would lose more by dipping than by allowing the scab to run on ? — No, I don't. 3168. Then if you had the power why would you not dip them ? — I would if they were my own, but some farmers object to dip sheep if they are in low condition. 3169. But if you had the power and the means, would you do it, if you considered it would be to the interest of the farmer ? — Yes. 3170. Do you think he would be a gainer by it ?— Yes, if it was in the beginning of winter and the sheep had time to recover, because in three months the scab would kill lulf of them. 3171. Are you in favour of a general scab act throughout the Colony ? — Yes. 3172. Supposing it is found impracticable to include the north-western d'stricte, do you think you would be able to protect the proclaimed area by drawing a line of demarca- tion ? — I would rather have that than nothing. 3173. Should that line include all the railways ? — Yes; I think you could dip all the sheep and disinfect the trucks. 3174. Would it be safe if the dipping and quarantine were properly carried on ? — Yes. 3175. Do you think there is any danger of scab being carried on woid and skins from unproclaimed through proclaimed areas ? — It all depends on the length of time which has elapsed since shearing. If sheep had just been sheared it would be dangerous. 3176. Would you prohibit the removal of wool and goods on the railway? — Not if the trucks are disinfected. 3177. Would you protect a man outside the proclaimed area, provided his sheep were clean and free of scab, and allow him to prevent any man crossing his farm with scabby sheep on the main roads ? — Certainly, because I think there are many farmers who try and keep their sheep clean, and it is impossible to do it when the neighbours will not assist. 3178. Do you think sheep moVing acro.^s a farm are very liable to infect sheep on the farm, even if they do not fleep there ? — Yes, but it is more dangerous if they do sleep there. 3179. Mr. du Toit-I Do you believe the district of Cathcart could be cleansed of all scab if the act m ere properly administered .-' — Yes. 3180. Then do you want the act to be amended .-' — Yes. 3181. If that act were amended in the way you wish, do you think you would be able to keep the district clean ? — I think so, if we could stop sheep from other are;i8 coming in infected with scab. 3182. If there were ports of entry, and someone to see that all sheep coming in were properly dipped, would that meet the case .-' — If th y were thoroughly dipped under proper supervision. 3183. Then you do not think it necessary for these parts in that proclaimed area that the act should be extended thioughout the Colony ? — I think it should be. 3184. You think it is advisable, but is it abs dutely necessary ? — Yes. 3185. Necessary for the ur proclaimed areas ? — Yes. 3186. But would it be necessEry for the purpose of securing the proclaimed areas from infection if the precautions were taken which I have mentioned ? — I don't think those precauti'ins would be sufficient to protect us, because sheep might stray over the boundary, or be lost or stolen, and stray over. 3187. If an area is once thoroughly clean, do you think it would get scab again unless it is brought in by infected sheep ? — Yes ; I have had some farms in my area which have never had scab, and hold standing permits to day. 3188. Is there any road through there? — No public road. There are private roads, but the neighbours in that vicinity are very particular, and are in favour of the act. 31 h9. How is it that these people could keep clean bills for so long.' — Because they dip their heep properly. 3190. Dr. ISmartt.'] You seem to have experienced great difficulty in keeping your area clean, owing to two or three farmers being very dilatory in attending to their flocks. Do vou not think it advisable iu such a case that a scab inspector should have the right at the end of thirty days to dip the sheep under sufficient supervision, and charge the owners nith the cost? — Yes, and I hope we shail have >omethiiig of that sort. 3191 Do you thiiik that would work better than charging for an extended licence ? — Tes. 31'12. In conjunction with a general scab act, and with a view to quickly eradicating scab, do you think it wo'ild be advisable to have a compulsory simultaneous dipping act .•' — Yes. 3193. Would you apply that act at once to the whole Colony, or would you divide the 130 Colony into areas suitable to climate ?— I should say arrange»t for some time in the summer throughout the Colony. 3194. Do you think it would not be dangerous for all the flocks in dLEferent parts of the Colony to be dipped in the summer ? — I don't think it would. 3195. "Without such a simultaneous dipping, do you think it would be impossible to stamp out scab in a reasonable time ? — If every man would dip I think we should eradicate it. 3196. In view of the difficulty you have had from one or two men in your area, do you think it would be possible to carry out the scab act in the north-western districts, where tliere are large flocks of sheep, pastured on ver}' large tracts of country, if the majority of the farmers were absolutely opposed to the act, and would obstruct the inspectors by every means in their power ? — I should say we would get at them by forcing them all to dip. 3197. Would it be advisable to have public dipping tanks on the main roads, so as to be able to cope at once with any outbreak amongst travelling flocks ? — Certainly, it would be very handy for some farmers when travelling. 3198. Mr. Botha.'] Would you have sufficient time to attend personally to the dipping of the flocks of those negligent farmers who do not believe in the eradication of scab ? — Certainly, I shuuld make the time if it was my duty. 3199. Could you do it without neglecting the other flocks in the district ?— Yes. 3200. So that it would not require more inspectors to carry out your idea ?--Not in my case. 3201. How many owners of sheep have you already brought up before the aagistrate for not complying with the scab act ? — Eleven, and they are nearly all clean now. 3202. HoYi many are there doubtful ? — Fifteen. 3203. What do you call " doubtful "? — If I come to a man's sheep when he ha* jusi dipped a second lime, and he wants a clean biU, and I am not satisfied that it may not break out again, I give him a renewal. 3204. Eight days after sheep have been dipped a second time are you in a position to say whether they are clean or not ? — Certainly not. It all depends on the state of the veldt or kraals or wherever they put them. 3205. Are j'ou not obliged to declare sheep scabby when you see scab on them ? — Yes. 3206. And if you cannot find a single spot of scab on sheep are you not obliged to give a clean biU ? — No, I can use my own discretion. 3207. If the inspector has power to use his own discretion in putting a man in a . doubtful position, without being certain that it is doubtful, do you not think he has also the responsibility of declaring the man's flock to be clean } — No. 3208. Have you not the uecessarj' instiuments to test the case and see whether there is scab or not } — I have a magnifying glass. 3209. Is not that sufficient.^ — No, because if I gave a clean bill in cases where the scab has been very bad, the man might move into another area, the sheep might break out again and I should be responsible. 3210. But if the sheep are clean at the time when you give a clean bill, the moment scab breaks out the owner is obliged to report it, so that where is the inspector's responsibility ? — Yes, he reports, and I give him a three months Ucence in the usual way. 3:ill. So that if scab should break out in a flock a few days after you have given a clean bill, you are not to be blamed. He must report to you ? — Yes. 3212. Are you aware that in this district there are flocks of sheep for which owners hold clean bills that have never been properly inspected yet ? — No. Are you making a charge against me .'' I am not aware of it. 3213. But what do you call proper inspection ? If you go out to inspect a flock of sheep how do you arrive at a decision whether they are clean or not ? — I have a look at them, and if I can't find any scab I declare them clean, and if I do I license them in the usual way. , 3214. But j'ou can put a flock of sheep in a kraal or j'ou can look at them against a mountan } — I go in amongst them. 3215. Do you always put them in a kraal or shed? — ^No, the owners object. I get them in the veldt. 3216. In case there are only small sputs among a large flock of sheep, don't you admit you run a risk of not detecting them ? — If there is one you might miss it, but if there ia more than one and you inspect properly j'ou ought to see it. 3217. Then you are not responsible for one sheep in a flock ? — If the sheep has only a mere speck of scab j"ou might miss it, 3218. Do you think it is possible that an inspector in this district might inspect a flock of sheep amongst which there were seme which had only a few days before been hand- dressed, and not detect scab, but after having been told of it, might go back and find it ? Do you know of any such case V — No. 3219. Do you think it is possible ? — No. 3220. Mr. Francis.~\ I suppose it is not only a live insect on the sheep, but sometimes there are eggs which you would be unable to detect even with the best magnifying glass unless J'OU skinned the sheep entirely, so that it is really impossible always to say whether a sheep is clean or not ? — Yes, vtith these instruments. 32:; 1. And the law does not expect you to do impossibilities ?— No. 3222. I suppose the reason why you did not give a clean bill when the case was doubt- ful was because if you had, the man when he reported scab a few days afterwards would be 131 free for another three months, and before the expiration of that period he may have infeotei half the flocks in your area ? — Yes. 3223. Is that why you are very careful about granting clean bills? — Yes. 3224. How many convictions have you had undfir the scab act } — Ten. 322.5. Da you approve of the present method of granting permits for the removal of sheep from one area to another ? — S^o. 3226. Do you think it is often tho case that a flock of infected sheep are sent from one area into another ? — Yes, because they might pick out sheep without scab. 3227. Do you think no certificate should be given to remove sheep from one area to another unfil they have held a clean biU ot health for a certain time ? — Yes. 3228. Do you think that clause in the act with regard to using dilig^mt efforts is one which it is very diincidt to carry out ? — Yes. 3229. How can you prove whether a mm has used diligent efforts or not .' — If a man has thr r from the Government .-' — Y-33. 3232. Have you diligently studied them ? — I have read them over. 3233. Have yiu compared them with the acts? — Yes, some ot them are quite different. 3234. The two don't agree at all? — Notinmanv things. 3235. According to the instructions you are allowed to do things which according to the law you dare not do .' — Yes. 3236. If you aced upon some of those instructions and brought the cise before the magistrate, would he not at once tell you. you ha 1 broken the law ? — -I don't know what he would tell one, but certainly some of the instructions are not law. 3237. Take the one case of the certificate to remove sheep from one area to another, which says "' I hereby certify I have examined sj many sheep belonging to and they may be removed within the area as long as they remaiu clean " ?— That is something like it. " 3238. And in the instructions the woids '■ within the area " are in brackets, and the instructions say if the sheep are to be removed into another area those words may be struck out and initialled by thi inspector ? — No. that is if i man has a standing permit. 3239. But that is not according to the eertifici^e in the act ? — I co ild not be sure of it. 3240. Your instructions say you can alter that certidcate ? — Yes. 3241. Although it is a legal certificate ? — Yes. 3242. Then the law and the instructions to you do not agree ? — No. 3243. Chairman.^ Have you inspected all the flocks in your area ? — Yes. If they have not been inspected it is not my fault. I go to a man's farm and ask where the sheep are. There is one flock just come up from the coast which I have not seen. 3244. How long will it take to reiuspect the .sheep in your area ? — It has taken me five months now to inspect. 3245. Will it take you five months to reinspect ? — Quite that, I think. Those to whom I issued licences I have inspected twice, and some three times. 3246. Do you think the area you have to supervise is too large to be done effectually according to the act ? — I think it is. 3247. I suppose it was impossible for one man to inspect the whole district before it was divided into two areas .-' — Quite. When farmers have not objected I have inspected their stock on Sundays too. 3248. Br. Smartt.] I take it that you refuse to ^rant a clean bill to a man whose sheep have been under a licence, even though you arrived on his farm immediately after the sec 'ud dipping, and the sheep appe ir to he perfectly free, because yoa have no guaran- tee that the dipping has been efficiently done ? — Yes. 3249. If you knew the sheep had been dipped once under proper supervision, and again within fourteen days, in a recognized solution and had been kept in (he proper time, would you then have any objection to grant a permit ? — Not unless the owner wanted to move out of the district. 3250. Mr. Botha.~\ What do you consider a sufficient guarantee that the sheep have been properly dipped ? — That the water is measured properly, and the dip weighed off. 3251. Then you must be present to see it ? — Yes. Mr. Sendrik Froneman, examined. 3252. Chairman.^ You are a sheep farmer in the Cathcart district ? — Yes, I have farmed here for 23 years. I have about 2,000 sheep. 3253. When you fii-st farmed here, was scab very prevalent amongst your sheep ? — The same as now. 3254. From that I conclude there is no improvement in your sheep ais regards scab ? — Not as far as I can observe. 3255. To what do you attribute that ? — I can't acoount for it. 3256. Have you been i;; the habit of dipping your sheep regularly? — Yes, always. 3257. Do y lU use a recognized dip ? — Certainly. 3258. And beep the sheep in the proper time to kiU the insect ? — I don't know exactly, I don't time it. [G. 1— '94.] B 132 3259. Do you dip in lime anrl sulphur, or what? — T havo triod that, and all kinds "f patent dips. 3260. What strength do yon uso the lime and sulphur dip? — 100 lbs of lime and 100 lbs. of sulphur, to 750 g:nllons of water. 3261. Do you liui lliat dip destroys the scab } — Yes. / 3262. I understood you to say you have as much scab amongst your sheep now as before the act was in force ? — Yes, I get it about the same, and I find the infection is quite as bad now as it was then. 3263. Do you use fhe same krnals now as you did then } — I don't use kraals at all ; the sheep run in camps, and I never kraal except once in three or four months. 3264 When you dip in lime and sulphur, how long do you keep the sheep in the dip ? — I cannot say ; about a minute. 3265. Do 3'ou dip them twice within fourteen day.s ? — Mostly within fourteen days. 3266. How long is it after the second dipping before the sheep break out with scab again ? — About four months in winter ; it I clip in April I find scab again in August. 3267. Are you aware that the quantity of lime and sulphur you uso is not sufficient to make more than about 500 gallons of dip ? — I make it according to my own ideas. 3268. If you used the dip at tlio strength given by the veterinary surgeon and others, and kept the sheep in the full time, don't you think you would have a better chance of stamping out scab? — If I can cure them with the strength I give, why should I make it stronger ? 3269. Then you are convinced that the dip is strong enough ? — Certainly. 3270. And that the sheep are properly cured for the time .' — I am sure it is strong enough, because I have used this dip and have had a clean bill of health for two years. 3271. Then how do you account for tlio scab breaking out again .' —Sometimes my sheep get mixed with scabby ones, and sometimes it comes spontaneously from poverty. 3272. Mr. de Toit.'] Have your sheep not been poor during the last two years, while you have held a clean bill of health ? — Not so poor. 3273. Not so poor as, according to your experience, they would have to be to get scab spontaneously ? — No. 3274. Do you believe that scab is so contagious that it will infect clean sheep without scabby sheep mixing with them, but simply by going over the same ground as scabby sheep ? — No, I don't think so. 3275. Have you ever known it happen that a couple of sheep in a flock will get scab and will get cured by themselves ? — In the early days I saw it, but not since I have been farming myself. 3276. Do you think it is impossible in these parts to keep sheep clean without thorough dipping, even if they don't come into contact with scabby sheep ? — No ; if they are clean they don't require dipping, they will remain clean ; but if they get poor and sick they may get scab. 3277. Then you are not of opinion that scab can be so entirely eradicated that there will be no necessity for dipping .' — As long as our heads are on our bodies there will be scab atn6ngst sheep. 3278. Although they are not infected by others? — Yes. 3279. But you believe that by proper dipping you can cure scab and keep it down ? — Yes, you can kill the scab. 3280. I>r. Smartt.'] Have you a clean bill of health now .^— Yes, and for the last two years. 3281. What do you think causes scab ; is it an internal disease or a disease due to a parasite .'' — I think it is inside a sheep, and is brought out by poverty. 3282. If it is an internal disease, how does your experience teach you that it can be cured by an external application.'' — I dipped some sheep, and two days afterwards I killed one of them, and found the inside fat full of sulphur. 3283. If scab breaks out spontaneously, how can you explain the fact that there are sheep in the Stutterheim district which have been free of scab for over eight years } — I cannot give an opinion ; I have not seen it, and I don't believe it. I don't believe it when I am told that the sheep in Australia have been clean all these years. 3284. Would you like to have the scab act repealed .' — To teU the truth, I think the act is a good thing for many farmers who are very careless. 3285. In fact, if it was not for the scab act, do you think there would be much more scab than there is at present } — Certainly. 3286. Under those circumstances, don't you think it would be a good thing to extend the scab act over the whole Colony, so that all the districts should reap the benefit that you have reaped ? — I don't know whether it could be properly worked in the north-western districts, as I don't know the conditions of those countries, but in the districts I know it is a g^eat benefit. 3287. Mr. Botha.'] From your knowledge, are all the sheep in this district inspected every year } — Certainly not. 3288. Can you name a troop which you personally know were not inspected in the last twelve months ? — Yes, mine. 3289. But you have a clean bill .'—Yes. 329u. Do yoa know of others, not holding a clean bill, which have not been inspected ? -No. 133 3291. Can the present scab act be i'liproved .■' — My opinion is it can be altered, but I canDot say it can be made better. 3292. In what way can it be altered ? — So that each ward should have an inspector, who niight be the field-cornet himself. 3:293. Do you think we should get a proper pprson in each ward for the position ? — Yes. 3294. At what salary ? — I reckon that in the district of Cathcart you could get six of them f r what you are now paying one. 3J95. Do you know instances of owners who are heavy losers through not^eing able to get an inspector ?— Yes, I know the case of a man who had a clean bill of health and wanted to move his sheep. He wrote and sent four times for the inspector, but could not get him, and at last trekked without a permit, but was brought up and fined £2, as welL as being fined in the district into which he trekked. He Tas obliged to trek as hii ewes wure lambing and he could not remain longer with his sheep. He was a lo.ser by being detained. 3296. If each ward had an inspector, you think such things would be impossible ?— Yes. 3297. Mr. Francis.'] In what area is your farm ? — No. 4 B. 3298. When you complained of these sheep n';t being inspected, was the whole district in the area ? — Yes. 3299. Since the district has been divided into two areas has Mr. Fuller inspected your sheep ? — Yes. 3300. Have you a tank on your place ? — As long as I ever knew thfre was such a thing. 3301. How many years '? — About twenty-one. 3302. Did you ever have your sheep clean for two years together before the scab act came into force .-' — It is impossible to .say, as I never took particular notice. 3303. But you say there was no more scab before the act came in force than there Ib now ? — I think so. 3304. How long have you held the opinion that it would be possible to appoint an inspector in each field-corn»tcy ? — From the commencement of the S3'stem. Even at bond meetings this matter was brought forward, and I agreed with it. Mr. John Landrey jun., examined. 3305. Chairman.] You are a farmer in the Cathcart district ? — Yes, since 1883. I have about 2,600 sheep. 3306. Did you find more scab amongst your sheep then than you do now .^ — I don't know amongst my own s^heep, but I have amongst some of my neighbours. When I first came here some of my neighbours were very careless about dipping, and did not mind so long as the wool got wet. 3d07 Is the Cathcart district as a whole cleaner now than it was then? — Only very recently. During the last few months it has made good progress again. 3308. How do account for that ? — It is due to many cause.* : in some cases the farmers Lave not acted vigourously, in others the law has not supported the farmers as it was expected to do, and all possible measures have not been taken against reinfection. 3309. Do you think a great deal of scab has been brought into the district from sheep travelling through ? — Yes, a good deal, and we are also placed at a great disadvantage from being dose to areas where the act is not in force ; there is no comparison between the dis- advantage s suffered by this district and Komgha, for Komgha is surrounded by districts under tlie : ct. In the first place I maintain scab can conveyed by native shearers, and with ihese pie\ ailing winds the sheep may rub off pieces of wool and the infection may be con- veyed in that way, and in every instance vl en dirty sheep travel through the district the infection is spread. I think the dipping 1 as been carried out very improperly indeed, and that on an average 25 per cent, of the farmers don't know the capacity of their tanks ; there are not many of them who go to the trouble of preparing the dips as they should be, and not a quarter of them do the dipping properlj'. 3310. Would you then be in favour oi Government dipping tanks being erected, and the dipping of sheep under supervision '? — I would be in favour of Government tanks being erected at certain convenient localities for the benefit of persons travelling where scab breaks out among their sheep, but as far as individual farmers are concerned I should be more in favour of a renewed licence being subject to an increasing penalty for each renewal, because it is very inconvenient indeed for the inspector or authorized person to attend on each farm to superintend dipping. 3311. By superintending dipping, I did not mean it to apply to every farmer, but only to those who have scab and don't mix their dips properly, and don't dip properly? — No, I think their fines would teach them wisdom. 3312. You think they should be allowed to dip as they liked provided they cured the scab .' — I think so, but upon the expiration of the first licence, say for a month in summer, if there weie exceptional circumstances, or in case of an outbreak in winter, I think it would be rather hard to insist upon it. 3313. Would you leave it to the discretion of the inspector .'' — Yes. 3314. Do you suffer in this district from sheep coming in from outside areas? — Yes. 3315. Do they come in under permits or not ? — I am not in a positon to say, but as far liS 1 am aware they have come in with permits although scabby. 3316. Have you known of any sheep coming into this area with scab on permits issued by landowners outside the ai-ea ? — I have heard of a case of some sheep being brought in, but s2 134 it is second hand evidence- They were said to have been brought in through the Transkei to Dohne Toll, and I saw them there. The iaspector ordered them to be dippe'l 3317. Do you know what permit they had } — No. 3318. Would it be advisable to prevent any slieep coming into the proclaimed area from an outside area .? — Decidedly. 3319. Are you of opinion that the provisions of the ecab act should be extended through- out the Colony •* — I think it would be a very good thing indeed if we could get a general measure. 3320. Failing that, could you suggest any line of demarcation ? — A line was suggested at the farmers' congress this year at Cradoek, from Hope Town to Port Elizabeth. 3321. Would that prevent scab coming into the proclaimed area ? — Not altogether. Tho only way I see is to have for tlie bouuda'v a broad river or a double line of fencing, and I am somewhat inclined to think that iho ^Msten line of railway would be a good line to take, although it would cause a go(jd df-al "f inconvenience to farmers in its immediate vicinity. 3322. But if y(,u pievent s^heep being moved on all the railway lines will you not be doing a great injustice to the farmi rs in the nor'h-western districts and the centres of pojiulation, where slaughter stock are mosily consumed? — If it were found necessary to bring in slaughter stock, I have no doubt it could be done, provided the sheep was thoroughly dipped twice before being sent awa}- undnere quarantined a certain time. But they should bo dippel twice properly, under supervision. 332;?. Would j'ou allow other sheep to come in } — No, only slaughter stock. 3324. You have lived for the last six years under the scab act. Is there any other .■.Iteration you would like besides what you have said about fines instead of licences 7 — Yes, 1 ^honld like to see the period reduced from three months t't one month in summer, and as (C.asion might require in winter. Also some other provision for the issuing of permits of renio\al. because until recently we have expeiienced veiy gre.it difficulty in getting permits. The fault has not been on the part of the inspector, for he has had too much to do, but it has b^en a ca.-e of having to get two landowners and then writing to him. He has been applied to some days previous to the permit being required, but being absent on duty he was not forth-coming. Instead of field-cornets, or someone e's', as recomended by the last Witness, it would be better to have some properly qualified person, either in each ward or each ward and a half, to giant permits for the removal of sheep upon the authority of two 1 iiid-owners. This system would assist the ins-pector, and farmers would not experience the diffiiul'y they do now. I think a good deal of the opposition to the act is due to the diffi- culty of gettii:g permits for the removal of stock. 3;i2.D. ^\'ould you have dipping tanks on the main roads and otljer places for the pur- pose of dijiping sheej) infected with scab whilst traveUing .'' — I don't think that would be unieasonable. It would fee a very good idea. 3326. Have you a knowledge of the natives in this part of the country ? — Yea. 3327. Do you think they are capable of mixing their dips and dipping their sheep pro- perly ? — Quite as competent as many who arc not colou.'cd, and if they were uiged on by Jiaviug to pay for the renewal of their licence they would soon gain the required knowledge. 3.i28. Then you don't think it would be necessarj' to erect dipping tanks in native loctitious, dipping the sheep under supervision at the native^' expense '? — There would be no harm in having tanks in the locations, but I don't think we need supervies unless they par- particularly wish it. 3329. Mr. du Toit.'\ What are the times when it is dangerous to dip sheep .' — Some- times in the winter mouths. 3330. Even when the sheep are iu good condition .-" — No, I said when their condition was (-uch that you might incur loss through dipping; them. 3331. Then 30U would make the quarantine time accordingly.'' — Certainly; I would give more maig n in winter than in summer. 3332. Do you believe poverty can bring on scab ? — No. In the drought of 1889 my sheep were so poor that the wind blew them over, but there was no scab among them ; in fact they were better as regards scab than thej' have been this season, because last August scab broke out amongst them from infection. 3333. In those parts tii the country where sheep are often iu low condition on account of heavy and prolracttd droughts, do }0u think it is advisible to have the same scab act as that in force here } — I should think it would be better to dean them and lose a few than to allow the scab to go on and deprive them of their incomes. I think the former would be the least loss. 3334. But how do you reconcile that with your statement just now that it is not advi.sable to dip sheep in very poor condition } — I said in winter. 3335. But in these places I refer to, it may be in winter ? — Yes, but not all the year round. 3336. Would it not be very hard to force the act on those parts of the country, seeing that people have sometimes to trek for a whole year .^— If it is for their good, I don't think it is hard. 3337. And how if they cannot comply with the act?— But they can. They cannot be much worse tlian the sheep I sheared the day before yesterday. I have just got them home, and many I had to help out of the tank. 3338. As a rule, do you trek every year .''—No. 3339. If you had to trek for some time every year, would it not be very hard to oomplv with such an act ? — I don't think so, because one of the first considerations of the sheep 135 farmpr should be the comfort of his sheep, and if tlie sheep are so badly infected, they lose half of the time they should be eating in scratching themselves. 3340. When people have such good reafors to object to such an act, don't you think it would be advisable to try and give them an opportunit}-, by means of some intermediate measure, to gain experience, and learn that the matter is not so hard as they imagine .'' — But I have not heard the good reasons. 3341. Suppose there are some. There are parts where the people are opposed to the act, and thry have many r' .'od idea. 3344. And after they have steu the 1 enefit to be derived from it, but find that it is not a perfect measure, do you tMnk they would wLUingly apply Tor the scab act as you have it in these parts? — I carnot spi ak for that. 3345. Don't you think it would come to that? — If they dip for two or three seasons, two or three times after shearing. T t'link they would soon have their eyes opened. •S346. I r. Smartt.'j Do ^■■^ li^mk t-uch an act would work unless there was some supc-- visi. >n and .^ome guarantee that the sheep were dipped in a recognized solution of recognize i strength } — There is a very great difficulty in the way of that, and I think it would be as well to have supervision, and to impres" ur'on all the farmers to use a good dip. I prefer lime and sulphur. My experience of the patent dips is that thej* are dangerous. 3347. Then if a compulsory simultant'ous dipping act were put in force together wit!i a scab act, would you make any provision tfiat .'heep shoul 1 be dipped in either lime and sulphur, or sulphur and tobacco ? — Yes I prefer lime and sulphur myself. 3348. With regard to the difficidty of obtainiiig permits, do you think it would be a very good thing if farmers, holding a clean bill of he:ilth, were allowed to move their sheep on their own permit, subject to a heavy pei.alty if they moved scabby sheep? — I think it would, and indeed many of the clean bills given now carry that privilege although it may not be in the act. 3349. Woiild you be more in favour of that system than that of passes in the different field-cometcies, throwing the responsibility on the owner ? — Yes. On the other hand, be- having the certificate of three landowners, there are three responsible persons iastea.l of one. 3350. If the general act were not in force, would you be iu favour of allowing adjoin- ing field-cornetcies, or even single farms, to be admitted into the procla'med area upon M quest ? — If the western line of railwaj- were the boundary, I don't .«ee how that could very well be worked, but I don't see why we >hoiild objtct to it, because it would sliow that the feeling in favour of the act was progressing, and the farmers were learning' the advantages to be gained. 3351. You would have the western railway system as the dividing line } — Yes, but I would not allow any sheep to come in until properly dipped. 3352. If a farmer in the unproclaimed area had clean flocks would you give him anj- protection from people trekking over his property with scabby sh' ep ? — The only protection 3-0U could give would be to render people liable for any damape sustained. 3353. Would it not be very difficult to render people liable in that way if they were moving hundreds of miles away and nobody knew who they W' re ? Would you not allow that man the right to prevent scabby sheep crossing over his property? — I don't see how 30U can. What is he to do with them? 3354. Would you applj' the provisions of the pound act to *hese farms, which would allow them to claim a £20 fine ?— Yes, that particular clause. 3355. Then you don't :hink meji in the unproclaimed urea who have gone to g^eat trouble and expense in cleaning their flocks should have auy special protection ? — Not beyond the claim for damages. I should like to give protection, but I don't see how it is possible. 3356. Mr. Botha. ^ I understand you to say that Cathcart is very disadvantageously situated as compared with Stutterheim and Komgha, being much more exposed to inlfiction with scab ? — Yes, and Stutterheim more than Komgha. 3357. Because of their greater proximity to the unproclaimed area f — Yes. 3358. In what direction are you nearer the unproclaimed area? — We are nearer the unproclaimed area because they are nearer the coast than we are. 3359. How much ground is there between the district of Cathcart and the unproclaimed area .'' — There is Queen's Town and part of Tarka, or you can go from Queen's Town into the unproclaimed area. 3360. So the reason is not because you adjoin the unproclaimed area ? — I did not say we did ; I said we are nearer. 3361. Do you not ascribe as a reason for Cathcart being so scabby that it adjoins Queeu's Town ? — No, I said we are nearer the improclaimed area th.in Komgha. 3362. But you have Queeu's Town to protect you agaiust sc ib ? — Even admitting that. 3363. And it is in evidence that just now scab is very bad in this district ? — Yes. 136 3364. You think the infection is carried by the wind, and even by shearers ? — Yes. 336.5. Dues not the same man shear in Komgha and Stuttorheim as in Cathcart .-' — No, not necessarily. 3366. But ne matter of fact he sometimes does ? — It is just possible, but a man may shear in Komgha and Stutterbeim before he comes to Cathcart. 3367. Then I buppose they carry it from those parts to Cathcart ' — It whs given in I vidence to-day that there ore sctibby .■ilioep in Stutterheim, and it is po-sible tliat infection may be carried that way. If there is scab here tlie shearers may carry it all ovi r the placf. 3368. Then Komgha and Stutt« iheiru stand the same chance of being infected by the shearers? — Not at all, becauso our shearers don't go from h' re down there, but work upwards. 5369. Then you mu.st get it from Komgha and Stutterheim .-' — Not necessarily. 3370. But as they work up from below, it must C(jme to you from those parts ? — I did not say that was the sole cause of infection. 3371. Do yoH think the scab act might be altered so as to allow the inspectors to grant a licence for one month or thr. e months at their discretion, and according to the circum- stances ? — I think so. 3372. By making such a provision, don't you think you make the inspector to a certain extent his own law-giver, and introduce personal government, instead of government by legislation ? — He is a law-giver only to those who require the law given to them. 3373. If you allow a certain servant under the law to apply the law, not according to the letter of the law, but according to his own ideas, don't you create a sort of personal government, and make him the master instead of the servant of the law? — No. I don't see that, because the same thing applies to magistrates, who have a discretion in administering the law. ^ 3374. You don't think you would place too much power in the hands of the inspei tor bj- doing so .' — No. 3375. Don't you think it is unfair, with regard to the fcab inspector himself, consider- ing that even a small community includes so many different classes of men, black and white, and the different grades of society ? The inspector belongs to one of those classes, and even if he carried out the law in the most conscientious way, might he not be looked upon as partial ? — If a licence were granted for only one month in the summer, there could be very little partiality shown. I said nothing about discretionary power between one month and three. 3376. You are not in favour of leaving discretionary power with the inspectors to miki^ it one month or three months ? — Not in summer, but a little allowance might be made in winter. 3377. But as regards the principle of the thing, would you allow the inspector to make a difference in the administration of the act between one man and another ? — No. To a •certain extent I would give discretion.sry power, becauso scab may break out in one flock in June, and those sheep may not be fit to lie dipped until September or October. The next door neighbodr may not catch the disease until August, and I don't 8»'e why oaeh of those men should get a three months licence. But when it comes to two neighbours having scab amongst their flocks at the same time, I dou't think the inspector should give one man one month and the other thiee. 3378. Will you explain what jou mean by the appointment of assistants to inspectors, to look after the dippii g by proper and qualified persons? — In the event of the proposal being carried out to oliige the people to dip, in those districts where they have never in- very seldom done so, 1 f link it is very likely they may not be very well up in tlo practice of mixing and administering the dip, and therefore qua! liod persons should be .ippointed o superintend it. 3379. But what is your definition of a proper u^d qualified person ? — Someone who could measure the capacity- of the tank, who could tell how many pounds of sulphur and lime go to the hundred gallons, and who could refill it according to the proper strength when it is partly empty. 3380 As far as th.it goes, do you think our present inspectors are properly qualified ? — I think they have quite enoujih to do without being burdened with that. 3381. But would they be capable of doing it .■' — I sLould think so. 3382. Would it be safe to appoint men of the same stamp as the present inspectors ? — Decided!}', bs far as this district is concerned. 3383. The qualifications of the present inspectors are simply that they huve been experienced farmers, and understand sheep and the scab, but have no particular training ? —No. 3384. In your own district, do you also find people with these same qualifications, in every field-cornetcy ? — Yes. 3385. Mr. Francis.~\ 1 suppose you are aware that all laws generally give a certain dircretionaiy power to those who administer them, within limits ?- As far as I have seen. 3386. 'Take the case of a resident magistrate, is he not bound if he finds a man guilty to sentence him within certain limits, subject to leview by the judges .-■ — Yes. 3387. Do you think it would Le advii-able to give an appeal to the magistrate to any man who thought he had been hardly dealt with by the inspector .' — Thwt might do very well. 3388. Would not that do away with all objections of partiality on the part of the inspector ? — I think so. 3389. Has it ever come under your notice that little lote of sheep and goats have been 187 moved with a pass without a permit ? — I think one case occurred here not long ago. Ab far as I remember they came from the Transkei, and passed through Alice without a permii, ; but I cannot speak with certainty. 3390. It has been brought to the notice of the Commission that such things have happened through magistrates in the Transkei granting passes to natives to bring even scahbv sheep into the proclaimed area without a permit ? — I would not question that at aU, indeed I think it very likely. 3391. Then theso magistrates are breaking the law ? — Decidedly. 3392. If your sheep were in low condition, and infected with scab, do you think you would lose more by allowing the scab to go on than by dipping them ? — I think if a man has any energy at all he can keep it down by hand-dressing, and sooner than run the risk of losing twenty-five sheep, I would hand-dress. 3393. And if he has not that energy ? — Then let him suffer. 3394. IE a compulsory simultaneous dipping act were enforced, would you oblige the owner of clean sheep to dip them ? — Yes, twice. 3395. If a man who had clean sheep vrere obliged to shear twice a year, to dip his sheep twice, don't you think the provisions of that act would be a great deal harder than the present scab act ? — I think the compuhory dipping should be applied to the north-western districts 3396. Would not that act be harder than the scab act ? — It was a suggestion made by Mr. du Toit for the people in tbose parts, and I agreed init because I thought it would benefit both them and us. I think it would be even a harder measure than the scab act amended as has been proposed, but as the suggestion came from a gentleman who livas in thoae parts, I did not oppose it. 3397. Do you think the present method of appointing inspectors is satisfactory ? — I think the divisional councils should have some say in it, and that their recommendation should carry some weight. 3398. Should not the farmers in the district have some say, as well as the divisional council .-' — I don't see where the impro7ement would come in. 3399. If the only reason the north-western f itrmers have why they should not be brought under the scab act is because they believe it is a sin to destroy the scab insect — seeing it has been amt by providence — do you think they ought to be brought under the scab act or not ? — To the same extent as they would take lice from their own heads, they ought to take lice from the sheep. 3400. Mr. Botha.'] To a very great extent, don't you think the members of the divisional council represent the farmers ? — Yes, especiall}- in this district. 3401. And if the farmers can trust them as their representatives in the divisional council, could not thej' also trust them in regard to the appointment of scab inspectors ? — Certainly. 3402. And therefore when the divisional council recommends certain appointments of that kind, should not the government accept their recommendation, and not override th'im on the advice, perhaps, of an individual who has not the same interest in the matter as the members of the divisional council ? — Certainly, otherwise there is no benefit in asking for the recom'nendation. 3403. 3r. Smartt.] If a compulsor}' scab act were put in force over the whole colony, do you thiuk, seeing that certain districts would be opposed to it, that it would be safe to place the recommendation of a scab inspector in th(^ hands of the members of the divisional council who were ab.solutely opposed to the act ?— I think you would have to go through that routine, and in the event of an incompetent person being appointed he shoul'i be dismissed and replaced. It need not be a f irmer in the diviMion. 3404. Chairman.] Is there anything furtlier you would like to suggest ? — Nothing, ex- cept that there has been a go > I deal of feeling iu this district recently upon t i ^ appoint- ment of a scab inspector. The applioa'it who had the luijority of votes in thi divisional council was passed over in favour uf another, recommended by the coloni il veteriuiry .surgeon and the superintending inspector. Cathcart, Friday, \%th November, 1892. Ml-. Botha. Mr. DU Toit. PRESENT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Dr. S-MARTT. Mr. Francis. Mr. Henry William Brown, scab inspector, examined. 3405. Chairman.] You are scab inspector for area No. 4 ? — Yes, for nearly 5J jears, over .since the act was put in operation. 3i06. When you took up your duties, were the sheep in the Cithcart district very much affected with scab .-■ — With one or two exceptions, every flock in the district, and they were quarantined. It was in consequence of strange sheep arriving among them. 138 3407. After you had quarantined all the sheep, and commenced operation*, did you find any improvement among them ? — Immediately ; the fai-mers seemed to take to the act with a good will, nnd made every endeavour to carry out its provisions. 3-108. You found the farmers were very anxious to stamp out tho disease, and assisted you in every way } — Yes. 3409. How long did this continue ? — Altogether about 3 years. 3110. Was the district ever entirely free of scab.' — Yes, I reported it by telegraph. At that time I did not know of a single spot of scab. 3411. And you are under the impression that at that tiiuo the whole district of Cathcart was free } — I did not know of a single spot of scab, but I informed the Government that I did not think it would remain free long, on account of the importations and dirty kraals. 3412. When you took over, did you visit every farm iu the ilistrict .'' — In the two dis- tricts ; I had Cathcart and Sutterhoim then. 3413. How long did it tnke you? — I rode very rapidl}', «ithtwo horses, and it took me about five months ; but I rode night aod day, Sundays included. 3414. Did you come to the conclusion that it was impossible for one man to do the work for the whole arei ? — Certainly. 3415. Until when did you remain in charge of these two areas ? — Five months after I took office the Stutterheim division was cut off, and I remained in charge of the balance until five months ago, when it was again sub-divided into two areas. 3416. After you had a clean bill of health, you considered sctb would bre.Vc out again, owing to sheep being brought into the district ? — From importa'^ious and dirty kraals, and of coui'se there were many careless natives who would probably allow it to spread in various ways. 3417. If no sheep were allowed to come into your are i, do you think 3'ou would be able to stamp out scab altogether '? — Not under the present act. 3418. What alterations would you propose to enable yo i tod) that? — There are a good many. One is to prevent the importation of scabby sheep from unproclaim';d areas, and a?80 from other districts. I consider the three monthi' clause is a failure — it is inoperative. Then there is the imperfect dipping. Farmers allow troops of scabby sheep on th-ir farms. The certificate of land owners is a failure, and is invariably a source of iufeotion. I can show the Commission some correspondence in connection with that, and give my reasons on the various points. 3419. Would you stop the importation of any sheep into the proclaimed areas ? — Cer- tainly ; you will never keep the proclaimed areas clean while they are surrounded by unpro- claimed areas, and the only way to stop it is to prevent all importations- Otherwise the infection is bound to come in in some way or other. 3420. What would you propose in lieu of the three months' licence clause ? — At present a man must have a three months" licence, but I would propose to leave the term of the licence to the discretion of the scab inspector. 3421. Would you reduce the tim ■ aUowed ? — I would leave it entirely to the inspector to extend or curtail the timp according to circumstances. 3422. If you have given the sheep a three months' licence and afterwards find the sheep in a worse cmditioii, what would you do? — Prosecute the owner for not making diligent efforts. 3423. You would not license him ? — Not unless lie showed verj' good reasons indeed. 3424. Do you not think it would be better after the three months' licence had expired that a man should take out a licence to keep scabby sheep, and pay for it, and continue to take out licences on a gradually increasing scale of charges until his sheep were clean ? — I don't think it would work. I think the inspector mii-t deal with tlie disease, and have power tc make the owner dip the sheep. 3425. By imperfect dipping I suppose you mean some farmers don't mix the dip properly and some don't dip properly? — [ think more than half the dipping in this district is done imperfectly. I am certain of it. 3426. Would you recommend that there should be some system of supervision, either by the ir.spi'clor or someone el-^e, to see that the sheep are properly dipped if they are not cleansed within a reasonable time ? — I think the inspector should have the power to order a man to dip at any time that ho may see it is nocessiiry, and that he should see it carried out. 3427. But if the dipping is imperfectly done, you don't advance ? — The inspector must supervise the dipping. 3428. If this duty was added to your other duties, would you be able to attend properly to your area? — No ; I think the areas should be reduced. 3429. Are there any native locations in your area ? — Not now. 3430. Would it be advisable to have public dipping tanks along the main roads? — Yes. A dipping tank should be built here and there on the roadside, but of course only along certain roads, because there are so many. About two years ago a Mr. Le Eoux imported a flock of very scabljy sheep from the Queen's Town district. I intercepted and stopped him in the main road, but there was great difficulty experienced in dipping the sheep, because all the farmers refused to lend their tanks, lie came in under cover of a forged peimit, and I told him he must dip his sheep the best way he could. After consideratde trouble, one fanner took pit}' on him, and allowed him the use of his tank, and then I allowed him to go down to his farm in his district. But he may have infected the farm where he dipped, and as a matter of fact some time after scab was reported from there. 3431. You say farmers allow troops of scabby sheep on their farms ? — I found that one of the greatest causes of Infection. Under section 8 of Act No. 28 of 1 886, a farmer may claim damages up to £20 for trnspass by scabb}' sheop, but during the five years I have held offico there have been only three cases of that sort here, although T believe that in this district scircely a day passes without a trespass of that kind on s "me farms. The farmers will not go against their neighbours, and the inspector is perfectly powerless. 3432. When you find infected sheep amongst a olean flock do you put that flock in quarantine ? — Yes, and if he has not reported it I prosecute him. 3433. Although the only infected sheep there are strange ? — Decidedly, but I hardly ever see these cases. 3434. What would you recommend ? — If the penalties were higher, and the minimum fine were raised the farmers might make more fuss about the trespass. 343.5. But the fine does not apply to a man who does not own the sheep. If you find strange scabby sheep amongst a man's floek you can't fine him for havin": them there ? — If I think he is aware of it, or it is gross carelessness, I should decidedly prosecute him for not reporting scabby sheep amongst his flock. 3436 Don't you think it is advi.=able for landowners to give permits of removal? — I am not altogether against it, but still at the present time I am perfectly certiin that it is a system wliich ca'ises the dissemination of scab throughout the country. For instano'3. a farmer will perhaps first make application to me, but as I am unable to go there he gets a certificate signed by two land owners, who mny come over and just trust to their neighour's word, and possibly there are half-a-dozen sheep which, although they don't show visible signs of it, are scabby, and upon the certificate of these two land owners I sign a permit. 3437. Are you bound to do so ?— If there is any doubt I rau refuse, but you can't refuse everyone, and consequently you are liable here and there to sign a permit for the removal of scabby sheep, which may be sold in small lots and spread soab in different parts of the country. 3438. How would you arrange for the removal of sheep from an unproclaimed area where there is no scab inspector? — I am against it; I would not allow them to come in at all. They have the option of coming under the scab law. 3439. During the last three or four years have not a great many sheep been brought into this district by speculators from unproclaimed areas? — Both from proclaimed and unproclaimed areas. 3440. Have you found many of these sheep infected with scab ? — No, but some time afterwards I have got reports of scab breaking out, and I have traced it to these sheep. When they come in they have just been dipped, and I can say nothing as they also have a permit. The chances are the speculator will sell these sheep in small lots to perhaps half- a-dozen owners, and they will all break ou^ with s;'ah. Or if he does not sell them he reports scab, and I have to give him three months. 3441. So in that way the speculator is put in a very much better position than a man in the area ?— Yes, and if ho is quick he can evade the act with impunity. 3442. As soon a =( he traces scab amongst the sheep he simply reports it ? — Yes. and then he is free for three months. I issue an order to dip, and I have taken upon myseK to include on the back that he is to dip immeliately on receipt of the order, but the law does not provide for that, it only says in three months. 3443. Suppose you had a flock of sheep come in that way, and scab broke out ; you issue a licence for three months, but the owner takes no stepi whatever, so that when you come to his place you find the scab increasing, what do you do ? — Nothing untU three months ia over. 3444. Then what is the good of your putting that order on the back ? — Only in case the scab is there when the three months are over. 3445. Unless some stringent law is passed, do you think there is no chance of stamping out scab ? — I am perfectly certain. 3446. If you had power to prevent any stock arriving into your area, could you show a very different state of things to what you can now ? — Decidedly ; and with the one or two alterations I suggested. 3447. During the present winter were the sheep in this area badly infected with scab ? — Yes. 3448. To what do you attribute this ? — Poverty of condition, inclement weather, the locusts eating the saline grass, and principally to the farmers' carelessness. 3449. If you had had power to compel men to dip within one month instead of three months, do you think scab would have been anything like what it has during the winter? — If the discretion had been left to me, in four-fifths of the cases I should have granted short terms, and the farmers would have benefited by it, and the district too. 3 150. Are you strongly in favour of a general scab act ? — I am. 3451. Would it be advisable, in connection with that act, to have a general simultaneous dipping act ? — I don't see how you are going to carry it out. 3452. So that dipping should take place throughout the Colony within a limited time ? — I think it would be mot if the inspector had discretionary powers in regard to dipping The other plan would assist, but you can't carry it out. 3453. If a sinndtaneous dipping were cirried on throughout the Colony, do you think there would be a better chance of stamping out the suab ? — Materially ; but I am against it, because I think it cannot be carried out. 3454. It has been given in evidence that permits have been issued for the removal of [G. 1— '94.] I 140 scabby sheep from this and adjoining areas into a clean area. Ho\v long do you think it would take for tlio scab to break out on sheep, provided there wore no visible signs oF scab at the time when the permit was granted? — It would bo impossible to give a date ; it d'peuls on surrounding ciroiimstinoes, and the condition of the sheep; but if you put the insert on a sheep's back you will see visible sigfns of scab in about three weeks' time, depending on the condition of the sheep. 3455. If you had a clean flock of sheep, and they were put into a scabby kraal, do you think it would be three weeks before they would show signs of scab ? — It might be three weeks or three months. If they are fat, with long wool and plenty of yoke, it would be much longer. 3456. But generally speaking, when sheep corn-) into contact with scab, how many days does it take .'—About three weeks before you can see signs of anything. 3457. Then do you think it would bo very erisy fir sheep to be brought from an unproclaimed area through the division of Queen's Town to Oathcart, Stutterheim, an! Komgha without having any signs of s ab ? — Yes, and still further, to Port Elizabeth. 3458. Mr. Francis.^ When your area was free of scab, had the Government offered a reward to any inspector who had his area free ? — Not that I am aware of. 3459. How long did it remain free ? — About a mcmth after my inspection. 3460. I)id not the veterinary surgeon come down at that time to examine the sheep } — Not that I am aware of. 3461. Don't you think it would be putting too much power in the hands of inspectors to give them diocrouonary powers* in regard to licencps ? — Certainly not. 3462. Do you think all inspectors would use that power justly and impartially?—! think the majority would. I dou't know the character of each individual, but I would. 3463. If such large powers were placed in the hands of inspectors, don't you think it would be advisable that anyone who tho\ight himsolf unjustly used should have the right to appeal to the magistrate for a longer licence ? — Decidedly. 3464. Then you would give the inspector discretionary power with regard to the first licence, but subject to an appeal to the magistrate .'' — Yes. 3465. Have you had many cases under the act If — About 150. 3466. Have you had any groat difficulty in obtaining convictions ? — At the beginning, but lately I have been well supported. 3467. Do you think the fines imposed have generally been adequate to the offence .'' — Some have, but not the majority. 3468. Have any cases come under your notice where a man has wilfully broken tlio law, and made himself liable to a fine rather than be inconvenienced by the provisions of the act } — Yes, they often tell me so. 3469. Then a law like that is perfectly inoperative in many cases? — Certainly. 3470. Do you think a system of paid licences would be a benefit after the expiration of the first one ? — Not if you leave discretionary power in the hands of the inspector after tlie first Hcence. 3471. You complain that farmers generally dip their sheep very carelessly? — Yes. 3472. If a farmer knew that, unless at the end of the first licence his sheep were clean, he would be heavily fined, don't you think he woidd soon find out the proper methods cf dipping them ?— It stands to reason he would. 3473. Has it ever come to your notice that sheep have been removed upon a pass given by an official, but without a permit ? — Innumerable oases. 3474. By whom were they given ? — By the police, field-cornet.s and magistrates. 3475. If those sheep were infected with scab, the issuers of the passes broke the law ? — Decidedly. 3476. Did you take any action in any of those cases ? — I prosecuted them, although I felt sorry to do so. 3477. Did you prosecute any magistrates? — I could not, but I reported them to Government. 3478. What reply did you receive ? — Simply to the effect that they would communicate with the respective resident magistrates on the subject. 3479. But the wording of the act says that not only the party moving the sheep, but also the party allowing tlie sheep to be moved, is liable, so that should not the magistrates and others have been prosecuted ? — 1 hardly think that a magistrate should be prosecuted. 3480. Not if he broke the law ? — No ; he did it unintentionally. 3481. Ought he not to know the law ? — Yes. 3482. With regard to the certificate given by landowners, don't you think it would be preferable to use the other method allowed by the act, and give instructions to field-cornets to grant permits ? — No. At one time I authorised field-cornets to assist me by gi-anting permit^, but I had to withdraw the authority. They granted permits to infected sheep right and left. They almost all did it, and that made the difficulties of removal so much worse. 3483. If the insect got on the sheep when they were in low condition, and the wool very dij', woidd it no' got to the skin in a very short time, and so irritate the sheep that it would scratch within two or three days ? — No. 34 84. Do you think the increase of scab in this division was entirely from the care- 141 lessness of the farmers, or was it partly due to the bad administration of the scab act ? — Yes ; I have had to report scab inspectors. 3485. Mr. Botha.] At what time was this district free of scab ? — I cannot give the exact date, but it was about two and a half years after the act cam 3 into force, about three years ago. _ _ 3486. When the act came in force, every flock was infected ? — Yes. 3487. Therefore the act did good ? — Yes. 3488. And we must come to the conclusion that the working of the act is not so very bad ? — It is better than nothing at all. 3489. It was good enough to stamp out scab throughout the district '? — Yes, up to a certain date. 3490. Can you give us an illustration how the inspector could decide whether to give a licence for three months, one month, or less ? — He would be guided bj' the condition of the sheep and the surrounding circumstances. In summer the owner only requires a fortnight, but in winter the sheep may be very poor, and it may be necessary to extend the licence. Or if it is near shearing time, and the slieep have much wool on, you would not want to spoil the man's dip, but give him an extension of time to meet the difficulty. 3491. I take it the inspectors are aliove siisjjicion, impartial, and always know what they are about, but in this country don't you frequently get as wet and as bad weather in the middle of December as in the middle of winter '? — Ocoasionallj', but not frequently. 3492. Then how would you manage ? — I should take the weather into consideration. 3493. Might that not lead to this, that even when the weather was not so very bad or severe the farmers might make excuses with some show of reason ? — It might be so. 3494. Would it not be better for the protection of the inspector himself that the law should lay down all such regulations as might be necessary for its projier administration ? — -Vot in tlie case in question, but if the owner could prove that the inspector prosecuted un- justly, I think he should have the option of an appeal to the magistrate. 3495. Would not that involve expenditure ? — The inspector would not go on prose- cuting. 3496. Would it not be very inconvenient for poor farmers, and are all men capable of knowing what steps to take ? We have it in evidence that a large proportion of farmers dim't even know how to mix their own dip, consequently we must take it for granted that there is a gond denl of ignorance in the district ? — If the inspectors had power to supervise dipping, the farmers would soon be taught. 349''. How many men do you think would be necessary to insjiect every flock of sheep in the Cathcart district within such a short time, and to attend at every dipping tank to supervise the dipping? — Thi'ee. 3498. "What would be their respective positions ?— Scab inspectors ? 3499. With the same status ?— Yes. 3500. From whom would thej' take their instructions ? — The Government. 3501. The Government is in Cape Town ? — But they manage it now. 3502. You have said the magistrates themselves have broken the law by giving passes to natives to trek, and the magistrates cannot know much about sheep or scab, so might not I lie magistrates, even with the best intentions, be unable to look after the inspectors ?— No, it ought to be a separate office, as it is now. 3503. Then if Cathcart were divided into three areas, do you think the inspectors would bo able to inspect all the flocks in their areas, and at the same time sea tbat their orders are c nried out, so as to stamp out scab and keep tlie flocks clean ? — I think so, of course with the amendments to the act which I have suggpsted. 3504. Will you tell us how you proceed lien you are inspeiting flocks in your area ? Do you have the sheep all driven into a kraal, caught by the leg and inspect each one eei'arateh', or do you simply look at the flock ?^I inspect them in various ways, generally in the veldt, but it just depends on the owner. I never force a man to bring his sheep to the kraal. If the sheep are very wild, and I think I see scab among them, I have them caught. 3505. After you have inspected a flock of sheep to j'oiu- own satisfaction, however you may do it, are you in a position to say whether that flock is healthy or not — Yes. 3506. Then you either grant the man a clean biU, or refuse it for good reasons? — Yes; or a dirty bUl. 3507. Have you ever had such a case as a doubtful bUl ? — Oh, j'es. 3508. Then you admit in some cases you have not been able to decide whether the stocks have been clean or not ? — There are such cases, but although doubtful the Ucence is granted. 3509. What sort of licence do you grant them ? — The usual three months to begin with, and afterwards at the discretion of the inspector. 3510. But when you say it is doubtful, it may turn out to be clean? — The chances are ynu give a month, and at the end of that time you know what to do. 3511. If j-ou give a bLU because the case is doubtful, and scab breaks out, must not the owiier report it at once ? — Yes ; but we have orders from the Government to grant a licence in doubtful cases. 3512. Does Government ever give you instructions contrary to the provisions of the nc; ?— Sometimes they vary from my reading of the act. For instance, the act says immedi- at"ly on receiving a report of scab, the inspector will proceed — meaning as soon as possible — to inspect those sheep, and grant a licence for three months. Mr. Davison came here, and t2 142 I had half a dozen or a dozen licences in my bag, and I pointed out the difficulty, upon wJiich he asked me whether I licensed everybody when they reported. I said I did not, but waited until I could get round to them, and he told me I must licence them by post and get round afterwaids. But the act does not say that. Sometimes I could not get round for a month, especially when I had the whole district. 3513. Mr. du Toit.~\ Do you examine sheep in the veldt because the farmers will not allow you to bring them Ut the kraal? — They have never yet opposed me iu that way, but they frequently express a wish that the sheep may not be brought to the kraal or driven about, perhaps a distance of two miles. 3514. According to the act, have they the right to refuse to bring them to the kraal in the day time ? — Thej- have no right to refuse reasonable assistance. 3515. Do 3'ou think you could thoroughly examine a flock in the open veldt, where they are aUvays running ab(3ut, and you are unable to get near enough to them ? — Not if you can't get near them, but ynu can if you drive them together, or against a fence. Some are too wild to be examined in the vcllt. They are generally examined against the fence. 3516. Don't joii think it p )?sihle, even with the utmost possible precaution, that you may overlook a small sjiot of scab when examining a large flock- of sheep, even against a fence ? — It might occur anywhere. 3517. May it not often happen that you give a man a clean bill when the sheep are not clean, and that sometimes you fortunately see one little spot, and another man's stock is quarantined .' — Not often. 3518. But it may happen ? — Certainly ; I must go by what I see. 3519. Under those circumstances, don't you think a man often has a clean bill when he docs not deserve it ? — No, I don't think many of those mistakes occur. In any case there is no hardship ; if j^ou find scab j-ou licence the owner, and if you don't and he does he must report it. There is no hardship to the individual. 3520. Do you think some people, finding a few little 'spots of scab, hand-dress them and don't report ?— N i. I think they rather neglect it. 3521. How of ten do you in.spect the flocks with clem bills? — According to the law, once in six months ; but when the area was larger I had sometimes tn go over that. 3522. Is it not possible for a man who is not perfectly honest to keep a clean biU all tlio time by hand-dressing? — It may be. 3523. If the flocks in the area were once clean, what kind of negligence would bring on scab again ? — In this division some of the kraals were not clean, or the veldt, and then there were importations. 3524. Why could not dirty kraals account for all the infection .'—It generally does when you kraal sheep with scab. A kraal will remain dirty over twelve months. 3525. Then, although there may have been no importations, might not the dirty kraals have been sufficient to cause the reinfection ? — Yes. 3526. — Even if all importations had been stopped, the clean sheep may have been reinfected by the kraals ? — If the area Is not clean ; U"C if thr' area is clean. 3527. What attemj)t did you make to have the kraals cleaned? — The inspector should Iiave control over all things like that, and if there were sufficient proof that a kraal was dirty, he should be able to close it. ;i528. Have you done that with the kraals you refer to ? — I have not the power. 3529. Is not that a great defect in the act, and ought not those who administer the act to havemade a strong point of this before ? — My representatives have stated the matter, and I can give you copies of them. 3530. Although aU importation is stopped, you admit that as long as you have no power to disinfect or close kraals, pcab may break out again? — That is one cause, especially in those parts of the country where kraaling is re.sorted to. 3531. "\V hen sheep are in poor condition, and the woather is wet, do you think a longer period should be allowed for cleansing them ? — Not necessarily ; each case should be decided by the inspect- a- on its merits. 3532. Would }ou be in favour of a compulsory scab act over those parts of the country where the she p are sometimes poor for six or nine months ? — The whole Cape Colony should come under it, wherever sheep are kept. — 3533. Don't you thi'jk the people in the north-western districts have good reason to oppose a general compulsory scab act on account of the long and severe droughts there, the poverty of the sheep, and the continuous trekking they are obliged to make ? — No more than we have. 3534. Are you acquainted with the north-western districts ? — Sections of it ; I have been to Cape Town, Beaufort West and Graaff-Reinet. 3535. Have you been to Fraserburg and so on ? — No, but I know the conditions of the climate and weather, and where there is water to drink you can clean sheep. 3536. But sometimes there is a great scarcity of water ? — You can always get sufficient for the dip. 3537. At any rate, would it not be wise not to force the act upon people in those parts of the Colony who are supposed to have so many reasons against it, but to give thenj a partial measure like a simultaneous dipping act twice in a fortnight after each shearing ? — Wo, I am in favour of one act for the whole Colony, and I maintain there is no hardship whatever. If they don't understand the dipping someone ought to go round and show them. 3*38. Ckamnan,'^ Would you like to make any further suggestions?— I have reprMented 148 these several defects in the net in various reports. At the end of section 5 of Act No. 28 of 188') there should be added the words " and the owner of such sheep or goats so infected shall Ijp bdund to account to the inspector at the reinspection after issue of licence, or at any subsequent inspection, for the number of the sheep so licensed, failing or refusing which he sh;iU be liable tu a penalty." For instance, on the 1st October, 1892, I may have inspected a flock of 1,000 sheep, and issued a licence ; the reinspection takes place on the Ist January, 1893, when the owner produces only 500 sheep, and gives no satisfactory account of the balance of 500. Under the act, the inspector is powerless to compel the o vner to account f jr them, and the supposition naturally follows that these 500 have been removed for the parpose of frustrating the provisions of the law, the owner possibly obtaining a clean bill for the 500 still in his possession after moving away a lot of scabby sheep. That is a difficulty I have sometimes esperienced. 3539. Mr. Botha.^ We see in the newspapers statements from farmers in these parts of hundreds of sheep short in their flocks, and that they don't know what becomes of them. They presume they are stolen, but have no proof of it. How would you deal with such c.ises at inspections ? — Lf a man has a thousand sheep licensed, and you go two or three months afterwards and only find three or four hundred, you would naturally conclude the balance must have been removed ; but if there are only fifty short, nothing need be said. Mr. Zouia Francois Oosthuhen examined. 3540. Chairman.'] You are a sheep farmer-in Oathcart ? — Yes; I have been hereabout thirty years, and have now about 2,000 sheep. 3511. Do you find you flr.:> abh to farm more successfully and keep scab out of your sheep better now than before the act was in force ? — I did my best before the act was in force, but since then I have always kept them clean, and 1 have a clean bill of health now. My sheep got scab once from mixing with my neighbour's, but I dipped them at onci, and stamped it out. 3542. If all the farmers carried out the principles of the act, do you think scab couhl be stamped out .'' — Yes, if all would work together, but some won't. There are still somo scabby sheep here, and they might easily have been cleaned since the winter. 3543. Are there any roads passing over your farm ? — ^Yes, people do pass over, and I have heard they have taken scabby sheep over, but I have not seen them. 3541. From the success you have had, do you think it would be to the intere.'-t of the farmers to make the act general throughout the Colony ? — If we had a general act, and the farmers did their best, we should soon eradicate scab completely, but it is no good having a partial act. 3545. Suppose it is impossible to have a general act, and a line is drawn, what would you suggest ? — I was lately in Molteno, and with the exception of Mr. Pienaar's, all the sheep were scabby, so that although some of the farmers wished to buy sheep there they could not on account of tho scab. 3546. Would you prohibit the importation of any sheep fi-om an unproclaimed intir coming into the proclaimed area ? — Not after b^ing dipped twice under proper supervision. I think the Natal arrangements are very good. 3616. Do you think it would be possible to eradicate scab unless a compulsory simul- taneous dipping act is worked in conjuntion with the scab act, in areas .' — That has been my idea from the very first, to divide the Colony into areas, and make each area dip at a certain time ; but I don't think you could dip the whole Colony at one time. 3617. Chairman.^ Have you anything else to suggest ? — 1 think the areas are too large for one man to supervise. In our area there is one inspector to inspect 1 20 farms. I don't know the number of sheep, but say one to three flocks on each farm. It does not seem fair play, and I would give 50 farms. 3618. Mr. Botha.'] How would it answer if each field-cometcy had its own inspector ? — That is my idea. You could make the inspector a field-cornet. 3619. Chairman.'] Should Oathcart have six inspectors.? — That would be better than one. 3620. Dr. Smartt.] And the flocks inspected once a month ? — Yes; they are tiot under supervision now. 3631. Mr. du Tort.] Do you buy sheep in the Stormberg ? — I do at Dordrecht and Burghersdorp, and as far as Colesberg. 3622. Do you find the sheep scabby iu the direction of Burghersdorp ?— Yes. I went in that direction prepared to buy 2,000 sheep, and to give ten shillings for them, but I saw some sheep of Mr. Joubert's, the n.ember of Parliament, so scabby that I would not give five shillings for them. That was about twelve or fifteen months ago. 3623. Mr. Francis.''^ If your suggestions for the amendment of the act were made, do 5'-ou think scab could be eradicated in two years ? — Yes, in twelve months. Mr. Nathaniel Edioard Brown, examined. 3624. Chairman.] You are a sheep farmer in Cathcart ? — Yes; I have between 4,000 and 5,000 sheep. 3625. You have heard the evidence given this morning. Will you give us your ideas on the subject? — I don't think we shall get rid of the scab in this country unless we have a general scab act throughout the whole Colony, and I would suggest that there should be a compulsory general simultaneous dipping, and if the time arranged for dipping here is not satisfactory to the Western Previuce, or suitable to the climate there, they could fix their own time. I would make the act compulsory everywhere, so as to ensure not having to do it all over again. And I would suggest that after the first two dippings any man who had scab breaking out should report it to the field-cornet or inspector, under a £20 penalty. After they have been re])Oited, the inspector should see that the sheep are dipped in a reasonable time. Also that the Government should place a quantity of the best lime and sulphur at a depot where the farmers could get it at cost price. If this were carried out, I think wo should entirely stamp out scab. 3626. Dr. Smarit.] If the Government insists upon farmers dipping their flocks, you think it is the dutj' of Government t« provide them with suitable materials at the lowest p ossible price ? — I do. 3627. Mr. Botha.] If that is done, I suppose the inspectors would know by the number of flocks in tlie various parts of the countr}' whether they have sufficient dip ? — Yes. 3628. Chairman.] Considei-ing tlie importance of the she^p industry to this Colony, don't you llii :k it would even b'" advisable to carry these dips over the railway lines free of charge, in order to h'jlp in stamping out scab, as long as the simultaneous dipping act is in force ? — Yes, I think it would pay the country to do it. 3629. Have you auything els.> to suggest ? — The areas are too large for a proper inspection. I think there should be a superintendent of dipping in each ward, and an inspector of the district as well. Mr. Edward Field Gibbons examined. 3630. Are you farming in the Cathcart district? — Yes ; I have about 1,000 sheep. 3631. Is there an3''thing you wish to say in connection with the working of the scab act? — I think there ought to be a general scab act all over the Colon}', and a compulsory simultaneous dipjnng act. At present we are always liable to infection from an unpro- claimed area t don't think a month is sufficient time after sheep have been declared clean to allow them to move ; they ought not to be moved under two months, I cannot keep my flocks clean because my neighbours always have scab. You should either do away with the present act, or have a general one. 147 Qraaff-Reinti, Tuesday, 22nd November, 1892. PRESENT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. Mr. Du ToiT. Dr. Smartt. Mr. Francis. Mr. Frederick Leisehing McCahe examined. 3fi33. Chiiirman.'] You were appointed scab inspector for area No. 17? — Yea, I was appoiut'sJ iiispoctor for the whole district in July, 1887, and about ten months afterwards it was sub-divided. 3633. I suppose it was sub-divided because you found it impossible to attend to the whole aren ? — Yes, I could not do all the work. 3634. When you took over your duties was there much scab in this district .' — Very much. 3635. Have you any idea of the percentage? — Out of something like 400,000 stock, 61,000 were visibly affected. That was just an estimate, of both sheep and goats. 3636. Can you give us the number of the sheep, irrespective of the goats ? — When the act came into force there were, as nearly as possible, 450,000 sheep and goats, and there was only a difference of 600 or 700 between the two. 3637. Did you find much scab amongst the goats as well as amongst the sheep ? — It was principally among the sheep. There was a good deal of scab among the goats, but not anything like the percentage of scab amongst sheep. Out of the 51,000 I don't suppose there were more than 3,000 goats. 3638. We wiU deal witli the sheep first. Out of something like 200,000 sheep, there were about 48,000 infected with scab ? — Yes. 3639. After the act came in force di'l you find much improvement? — It was mxrvellous for tbe first two years, and after that they seemed to go back. 3640. How do you account for that? — Principally, I think, in consequence of the light fines inflicted by the magistrate. 3641. Then you attribute it more to the working of the act than to the farmers them- selves?— Yes. 3642. What alteration would you suggest in regard to these fines, and the time allowed for the cleansing of sheep ? — In the first place I think no farmer ought to be entitled to tbe renewal of his Licence more than three times, after which there ought to be a heavy fine, without option. 3643. Would you first give three months in which to clean sheep, and afterwards give a licenoe to keep scabby sheep ? — I Wi)uld give another renewal, provided there was an improvement. 3644. Don't you think it would bo a better plan that he should pay a small fee for the first renewal ? — I would not say the first, because it may be the licence is granted at an inconvenient time of the year, perhaps in the winter, when, if scab is not bad amongst sheep, a farmer would rather not dip them at once, but put it off for a few months, and keep the disease under by hand-dressing, which must be sometimes recognised. There are times when it is almost impossible to dip sheep, therefore I think they ought to have a clear three months, and then if the sheep are not clean give them another chance. 3645. How long is it necessary to have in order to clean a flock ? — In summer I don't think more than a month in required, and if a man cannot do it in one month he won't in three. If the dip is properly mixed, the sheep kept in long enough, and the dipping altogether thoroughly done, etc., sheep will be thoroughly cured. 3646. In tlie district of Graaff-Ueinet, a Karoo district, and, as we know, one of the first in the Colony for sheep, do you see any great difficulty in cleaning a flock of sheep in the winter ? — In the Sneeuwberg there are undoubted difficulties. Sheep suffer so much in the dipping, and I have noticed it is more difficult to cure sheep in winter than in summer, how- ever well they may be dipped. 3647. I suj.pwsG you are alluding now to the grass veldt ? — In the high mountains. 3648. llive any of the Sneeuwberg farms Karoo? — Not the high ones, but there is Karoo in the lower Sneeuwberg farms. The larger portion of the Sneeuwberg farms have Karoo. 364'J. Is there any difficulty in cleansing the sheep there in less than three months ? — No, not in the lower 'part. 3650. Suppose you give a man three months, and at the expiration of that time you find he has not cleansed his sheep, and }'0u give him another three months' licence, making six 'altogether, what would you do after that ? — I would positively fine him. 3651. But that is giving him six months to do what you say can be done in one ? — Then he should be heavily fined if the sheep are not clean, because it is clear proof that the dipping is not done thoroughly. 3652. But you have gone through the winter or summer, half the year, before you do anything ? — In many cases yon might clean a flock of sheep which had had a good deal of [G. l-'94.] u 148 scab, and your kraals and grazing being infected, the chances are that after they have been cleaned, thoy will pick it up ngfiin on your own farm. 3(553. Tlion it is not on nccouict of the aitu il cleansing of tho sheep that you would givo so long, lint I ocauso you anticipate tlnit thoy may bo re-infccted?--Yes ; in a great many cases tho work is ti't thoroii;ilily done, nnil although the sheoi> are dipped thoy are not cured. Ilut il is dillicult to prove whether tiioy are proporlj- dipped or not, unless you are an oye witness, and for that reason I have always advocated the superintendence by some Huthorizod person of most dippings. In fact, until some such step is taken, scab will never bo got rid of. 3654. Do you consider it would be advisable to have a general dipping actio connection with the scab act ? — Yes. 3G55. Do you think the farmers in this district would agree to a general simultaneous dipping in connection with the scab act ? — Certainly, those who are in favour of a scab act. Most in this district would be in favour of it. 3656. Do you think the farmers who have a clean bill of health and whose sheep have been free of scab for a considerable time would agree, in the interests of the farming industry of the country, to dip their sheep provided a general simultaneous act were passed in connection with a scab act ? — I am perfectly certain that almost every farmer in that position would agree to it. 3657. Tliis area joins an unprodaimed area? — Yes, on more than one side, and I once made a statomout to Government on the subject. I had in my own area 250,000 sheep and goals, and 50,001) of these wore running about the borders of tho uaproclaimed areas — one- liftli of tho wliolo. 3658. That being the case, do you think it would be advisable that all sheep and goats shouhl be prohibited from coming across uuproclaimed into proclaimed areas as they are now ? — Certainly, unless they are first dipped on the boundary. Even if they appear to be clean, no sheep ought to be allowed in until they have been thoroughly dipped. 3659. Would you suggest that dipping tanks should be erected on the boundary of each division that adjoins a proclaimed area, and that sheep should be dipped twice and quarantined a certain number of days before they are allowed to come in ?— Certainly. There should be only certain ports of entry into the district, and provision should be made there for dipping and inspecting the sheep. 36r)0. If there were two or three ports of entry into this district, do you think you could provem sheop from entering from the unprodaimed area into the proclaimed area witliou' permits ? — It could only be prevented by heavy fines when they are caught. People would try and sunigglo tliem in, but I think it would bo possible to keep them out : most of the shet'p come in by the main roads. 306 1. If wo had three ports of entry, anyone wishing to bring sheep in and evade the law, would not, of course, bring them in that way, so that, as an inspector, do you think you could prevent them ? — I think so. 3662. Are you in favour of a general compulsory scab act, or a partial act just as we have at present? — A general act throughout the whole Colony. I tldnk it would be a great advantage if we could get a scab act in the eastern and midland districts, provided we can't get a g>'nernl act. 3663. Have you any opinion where the line of demarcation should be drawn ? — I have not exactly formed an opinion upon it ; that could be got better from traders. 3664. Would you include the whole railway syst-^m of the Colony in the proclaimed area ? — Certainly, if it could be got. I don't think it would be absolutely necessary. If we did not have a general scab act it would not be absolutely necessary to include all the railways. 3665. Will you look at this map showing the position of the different railway lines ? [Map produced.] — Yes, I think the line should include tho whole railway system of the Colony. 3666. You are aware that to the north-west of the Colony there are very large farming districts, Frazerburg, Calvinia, Prieska, and so on. What provision would you make for them to alloTT sheep to come in to supply the groat centres of consumption, which are now in a great measure supplied from there ? — If m"n were appointed to examine the sheep at the ports of entry or stations, they could allow them to pass only if thoroughly clean. 3667. You would not insist upon the sheep being dipped and quarantined before being trucked ? — I certainly' think they ought to be dipped first, because although they might not come into the proclaimed area, they use the same trucks, and might infect them. If slaughter stock are carried in a truck which is afterwards used to convey clean stock to a farm, there would be a risk of infection, and therefore I think that either the sheep should be dipped or the trucks disinfected. 3668. Still, you think it would be to the interests of the country if thoy were dipped and quarantined ? — Dipped, but I don't think it would be necessary to quarantine tliom. 3669.^ Would you allow breeding stock to be brought from an unprodaimed ar^-a into the proclaimed area? — Yes, provided they were dipped under supervision. 3670. Without being quarantined? — Yes; it shpuld be left to the man who is appoiutud there to judge whether they should have a second dipping or not, because you -somotimoR find a flock uith two or three cases of scab, and it cannot be considered to" be (•loan. In su(^h cases a thorough good dipping ought to be sufficient, but in other cases where stock is badly infected, it would be absolutely necessary to give a second dipping. A point like that ougljt to be left to the discretion of the inspector. 149 •^071. Do Tou tliiiilc a flock with only tliroo or four c^sos of scab can be thitrou^bly cured and purfectly sa.'o vvitliout n Kccond dipping ? — It can in many cases. 3672. Would you feel yourself absolutely safe in allowing a flock of sheep to come ia that had very little scab amongst them ? — I should not be satisfied that they were cured. 3673. Then why would you allow then to come in } — They might be dipped in the proclaimed area again. They might come in without any risk of infection provided they were dipped again in the area ; but I don't think any flock of sheep can be thoroughly cured unless they have two dippings. 3674. Then would you allow any flock to come into the proclaimed area, where they might be scattered broadcast, until they had been dipped twice ? — It would not be thoroughly safe, but 1 made that suggestion in order to give every chance of moving sheep, and not to put too many difficulties in the way. 3675. If sheep are dipped once under supervision, do you consider they should be allowed to be brought into the proclaimed area? — I wouM rather say no. 3676. You think thej' must have a sncoud dipping .-' — To be on the siifo .side, 3^77. You have boon scab inspector for the hist lour or five yrais ? — Five yoiirs. 3678. Would yon like to make any sun) in a kranl or pxamiuo thoiu nu tho voldt '? — f)Iton in a kraal, but it depended a goud Jfal on what suited thn farmer Viest. If lie wished to bring them into the kraal I examined them there ; if not, in the voldt. 3745. Were yon always able to examine them propo'ly in the veldt ? — It was sometimes difficult, e.specially wlien there was any doubt about a flotk, because it was necessary fo catch sheep, and if they are in the veldt it is often very difficult to get hold of them. According to our instructions, a farmer was obliged to provide sufficient boys to have these sheep caught ; but the farmer had not always got the boys. 3746. And you had no right to order the farmer to bring the sheep to the kraal ? — No. 3747. Don't ynu think you were, after all, unable to examine tliem? — Tlicre may be difficulties. He may be afraid of bringing the sheep into the kraal for fear of re-infection. 3748. How can you give a man a clean bill if you are not quite satisfied yourself tliat you have been able to examine them tlioroughly ? — Tou must catch thi^m and examine them, although there are great difficulties in the way of doing it 3749. But I understood you to say it was sunii times impassible to do it. "Wlsat do yoi do if you ca'inot examine them tlioroughly, but do it as well as you can, di you thou grant a clean bill ? — Not if there i.^ any doubt. An)' sheep th.at a^'P"'"'" doubtful must be caught, however difficult it may be. 3750. But if the farmer has not boj's enough you can't do anything? — You can do it, but it is more difficult. 3751. Don't you tliink a clean bill given in that way is not of mucli value, and that if you examined a flock of two thousand, there might have been a few spot^ of scab ou the lower parts of the bod}' and between the legs which j'ou did not see, and yet the owner would receive a clean bill ; while in another man's flock, although there is only one spot, it is more easily seen, and so that flock is put into quarantine ? — If an inspector examines a flock of sheep, and sees nothing to alarm him, I tliink he is justified in giving a clean bill. If there are small spots which he cannot see, it is not his fault. 3752. Under those circumstances, don't you think people who are opposed to the act liave good reason not to believe in the perfection of this system of clean bills ? — I don't think so. 3753. Even without counting the number of infei:ted sheep in the reports'? — If an inspector does liis work well he will very seldom be wrong, and therefore cleau bills should be relied upon. 3754. Jfr. Francis.^ If discretionary powers were given to inspectors to grant lic('nc»s for one month or three months, and there were an appeal to the magistrate, do you think that would prevent acts of injustice being committed ? — I think so. 3755. With regard to the two compiilsory dippings after sheariug, are you of o],in!on that, if a man had clean sheep, and was obliged by this act to dip tlieiu four limes in one year, it would be quite as hard upon him as the present scab act ? — In many cases it would, but I would not stand upon their being dipped twice after shearing. I think it would be better if a certain month in the year were appointed when every sheep should be dipped. 3756. But some people shear in one month and some in another. Would you be in favour of an act to make a man dip his sheep with twelve months' wool ? — I would take a month in the year when sheep would be least likelj' to suffer, and the shearing must be arranged accordingly. 3757. What guarantee would you have that the slieep did not all become reinfected within a few months' time'? — I am not in favour of a dipjiing act alone. 3758. Chairman.^ Is there anj'thing else you would like to suggest in connection wilh the working of the act? — I think it would be more workable in large districts if an inspector were appointed, with an assistant, in each field-cornetcy, to inspect the stock there, the inspector to over-look the work and see that it is propeily carried out. In that case there would be everj' convenience for permits, and the inspect ir would always be come-at-able. 3759. Would not this entail a great deal of i xpense ? — More than the present act. 3760. Would yon be likel)' to get a man in each field-cornetcy to do the work for the small amount which would bo likely to be paid to hiui?— It would not have to be too small a sum : a good man would not work for nothing. 37(;i. What would you siiggest .-' — Ab(nit £100 a ytin: 3762. How many field-cornetcies are there in this district? — Five. 3763 That would increase the expenditure under the act in this district by ubout £.'>00 a year? — Yes. 3764. Y'ou think it would be advisable to incur this extra expenditure in ord'r to stamp out the scab as quickly as pos>ible ? — Yes. 3765. Is there anything else'? — Dipping should be superintended in every case where the inspector may think it necessar}' : we shall never get rid of scab without that. 3766. I suppose you mean that farmers sometimes don't mix the dip strong enough, and don't dip properly ?■ — They don't make the dip strong enough, and don't keep the sheep in a sufficient time. In a great many cases, I have noticed that the farmer makes the dip strong enough, Init he is so afi-aid of .sjiendiiig too much money that he does not make enough of it, and when he sees the water running low he adds pure water, and bj' dipping the last lot in that spoils the whole thing. I have often witnessed that, and I consider that supervision is one of the most important points in connection with the working of the act. 153 Mr. Frederick Wateriiieyer examined. .'5767. Chairman.^ You are a produce Inoker in Graail-Koiijbt ? — Ye.s, i .-iell «oul aud skins. I don't buy. ;3768. How long have you been engaged as a broker here } — Five or six years as a broker, but I have been a produoe buyer here mauj' years before that. 3769. Tlien you have had some experience in the sale of wool and skins before the scab act tvas in force ? — Yes. .3770 Before the a«-t came in force, what was the condition of the wool and skins that came into your liands, generally speaking ? — Wo used to find a good many scabby skins and a good deal of scabby wool. 3771. Was there a great diilerence made in the price between clean and unsound wool and skins? — Certainly, especially in regard to skins. 3772. WTien the act came in force did you find any great improvement ? — Yes. 3773. Has that improvement continued until now ?— Yes. 3774. You find there are fe'yer scabby skins now than when the act came in force? — Yes. 3775. If you were told that during the last two years .scab has again increased in the district of Graafi'-Eeinet, what would you say ? — I should say it had not increased to any great extent. 3776. Would you doubt it ?— Yea. 3777. T)o you generally get the skins which come into your hands now from farmers or dcjilws? — From both. 3778. And do you sell them in the usual wiij- in large lols without sorting? — Y^es. 3779. If you had some scabby sheep or goat skins, would you sell them in a lot of superior ones .'' — In Graaif-Eeiuet the skins are generally suld in one lot ; a buyer will look at them and make his price accordingly ; if he finds any scabby it damaged ones amongst them ho makes his price accordingly, and if they are nice and clean he will naturally give a higher price. 3780. Then, according to the way that fkins are generally sold here, the buyer calculates the dejjreciation to the whole parcel from damaKf d skins, and gives a lower price for the whole lot ? — Yes, he makes an allowance for them. 3781. It has come within our knowledge that iu other parls of the Colony the skins are separated into two lots ; the scabby or damaged ones being sold by themselves, and the others also, the sound ones being sold by the weight aud the others by number ? — I know it is done in Fort Elizabeth, with both sheep imd goat skins, but it is not the practice here. They are just sold as they come to hand, unless there are some very bad inoth-eaten skins, when they are thrown on one side. If yi n have a nice clean parcel of skins you get a much better price. 3782. I suiipoi;e the bulk of the skins sold iu Graaff-Eeinet are bought up by Port Elizabeth merchants? — Certainlj' ; I think all of them are. 3783. Are there any exported direct from Graaff-Eeinet to Europe ? — I have sold skius in Port Elizabeth which I believe have been sorted here and prepared for shipment, but the buyer ships them. 3784. Does the same apply to wool ? — Yes, it passes through a Port Elizabeth house. 3785. iSo you have no knowledge of the relative prices of good and bad skiu.-" here and in England?— No. 3786. If a sample of really good skiiswere sent to you, another of good and bad nixed, and another of skins nearly all scabby, 1 snp^iose thn prito lealizi-d by the three different samjdes would vary considerably ? — Of conise. 3787. Will you give us some idea of the relative value of a parcel of good and another of mixed skins } — If I were to sell a parcel of very clean iingora skins, I should get, 4d. to 4Jd.a lb., and if they were not very scabby they wouh! lie wi rth about h.nlf that price, 2id. to 3d. There would not be so great a difference iu sIk epskins. 3788. As a matter of fact, does not a faimer los- considerably by skins if any of them are affected with s caVj ? — Decidedly. 3789. Do you get many scabby goal t-kins, oris it chietl}' confined to shetp? — Not so viry many ; 1 should say there are more sheej) tlian gouts. 3790. But you do have both the angoni ai^l the c(Uim(;n goat skins with scab ? — Yis. we btill get them. During the last few months 1 lia\e noticed uu re (f them. 3791. Are these scabby skins, whicli arc now coming iu,from the Grajitf Eeinet district? — Ctiiefly ; we get very much fewer skins from up-countiy than we used to. We get a few from Eichnioiid. 3792. How do j'orr account for the skins being more scabby now than they were a few month.s ago ? — I certainly think it is because the scab act has been repealed. I saw some wo(d hero recently from a mau whose wool I have often sold, and have never detected scab in it. but I did this year. 3793. Then do you think the repeal of the scab act is likely to be very injurious to the farming interests of the Graaff-Eeinet division? — Certainly. 3794. Mr. Francii.~\ What do you consider would be the difference in value between a bide of wool clean of scab, and a bale cf the same class of wool badly infected? — I should 6ay quite a penny a lb. 3795. Consequently every pound of wool shorn in the Graaff-Eeinet district badly irifected with scab deteriorates in price ahout a ptnny a pound ? — That is my opinion. 154 3796. Could you form a guess of what this heavy loss to the district would be ? — About 30s. a bale, and there are many thousauds of bales produced in the district. 3797. If you had two parcels of wool to purchase, one dipped and clean, and the other badly infected, but not dipped, which would you prefer to take at the same price ? — The wool which had been dipped. 3798. No matter what dip had been used ? — Yes. 3799. Are you aware of the fact that skins infected with scab are almost useless for tanning purposes ? — Yes. 3800. Under those circumstances, are you of opinion that a scab act in the district would prove a very great benefit to farmers, merchants, and all concerned? — Yes. 3801. Dr. Smartt.'] Have you any idea what percentage of skins were infected with scab during the first half of the present year ? — I could only make a guess. I should say about 5 per cent. 3802. Taking it for granted that men slaughter more scabby sheep that sound, do you think that 2^ per cent, would represent a fair average of the affected sheep in this district. —Yes. 3803. Then would you consider the return of 550 she'-p affected with scab in this district could not be correct ? — Before answering this question I should like to say it does not naturally follow that the skins which pass through my hands all come from this district, I noticed that there is a larger average of scab among the skins I have been receiving from the Eichmond district. 3804. How long is it since the act was repealed? — Two months I think. I can't say I have noticed very much more, but I have noticed some more. 3805. Do you think it is due to the repeal by the act ?— Yes. 3806. It has been stated in evidence that certain skins called hogsbacks, badly affected with scab are almost valueless ; in fact that in shipping them to London it is often an absolute loss to the shipper. Do you know that to be a fact ? — I quite believe it. 3807. Then don't you think it is an extremely bad principle, in a large centre like Graaff-Reinet, to sell skins unsorted ? — It is, but the competition is so keen here. 3808. If buyers absolutely refused to buy an unmarketable article, would it not bring more forcibly' home to the farmer the loss he sustains through scab ? — That bas always been my argument. Buyers frequently give a long price for scabby wool, and I suppose they have tlieir reasons. 3809. CAa»7na«.] Is there any suggestion you would like to make? — Only that buj-ers should make some difference in price between scabby and good produce. 0810. But owing to the system in which trade is carried on you find it impossible to carry that out ? — Yes. 3811. Mr. du Toit.'j You said you would rather purchase wool recently dipped than scabby wool. "Would you say the same if the wool was only a little scabby ? — It would just depend on how little scab there was. If there were only just a spot of scab, I should prefer the trool with only a little scab. My opinion is all dipping spoils wool, but if you Lave a bale of wool full of scab it looks bad. 3812. You admit that dipping long wool injures it? — Yes; dipping always spoils wool, and some dips are more injurious than others. 3813. C/iairman.'\ Would not the fact of your finding one small bit of scab in a bale of wool cause you to doubt how much more there was in it, and value that bale accordingly ? — As soon as I find scat I reduce the price at once, because you don't know liow much more there may be in it. 3814. Mr. Franc is. '\ Would not the very fact that wool comes from a country wliere they cultivate scab deteriorate the value of the wool on the London market, even though a particidar lot of wool contained no scab at all ? — I believe it would condemn all the wool. 3815. Dr. Smartt.'] Do you mean to say that dipping sheep at the proper time, in a recognized suitable dip, deteriorates the fibre of the wool, say from one to three monlhs' growth? — Of course, if it is dipped when the wool is short it does not deteiiorate it to that extent, but I believe that dijiping always deteriorates wool lo some extent. If you have a great deal of rain on the sheep after being dipped it might take away a good deal of tlm dip. 3816. If such is the case how do you account for the fact that the highest priced wools in the London markets are grown by Australian growers who regularly dip every year, not for scab but for tick ? — I cannot account for it. I go by my experience here, that when wool has been dipped it is imsightly and j'ou can see it at once. If it is dipped when very short and there is rain afterwards, and a good season, a good deal is washed out ; but it would be better if it were not dipped at all. 3817. We have it in evidence from a wool-washer in King William's Town that dip- ping does not make the slightest difference in washing, or deteriorate the quality of the wool, even when dipped in lime and sulphur, if it is properly done ? — I have had no experience of that. Mr. Walter Ruhidge examined. 3818. Chairman.'] You are a sheep and angora goat farmer in the district cf Aberdeen ? — Yes, although I also possess properties in Graaff-Eeinet, where I used to live. I have been there about five years. I have about 9,000 sheep and goats. 155 3919. When ww the scab act introduced into the district of Aberdeen ? — Abo»t two and a haK years ago. 3820. When you commenced farming there were your sheep and goats much infected with scab } — Fearfully. 3821. Did this state of things continue until the scab act was put in force ? — It was not as bad as when we first went there. After the scab act was put in force in Graafi-Reinet, a few began to exert themselves, and there was then a marked improvement. 3822. I presume the Aberdeen farmers found there was some benefit to be derived from the act ? — Yes, they asked to have it put in force on the border of the Graaff-Eeinet district, and afterwards it was followed by the whole district. 3823. Do you confine yourself to farming operations, or do you also speculate with stock ? — I buy a good many sheep from all parts of the Colony. 3824. Do you buy both outside and inside the proclaimed area ? — Yes. 3825. Do you find any difference in regard to scab in purchasLag sheep inside or outside the proclaimed area ? — Certainly ; I generally give 3s. or 4s. more for sheep in the proclaimed areas, free of scab, than I pay in Richmond, Hanover, and Hope Town. I buy them there for 3s. or 4s. less owing to the scab. 3826. Do you attribute that entirely to the scab } — Yes, because if I can buy them like that, others can also. 3827. Are the sheep in Hope Town and Hanover quite as valuable as sheep as they are in Graaff-Reinet } — Yes, as far as the sheep go they are quite as well bred. 3828. So the only difference is the freedom or otherwise from scab ? — Yes. 3829. When you purchase sheep outside the proclaimed area, how do you manage to bring them in ? — I always dip them once and twice, just on the border, and then I obtain a permit from two land owners. Hitherto I have been successful in obtaining land owner's certificates from Murraysburg, Victoria, Richmond, Hanover and Britstown. 3830. Have you never had scab break out amongst the sheep after you have brought them into your district from an unproclaimed area? — Once, last April. 3831. How did you manage then .^ — They were dipped the moment they got home. Every sheep I have introduced into this part of the country, notwithstanding the dippings up-country, have been re-dipped the moment they arrived on my property. 3832. Did you bring them from the boundary through the proclaimed area infected with scab ? — I suppose they must have been infected on their way down, too. I have always dipped them, but have not always cured them, as the case I have just mentioned shows. 3833. Did you dip them in the usual way .-' — Yes, but unfortunately it was late in the year. I generally buy early, in August or September, but this year I could not get my complement, and so was obliged to buy later. 3834. Do you think it would be advisable to extend the scab act beyond the present area } — Decidedly. 3835. Throughout the whole Colony } — If possible ; and if not, I would certainly draw a line somewhere. 3836. Have you any idea where the Une should be drawn? — I should take the railway line from Cape Town to Kimberley. That would be a very good line, because to the north of that very little trade is carried on from this part of the country, and it would not hamper trade so mucli. 3837. From your experience as a speculator in sheep, do you think it would be possible to keep the proclaimed area free of scab as long as sheep from an unproclaimed area are allowed to be brought into it, even though they have been dipped as you say ? — I am afraid not ; we are constantly liable to reinfection, unless, of course, the present act is so amended that properly qualified persons are appointed to superintend these dippings ; and not only should the sheep be dipped, but they should be quarantined for a month or six weeks before tliey enter the area. 3838. Then although sheep may be properly dipped twice, you don't think it would be safe to bring them in unless they were quarantined for at least a month? — I don't think so. In fact I would go further, and say at least two months ; because I have noticed that with certain dips the sheep are apparently cured, but somehow, at certain seasons of the year, scab is not so ea,sily eradicated. I don't know why it is, biit that is my experience. 3839. You believe it lies dormant much lunger tliau people imagine? — Yes; I don't kuow whether the eggs take longer to incubate during the winter, but that is my experience. From November to February scab ia easily eradicated, and any of the recognized dips properly applied will cure it, hut I have not been always so successful in the winter. 3840. You have had a groat deal of experience with sheop and the yield of wool per sheep. Can you give us an}' illustrati belougin;^ to my father. There were 1,100 of them, an4 they hud twelve months' wool, tilling when clipped 22 bales, each bale weighing ip, the average 400 lljs. The following joar some peoj)le came with scabby stock from Somerset, and these sheep became iulocted, and when they were shorn the foUow- iu,g November they were in tatters. The result uf this sheaving was 12 bale.'^, averaging only 3'JO liis. of miserable, dry, scabby wool, so much so that my father did not sell it with liis clip, l.ut disposed of it st-pavately. Another instance was whou I bought Mr. Berrange's property with the stock on it, 3,700 ^Ue&p, very scabby. I h.heared37.V bales of wool at twelve miruths. They were well-bred sheep. I dipped them, sold some and s-laughtered some, and next year I ahe^ed, not 3,700, but 3,250, and got 57^ bales of wool averaging over 400 lbs. eavsh. [G. 1.— '94.] ^ 156 3841. Do you attrihute the difference in the quantity, as well as the quality of wool, the to your having comparatively freed the sheep of scab ? — Decidedly, and my subsequent ex- perience has been the same. The sheep I buy have invariably boon scabby, and have given a miserable clip the first time, but it has been surprising and most gratifying to see the quantity of wool ihey yield at the very next shearing, with a twelve months' clip. The general run of flocks in the Colony give a handsome return when free of scab. 3842. Do you think that may be caused by a difference in the veldt, or better pasturage? — I don't think so. I have a Karoo farm, and, as you see, coming from Aberdeen Road, it is exactl}' the same veldt. I have now on two occasions received most gratifying prices, and most complimentary reports on this wool from Port Elizabeth ; and four-fifths of the wool I have sent there has been clipped from shoep which, I may say, I have picked up indiscrimi- nately in the districts of Beaufort West, Victoria West, Murraysburg, Richmond, Middel- burg, Hanover, Britstown, and Graaff-Reinet, so that I have not had a choice of any parti- cular breed, but have simply taken the general run of flocks in the Colony. 3843. Tiien do you think the return of wool from those districts outside the proclaimed area would be much better and larger if the scab act were enforced there ? — Certainly ; I should put it down at at least two pounds on the average more per sheep were they free of scab, or an increase of 30 per cent. 3844. Do you find angora goats are very liable to scab ?-«-Yes, and they are much more difficult to cure. 3845. Are they less liable to catch the infection than sheep ? — I cannot say ; it depends on the seasons. 3846. Are they not very liable to scab ? — Yes, and more difficult to cure than sheep ; they require more care. I don't think they would be so difficult to cure were they the same as the sheep in regard to showing signs of infection ; the sheep show at once that they have scab, by biting or scratching, but an angora goat may be full of scab without your knowing anything about it. I have seen many people quite deceived. All goats scratch on account of the lice, so that when you see them scratching you put it down to the lice, and they may be hard with scab before you are aware of it. 3847. Do you use the same remedies for the goats as for the sheep ? — More or less the same ; but they require a great deal of attention to cure them, especially when they are very bad. 3848. Do they require more dipping ? — They really require scrubbing to soften the hard skin, and at least three dippings. Sheep also require three dippings if they are badly infected. 3849. Does the common boer goat get scab in the same proportion as the augora ? — Worse, if anything. 3850. Would the same remedies apply ? — Yes ; but scab is easily detected in them. 3851. What would be the value of the skin of an ordinary boer goat badly infected with scab ? — I think it would be unsaleable. 3852. Do you think that the entire loss in consequence of scab amongst common boer goats would fall on the owner .?— Certainly. 3853. Prom your experience of the working of the scab act in Aberdeen, have you found any difficulties, or are there anj' alterations you would like to suggest ? — There is plenty of room for improvement. Personally, I don't require a scab act, so peojile might say I am not a fair judge, but no scab act can be too severe for me. I don't think I or anybody would suffer from the severest act that could be passed. 3854. What improvements would j'ou suggest .'' — In the first place, insufficient inspec- tion is one of the greatest defects of the present act ; there are not sufficient inspectors and they cannot possibly do the work. 3855. Would you be in favour of appointing inspectors for each field-cornetcy ? — Yes, decidedly, and al^o a head inspector in each district. I would also curtail the time for the licenceo. Of course, a great deal would have to bo left to the discretion of the inspector ; it would be difficult to make a hard and fast rule, but I certainly think that where sheep have not more than four or six months' wool a fortnight's licence is ample. 3856. I understood you to say that iu mauy cases they would require three dippiugs ? — I mean they sliould not delay moru than a fortnight after the inspection has beeu made, and I would not grant a licence without payment. 3857. Would you have a payment for the first licence? — No, not the first. 3858. How long wouM you give after the report was made V — ' )tie m'inth without a licence, and after that the licence should be paid for. After that I shoaid say he is not to be trustfd with liis own flock, and that the dipping should be done un ler the supervision of projjerly appointed men. I would not give a second liceni'?. 3859. It has been suggested that, in order to effectually carry out a general scab act, it should be combined with a general simultaneous compulsory dipping act. What do you think of the proposal ? — It is a very good one ; it would cost a good deal to put in practice, liut iu a case of this kind I dont thiuk we shoiJd consider the expense. The return will bo so handsome that it will more than doublj' recoup the outlay. If we could get a general act all over the dolony, I should certainly advise the simultaneous dipping. It would, of course, be very inconvenient, because while some are shearing otiiers are reaping, but I am strongly ■ of ojjinion that it can and ought to be done. 3860. Do you think it would be possible t.> have this simultaneous dipping throughout the Colony within a couple of months, say October and November, or about then ? — In our part the shearing isgenfnally over by December; in the Scieeuw berg the reaping commences 157 just a littleafter, and that would perhaps interfere. I think that January, just after thenew year would perhaps suit the whole Colony better. No doubt those who shear in October would, have their wool rather longer, but we must bow to the general good and not consider differ- ent individuals and localities. It would be for the legislature to decide what month it must be, but I think a general dipping could be carried out in January, more or less on the same principles as the census was taken, in circles properly superintended. 3861. As a large owner of sheep, supposing your sheep were free of scab, and had been for some time, would you be willing to dip them at that time to try at once to stamp out scab ? — Certainly. 3862. Do you think all large flock owners would agree to it ? — Yes, for the sake of their flocks and of the Colony generally. I would, certaiuly. 3863. As a speculator purchasing sheep outside the area, you have no doubt found some difficulty at times in getting them moved in ? — Never. Unfortunately, to my ideas, things went too easily ; and I consider it is a gross injustice to those people living in the proclaimed areas that it should be possible to bring sheep in as I have been able to do. 3864. Don't you sometimes find a difficulty in getting them dipped ? — Not at all ; I generally found plenty of tanks all along, shops where I could buy the dip, and generally I was not far from a village where it can always be bought. I never found any difficulty. The .«heep cannot travel as fast as I can. 3865. Don't you think many speculators who are not so at5sious to prevent the spread of scab as you have been, have brought sheep in without dipping them ? — I have seen it. 3866. Then do you think it -Niould be advisable, provided a Une is drawn, to reduce the number of entrances into the proclaimed area, and that provision should be made for the dipping of any flocks that may be brought in ? — Yes, and that they should be dipped under the supervision of a properly qualified man. 3867. And quarantined ? — Yes. 3868. If that were done, do you think there would be very little danger of scab being brought in ? — Even if there ^^-ere no danger from the sheep, how about the wool and skins brought in? There is no quarantining of them; and you find smo uses going up-country and buj-ing skins and wool, and I have seen them spreading them out, scabby, on a man's farm in the proclaimed area. 3869. What provision would you suggest in regard to them? — I am afraid my only answer is, a general act. I have more than once thought the matter over, and I have never once gone up-country to buy sheep but I have noticed it. A case cropped up between my farm and the station at Aberdeen Eoad, with a man there who has never hud a cloan bill, and who infected one of my flocks. There is no provision made about the slaughter of scabby sheep, so a man can sell a scabby sheep, and cut its throat before parting with it. 3870. You can't interfere with the ordinary trade of the country ? — No ; a general scab act is the only remedy. 3871. You are firmly of opinion that untU we get a general scab act we shall always have outbreaks of scab .-' — Certainly. 3872. Do you think it would be impossible to have a port of entry where these smouses' carts and wagons could be searched ? — It would be no use unless they are di.sinfected, and j,e kept on tlie farm \i belonged to, and scab woiild not tie sown broadtast. 3981. Tiifu you don't coiisidiT the present scab act stiingeut enough? — I would nut make it as stringent as Mr. iiubiJge wants, because I think he is going too far. If you. introduce a general act you m ust make it more lenient, and at the same time punish the man who trangresses it. lea 3982. How do you reoonoilo that with your statement that if a man is allowed to movs soabby sheep in the way he is now wo shall not be able to stamp out the disease ? — It cannot be stamped out if men are allowed to move scabby sheep. 3983. Then you must make the act more stringent ? — In certain re-speots I kaow a farmer in this district who has not had scab on his far^n for five years, aad yet he has not the right to send his sheep away without a permit. If a butcher comoa to him to buy stock he cannot send them away without a poraifc, aud in this way he of oei 1 isn thi sale . 3984. Since that man's sheep are clean, the law could easily be amended to meet such a case, since he does not spread scab by moving clean sheejD. But what I want to know is, how do you say you would not allow a man to remove scabby sheep, yet in order to work the act it must be made more lenient? — Yes, if a man's sheep are clean, that he need not go to an inspector and ask for a permit. 3985. Could not that be met by the permit system .'' Tou say the s:'ab act must be made more lenient; on the other hand you say that as long as you allow scabby sheep to be moved off the farm on which they are, the disease is spread broadcast. Is not your proposition to make the act more stringent .'' — Under the present act, if a man has three flocks of sheep on his farm, and one is slightly infected, but the other two flocks are at different stations, and have not come into contact with the infected flock, he has no right to move his sheep away from there, and I think that is an injustice and a hardship. 3986. Then would you be in favour of altering the law in that respect and allowing a man who has a clean bill of health for a certain flock of sheep to move them on his own permit, and if so, for what length of time should he have held the clean bill 'i — Say for three months. 3987. Suppose he did so, and scab broke out among them on the road, what would you do } — It is hard to say. 3988. Would you fine him for moving them? — If he knewthere was scab amongst the flock. 3989. If men took advantage of this to move scabby sheep, would you not have some fine ? — A man who would move scabby sheep knowingly must be fined. 3990. Heavily .'—Yes. 3991. In what other respects would you make the act more lenient ? — A farmer was occupying some hired ground near here, and when his lease was nearly up he sent a written notice to the inspector that he had to leave with his flocks, which were all clean, on a certain day. The inspector was out on his rounds, and did not receive the letters until after the man had left, but the man was brought up and fiued £1 for having moved without a permit, although his sheep were clean, and it cost the Q-overnment £15. Why could not that man move his clean sheep without the law compelling him to have a permit first ? 3992. But your suggestion to remove without a permit covers all that ? — Yes. 3993. Is there any other particular point ? — At present, when an inspector comes to a farm and believes there is scab among the sheep, he can cj[uarantine them, perhaps when he only sees one of them scratching, and sheep often scratch for rooigras. That should be altered so that the inspector should be positive there is scab amongst the sheep before he quarantines them. Another hardship is, why should anyone have to give notice to an inspector if there is scab amongst his .sheep ? If there is scab, he should try and eradicate it, but section seven of the act of 1886 says, he maj- be fined £5 if h© does not give notice. I don't see the necessity for a man to give notice, it is for the inspector to bring him up if he comes to the place and finds the man has not done his duty. 3994. But you will admit it is impossible for the inspector to visit and examine every flock of sheep and goats in the district of Graaff-Reinet in a reasonable time, so how is he to know.? Suppose he examines a flock close to the town to-day, how is he to know that it remains free ? — When he visits the place again. 3995. But unless he gets information from the owner it may be mouths before he comes again ? — ^Thon I say, punish the man if he has scab on his farm. 3996. How would that make the law more lenient ? — If the inspector comes there, and sees the man has dipped or hand-dressed, he can quarantine them or givethem a licence as he does now. 3997. Then you consider hand-dressing should be recognised in the act? — Yes. 3998. Are j'ou speaking now as a practical farmer ? — Yes. 3999. Do you say that scab can be eradicated by hand-dressing ? — Yes, I have seen it done, not whole flocks, but sheep amongst the flocks. According to section seventeen of Act No. 17 of 1887, scabby sheep straying on a ni'm's farm can be sent to the pound, but he need not hand-dvess or dip them. Now that ought to be seen to and altered. If a man has two fiirms and is under quarantine, and can't send sheep from one farm to another, why should scabby sheep be allowed to be driven to a pound over another farm ? And I woidd suggest that no man should be allowed to send sheep to a pound unless l^e has properly dipped them first. We know how Act No. 5 of 1888 has been infringed upcm by people driving sheep from uuproclaimed areas through thi' proclaimed area by simply getting a certificate from two farmers without a permit from the inspector, and I believe the act says most distinctly that the two farmers must fir.it give the certificate and then the inspector issues a permit. Unless you can get a general act I would make it in this way, that no stock should be introduced into the proclaimed area from an uuproclaimed area unless they are perfectly clean, because we have often seen dipping inefiiciently done. 4000. Would you suggest that dipping tanks should be erected on the boundaries, where the sheep should be dipped under supervision? — I think that would be too expensive. [G. 1.— '94.] T 164 4001. Then how are you to satisfy yourself that the sheep are properly dipped ? — It is a difficult matter to deal with, but I say thnj' should not be introduced ualesi they are per- fectly clean. 4002. How is the inspector on the border to satisfy him.59lf ualejs he dips them? — He can tell by looking through them whether they may be passed . 4003. But although the sheep may appear cl«an to-day, scab may break out two days later .' — Tes, but not so badly as to infect others. 4004. You don't think it is contagious whea it first breaks out ? — At first it is only one or two isolated spots ; it is only when it is more advanced that it infects others. 4005. Then you don't think it is as infectious as people say ? — It is very infectious. 4006. You don't think half-a-doxen sheep with several small spots on them would infect other sheep ? — They might be hand-dressed. 4007. And supposing scab broke out the day after the inspector had seen them? — Then he can't help it. 4008. But the sheep would already be in the proclaimed area ? — Yes. 4009. What is to be done with them then ? — Then it is for the owner of the property where they are running to impound them, dipping them first. 4010. But suppose it is on a public road?— They must be dipped properly in the pUce where they are before they are sent to the pound. 4011. Have you any other sug^estious .■^ — In regard to the certificate given by two landed proprietors, I don't think anv two farmers could be f )uud who would kaowingly give a wrong one, but why must this difference be made between two fai-mers and in inspactor ? He may give a certificate, and if scab breaks out in a day or two he is n )t liable to a fiae, but the land owners are liable to a £20 fine, aad I think it is aa injustice to a farmer. 4012. Would you propose that the inspector should be liable to the same peaalty ? — Either that or do away with the other, but I should say put them both under the same liability if it can be proved that they wilfully give a false certificate. One reason why Qraaff-Reinet petitioned to have the act suspended was because there are surrounding districts where the act is not in force, and the sheep from there wore continually trespassing over the borders and infecting the flocks here. 4013. From your last remark I conclude that the Graaff-Eeinet district and you yourself are personally in favour of a general scab act ? — I speak for myself, and though I believe there are some who ai'e against it I believe the majority are in favour of a general act, but not of this one. 4014. If the importation of sheep from an unproclaimed area into the proclaimed area of Graaff-Eeinet were totally prohibited, would you yourself recommend that the act be again put in force here ? — It would retard trade too much to do anything of that kind. 401.5. Dou you know that scabby sheep have been moved under permit from farms in this area to the town ?— They have been sent to the butcher for slaughter purposes, after being hand-dressed, but the butcher told me they were hardly here when he had to kill them as fast as he could on account of the scab. I did not see the sheejo myself. 4016. What remedy would you propose for that ? — No infected sheep ought to be moved. 4017. Do you think no hand-dressed sheep should be put on the raQway at all? — If they are properly haad-dressed. 4018. I suppose the in.spector would not pass them unless he considered they were properly hand-dressed ? — It is very diificult to tell when the wool is long. 4019. Would you allow an}'^ sheep to be sent from any part tf an area into the town to be slaughtered unless they are properly dipped ? — No. 4020. Then you don't think the act is stringent enough? — The act may be, but the latitude allowed to the inspectors is too great. 4021. Mr. du Toit.'] If you had to choose between astringent act over a certain part of the Colony and a very lenient one over the whole Colony, which would you choose ? — I heard what Mr. Eubidge said and I don't agree with him. I would not have a stringent act over a part of the Colonj' but a lenient one over the whole. 4022. WouLl you have it so lenient as to have only a simultaneous dipping act over the whole Colony, farmers having merely to make a statement that they have complied with it, and doing away with the inspectors and all other restrictions } — I don't see how j'ou can have a certain time for dipping throughout the Colony, because in some places thej' shear in March, and in other places iuNovember, so the)' would have long wool in December, and I don't see how they could dip then. Besides, I don't see why a man should be compelled to dip if his sheep are perfectly clean. 4023. If we were to take February and March, don't you think that would be the mos suitable time for the whole Colon}-, so as to give people a chance to shear in August and again in February and March ? — We never shear here in August, it is too cold. We usually shear in November or March. If we shear in November the sheep have not to carry such a heavy fleece during the hot summer months. I think March and April would be the best time to dip because the wool sheared in November would not be so long then. 4024. Then you would not be in favour of a simultaneous dipping act as I suggested ? — If it could be arranged to have a couple of months in the year to compel people whose sheep are infected to dip them, but I don't see why he should dip them if they are not infected. 4025. But you mu^t meet the case somehow. If there is a simultaneous dipping act the man with the clean sheep must dip for the benefit of the whole colony ? — That would, perhaps, materially assist to eradicate scab. 165 4026. Would yoTi be in favom- of such a measure ? — I still think that where a man's sheep have been clean for years he ought not to be compelled to dip. 4027. Not for the sake of the general good? — It would be a hardship to have to spend the money. There would be very few in that position with perfectly clean bills. 4028. Mr. Francis.^ You say you have seen sheep lose their wool entirely through scab ? — Yes. 4029. How much wool do you think a sheep gives on an average in one year ? — It all depends on the class of sheep. You will find some sheep give four and same eight : say an average of six. 4030. Then the sheep you saw which had lost all their wool would have lost about six pounds each on an average .'' — Yes. 4031. Have you seen more than one? — Yes. 4032. Mr. Kubidge calculates the loss of wool at an average of only two pounds a sheep ? — But if you find a hundred with no wool on, it would not enable the loss he estimates. Still, the Colony suffers a great loss through the scab. If a man had 10,000 sheep, and a hundred had lost all their wool, it would not make the remaining 9,900 lose two pounds each. Mr. Oijslert Henry Maasdorp examined. 4033. Chairman.'] You have been farming in this district for many years ?— Yes, with both sheep and goats. My experience is principally with goats. At present I have about 2,400 angoras, and an interest in 2,300 sheep. 4034. Do you agree with the evidence given by Mr. Eubidge } — Yes, in the main. There are a few details upon which I differ. 4035. WiU you state in what respects jou don't agree ? — One thing strikes me that I don't agree with him in the area I would place under the act. I am in favour of a com- pulsory scab act, but since I am pretty sure it is not possible I would accept a compromise, and have a scab act over a portion of the Colony, making the Orange Eiver the boundary on the north, and including the whole district of Hope Town. I don't see why that part of the Hope Town district which lies to the north of the Cape Town line shotild be excluded, because it is a portion of the Hope Town district which also has dealings with Port Elizabeth, and I think we should make the area as much as possible to include those places dealing with Port Elizabeth, both with slaughter-stock, wool and skins. I would come down along the western boundaries of Hope Town, Brit's Town, Victoria West, Beaufort West, Willowmore and ITniondale down to the Knysna. I think then we should include almost the whole area that has dealings with Port Elizabeth in slaughter stock, wool and skins, and I think the little inconvenience suffered by the portions excluded would be trifling in comparison with the benefits the other districts would derive. Prince Albert is too large, and would have to be divided. 4036. If that line were agreed to, would you allow any sheep to come from the western province over the boundary into the eastern province ? — Only under certain very strict conditions ; I should certainly insist upon their being only adniitted at certain ports of entry, after being carefully dipped and quarantined : a mere dipping would not be sufficient. I don't apprehend any great hardship from this arrangement, because if such a line is drawn the trade will naturally drift towards Cape Town, and I look upon the districts I have included as being more or less self-supporting, which can do without the others, and you would not ijitcrfere with the others, as they go from a proclaimed area into an unproclaimed area. 4037. Do you think an open boundary such as you propose could be kept ? — I have not the least doubt it would be beset with very many diffietilties, but I don't see what we can do in this matter without having to contend with difficulties, and I look upon this as the least of a number of other evils. 4038. If the boundary were fenced along its whole length, do you think there would be less danger of infection ? — Decidedly, because a great deal of infection is caused not only by importations from other districts but also by contact with adjoining farms. Sheep stray over the border on to another farm, and come into contact with others. 4039. Do you think in the interests of the proclaimed area the Government would be warranted in going to the expense of fencing that line ? — I don't see any objections to it, because under any circumstances it would be of use to the people adjoining it. 404 0. But do you think the Government would be warranted in fencing that line, independently of the act, for the purj)ose of separating the proclaimed from the unpro- claimed area ? — I think so ; I think the utility of the work would warrant the expense. 4041. And if that were done, and stock were only allowed to come in at the port of entry, you think there would be a chance of keeping scab out ? — Yes. 4042. Would you allow breeding stock to come in from the unproclaimed area, or only slaughter stock ? — I believe the trade is mostly in slaughter stock, and that there is very little breeding stock. I would allow them to cime in under the same conditions. 4043. Is there any other point ?— If we admit skins and wool I think we should admit stock too, if the risk of infection is equal ; but I think the risk of infection is much greater from live stock than it is from skins and wool. I see no difficulty as regards skins and wool if the trucks are properly disinfected at Port Elizabeth before they leave again, and it •hould be the duty of the railway officials to see that this is done. In regard to the appoint- y2 166 ment of inspectors, I vroiild leave it as it is at present, ia tlie hands of the divisional councils. I don't think you could find a more competent body to make a recommendation of that kind. 40-14. You don't think it would be advisa])ln to leave it in the hands of the farmers themselves, at a public meeting? — No, if it is left to be decided by too many people you will Iiave so many conflicting interests that they will never arrive at a decision at all. I don't quite agree with Mr. Rubidge that the vote should be according to the number of sheep instead of the number of proprietors ; I would not give the power to property, and I am opposed to a cumulative vote in any shape or form, and certainly in that also. I would leave it as it is. I think the pound law meets the case of a farmer with a clean bill in an unpi-oclaiiued area, and j-ou can give him no more protection ; the friction between neighbours would be too great if the same facilities were granted there as in the proclaimed area. I would rather leave a case like that alone, and it would tend to increase the necessity to come under the act. 4045. In case a fieldeornetcy or farms adjoining the line you have drawn wished to come into the area, would you allow it? — I see no objection to admitting any portion adjoining the area, whether a single farm or a fieldeornetcy. I think it would spread the act so much the sooner 4046. Dr. Smarft.^ Do you consider Mr. Rubidge's estimate of two pounds per sheep a correct one of the loss in wool through scab ? — I don't think it is at all too much, judging from the figures given, and I have no reason to doubt their correctuf ss. According to those figures our sheep average 4 lbs. of wool, but they must be very bad to average only 4 lbs., aud I think our sheep, taking them on an average throughout the country, are good enough to average 6 lbs. at the very least, so I think Mr. Eubidge is within rather than beyond the mark. 4047. Do you agree with regard to the compulsory simultaneous dipping? — No, I am afraid that would be importing into the act an unnecessary harassing clause. 4048. Chairman.'^ Is there anything else you woidd suggest? — With the exception of those one or two points I agi-ee with Mr. Eubidge. I would only state that the time has certainly arrived when we must either go forward or backward: we can't stand as we are now ; and the only way to get out of the difficulty is to go forward and increase the area. 4049. But the act ia now repealed in this district ?- Yes, and we are a little bit worse off than we were before. 4050. Then as a matter of fact you are going backwards ? — Decidedly. 4051. Do you look with a good deal of anxiety upon that retrograde step? — Yes, and if we don't stop this movement we shall go further back still, to avoid which we must go forward, and to my mind the extension of the area is the only workable scheme. There is no doubt that under the act there were hardships caused by the constant risk of re-infection. It was hard for individuals living on the border, and extremely hard for those living on the main roads. I can speak from experience, having a farm on the main road from the Murra3'sburg district, from where a great deal of wool and skins come, and on a farm like that it is almost a matter of impossibility to keep your sheep free of scab, because tlie risks of re-infection are so various. There is the risk from wool coming across the farm in tattered wool bales, or getting torn open and the scabby wool dropping along the main road, and the sheep graze over there and pick up .scab. The same with skins. There is the risk from stock being constantly admitted in a scabby state along the main roads, so that a man situated in that way cannot possibh- keep Ids stock clean. I don't altogether blame peopin for having expiessed a good deal of dis.satisfaclion with the old act, but I cons-ider thnt dissatisf iction, as it has found expression in the distiict, has been very much exaggerateil . and that the act has not been treated upon its merits, other matters having been imported into the question quite independent of the act ; and if the district were now to be canvassed again you would not find a majority of two-thirds against it to-day. There are many who are very (-orry now they signed the petition for the repeal of the act, and who would not do so again. Many signed under a misapprehension, thinking they were simply petitioning for a temporary suspension of the act with a view to obtaining a general one. Others who were really opposed to it suffer such hardships undf-r the pre.sent condition of things that they would be glad to come back to the former condition. 4052. Then do you think they are now feeling the effects of not having a scab act in force ? — Decidedly ; I don't care to mention names, but I know from my own personal acquaintance thit a great change of feeling has taken place. 4053. Dr Smartl.'\ You don't agree with the stitement made by Mr. Neeser that the act has been perfectly inoperative in coping with th.« scab in this district ? — No, I must candidly confess I was very much surprised at that statement, because I think it is so patent to everjone that it can almost be seen with one's eyes shut that there is less scab in the district now than when the act came into operation. You need only go to the morning market to see little lots of sheep sold ; formerly they used to come in with the wool falling off them, but lately you hardly see a speck of scab on them, and you<^ften see whole flocks of 700 or 800 sheop j.assiug through without a speck of visible scab on them. I think that is sufficient evidence that the act has made a wonderful difference, izithout going into statistics, b. cause I have not prepared them. Then in the matter of wool, we know very well wliat sort of wool u-e.l to come into the town for sale. At one time, stuff one would be almost ashamed to own, but the last few j-ears it has been a pleasure to see the wool brought in from the district. There has been some wool from Hope Town and beyond, with which we could make a comparison, and tho contrast is very great indeed. 1«7 4054. Mr. du Toit.'] When did you get the last lot of wool from Hope Town? — I don't get it myself. 405.5. Have you had any wool from there since the midland railway has been extended ? — I cannot say exactly from Hope Town, but from that direction. It comes from the unproclaimed area. Graaff-Reinet, Wednesday, 2Zrd Novemler, 1892. PRESENT : Ml'. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. Mr. DTj Toit. Dr. SilARTT. Mr. Fra>'cis. Mr. Jacobus Francis du Toit examined. 4056. ChairrHan.'\ You are a sheep farmer in this district? — Yes, for some years. I have between 3,000 and 4,000 sheep and goats. 4057. When you began farming here, was scab very prevalent among the sheep and goats ? — IJcan't say it was more prevalent than it is at present. 4058. "^Tien were you first seriously troubled with scab in this district .-■ — During the last two years there has been more scab than ever. 4059. When the act was first put in force in the district, was scab as prevalent as it is now ? — As far as I can remember it was not as bad as it has been during the last two years. 4060. I understand you to say when the scab act was first enforced here there was less scab than there is now ? — Yes. 4061. How do you account for that ? — When the inspector first visited my sheep he said there were very few flocks like that in South Africa, they were so free of scab ; but during the last two years they have been very bad. This is due to unfavourable seasons. 4062. Do you find more difficulty in preventing your sheep getting scab now than you did then, even in the wet seasons .' — During the last two years I have had more difficulty than I had before the act was put in force. 4063. Do you mean the sheep are more liable to infection, or what? — I don't know the reason, but that is the case. 4064. When scab breaks out in your sheep now, do you dip them ? — Yes. 4065. How often .-' — Perhaps three or four times, until they are better, according to the instructions on the dips. 4066. Formerly, when scab broke out amongst your sheep, did you dip them in the same way as you do now } — Yes. 4067. And cured them? — Yes. 4068. If you do the same thing now, surely you will have the same results ? — It should be so, and I cannot say whj' it is not, but the scab begins again very soon afterwards. 4069. In cases where the scab breaks out again soon after you have dipped, do you find the sheep have mixed with other flocks ? — No, it has been proved that they don't come into contact with other sheep, and yet the scab breaks out. 4070. From that I understand you to believe that scab comes spontaneously ? -Yes, though I don't believe it is as contagious as people say. Last April two strange rams came to my place covered with scab, and at the end of April I put eleven of my rams with them, and the}- ran together in the veldt. Four months afterwards I brought all these rams to the homestead, and got two people to inspect them, and the two rams I spoke of were fearfully soabbj', but there was n>t a spot on the other eleven. 4071. And these thii-teen rams had been running together and sleeping together during the whole of the four months ? — Yes. 4072. Then do you think there is no fear of one sheep being infected by another? — According to my experience I cannot believe it. 4073. Huljing that opinion, I suppose you could have no objection to seeing a lot of scabby sheep turned in amongst a flock of your sheep which were perfectly clean ? — I don't believe it is contageous, but I should not like that. 4074. But if you are firmly of that opinion, what objection could you have? — It would g^ve my sheop an uglj- appearance. 4075. If your sheep don't become infected, how do they get ill-looking.' — If a stranger came he would see the scabbj* sheep amongst mine, and it would look bad. 4076. You would not mind them mixing with your own sheep ? — No, personally I don't mind. 4077. What do you consider scab is ? — It is a disease of the blood, and is due to bad treatment. 4078. Though you saj' it com s from the blood, don't you generally find it in the skin } — When there is si;ab, a pimple appsars on the skin, and then the scab comes. 4079. Then the remedies you would apply would be internal? — Internal and external ; I give medicines, and wash them as well. 4080. Do you believe it is a blood disease, pure and simple ? — Yes. 4081. Have you not seen a flock of sheep badly infected with scab, which has been properly dipped and thoroughly cured ? — I have seen them cured for a time. 168 4082. For how long? — Sometimes for six months or longer, and sometimes for onlj foui'teen days. 4083. Is that after two dippings ? — Yes. 4084. What was done with these sheep that only remained dean for fourteen days ; were they put into kraals ? — My sheep never come into the kraal. 4085. And no scabby sheep are mixed with them .-' — No, I am quite sure of that. 4086. Were the sheep which remained clean for six months treated in the same way? — Exactly- 4087. Then how do you account for one lot remaining clean only fourteen days and another lot six months ? — It is difficult to sa}'. Some good shepherds' sheep seem to remain clean longer than others. 4088. Then I presiune you think the scab depends a great deal on the shepherds ? — A great deal. 4089. Is it because one shepherd is more careful in keeping his sheep away from scabby kraals and other places than another .'' — No, one man treats the sheep better than another. For instance, one shepherd wiU drive his sheep too quickly to water, so that they are warm when they arrive there, and he drives them quickly back again, and that causes scab to break out. 4090 Then you don't believe scab is an insect .' — No, it is not caused by an insect. 4091. Has the inspector never shown you the insect ? — No, I have never seen it. 4092. You believe scab is entirely occasioned by overdriving, and things of that kind ? — Yes, bad treatment. 4093. Then do you think the scab act is valueless as a measure for stamping out scab ? — According to my experience it has not answered the expectations which were formed of it. 4094. If I tell you there is an area in the Colony perfectly free of scab, and that the commission has examined 25,000 sheep there without finding any signs of scab, and that the freedom of this area from scab is attributable to the dipping of the flocks, I suppose j'ou would scarcely believe it .-' — I believe you, because I think j-ou are a person to be believed. 4095. But j'lHi don't think it has beea done by the farmers working with the inspector, dipping their flocks thoroughh-, and keeping infected sheep out of their area ? — No. 4096. You think no matter what they do, scab will break out now and then amongst those flocks .'' — Yes. 4097. Don't you know any farms in this district which have been free of scab for four or five years .'' — I have been told there are a few farms, and they are farms which are fenced ; but 1 have also been told of a person whose dipping tank was grown over for want of use, his sheep being clean, but since the act came into operation he has never had a clean bill of health. 4098. Can you account for that in any way .' — No, I only heard it 4099. I sujjposeyoii are one of the farmers who are very anxious to get the scab act repealed throughout the whole Colony ?— Yes. 4100. You believe the act has only made it more difficult for you to carry on your farming operations .^ — Yes, I have not seen that it has done any good; scab is just as prevalent, wool has not improved, and any improvement that may have taken place I attribute to the people themselves, improving the breed of their stock. 4101. M): Francis.'] If .you were convinced that we could by any means stamp scab out of the Colony, so that we should never have it again, don't you think it would be a benefit to the Colony ? — Yes. 4102. Do you believe that in colonics where they have far more sheep than we, the scab has been eradicated for years ? — I have ; ard that such is the case in Australia. 4103. Do you believe it } — I behove it so far, because I have heard it from good authority, but it is very difficult for me to believe it. 4104. Then you believe it, and yet you don't believe it ? — Yes. What seems to me very extraordinary is that they say they have eradicated scab, and stiU they are constantly dipping ; and what is still more extraordinary is that they say they can eradicate the scab insect, but must continue to dip for the tick. If they can eradicate the one why not the other ? 4105. Do you believe that certain animals have certain parasites, which only live upon those auimals? — I have not experienced it. 4106. Are you not aware of the fact that the tick lires not only on sheep, but on most of the other animils, even on man himself V — Yes, and on grass. 4107. Consequently you cannot kill aU the ticks in the country as easily as you can kill an insect that lives only on one animal ? — That may be true. 4108. Then you don't think it would be more difficult to destroy the ticks in Australia than to destroy certain parasites that onl}' affect one animal ':* — Yes. 4109. If I tell you that aU the thousands of practical farmers who have studied this subject, and aU the scientific men in Europe and Australia, and throughout the world, declare that scab comes from a little iusect, do you think they are right or wrong ? — I think they are wrong, if I follow my own opinion^'. 4110. Then 3-ou consider that you know better than all these men who have studied the subject? — I speak from my own experience, founded upon facts. 4111. Mr. Botha.] You consider it quite as possible that the insect may be caused by the scab as the scab by an insect ? — Yes. 4112. Your great doubt whether it is possible to eradicate scab arises from the fact that yoii see some of your neighbours, very intelligent men, trying their level best to eradicate , scab, and they fail notwithstanding they dip a great many tim^s '? — Yes, 4113. How many times do you know of a neighbour having dipped regularly during one year without having been able to cure his sheep? — One of my neighbours dipped twelve times in one year without curing the sheep. 4114. With such facts under your own observation, it makes it impossible for you to believe it can be era iicated ? — Yes. 4115. Dr. Smartt.'\ Would you kindly tell me how you dip your sheep? — I prefer a tobacco dip, if I can get it. I put 100 lbs. of tobacco to 400 gallons of water, let it draw well, and then use it. 4116. Do you mix with boiling water ? — I put it into the water and then boil it at once. 4117. You don't allow the dip to remain over in the cold water for the night ? — Some- times I do it in the evening, and put fire to it in the morning, and then dip. 4118. How many sheep do you dip in one day? — On a long day I sometimes dip up to 1,000 or 1,200. 4119. How many hours do you dip on an ordinary dipping day ? — I commence very early, at daybreak, and I finish about three in the afternooa. 4120. How long do you keep the sheep in the dip .' —I have a good, long dip, and I put them in on their backs ; if they are a little scabby I keep them some time in the dip, and make them swim all about. The tank is twelve feet long. 4121. When do you dip again? — A fortnight later if they aie bad, but if they are clean I don't dip them a second time. 4122. Under the circumstances then you will acknowledge that, when you said you dip according to the directions on the printed packages of the patent dips, if you have not really done so, since if the sheep are not bad you sometimes only dip them once ? — There are no directions on the tobacco dip. 4123. But are you not aware that one dipping is, as a rule, useless to eradicate scab ? — No, I have found out when I shear in January that they have remained clean for seven- teen months after dipping. 4124. Did you report those two rams that mixed with your flocks ? — No ; I knew to whom they belonged. 4125. As a practical farmer in this district, you mean to say that you neglected to report them under the act ? — These sheep belonged to a neighbour of mine, and were on the mountain. 4126. Do you think there are many farmers in the district who neglected to report scab when it appeared among their flocks ? — They used to do it while the act was in force. 4127. But you did not ? — I had scab at the time. 4128 Have you ever brought anybody up under the provisions of the act? — Once I told the inspector about some natives who moved away from me. 4129. Had they trekked over your farm with scabby sheep ? — No, they moved off my farm with scabby goats. 4130. Why did you report them ? — Because they damaged me. 4131. Did they infect your goats .-' — No, they annoyed me. 4132. You consider the evidence we reneived here yesterday from some large farmers, that scab is much less prevalent in this district now than it was some years ago, to be false ? — -They give no case in point, and therefore I doubt it. 4133. You consider scab is greatly due to bad seasons and bad treatment .-' — Yes. 4134. Can you reconcile that with the fact that the last two seasons have been the beet for years ? — The winter before last scab was very bad, but last winter it was worse than we have ever had it. 4135. Do you believe that proper dipping tends to keep the scab under ? — Temporarily. 4136. Do you think that dipping, properly carried out all over the country, would have the tendency to greatly diminish scab ? — Yes, temporarily. 4137. Under the circumstances, don't you think a scab act properly administered would also tend to keep the scab down ? — No. 4138. Mr. (lu Toit.^ Have you ever had three or four scabby sheep amongst your flocks which have become quite cured without hand-dressing or any other treatment? — Yes, when rain comes and the season is good, they get cured without any dipping or hand-dress- ing. And I have also noticed that if j'ou catch a scabby sheep aud let him run alone near a vley or with very good pasturage, he will get cured by himself. 4139. Have you observed that those sheep have recovered and that the rest of the flock remained clean ? — Yes, at one time I had a clean bill, and my next neighbour's sheep were in a wretched condition. The inspector came to examine my sheep, and after he had done so, near the boundary, and found them clean, he asked me how it was possible for my sheop to remain clean so long when both my neighbour's sheep and mine continually crossed the boundarj- and occasionally mixed with each other. The inspector could not explain it. 4140. For how long has that continued ? — They had been there a couple of months. 4141. How long afterwards was it that you found scab among j'our flocks again ? — I cannot exactly say. 4142. StiU, was it so long that it did not lead you to suppose your flock might have been infected, and that it was merely a delay in the outbreak ? — No, it was proof to me that scab is not contagious, because if it had been it would have broken out earliei'. 4143. Has it also come within your experience that you have had scab amongst your 170 flook, and that they have been cured by hand-dressing, while the rest of the flook did not get scab for some considerable time ? — Yes. 4144. Mr. Franciii.~\ You pjave notice to the inspector about these natives moving scabby goats because thoy had offended you ? — Yes 4145. It was not for the sake of carrying out the act ? — No. 4146. Simply for revenge.? — Yes. 4147. Have you ever been charged under the scab act? — Once. 4148. What happened ?^It was very dry, and I had to get a place for some lambing sheep about one and a half hour's distance from my farm. My slieep wore clean and so was the farm where they were going to, but after they had been there two months they began to get scab. It was very dry, and I was afraid to briag my sheep home again, and I had to clean before I could remove them. That night I put my tobacco dip in the pots to soak, so that I coulddip the next morning, but wlienlarrived at the farm the n'ixt morning it was raiu- ing and sleeting, and very cold ; so I thought if I must dip my sheep in such weather as this I shall never get half of them home again, so I removed them to my farm, and they were scarcely at my shed when they got another heavy shower over them, and if I had not had a shed I should probably have lost half of them. But because I removed them, even under those circumstances, without permission, I was proceeded against. 4149. What was the consequence ? — I had to pay 5s. 4150. In spite of this, you broke the law ? — Yes. 4151. Is that the reason you are so opposed to a .scab act ?— No. 4152. Chairman.'] Is there anything you would like to add'?^I am in favour of having clean sheep. 4153. Dr. Smartt.~\ Do you personally object to a scab act ot any sort? — I object to an act which causes so much expense and inconvenience. 4154. Would you object to a compulsory dipping act ? — Not if it were practicable. 4155. Do you think it will do good if it could be carried out ? — Yes. 4156. Mr. du Toil.] Would you be in favour of a simultaneous dipping act through mt the Colony ? — If it were practicable. 4157. But you have no idea whether it would work well? — I think the shearing at difEerent times would interfere with it. 41.58. Would not the months of February and March meet the case ? — That is not a bad time to dip ; but I have not considered that matter. 4159. Chairynan.] You don't believe scab is contagious? — No, but I believe dipping helps to cure it. 4160. If we had a general dipping act in conjunction Tyith a scab act, do you think we should be able to stamp out scab ? — It would greatly diminish it for a time, but you would not stamp it out. It would be very much better to do away with the scab act altogether as useless. ^ Mr. Charles Edmund Prottdfoot examined. 4161. Chairman.] You are a produce buyer in Graaff-Reinet ? — Yes, for the last eleven years. I am also farming a little. 4162. When you first came to the district as a produce buyer, did you find the wool and skins were fairly clean ? — They were very scabby indeed, both wool and skins ; ia ra^t, you could hardly put your hand irito a bale withiut palling out a piece of scab with it, and the skins which came here were ia a very rotten state, especially from Hanover, Richmond and those places. 4163. Did yoti find the goats in a similar condition? — Yes. 4164. And the boer goat? — I could not say much about that, there are so few. 4165. Until when did this state of things continue ? — -Until the si^ab act came into force, when there was a little improvement. In 1886 T suppose the act was just coming into force, and looking over my books I find that out of 2 1,000 sheepskins I sent away then, 1,900 were damaged, or nine per cent. I never took angoras into account. In 1889, when the act was in full swing, the per centage was just half ; out of 31,000, there were 1,263 damaged. I did not go any further, but just extracted these figures to show the improvement effected by the act. 4166. Do you con.sider the skins have gone on improving from that time until the present? — Undoubtedly, but I have brought no extracts from my books. I can see there is a very marked improvement in both wool and skins. 4167. What is the difference in value between clean and scabby skins ? — A ten pound scabby skin would be worth about 1/9, and clean about 4/-, more than double. 4 1 68. Would tiiat apply to gofits as well as sheep ? — Yes. 4169. Then j'ou consider the district of Graiff-Reinet has gained considerably by the act ? — There is not the slightest doubt about it. 4170. And when we are told by experienced farmers that scab is worse now than it was two or three years ago, your experience does not bear that out .'' — Not at all. 4171. Do you buy skins from other districts? — From Richmond and Victoria; the Hanover trade has been cut off. 4172. Do you find the Richmond skins as free from scab as these? — No, there are more damaged skins amongst those from Richmond. 4173. Does this apply to wool .'' — We get very little Richmond wool to look at here. 171 4174. If you find the skins damaged I suppose yo i conclude the wool must be also ? —Yes. 4175. So you think the reason why there is more scab in Richmond than here is because there is no sc^b act in force there ? — Yes. 4176. Taking into consideration the difference in value of skins, do you think it was a very bad day for the district of GraaflE-Reinet when the scab act was repealed ? — Certainly. 4177. Mr. Francis.'] Considering the loss which this district is sustaining owing to sheep and goatskins and wool being infected and damaged by scab, do you think it would be far better to have a stringent scab act, and that the expense will be more than compen- sated by the gain in the produce } — Yes. 4178. Mr. Botha.] Will you tell us what is the system which prevails here of bu3fiug produce ? Is it sold under any sort of public competition, or do you buy according to the value of the article, or do you simply buy in order to keep customers?^ We buy according to the value of the article 4179. So if we have been told in East London that they are bought any wh a-e w'thout discrimination, it is not the caso here? — Ni'. 4180. You don't try to make up in an indirect way what you have lost in a direct way ? —No ; I don't keep a store to begin with ; I don't sell, I only buj- for cash. 4181. You have had many year.-,' experience of exporting through Port Elizabeth, and may perhaps know about East London exports. Do you know whether it makes any difference in the London price whether produce is exportel from East London or Port Elizabeth ? — No, East London wools iiave mostly got a name tor being higher than wools shipped from Port Elizabeth, because there is a grass country behind East London, but it is not the quality of the wool. I should say the quality is just as good, and I know that wool bought at Port Elizabeth and taken to East London took the first prize for washed wool there, grown on a karoo farm in this district. 4182. So that these parts have nothing to fear from British Kaffraria in the way ef competition ? — None. 4183. Dr. Smartt.] You are aware that at aU agricultural shows in the (Colony the prizes for washed wools are given for the washing, and not fur ttie quality of the wool .•' — Yes. 4184. Consequently the wr.ol which took the first prize at Ea^t London nuglit be very bad wool, although very beautifully washed? — It is quite possible. 418.5. Do you buy skin? mixed, damaged and .touud together? — Yea, iu parc-ls. 4186. And do you seU in parcels ? — No, I sort carefully before I sell. 4187. So that when East London brokers state that in up-country districts nearly all skins are bought in parcels, instead of being sorted, they state a fact? — Yes. 4188. Are you aware that, owing to the competition in trade, many storekeepers up- countrj^ are obliged to buy all skins brought to them, good or bad .'' — Yes, I am aware of it. 4189. And that they are even obliged to buy skins for more than their value? — Yes, I know that too. 4190. Why? — I suppose to keep their custom. . 4191. Are you aware that Kaifrarian wool, particularly that coming from Komglia and King William's Town, are noted in the European market for being free of scab } — I could not say ; I have not sent that wool to the London market. 4192. If I tell you that King William's Town, Kei Road andKomgha wools are noted in the London markets for being free of scab, almo.st absolutely free for some years, do you, as a produce broker, think that fact would enhance the value of those wools in London ? — I think it certainly would. 4193. Would not that account for the statement made by the buyers in East London, that the mere fact of wool being shipped with a Kaffrarian brand, which was almost a guarantee of freedom from scab, would put that wool intrinsically in a better position on the London market than an equally good wool coming from a part of the country where scab was prevalent ?^Yes, that would account for the difference. 4194. From your experience as a produce buyer, do 3'ou think that would apply to the whole Colony if we could completely eradicate scab ? — Certainly. 4195. Mr. Botha.] Notwithstanding what you have said, I suppose you think no wool would fetch the prize for snow-whites if it was a bad sample ? — No. Mr. Biederiek Johannes Bremmer examined, 4196. Chairman.] You are a sheep farmer in the district of Graaff-Reinet ? — Yes, for 38 years ; I have about 3,800 sheep and goats. 4197. I suppose when you commenced farming you were not much troubled with scab, amongst either sheep or goats ? — No. 4198. When did you begin to be troubled with it ? — The last twenty years. Before that we had very little, and did not trouble about it. 4199. Has scab been very prevalent the last twenty years? — It never troubled mo particularly. It was most severe with me the same year the act was put into operation. 4200. I suppose when the act was put into operation you took the usual steps to eradicate the scab } — Yes, I dipped ; but I also dipped before the act was in force. [G. 1.— '94.] z 172 4201. How did }ou dip? — I used a patent dip, according to the instructions, and I think the inspector can see I cleaned my sheep of acah. After that the scab broke out again, but I can't say how. 4202. Did any scabby sheep mix with yours ? — My neighbour's sheep and mine mixed together. I cannot say positively where or not my neighbour's sheep were scabby, but it ia quite possible. 4203. Are there any public roads running through your farm ? — Yes, district roads. 4204. Are sheep driven along there ? — Yes. 4205 . Then is it not quite possible your sheep may have got infected in that way ? — It is pospible, but I don't believe that scab is so contagious. 4206. Then what do you think scab is ? — It comes more from poverty. 4207. If sheep are clean, do you think poor sheep are more liable to contagion thaa those in good condition f — Yes ; only I think the disease is more spontaneous. 4208. If you have a flock of sheep quite free of scab, and they are kept isolated, do you think scab can break out spontaneously in that flock ? — Yes, and a scabby sheep will recover by itself. 4209. Then do you think scab is an insect ?— I have been told it is, but I have never seen the insect. 4210. But you know that scab is a skin disease? — Yes. 4211. Il you want to cure a skin disease you use an external preparation ? — Yes. 4212. Then do you think if a sheep or goat is infected with scab, and properly dipped, that you would cure him ? — I think it would help, but I doubt if I could thoroughly eradicate the disease. 4213. You say when the act was first put in force you dipped your sheep, which were scabby, and cured them ? — Yes, they remained clean for about six months, but they were also clean before we had an act. 4214. But the year the act was put in force they were more scabby than they had ever been, and you dipped and cleaned them then ? — Yes. 4215. Then you believe the scab act is a good act.'' — No, it caused me great inconvenience. Often when my sheep had scab in the middle of winter the inspector would insist upon their being dipped, and it was very deleterious to them. I had a troop of sheep I dipped about eight times in a year to get them clean, and it damaged them. About a fortnight after shearing I dipped them, and twelve or fourteen days afterwards I dipped them again. Three months later the inspector came round again and as my sheep had scab I had to dip them again twice. Then I haud-dressed them until I sheared the six months' wool, and after shearing I dipped them again. After that I dipped, twice, again, hand-dressed again until the next shearing, after which I again dipped twice, and they were stiU scabby. 4216. How did you dip the sheep ?— According to the directions on the package, but I can't say huw long I kept them in the water. The tank is about twelve feet long, and I put them in on their backs, turn them over, and they swim out. I think they remain in the dip about half a minute. 4217. And I suppose some of the more active sheep would get out in less time than fhat .'—Yes. 4218. Don't the directions say you must keep them in from one to two mimutea? — Tea, I think so. 4219. Yet you say some of these sheep were in only half a minute, and some may have got out in less ? — I did not time every sheep. I made the dip according to directions. 4220. Don't you think the reason why your sheep remained scabby so long was because you did not dip them properly? — I can't say, because the first time I dipped, in 1886, I dipped in the same way and cleaned the sheep. 4221. StUl, you would not say now you dipped them according to directions ? — Later on I kept them in longer, because the inspector informed me he thought it was necessary. 4222. But you did not keep them in anything like two minutes ? — No. 4223. When you kept them in longer did you find it helped to clean them of scab ? — No, I saw no difierence. After four j'ears' experience I gave up one patent dip, and took to lime and sulphur ; but I still have scabbj' sheep, and last week I dipped all of them again. 4224. Are you in favour of a general scab act, or are you opposed to it.? — I would rather be without an act, but if there must be one it should be for the whole Colony. 4225. Do you think there would be a prospect of stamping out scab with a general act ? — I would try it for a number of years. 4226. Would it be advisable for the Government to erect dipping tanks, and to have a simultaneous dipping throughout the Colony ? — I don't know how you would be able to select the right time, because there is such a variety f a general scab act .' — Yes, and always wa.s, or else have the act so amended that stock cannot be brought in from an improclaimed area. 4423. If you cannot get a general act, you think all sheep coming in from an unproclaimed area should be thoroughly dipped twice, and quarantined ? — Yes. 4424. JDr. Smartt.'i Woidd you be in favour of a compulsory branding act in conjunction with a compulsory scab act, so that every flock-master coidd identify strange sheep amongst his flocks } — Yes, that would have made the scab act work very much more easily. The branding act should be general throughout the Colony. Mr. Alfred Thornton examined. 4425. Chairman.^ You are a farmer here? — Yes ; I have about 2,000 sheep. 4426. You have heard the evidence given by Mr. William Thornton. Do you agree with it ? — As far as the border farmers are concerned, I sympathize with him. The only objection I have to a permissive scab act is that when my sheep were placed in quarantine I could not allow them to graze within a mile of the main road on my own farm. I also objected to scabby sheep being taken to the pound across my farm. "We found traders and speculators biinging in sheep improperly dipped from the unproclaimed area. 4427. Do you think there should be dipping tanks on the border, and all sheep coming in should be dipped under supervision, and quarantined ? — Yes. Things ought to have been better looked after on the other side of the border, because that is where the mischief came in. 4428. If that were done, do you think you would be comparatively safe ? — Yes. 4429. Do j'ou wish to say anything else } — I think there ought to be a general compulsory act, and also a compulsory simultaneous dipping act. 44-30. Dr. Smartt.'] According to your experience, is there less scab in this district now than there was six years ago ? — Yes. 4431. If the act had been more efficiently enforced in the district, don't you think there would be less scab here than there is now ? — Yes. Aherdeen, Friday, 25th November, 1892. PEESEKT : Mi. Fbost (Chairman). Mr. Botha, Mr. Dtj ToiT, Dr. Smastt, Mr. Francis. Mr. John Phillips examined. 4432. Chairman.^ You are living here ? — Yes. I am an auctioneer and agent, and I have resided in Aberdeen for about 24 years. 4433. Do you wish to give some evidence in connection with the inquiry ? — I have been asked to do so. 4434. "What particidar point do you wish to refer to ? — I think the difficulty with regard to the act is its administration among the out-lying farmers. 4435. Are you acquainted with the working of the act in this division ? — Fairly well, I think. 4436. And you have had some experience as an auctioneer in holding sales throughout the district ? — Yes, very great experience. 4437. In what particular direction do you think it would bo to the advantage of ihe pc ople to make some alteration ? — I think the Government should come to the assistance ol a certain class of farmers, those who cannot assist themselves. It is generally considered in all countries, but more especially in this, that as soon as the Government establish a law they are inflicting some wrong upon the people ; and in this case, where a compulsory scab act is put in force, the Government should show some interest in the matter, and ast-ist the farmers who cannot assist themselves in the way of dipping. In a district like ours, there are many poor farmers, men with probably 500 or 600 sheep and goats, who are really aot [G. 1.— '94.] AA 180 in a position to purchase the dip, and are gcuer.illy speaking living on a bad tract of country, and it is fairly well known that if scab breaks out badly, it would be when the sheep are in poor condition. These people live almost without water, with bad veldt, and feel it a fearful injury to be compelled to dip at certiin seasons of the year. Another idea of mine is that there should be a temporary suspension of the act in certain districts and at certain times ; but what I more particularly advocate is that some assistance should be rendered to those poor farmers by the Government, probably upon certificates granted by the inspectors, assisted by the civil commissioner, to be supplied with dip ; and then I would go further and say if they don't dip then they should be made to, or Government should do it for them. I don't think the farmers kick so much against the act, but there is no disposition to assist them. It is all very well in a good district, where all the surroundings are easy, but how about the poor men who live outside, and have not the means of dipping, and most likely have to dii^ at a time when the sheep are in very low condition, which means ruin to them ? They probably have no water then, and pasturage is very scarce. 4438. Do you think we are ever likely to stamp out scab it the act is suspended at any time ?-^I think the treatment of the disease should be very carefully attended to, and there should not be any rough riding, and that incases of the kind I have mentioned, there should be some consideration shown. The outlying districts are Willowmore, Beaufort West JansenviUe and Murraysburg. 4439. From your knowledge of these people, do you think they have made any effort in those localities to stamp out scab ? — I think so. 4440. By dipping their sheep properly, and attending to the instructions in recognized dips ? — Properly is another matter ; I think some of them have not the appliances to carry it out j)roperly, and cannot afford to buy or erect them. 4441. Then you think the Government should take the dipping of stock into their own hands? — In certain districts, and on certain farms whore it is evident to the inspector through the civil commissioner that these people cannot help themselves. 4442. Would you believe it if I tell you that we have taken evidence from farmers in other districts, where there are small farmers as well as thare are here, and where scab has been entirely stamped out, even by native farmers ; and when they were asked they did not express any wish for help of that kind, they feel so convinced from their own experience that they can and do stamp out scab ? We examined flocks of sheep belonging to both large and small farmers, and found scab stamped out entirely. — Would the farming conditions be the same ? 4443. I take it they are living on smaller farms and closer together, and that the chances of contagioii are Tery much greater there than here ? — But the water supply ? All the farms are smaller in a grass country, and the flocks proportionately larger. Here it sometimes takes three morgen to a sheep. 4444. If the sheep on those large farms where a sheep has a run equal to about three morgen, were properly dipped and attended to, do you think it woidd be easier to stamp out scab than it is on the small farms ? — But I contend that many of these men are not in a po- sition to buy the dip, and they are antagonistic to the act. 4445. Did not tliese districts ask to come under the act? — But jou know what that means. There was more energy in getting petitions signed. 4446. You think it would be advisable in the interest* of the country for Government to erect dipping tanks and dip these sheep even at Government expense .-' — Certainly, and in some districts to have a temporary suspension of the act. 4447. But you would not have a temporary suspension of the act if the Government dipped their sheep free of charge ? — I hold that at times dipping is injurious to the sheep, or rather to the pocket of the farmer. The mortality may be very much greater. If it were possible to visit some of the outlying farms, the Commission would see the difiiculties ; places where they have to scratch the water out of the sand, and there is no herbage for the sheep to eat. The inspector comes to a place like that and finds the sheep hard with scab, and a compulsory dipping at that time must aggravate the mortality. 4448. You believe if the sheep are properly dipped the scab would be cured .''—Cer- tainly. 4449. Then if the Government dips the sheep properly, why should you ask for a temporary suspension of the act also ? — Because at the time I ask for the suspension, the locality will not be ripe for it. Suppose an inspector goes on a man's farm to-day, and finds his sheep in wretched condition, the veldt bad, and a great scarcity of water, if these sheep are put through the dip under such circumstances it is ten chances to one they will hardly survive it. 4450. But if they had been dijjped before by the Government they would not have got into that state ? — Under certain conditions they would get cured of scab. They get poor for want of pasturage and water. 4451. You don't suppose scab is spontaneous ? — No. 4452. Then how do the sheep get like that ? — If you had a horse in very fat condition you would apply remedies which you could not apply to a poor horse, and I say the sheep are in that condition, though I don't know how they got into it. 4453. But the inspector comes and finds the veldt in good order, but the sheep very scabby, and he dips and cures them. When the veldt gets into poor condition, the sheep are clean and after that if they get scab it must be spontaneously ? — I don't wish you to gather that. I am not running the two things together, that is the assistance by Govern- 181 ment and the suspension of the act. If the act is suspended I say the farmers would pro- bably clean the sheep themselves, but wliere they fail to do so the Qovernmout acts for itself. 4454. Mr. Francu.'\ If there is not sufficient water supply for the sheep they would hare to be moved ? — Yes, but unfortunately they can't. 4455. Then they must die ? — Tliey do. 4456. Then they would not require to be dipped. I understood you to say the one great difficulty the farmers there laboured under was that there was not sufficient water for dipping ? — Certainly not. But in cases where people cannot supply the dip, and cannot erect dipping tanks, the Government should send round an apparatus and do it for them. 4457. If the act were made very stringent, were started at a favourabJe time of the year, and the poor people who could not help themselves were assisted by Government, do you think scab could be eradicated from the district ? — Yes, provided they approach the farmer when the stock are in good condition. 4458. I suppose you sell a good many sheep } — A great number. 4459. Do you find a g^eat difference in price between sheep which are badly infected and clean ? — Very great. 4460. Consequently it would be a great benefit to all parties concerned if scab could be eradicated ? — Certainly. 4461. Do you think because a number of farmers are opposed to the act that is one reason why Government should assist them in dipping ? — No, I think you must take into consideration the class of farmers. You cannot close your eyes to the great racial difference we have in this country, and the difficulty which exists in bringing home to some farmers the fact that laws passed by the Government are intended to make provision for their own benefit. Unless you live in a district, where you have the.se prejudices to contend against, this would probably not come under your notice ; but I think the prejudice against the scab act is the real difficulty. 4462. Don't you consider it is an unreasonable prejudice ? — Undoubtedly. 4463. If it is to the benefit of these people, is it not the duty of the Government to enforce the act ? — I would prefer it to be done with the assistance of the Government. 4464. But even with the assistance of the Government, you think it would be better for these farmers if the act were enforced ?— I cannot depart from the idea that, provisionally at times, the act should be suspended if the Government does not assist. The inspector, when he came to a place and found the sheep and goats in a condition which made it impossible to dip them, might say it was unnecessary to do so just at that time, and might therefore grant an extension of time. 4465. Do you then think that any future act should give a discretionary power to the inspector ? — Unless the Government undertook the dipping in such cases. 4466. But even if the Government did so, and a time comes such as you have described, when the stock are in such low condition, would it not be just as injuiious to the stock whether they were dipped by the Government or by the owner ? — I said the Government should assist in the dipping when the sheep are in fair condition. 4467. But afterwards they might become re-infected ? — Then it should be left to th« discretion of the inspector. 4468. Mr. Botha.'] The special class of farmers you refer to are not only poor but ignorant ? — Very. 4469. And it is in consequence of that that the sort of antagonistic feeling rises against anything which comes from the Government ? — Yes. 4470. You think if this particular class of people were shown by the same power, and through the same medium as that which enforces the scab act, that scab can be eradicated, and that it is to their personal advantage to do so, they would listen more readily ? — Yes, that is it exactly. 4471. And that it would reconcile them to the state of things, and it would be no longer necessary to keep them ? — Yes ; if the country feels alarmed and it is thought we are losing £500,000 a year by scab not being eradicated, why does not the Government come forward with a quarter of a million and allow the people to dip at any time, and pay the consequent mortality ? 4472. Dr. Smartt.'] If a compulsory general scab act wore introduced, would you be in favour of Government supporting a dip depot, to supply dip at first cost price and free of railway carriage } — Certainly. 4473. From youi knowledge of this district, do you consider that a farmer with a troop of scabby sheep would suffer greater loss by dipping them carefully during a drought, and cleaning them, or by allowing them to run on in the dry season rotting with scab ? Which would you do ?^ Personally I should dip. 4474. So that, according to your own showing, you think personally it would bo a foolish thing to temporarily suspend the act, in the interests of these people themselves ? — It would probably be so where you had only intelligent men to deal with, but I have not the slightest doubt there are men here to-day who would say what I do. 4475. But you think the temporary suspension of the act would cause more loss than otherwise ? — I suppose there would bo, but I came here merely to tell you what I know, not to say what I should do mj'self, and I take it in a country of this kind the more you can cement a good feeling between the inhabitants and the Government the better. As a practical man I should say, the Government have put this act in force and it is to the advantage of myself and the Government and the country ; but there i* a certain class ot 182 farmers who aro thoiouglJy prejudiced against the act, and the Government, and anything that is a bar to thoir free action in all things, and therefore I say the Government should step in and help such men, either by allowing them to dip at proper times, or by helping them to dip. 4476. Would it meet the case if the Government were to supply dip to these people at first coat price, and dip the sheep under inspection in Government dipping tanks ? — I should say the first cost price should be cut out and let the sheep be dipped free. 4477. How would you draw the line between those whose sheep are to be dipped free and the others ? — Simply by the certificate of the inspector and the civil commissioner that it is correct. 4478. Would not that cause a gi-eat deal of ill-feeling in the district? — Therefore I should draw the line at the decision of the civil commissioner and the inspector. 2fr, Charles Oerhardua de Villiers, scab-inspector examined. 4479. Chairman.1 Tou are scab inspector of area No. 20 ? — Yes, for nearly two years and a half. 4480. Aj'e you the first inspector of this area ? — Yes ; at the time I was appointed it was for the whole district, but now it is for area No. 20, the district having been divided into two. 4481. When you were first appointed was scab very prevalent among the sheep and goats here ? — Yes. 4482. Can you show us any returns? — In June, 1891, the number of stock in the district of Aberdeen was 267,000, out of which 8,780 approximately were scabby; and in June, 1892, the number of stock was 364,000, out of which 2,882 apjjroximately were scabby, a decrease of two-thirds. 4483. Do you include in that, both sheep and goats? — Yes. 4484. Have you found any great difficulty in carrying out the act .' — None. 4485. Not in the outlying portions of j'our district'? — No. 4486. Do j'ou find the farmers on the border.s of the Beaufort West dii^itriet very much opposed to the act ? — Even if they are opposed to it, they are as a rule willing to dip according to instructions, although I think there is a lack of knowledge in regard to the method of mixing the dip and of dipping. 4487. Is there no unwilliugnoss on the part of small farmers there to purcliase dip and dip their sheep ? — No. 4488. Do you find that those farmers dip their sheep properly? — No, there is a great want of knowledge as regards dipping ; I cannot say they dip properly. It is either that they don't mix the dip strong enough or don't keep the stock long ejuiugh in the dip. 4489. You don't find such good results from the dipping in that part as in other parts of the district ? — No ; I put it down to inexperience. 4490. Do ym think it would be advisable to erect Government dipping tanks and have sheep dipped under inspection, or that the sheep should be dipjjed in the farmers' tanks under inspection ? — I think the sheep ought to be dipped in the farmers' dip imder inspection. 4491. Do those farmers comjilain under the present act about sheep from other districts where the scab act is not in force .'' — It has always been in force in Murraysbni-g since we have had it here, and tliero is a certain ward in Beaufort West No. 3. It is a very sh»rt distance to Willowmore. 4492. Do they complain of that portion ? — Not much. 4493. 'I here is not mucli traffic between Willowmore and your district ? — None. .4494. Di> >ou liud many sheep moved from the unproclaimed area tlirough the district of Aberdeen to the rail 'ay station, or into this district? — Occasionally, but not often, and as a rule those thut do come in have a certificate and are free of sc^b. I have never had to dip or stop any, but alwaj'S found those with a certificate were clean. 4495. Do you think the sheep in the unproclaimed area arc as clean as those in the pro- claimed area ?— Not in the least. 4496. But those which have been brought in you found healthy ? — Yes, but they may have come from flocks with a great deal of scab. 4497. When they are brought in and distributed, do you find that scab breaks out among them ?— As a rule thej' are only passing through the place, and there is no time for scab to break out. 4498. From your experience of the working of the scab act, can you offer any suggestions for its improvement ? — I would certainly suggest that no stock should enter the proclaim-'d area from an unproclaimed area unless clean, without being dipped on the boundary under inspection, and quarantined. Also that stock sent to the pound should first be dipped by the sender. 4499. When j>ja find a man's sheep ai"e scabby yuu give him three months to clean hem in. If at the expiration of that licence you go to the farm and find that the sheep have pot been attended to, what steps do you take .'' — As a rule, I have not found one single instance in the district where I have put stock under quarantine that the owner has not dipped them during the time allowed. 4500. Generally speaking, when you pay your next visit you find they are dipped and free of scab ? — Not free of scab, but as a rule there is an improvement ; they are certainly not worge, 188 4501. To what do you attribute it that they are not clean when you visit them the second time ? — To improper dipping, and iu some parts of the district to porerty and bad reldt. Another thing I impress upou stock farmers, especially a particular class, is to do away with the old kraals, because even if they are properly dipped, stock will get scab again from old kraals. 4502. Then you put it down not so much to improper dipping as to re infection ? — To both. 4503. More to re-infection? — No, I cannot say that. I think there is a g^eat deal of improper dipping going on in the district. 4504. Do j'ou think it would be advisable for the Government to dip sheep or have them dipped under inspection, the owners paving for the expense ? — Yea. 4505. Would it meet the case of the out -lying farmers on the borders of the divison of Willowmore ? — Yes. 4506. Do you think they would be quite williiig to paj- for the dip ? — No. 4507. Are they quite well able to do so ? — I think if a man has ten sheep he can part with one to cure the remainder. Everv- man with a hundred sheep is able to pay for his dip. 4508. Do Tou visit the sheep under your charge once every six months ? — Yes, the last time it took five months. I inspect every flock in the area twice in twelve months. 4509. Do you think two inspectors in the district of Aberdeen is quite sufficient?^ — ■ Under the present system, but I don't know whether two would be enough if we have te attend to the dipping. Perhaps it would be if Government is s-atisfied that we should go through the district twice a year. 4610. You don't think it would be an improvement, in the act if there were an inspector in each field- cornetcy .'' — It would be convenient for the farmers, but I don't know wh^'ther it would work. The present system works satisfactorily. 45 11. A good deal has been said about the difficulty experienced by the farmers in ob- taining permits to remove slaughter stock. Do you think it would bo advisable to alter the present system, and allow any man holding a clean bill of health for a certain time to remove stock on his own permit, but subi'ect to a heavy penalty? — When I have visited a man three times, and found his stock continue clean, T grant him a standing permit, upon which they can go to any part of the country, while the stock remains fi'ee of scab, without any other permit. 4512. Is that in that act ? — It is in my instructions. 4513. Do you work under those in.structions ? — Yes. 4514. Would it be better that any man hohUng a clean bill for six months should be allowed to move his .sheep to any other area in the way I suggest .'' — Yes, I thduk it would be a great help to the inspector and the farmers. 4515. Do you think if that wsr.? done there would not bo so much outcry as there is at present ? — No, not against the difficulty of getting permits. 4516. Do you think the present system of appointi ig inspect^or.? works satisfactorily, or that it would be improved by allowing the Government to appoint without reference to the farmer, or by alio wing the farmers themselves in their own field-cometcy to recommend by votes at a public meeting ? — That is a very difficult question to answer, because if it is left to the farmers to elect th'ir own man, those who are disappointed in not getting their man elected would always have some prejudice against the successful candidate who was appoints I against their will. I think they ought to have confidence in the divisional council and leave it as it is at present. 4517. Aje you in favour of a general scab act throughout the Colony ? — Yes. 4518. You don't see much chance of getting rid of the scab without it? — No. 4519. If that is found to be impossible, have you formed any idea where a line could bo drawn ? — I have not thought of that. 4520. Suppose it is considered advisable to divide the Colony by some line, do you think any block of farms, or a single farm in an unprocl-timed area, but not adjoining the boundary line, where the sheep are clean and free of scab should be protected by giving them the power to prevent any sheep with scab moving along anyroad through those farm ^ ?— I think a man who has his flock clean should get protection, even if he is in an unproclaimed area. 4521. Taking this line as being drawn, do you think sheep, before being passed, should be dipped and quarantined, and that no sheep should be allowed to go on the railway lines ? — Yes. 4522. I suppose that you are aware that the north-western districts of the Colony supply the large centres with "laughter stock. Would you provide for the carr^-ing of that stock ? — Those at present under the scab act ought to supply them. 4523. But the.se people nni=t sell their slaughter stock somewhere ? — After being in quarantine for a time, and receiving a second dipping, they might be allowed to come in. 4524. Would you apply the .sam? to breeding sheep, which may be sold and distri- buted ? — I woidd allow them to c ime in after they have been quarantined, if the inspector is satisfied that thi y are tiioroughly clean. 4525. Mr. F)-ancis.'] Have j'ou h.id many convictions under the present scab act ? — The only conviction I have obtained was under the fifth softion of act No. 33 of 1888, for removing stock without a permit. 4526. Are the fines under the present act sufficiently heavy 1o prevent people breaking ihe law ?— No, I think the fines as a rule are too lenient. IM 4527. Consequently a man would sometimes be inclined to break the law and risk the fine rather than be put to inconvenience ? — Yes. 4528. Do you think the provision for three months' licence is a good one? — Tea. 452'J. Don't you think three months is too long?- If our district were all like some parts of it, where there is a constant water supply and usually good veldt, I should say it is too long ; but there are some parts here where we have to contend with scarcity of water and ever so many other drawbacks, so I thinlc the present time is not too long. 4530. Under such circumstances, do you think it would be advisable to give an inspec- tor more discretionarj' power, to grant licences for a period of from one month up to three months .'' — I think that would be a help. 4531. And also give a farmer the right to appeal to the magistrate if he thought the inspector had done him wrong in regard to the lengih of the licence ? — Yes. 4532. Would that be a check upon any ill-feeling? — Yes. 4533. After a man has had a licence for three months, and his sheep are still infected with scab, do you think ho sliould then pay for a renewal ? — No, I think if it is left to the discretion of the inspector to grant a licence for one month up to three, after the first three months' licence has expired, it would be a check on such a farmer to give him a shorter time, without making him pay for the second licence. 4534. Then what remedy would you suggest to force a man to keep the law if the present fines are inadequate .•' — Punish him more severely. 4535. If a new act were introduced, do you think it should bo put in force during the summer mouths with a simultaneous dipping ? — It would tend to check scab, but some flocks might have such fleeces on them that they would not be fit to dip. 4536. Are not all the sheep shorn in December or January .' — They shear almost at any time, but mostly in March. 4537. If you had a flock of scabby sheep, how long do you think it would take you to thoroughly clean them ? — I will undertake to clean any flock, if I could keep them separate in clean kraals, within three months. 4538. If the act is well drawn, and the farmers and inspectors work together, do you think scab coiild be comjiletely eradicated from the district within a very short period ? — Yes. 4539. Ifr. Botha.~] Do you believe poverty and ignorance are the great causes why scab is still prevalent in this district ? — Yes. 4540. Where do 3'ou live .-' — ^At present in the town, and for about three years. 4541. By what means do you travel when you inspect the flocks of the district ? — With a cart and horses. 4542. How manj- farms belong to your area? — I did not bring my diary, but I could let you know. I have a list of aU the farms, and the number of stock. 4543. Have you any idea of the number of the farms, or the distance you have to travel ? — I could not sa}- without my diary. 4544. I suppose you could not do it in less than five months? — Not to attend to all the flocks. 4545. Dr. Smartt.l Have you found any difficulty in treating travelling flocks of slieep in which scnb has broken out in 3'our aiea? — It always so happened that I foimd them at a fann house, and had them dipped on the spot ; but if I had not found them there it would have been difficult. 4546. Would you consider it advisable to erect Government dipping tanks on the main thoroughfares of the Colonj- ? — Yes. 4547. If sheep were stiU infected with scab at the expiration of their period of licence, do you think thej- should be dipped under the supervision of an inspector? — Where there is no improvement I would be in favour of that. As a rule, on my second visit I order people to dip, and they do so, but some of them don't do it in a proper way. 4548. In times of drought, would it be better to allow scabby sheep to run over, or to dip them ? — In such times, when thej' cannot stand dipping, I would be satisfied with hand dressing. In some parts stock reallv gets so low that it cannot stand dipping. It was the case in ward No. 3 tliis year that if I had ordered the stock to be dipped, the owners would have had to take them by the legs and put them into the dips, and then pull them out again. 4549. Then does your experience teach you that in times of drought it would be safer to let sheep run on with scab, than to dip them carefully? — No. 4550. Under ordinary circumstances you think there are no farmers in the district of Aberdeen who could not carry out the provisions of the present scab act to dip within three months if their sheep have scab ? — Thej' could all do it. 4551. Taking climate and everything else into consideration? — Yes. 4552. Mr. du Toit^. How many times would you have to dip sheep to cure them of scab within three months ? — At the start oS, if they are very scabby, they should get three dippings in succession, say at eight, twelve and eighteen days interval, and put into clean kraals, and then I am sure tliey will be nearly clean. It might require one more dipping after that, but I doubt if it would need a fourth ; certainly not if they are projierly dipped. 4553. What do you think of the fact that farmers say they have had a clean bill for some two years when scab broke out amongst their stock and they were not able to cure it then, although they had heen able to keep them clean for so long, and in spite of dipping them half a dozen times ? — They must surely have understood how to dip sheep, because they gfot them clean the first time, or I should have put it down to ineiperience. 186 4654. You have not met with any suoh case ? — No ; when scab broke out it has been cured within a short time. As a rule when mea who have a ilean bill, report an out -break of scab, I put the stock under quarantine for three months, and the farmer generally writes to me to come and re-inspect them, as he wants a clean biU. 4555. Don't you think it might be that the people had mistaken some kind of skin disease for scab, the wool coming off ? — The wool does come off with fever. 4556. But can you easily distinguish between that and scab '? — Yes. 4557. Have you had cases of fever here ? — Yes, the blue-tongue ; they lose their wool. 4558. How do you generally examine your flocks? Do you put them in a kraal, or examine them in the veldt? — When there is visible scab ou them. I inspect them, wherever I find them, but to examine them closely I prefer the kraal. 4559. Are the farmers always willing to kraal them ?— I cannot say always. 4560. Does the act provide that where you see it is necessary ^you can compel them to kraal 'i — No, only to bring them to a convenient place, and help me to catch them. 4561. Have you found that sufficient ? — I must content myself with it, but as a rule I would prefer to have stock in the kraal, rather than in the veldt, to examine them. 4562. Don't you consider it is an omission in the act that you have not the power to have the sheep kraaled ? — No, I think it would occasion the farmer too much trouble, and it wotdd not be fair to have sheep driven to the ki'aal in the middle of the day. 4563. If the case I have alluded to really occurred, do you think it may have been a certain kind of skin disease, arising from the want of proper food or something of that sort ? — It may be a skin disease, because scab is always curable at any time. 4564. To satisfy yourself, do you ever use a microscope to ascertain whether the wool comes off through scab, or anything else ? — No, I have not got a glass, and I wish the Government would supply them to inspectors, I think it would be a very good thing. 4565. You think you may fail to distinguish between a skin disease caused by fever or whether the loss of wool is caused by an insect ? — It may be. 4566. Would you force a general scab act upon a certain part of the population when they are strongly opposed to it for reasons which they state ? — There are people in the district of Aberdeen who are opposed to the scab act, and I am sure it is nothing but sheer ignorance and prejudice. The scab act is for their own welfare, and to the welfare of any part of the Colony. 4567. How about those parts of the Colony where there are very often prolonged droughts for six or nine months, when people have to trek away with their stock ? — We have a portion exactly like that, ward No 3. There is a severe drought there now. 4568. Suppose iu such a case people have a clean bill when they trek awaj', but after being away some time, and the sheep getting poor, scab breaks out, don't j'ou think it would be very difficult for those people to find a dipping place, and to dip their sheep ? — Yes, they do find a difficulty, and I would suggest that it should be compulsory for every farmer t» have a dipping place on his farm. 4569. But will they allow trekkers to dip ? — As a rule they do. 4570. Do they allow scabby sheep to turn away from the road and come on their farm and dip, when they have clean sheep ? — Yes. 4571. We have it in evidence that several people want to have the act in the pro- claimed areas more stringent. Would you prefer to have the present act, or one perhaps a little more lenient in some respects, over the whole Colony, or to have a more stringent act to apply only to the proclaimed areas ? — I would prefer to have an act over the whole Colony, even if at the first start off it were not quite so stringent. 4572. Are you convinced that, defective as the act may be at present, it has done much good ? — A great deal of good. 4573. Therefore you would rather leave it as it is, and have it over the whole Colony ? — Yes. 4574. Mr. Botha."] Ai-e you often applied to for permits of removal? — Yes. 4575. How do you manage to grant them .' — I inspect the stock personally, and grant them. 4576. But you have said that it takes you five months to do the circuit of your area. How do you manage when you are not at home ? — I am supposed to be in my office two days in each month, and the five months I take to go through mj- area in tlie district of Aberdeen includes the time taken by going about granting permits of removal. 4577. If you are at the furthest point of your area when the day comes for you to be at your office, you must travel all that distance V — Yes, wherever I am. The second Saturday of the month and the last day of the month and my two days at the office here. 4578. How do you manage if anyone wants a permit then ? — They must wait. There is provision made in the act that in the absence of the inspector, field-cornets may grant per- mits, and three of our field-cornets were appointed by Goverumeut to do so, but afterwards it was found out that these field-comets can only grant permits after they have received authority fron the inspector to do so upon each occasion ; so wo found it was just as much trouble for these people to get the inspector to inspect the stock himself as to get the authority from him. 4579. From your experience do you think it is fair and just to the stock-owner that such a state of things should exist, or what remedy could you recommend ? — The suggestion I made for each man to grant his own permit. 4580. Br. Smarti.'] Do you think you can clean any flock of sheep by dipping them 183 twice, thoroug-hly, in a warm dip of proper strengtli, within a period of fourteen days ? — I think they could be. 4581. Chairman.'] What about the microscope ? — Yes, some farmers asked me to show theju specimens of living .scab. 4582. When you have put sheep under quarantine, you have felt quite certain that they had visiblo scab on thom ? — Yos, oven the farmers themselves have admitted it. 4583. Have you any further suggestions to malic ? — I would urge that each farmer shoidd be obliged to havo a dipping tank on his farm. 4584. Aro there many farms in this distrii^t where there are no dipping tanks ? — There are stiU a great many. Mr. Frederick Edward George Rex, »vah-inspector, examined. 4585. Chmrman.'] You are scab-inspector for area No. 20 A..' — Yes, for the last six months. 4586. Do you agree with tlie evidence which has just been given by Mr. de Villiers ? — Yes. 4587. Is there anything you could suggest in regard to improving the act .' — I would make it a compulsory, general act, and as near as possible a sinfffltanooufi dipping, but there are difficulties in the shearing time, and some sheep may have long wool. 4588. Suppose the Colony was divided into areas, and a certain time was fixed for cer- tain areas, according to the diiferont seasons, and the high and low ground and so on, do you think that would meet your dilficiilty .''^Certainly. 4689. You think the act as it stands witli Hie alterations suggested by Mr. de Villiers, will work very well ? — Yes. 4590. Mr. Bolha.'] Does the magistrate ever give permits of removal? — Not to my knowledge. 4591. You don't livn in the village ? — No, in the country. 4592. You don't know whether natives come here for a pass from the magistrate to g( in ? — I couhl not say. 4593. Mr. du Toit.] Do you examine sheep on the veldt, as a nde ? — I prefer having them in the kraal but I do examine them in the veldt. 4594. By doing so, do you think you could bo always sure of the state of the sheep ? — When giving a clean bill, I would prefer having them in the kraul. 4595. Do you always do it ? — Yes, when giving a clean bill. 4596. Are the farmers always willing to submit? — They always try to meet me in every way. 4597. Do you ever find scab on sheep and the farmers will not believe that it is scab, but perhaps say it is caused by fever or some internal diseaso ? — No ; I think scab and fever can be easily distinguished. 4598. Are the farmers always willing to believe you ? — Always. 4599. When scab is found on a shoep, do you believe that by examining it with a micros- cope there is always an insect to be found there ?— Yes. 4600. Then don't you think you ought always to have a microscope with you, to convince the farmers who might not ttherwise believe it ? — Certainly. 4601. Mr. Francis.] Suppose by any accident you did give a clean bill of health for a flock of sheep, as soon as they showed visible signs of scab the owner would have to report the outbreak ? — Yes. 4602. Consequently there would be no gi-eat harm done ? — No. 4603. Mr. du Toit.] Might not they sometimes pull through by hand-dressing it, so that you might not know anything about it ? — They might, but I would not prove anything to the contrary ; I should bo satisiied if I found it cured. 4604. Chairman.] You think he could not easily get rid of it by hand-dressing ? — No. Mr. C. J. Aurei examined. 4605. Chairman.'^ I understand you have been appointed, together with Mr. P. A. C. Woideman and Mr. H. J. WcndeTuan, to represent the views of the farmers who are here to-day who are opposed to the scab act, and that you have been elected to be spokesman ? — Yes. 4606. How long have you been farming in the district ? — About thirty years. I have between 3000 and 4000 sheep and goats; Mr. H. J. Weideman between 2000 and 3000, and Mr. Piet Weideman about 1500. 4607. When ynu commenced farming here thirty years ago, was scab very prevalent amongst your stock ? — Tt was not so bad as it is now, but there was scab. 4608. Prom ihat time scab kept on increasing until when ? — UntU now, more or less. In times of drought it is worse than at others. There have been times even in droughts when it has not been so bad, but as a rule it is worse then. 4609. When the act was put in force here about three years ago, was scab very preval- ent ? — Yes, it was bad. 187 4C10. When it came into force, I suppose the farmers in this district commenced dip- ping their sheep thoroughly and made an attempt to get rid of it?— Yes. 4611. "Was there any improvement ? — For a time it got less, but I don't see much diSer- ence in it now. 4612. Can you give any reason why, after the sheep had been properly dipped and apparently improved, there should be more scab again now ? — They have become much wor-e during the last three or four months owing to the drought. I am obliged to move about with my sheep from place to place, and I moved the last tinie about fourteen days ago. 4613. When you commenced to move with your sheep were they scabby or clean ? — Scabby. 4614. And they got worse and worse as you moved them about .'' — I cannot say they are better, because there is no dip on the place where they are now. I dipped them when I left, and got a permit for removal, and the stock is now better but I have not dipped them since I got to the last place. 4615. During the time you have been moving about with these sheep, I suppose you have been obliged to kraal them wherever you could get a kraal ? — No, I have always had them along the road. 4616. Before you left home did you dip the sheep properly in a dip of the full strength and keep them in the usual time ? — I used a patent dip, 25 packages to 400 gallons of water. I never timed it, but I think each sheep was about a minute in the dip. 4617. Don't you think it is more than probable that many of these sheep may have come out of the dip in less than a minute, and some remained in longer ? — I put them in, in lots of five, and I kept them in I think for a minute. 4618. Still, you are not certain .?— No. 4619. After they were dipped, had they still scab ? — I dipped them well, and went to a clean place, and notwithstanding they are stiU scabby. I don't think one dipping wiU ctire scab. 4620. If you had dipped them again within twelve or fourteen days, do you think they would have been cured ? — Yes, I think so, but it would have been impossible for me to remain at the same place where the dip was because of the poverty of the sheep ; they could scarcely stand one dip. 4621. If you had got to a dipping place in fourteen days time, and had there dipped them again, do you think they would have been cured of scab ? — Yes. 4622. Then are you convinced that if sheep are properly dipped twice within fourteen days you can cure thom of scab ?^Ye8, when the veldt is good ; but when the veldt is bad it would take more. 4623. But you say if you had dipped them a second time they would have been cured? — Yes, I think so. 4624. You are not in favour of the scab act ? — No. . 4625. Why ? — It causes a great deal of trouble. In the old time, befor the act was in force, we were able to trade with people from other districts, bartering for mealies, tobacco and other things with stock, and we even paid for improvements on the place with sheep. There are also times when you have a lot of good sheep for the butcher and yon must go to the inspector, but perhaps the buyer has no time to wait, and goes to another place where a man has a clean bill of health, and the cliance is lost, as there are only two days in the month when the inspector is to be found at homo. I also complain that the working of the act is injurious to our wool. A man whose sheep have nine months' wool on them wants to move them back to his home, but the inspector says before he can do that lie must dip them; but in times of drought like last season this is difficailt. My brothers and I are farming together, and last season, in consequence of being unable to move our sheep, we lost all our lambs. This specially applies to a certain portion of the district where I am living; but if I had the advantage of living in some'other parts of the district, which I know of, I should aloo be in favour of a scab act. One of my neighbours had to leave his place with about 12008mall stock, from which he expeeteil 400 lamliB ; but he had to dip before he could leave his place, and also a second time within fourteen days, and instead of 400 he only got 10 lambs, indirectly in consequence of overdipping in the winter. 4626. If that man had not been obliged to dip, you don't think he would have suffered that loss? — No. 4627. So in that part of the country scab is about as prevalent as it ever was ? — Yes. 4628. Mr. Francis.'] If sheep can be cured within fourteen days, but are not, is it not the fault of the farmer ? — I think any man who can clean a sheep will do so, but sometimes the seasons are too bad, the sheep too poor, and under the peculiar circumstances they can- not stand two dippings. 4629. But as a general rule, could they clean their sheep ? — Not on all the farms in this district. 4630. Never ? — Duly in good seasons. It can be done on certain, farms, but take for instance my own, where for more than a year we had no raiu. There it is imp issible to cure sheep i^dthe scab reappears with every drought. 4631. If all the farmers were to clean their sheep when there is a favourable season, would they not remain clean if they were not re-iufectod ? — No, I don't believe it. 4632. What do you think is the cause of the scab V — Fever and pu\ ort y. 4633. Then you don't believe it is caused by a!n insect .'' — No, it has been proved that even in protracted droughts sheep don't get scab, but soon after rain the veldt gets better and the sheep begin to grow a little lively, and there is a change in the blood, in the [G. 1.— '94.] BB 188 System and scab appears; but the tia'o will como round wii>,\. ilie same ammals will get cured by themselves without any dipping. 4634. Then how do you account for the fact that millions of sheep in the Australian colonies bavo been perfectly free of scab for years past, and although thousands have died from poverty there has been no more scab } — Even our best places are not equal to the Australian farms. 4635. Will you believe me when I say that I have met many gentlemen from Australia and they say the veldt in our Colony is far superior to that in most of the Australian colonies ? — I don't dispute that ; there is a great variety of veldt in this Colony. 4636. Do you believe that all seieutiiic men in the world, the medieal men and the more intelligent farmers agree that it is an insect that causes scab ? — I was asked for my opinion. You may believe that, but I don't. 4637. Then you think you know better than all these people ? — I give my opinion. 4638. Mr. Botha.~\ Did you see any letters written by Mr. Watermeyer to the Graaff- Reinet Adrertiner on Australia, after he had returned from there ? — Yes. •i639. In that letter he said that the worst parts in Australia are bettor than his own vlei, and he has a very good vlei on his farm ? — Yes, I saw it. 4640. Br. Smartt.] Have you ever held a clean bill of health for your sheep .■" — Yes. 4641. When? — I think it was about nine months ago. 4642. For how hmg did you hold it? — I think for three or six months. 4643. Are there many farmers in your part of the district who hold a clean bill of health now .'' — Yes, one man, Mr. Abraham Muller. 4644. Is it dry there at the present time .'' — Yes, but he is moving his stock to another farm. 4645. Were your brothers' sheep very scabby when you travelled with them .'' — Yes, much poorer than mine on account of poverty. 4646. Had you a bad season last year? — No, a good season. 4647. If the act had been very efficiently enforced last year in the Zwart Ruggens district, don't you think your brothers' sheep would have been in a better condition as regards ecab, and would consequently have been able to trek ? — No, I don't think so, because my brothers' sheep wore clean at the time, and had a clean biU. We both had one place when the veldt was good. 4648. Mr. du Toit.'\ Don't you think your sheep may have become infected by other sheep at that time? — I cannot say, but I am under the impression that they were. I know there were tn'o sheep on my farm very bad with scab, and I think they must have done it. 4649. If your sheep and veldt and kraals are thoroughly clean, and the sheep don't get mixe 1 with scabby sheep, don't you think they will remain clean ? — I think so. 4650. Although the veldt gets dry and the sheep poor ?— If the veldt does not get bad. 4651 You don't think they would remain clean if the veldt gets bad ? — I don't think they would. 4652. Then you believe poverty can bring on scab ? — Yes. 4653. Have you had an example of that, when your sheep were clean, and nothing happened that you covdd think of to infect them, and yet they got scabby again ?— I have not met with such an occasion. 4654. Mr. Francis.'] If you believed that scab could be eradicated from the Colony don't you think it would be a great benefit to all ? — Certainly. 4655. Then would you not be willing to put yourself to a little inconvenience and expense to arrive at that desired end ? — Certainly. 4656. Your complaint now is that you suffer inconvenience fi-om the present act ? — Yes, and the liberty of the farmers is interfered with in dealing with sheep. 4657. Then you are not really opposed to an act to try and eradicate the scab, but t > the inconvenience suffered under the present act ? — That is what I say. Mr. H. J. Weideman said : I agree with everything Mr. Auret has said, but I would like to add that in the early days, when there was plenty of Government ground, there was great scope for trekking ; there was no dipping, but with a little more scope the scab cuied itself. Even if a sheep is said to be cured in fourteen days, he is not really cured, though he appears to be so, because the time is too short. The cleaning depends entirely upon the seasons : sometimes in one dipping, and sometimes it takes a great deal of trouble and perhaps six months. My boundary was too close, my neighbour would not allow me to trespass, and I am obliged to koep my sheep in a kraal, and although they are kraaled they are clean to-day. My experience of the tobacco dip is that it takes away the milk of the ewes, and the lambs die of starvation. 4658. Chairman (to Mr. Aicret).'] Do you believe scab is contagious? — Yes. 46-39. Then as a matter of justice, do you think that any man who through negligence has scabby sheep should be allowed hy the law to infect his neighbour's sheep, who has gone to a great deal of expense to clean them of scab ? — No, it is not right ; a man should be protected by law. 4660. Then is it not absolutely essential in the interests of the careful farmer that we 189 should have a scab act ?--Ye8, I think so, but better provision should be made for bartering sheep. 4661. Personally, as well as speaking for the people you represent, are you in favour of a scab act of some sort ? — Yes. 4662. Do you consider that a farmer in an unproclaimed area, having clean sheep, should be protected from a careless neighbour trekking over his property and perhaps infecting his flocks 1 — Yes, I think so. Mr. P. A. C. Weidaman said : The scab act provides for sending scabby sheep to a pound over a farm, but you cannot trek with other stock under the same conditions over a clean place. I would have sheep dipped before they are sent to a pound. What the farmers complain most of is, not the act to clean the sheep, but the inconvenience which accompanies it, Mr. Richard Featherstone Zr«r«(?fl!Zikexamined. 4663. Chairman-I You are a farmer in the district of Aberdeen? — Yes, for nine years. I have about 4,500 sheep and goats. 4664. I understand that you have been elected at the meeting held to-day to represent the views of certain farmers who are here ? — Yes. 4605. "When the scab act was first put in force in this district was there much scab amongst the small stock ? — Yes, a great deal. 4666. Throughout the district ? — Yes, as far as I know. • 4667. Do you find any difference now ? — A good deal, both in the decrease of scab and the general improvement of produce. 4668. Do you attribute this entirely to the scab act ? — Yes. 4669. Or in part to having had a good season or two ? — We have not had a good season ; it is simply from the working of the scab act. 4670. From that I conclude that if it were proposed to abolish che scab act, the people irhom you represent in that district would bo very much opposed to it .'' — Yes. 4671. Considering the benefit you have derived from the working of the act, do you consider it would be advisable to-extend it to other areas in the Colony ? — Yes. 4672. To what extent ? — I should say have a general scab act throughout the Colony. 4673. Have you considered the conditions of the north-west districts of the Colony, or do you not know anything of them ? — I don't know anything of them. 4674. When it is stated that it would be impossible to carry out a scab act in those districts, do you think that is correct ? — I don't think so. 4675. You don't agree with the farmers -who say that the scab act cannot be worked on account of droughts, scarcity of water and other circumstances ? — No ; if there is enough water to drink, there is enough to dip. 4676. If the scab act were enforced in those places where they suffer much more from droughts than we do here, and an outbreak of scab took place, do you think it would be in the interests of those people to dip their sheep, no matter what condition they were in ? — Certainly, they would find the sheep would keep in better condition, and live much longer. 4677. Then you don't think it is impossible to dip sheej) when they get in very low condition, and are vei-y scabby ? — No ; it is possible to dip them. 4678. Choosing warm days, I suppose ? — Yes, choosing your time. 4679. It has also been suggested that as it would be impossible to carrj- out the provisions of the act throughout the Colony, a line of demarcation should bo drawn, leaving a large portion of the Colony outside the area. Have you ever thought where that line should be drawn ? — Yes, I should say to the Orange River to the north, and from there to Hope Town, Brit's Town, Victoria West, Beaufort West, Prince Albert, Uuioudale, Humansdorp and Willowmore. 4680. Provided you could not get a general act over the whole Colony, would you take this line ? — Yes, but I should prefer a general scab act." 4681. Suppose this line were drawn, would you allow stock from the unproclaimed area to come into the proclaimed area? — Only under certain conditions Only certain roads should be open for stock to be introduced, and at the entrances dipping tanks should be erected, and any flock allowed to enter should be twice dipped there unJer the supervision of some officer appointed by Government, and quarantined. 4682. If a farmer in the unproclaimed area had his stock clean, would you protect him to the extent of allowing him to prevent any scabby stock passing over his farm, even in public roads ? — I don't see how it could possibly be done. 4683. Do you think he ought to have protection ? — Yes. 468 4. Would you allow any field-cornetcj^ or single farm adjoining the proclaimel area to be allowed to come in iipon application ? — Certainly. 4685. Even a single farm .'' — Yes. 4686. You have had a good deal of experience of the working of the act during the last two and a half years. Do you find any great difficulty in removing your sheep ? — None whatever. 4687. Don't you find it very difficult to get an inspector when you want him? — It so bb2 190 happens I don't require one ; I have had clean bills for my stock for I don't know how long now, and I have a standing permit. 4688. Do you remove your sheep outside j"Our area with that permit .' — Yes. If I move thorn into another division I give the inspector notice, and move them on my standing permit. I don't get a separate permit. 4689. 1 suppose you think you are carrying out the provisions of the law } — Yes, I think 80. 4690. You will admit there has been a good deal of friction with many farmers in consequence of the difficulty they have had to get at an inspector * — I believe so. 4691. Do you think an inspector has more work to do than he can possibly get through in inspecting his area .-' — He cannot possibly do it thoroughly. 4692. Can you suggest any improvement in the act } — I would increase the number of inspectors. 4693. Would you have one in each field-cornetcy ?— No, that would be too many; but there should be a small addition to the present number. 4694. We are told here in Aberdeen that in one part of the district where drought has been very prevalent during the last twelve months, and water scarce, that they havo had great difficulty in getting the inspector to give them permission to move sheep at all. Do 3'ou think that is really the case ? — I think thej' ought to havo dipped them before the water got so scarce, and have cleaned them. 4695. Then you think if these people had entered into the thing with the intention of curing the scab they would have been in a very much better position than they were } — Certainly. 4696. But you would not allow them to move their stock if scabby, even if they were short of water and almost unable to maintain their sheep where they were ? — If people havo no water the sheep must be moved, but the}' should be dipped tirst. Thej' must not be allowed to die for want of water. 4697. Would it be advisable for Government to erect dipping tanks along the main roads for the purpose of dipping stock that are being moved, infected with scab, in proclaimed areas .'' — It would be a very good plan to have dipping tanks on the boundaries of the divisions on the roads, and to allow no stock to come in from one district to another unless they were dipped, whether scabby or not. 4698. How do you reconcile that with the fact that you yourself move sheep from one area to another without permission ? — Simply carry out the act as it is at present. 4699. Mr. du Toit.'] How long would you quarantine sheep coming fi'oili an unpro- claimed into a proclaimed area ? — About 28 days, if properlj' dipped with two dippings within 14 days. 4700. Would not that greatly interfere with slaughter stock and make them poor } — No, I don't think so. The butchers won't have slaughter stock if you take them at any time, if they can help it. 4701. Surely it would > practically amount to a prohibition when any slaughter stock being sent in from an uuproclaimed area? — Yes, from unproclaimed areas. 4702. Would rou do away with the privilege you at present enjoy of being able to move your stock without a certificate fi-om the inspector when you have a clean bill ? — Certainly not. 4703. But did you not say sheep should not go from one area to another without a permit ? — Fram an unproclaimed area. 4704. But you think holders of clean bills should retain the privilege they have now of being able to move their stock within the proclaimed area without a permit ? — Certainly. 4705. Do you know that provision is not contained in the act, but is only in the instructions to inspectors } — No ; and I may further state we are simply acting under the instructions of the superintending inspector. 4706. But you would certainly like to see it law } — Yes. 4707. Do you think it is possible that the act can work if the people don't submit themselves voluntarily' to it and help the in.spectors to carry it out ? — I think it would work. 4708. Therefore, do you think that if the restrictions as regards dipping and quarantining on the boundaiy are made so stringent they would later on compel people to come under the act rather than stand all these difficulties and drawbacks ? — Yes, I don't think it is fair for the proclaimed area that stock should be allowed to come in from the unproclaimed area unless thej- are dipped. 4709. Would you do the same with skins and wool coming from up-country ? — I don't see what you are going to do. 4710. Dr. Smartt.^ When you said sheep should be dipped before passing from one district to another, did you refer to sheep being moved under a clean permit ? — No, from an unproclaimed area. 4711. Do you consider any alteration should be made in the time of the licences, especially the three months' clause ? — Certainly ; I think one month is quite long enough. 4712. Would any practical farmer be able to clean his sheep within a month ? — Certainly. 4713. If at the expiration of that time the inspector found the flocks still infected, would j'ou extend the licence and fine the owner, or allow the itiepBctor the option of dipping the sheep ? — The latter. 4714. Do you think that the very fact of the owner not having the sheep clean at the expiration of one month proves that he does not know how to do it ? — Certainly, under favourable circumstances. 4715. Would j-ou be in favour of a compulsory simultaneoiis dipping act, wcrked in conjunction with a general scab act ? — It would be a splendid thing. 4716. Would you divide the Colony- into areas according to climate, or have a simultaneous dipping over the whole Colony in summer ? — Over all the Colonj' in summer, about Januarj'. 4717. You hold a clean bill of health ?— Yes. 4718. If a general simultaneous dipping act were introduced, would you be agreable, in the interests of the general public, to dip all your flocks for the first one or two years ? — Certainly. 4719. Do you think the majority of the farmers in youi- position would be prepared to do the same ? — I think so. 4720. Have you thought how the large centres of consumption in the Colony could be supplied with slaughter stock during the first six or nine months of the operation of a general scab act ? — No. 4721. Under such circumstances, do you think it would be advisable to divide the Colony into areas, leaving a large centre of consumption in each area, and to proclaim the act in each area, always cleaning the outside portion first, thus leaving the people with a clean bill of health, a free market to the consuming centre, and gradually extending the provisions of the act untU it come in force over the whole area, and so the whole area would be clean ? — I don't think there would be any chance of stamping out sc- -b in that way ; there would be always the danger of the inside farms infecting the outside ones. 4722. But if it was only for the first few months the act was in operation ? — Perhaps some provision of that kind would work, but you would not stamp out scab in that way. 4723. Mr. Botha.'] What distance is the nearest scab inspector from your place ? — About two hours. 4724. How did your inspector acquire his training to qualify him for the appointment ? — He has been a farmer all his life. 4725. Do you think that is sufficient to make him an efficient inspector ? — I think so. 4726. What area would you assign to each inspector ? — I think an inspector for each ward would be too many : you could not get enough men ; but there should be two more in- spectors for Aberdeen. 4727. Would you then have a sufficient number to attend to every dipping in the district personally } — Not to every dipping. 4728. Would it not be a good thing if inspectors could attend in person to every dipping .''—Yes. 4729. Do you also believe that wool and skins from scabby sheep are infectious } — Yes. 4730. Do you believe that the scab consists of an insect ? — Yes. 4731. Then that insect must be in the skin ?— Yes. 4732. Then why should wool carry the infection ? — The insect lives in the wool as well as the skin. 4733. Do you think wool and skins are as infectious as animals ? — No, the animals huddle up together at night in kraals, and it is only along the roads that the wool is dropped from the bales on to the road or veldt. 4734. If animals were put in a truck on the raUway in the same way as woil and skinS; do you think the danger would be about the same ? — Yes. 4735. Mr. Francis.'] I suppose the reason why you consider sheep more liable to carry contagion than wool or skins, is because wool and skins are sent to the port for shipment to England, whereas sheep are scattered all over the country ? — Yes. 4736. Do you consider the present method of appointing inspectors to be the best ? — Not entirely. 4737. What would you suggest? — I tbink the civil commissioaer should recommend through the head scab inspector, and the Government appoint. 4738. Do you consider that clause giving to landowners the right to grant a certificate of removal a defect in the present act ? — Yes. 4739. If a flock of your sheep became infected with scab in the winter in a drought, would you rather dip them at onoe or let them run on ? — Dip at once. 4740. Do j-ou consider you would have less loss in the end bj- doing so ? — Certainly. 4741. Would it be necessary or advisable, even in the case of drought, to suspend the act in certain areas? — No. 4742. If people did find it difficult to get sheep out of an unproclaimed area into a pro- claimed area, don't you think they could remedy that to a great extent by conung under the act ? — Certainly. 4743. If the Colony is at present losing about £500,000 per annum because our sheep are scabby, don't you think it would be far better to spend £200,000 for a couple of j-ears to endeavour to eradicate it than to go on as at present ? — Certainly. 4744. Do you think scabby sheep should be allowed to be sent to a pound without being dipped .' — No, the owner of the land on wliich they are found should dip them before sending them away, and the cost should be a charge upon the animals in the pouud. 4745. If the act were amended as you suggest, and properly carried out, do you con- sider that we could eradicate scab from this countrj- ? — Yes, speaking from my personal experience. 192 4746. Dr. Smartt.'] If there should be a compulsory general scah act, would you be in favour of a dip dcp5t being established by Government to supply dip to the fanners at first cost price, free of carriage on the railways ? — Yes, it would assist a great deal in stamping out scab. 4747. You would not entertain the idea which has been suggested that dip should be supplied free for a couple of years ? — No, Mr. Christian Jacebut Rabie,jun., examined. 4748. Chairman.^ You are a sheep farmer in this district ? — Yes, for about fourteen years. I have 6,000 or 7,000 sheep and goats. 4749. You have been elected with Mr. HurndaU to speak on behalf of certain of the farmers present here to-day ? — Yes. 4750. Do you agree with Mr. Hurndall's evidence? — Yes, in everything eseept the Government dipping tanks in the proclaimed areas. Where a number of stock is found scabby I think it ought to go to the nearest dipping tank instead of perhaps going on through the whole district of Aberdeen to the other side to be dipped there. I think it ought rather to be compulsory on every farmer in the proclaimed area to have a dipping tank according to a standard laid down by Government, and any sheep found with scab on a farm or road should go to the nearest dipping tank, and the owner of the tank should receive certain remuneration for its use. 4751. Might not that lead to some difiBculty in this way that a flock of sheep when found with scab might be much nearer the dipping tank on the next farm than that on the farm they are driving over, and the next farmer might object to their being dipped in his tank ? Would it not be better to dip them on the farm where they are .' — They should travel back by the same load to the last dipping tank they have passed. 4752. Would not the farmer object to their being brought back over his farm ? — He allowed them to pass. 4753. He may not have known about it. Supjiose a flock of scabby sheep came on to your farm, and were nearly off it, you would naturally object to having them dipped if you could get rid of them ; but suppose the tank on the next farm was nearest, he would say he objected to their coming there ? — I think they should go to the last tank they passed. 4754 Is that the only point on which you disagree ? — Yes. 4755. Mr. Botha.'] You agree that wool and skins contain the same contagion, but are not so liable to come into contact with stock as animals, and there is the difference. Is there any other difference ? — The acwus would not be bO lively on a dead skin as on the live animal. It has been proved by the veterinary surgeon that they are not so lively on a dead skin as on the live animal. The acartis loses a certain amount of its nourishment which it gets from the live animal when the wool is shorn off. 4756. Then according to you it could not remain dangerous for very long if dropped in kraals and so on ? — Yes. _ 4757. But in that case they must be more dangerous in wool t — I should say there is a difference,ibecau8e the wool is dry and the dung in the kraal is wet. 4758. But they don't find auy nourishment in the dung .'' —I admit that. 4759. 'Jfr. Francis.] Do j-ou consider the reason why skins and wool passing through the district are not so infectious as live stock, is because the wool and skins are sent right off and the sheep are allowed to wander over the country ? — Yes. 4760. Would you be in favour of an act which permitted a man to take a flock of scabby sheep on to your farm and dip them ? — No, not with scabby sheep ; but say he finds that scab has broken out in his flock just when passing over my farm, even if he has passed my farm, I would certainly allow him to dip. 4761. Do you think all farmers would be agreeable to such a law ? — I think so, if they want to eradicate scab. Mr. Alfred Ross Biggs examined. 4762. Chairman.] You are a farmer in Aberdeen and have been elected with the two previous witnesses to give evidence on behalf of some of the farmers who are here to-day ? — Yes. I have only been farming in Aberdeen three and a half months, but I was in the JansenviUe district about twelve years. I have nearly 3,000 sheep and goats. 4763. Do you agree with the evidence which has just been given ? — Yes, entirely. 4764. Have you any suggestions to make which have not been referred to by Mr. Humdall and Mr. Biggs ? — I don't think so. 4765. Mr. du Toit.] Are you sure from your experience that scab of all kinds is carried by an insect externally ?— Yes. 4766. Are you aware of a certain kind of skin disease, caused either by some internal insect or by fever, which is very much like the scab caused by an external insect .'' — There is something similar to it, but you can easily distinguish the two. I know fever will often take off the wool, but you can easily detect it because the skin is soft. 4767. When a sheep is in good condition and scab breaks out, is not the skin at first also soft ? — Not where it is scabby. j:;3 4768. Have you not sometimes found that c , ja seed gjrass gets into the wool and makes it come off, and the sheep bite ? — Yes, the grass seed does make them bite, but you can easily detect that by examining it. 4769. Can the kind of scab disease to which you i-ifer be cured by dipping ? —I don't think so : not that caused by fever. 4770. Then unless an inspector is able to distinguish between this so-called scab and the real scab, don't you think he would run the risk of doing great injustice to a farmer by compelling him to try and cure it by dipping .'' — He could not possibly mistake the one for the other. 4771. Do you not think it would h'' better if inspectors were provided with microscopes, not only that they may make sure themselves, but also to satisfy the farmers of the existence of insects in the sheep ? — I think it would be the best way. 4772. Have you often seen this kind of scab disease caused by fever? — Not very much of it, only occasionally. 4773. Have you ever seen it so severe that the joints of the legs and underneath the shoulders get cracked ? — No. 4774. What is this kind of fever called? — It is fever, and goes by different names. 4775. Have you blue-tongue ? — We have tonge-ziekte. 4776. Do you know by experience that scab can be cured just as easily at any time of the year ? — -It can be cured at any time of the year, but it is easier in summer. 4777. What time would you allow to cure sheep in winter? — I would give double the time in winter. 4778. Are you aware that it is easier to cure sheep in good than in poor condition ? — No. 4779. Are you aware that it is easier to cure them when the veldt is green ? — No. 4780 Do you believe that scab can be thoroughly stamped out of the Colony? — Certainly. 4781. Will it also be possible to do so in an area divided from the rest of the Colony by a line of demarcation as suggested by the two previous witnesses ? — Yes. 4782. Then you would not say to effect that object it would be absolutely necessary to have a general act throughout the Colony .-• — It would be necessary to have a general act to stamp out scab throughout the Colony. 4783. Do you think it would help us much if we have a general act and they don't have one in the Free State .'' — Of course it would be more difficult to stamp it out. 4784. Do you believe scab is as contagious as has been alleged, so that even the wind may blow it about and flies carry it ? — Yes, but not to any great distance. 4785. Would you be in favour of a very lenient act, even more lenient than the present act, throughout the whole Colony, rather than have the more stringent act now in force, but over only a part of the Colony .-' — I would rather have a mild act over the whole Colony. 4786. By milder I mean an act which would make it easier to remove stock, so that, as has been suggested, the holder of a clean biU would remove on his own permit ? — Yes. 4787. And give a little more time in winter to clean the stock ? — ^Yes. 4788. Dr. Smartt.^ If the scab act had been more efficiently enforced during the last two years, do j'ou consider we should have had much less scab in the country than we have at the present time ? — Yes. 4789. How do you reconcile that with your statement that a general act, even looser thtm the existing one, would tend to eradicate scab throughout the Colony ? — It comes in from the unproclaimed areas. 4790. Under those circumstances would it not be better, in case we cannot have a general act, to have a stringent scab act over a certain portion of the Colony rather than to have a very weak act, allowing any number of loopholes for escape, over the whole Colony ? — I should think it would be better to have a more stringent one over a portion of the country. 4791. From your experience of this district and Jansenville do V'su consider that thirty days would be time enough for any licence, even in winter ? — I think it would. 4792. Consequently would you not, on reconsideration, withdraw your statement, that a man should have twice the time in summer as in winter, since thirty days was the time proposed that he should have in summer ? — Yes. 4793. We have it in evidence that certain traders are in the habit of buj-ing small parcels of skins, wet, and that they take theui about the country in their carts or wagons and spread them out on the veldt to dry. If these skins are scabUy, would such a practice be liable to spread scab in the proclaimed area ? — Certainly. 4794. To prevent such things happening, would it not be better to provide that all skins passing through a proclaimed area fi'om an unproclaimed area on a wagon should be baled, and closed up, to prevent all probability of infection ? — Yes. 4795. Chairman.'] I suppose you agree that all railway tri^icks which carry stock or pro- duce should be disinfected ? — Yes. ' 4796. Mr. Botha']. Do you agp:ee with the evidence which has been given about wool and skins ? — Yes. 4797. That they also carry infection as well as animals? — Yes. 479S. But as anim ils are more liable to come into contact with other animals, do you also think the sheep are more dangerous as regards contagion ? — Yes. 4799. You kuow there is such a thing as winged phylloxera. You don't believe there is such a thing as flying acari ? — No. 194 4800. Mr. Francis.'] Do you thint we could prevoat all lear of contagion from the Free State by prohibiting the importation of all stock ? — Yos. 4801. Chairman.] Do you think you would require a powerful microscope to find out the difference between a sheop affected with fever and one affected with scab ? — No. 4802. Would the naked eye be quite sufficient for all practical purposes ? — Yes. 4803. Woidd it be possible to carry out farming operations successfully in the Colony unless you have a scab act of some kind, to compete with the outside competition in the wool trade ? — I don't think so. 4804. Then do you think the interest of the Colony demand that some steps should be taken to eradicate scab as soon as possible ?— Certainly. 4805. Is that the general feeling of the farmers with whom you come in contact .'' — Yes. Mr. Johannes van UeerAen examined. 4806. You are a farmer living here? — Yes, about sevenlecn years. I have 4,000 stock. 4807. You have head the evidence which has been given this afternoon? — Yes. 4808. In order to carry on successful farming in this Colony, do you believe wo must have a scab act of some kind ? — Undoubtedly. 4809. Are you in favour of a general scab act ? — Yes. 4810. If we cannot have that, do you think it would be possible to draw a line to divide the Colony into two areas? — It would be (jnly to the disadvantage of those in the pro- claimed area to have such a line, and I see no reason why there shoidd not be a scab act, even in the north-wostern districts. We have experienced it every day that you cannot carry on a scab act in the proclaimed area unless the other parts of the Colony are under the act. 481 1. You are opposed to a partial scab act of any kind .? — Yes. 4812. In what respect has the present act failed ? — I think one of the reasons is because a great many different kinds of dip have been used, and I don't thiuk they all answer the purpose, or have been properly used. 4813. If farmers fail to stamp out the scab from their flocks, should the sheep be dipped under supervision ? — Yes. 4814. So that the Government should dip the sheep, and furnish the dip, charging the owner of the stock with the expense ? — I don't know, because I don't think there is a single farmer in existence who is not aware that scab can be cured. They may not have done it themselves, but thoy have seen their neighbours do it. 4815. And therefore do you recommend that the Government should step in and dip them ? — Yes. 481 G. It has been suggested that there are certain poor farmers on the borders of the district of Aberdeen who should not onlj' be assisted in the dipping, but Government should pay the expense ? — I don't agree with that, because I know certain poor farmers in my neighbourhood who get no assistance and yet keep their sheep clean. 4817. You think, however poor a farmer is, he can stamp out scab ? — Yes. 4818. Do you think the present method of appointing scab inspectors is the best? — I think there should be a general election of all those interested in the act. 4819. Should the farmers be called together to nominate the inspectors } — Yes. 4820. Through the divisional council } — Yes. 4821. Have you ever found any great difficulty in getting a permit for the removal of stock, or have you moved them without a permit ? — There is a difficulty when have you not a clean bill. 4822. ^Vhen you have a clean bill, do j'ou move stock under it } — Yes, but if you have cleaned your stock after they have been quarantined, but have not yet obtained a clean bill, then it \a a matter of difficulty to get an insjioctor to give a permit for removal. 4823. iJon't you think it would be a very much better plan that a farmer who had held a cleaTi bill of health for six months should be allowed to move his sheep under his own jiermlt without reference to the inspector ?— No, I don't thiuk that would be advisable. 4824. Not if he were fined very heavily if ho moved scabby sheep? — I think he would be more careful than under the present system. 4825. "Would 3'ou protect any farmer living in an unproclaimed area, whose sheep were clean, by aUosving him to prevent any scabby sheep moving across his farm .' — Certainly. 4826. Are you in favour of the proposal that Government should build public dijiping tanks alony- the main roads ? — I am partly in favour of it, because I have seen people trekking with their sheep, and although the sheep may be clean at first, after they have travelled n certain distance scab breaks out, and if there is no public dipping tank to which they can g >, I have known private individuals object to have the stock dipped on their property ; w ud accordingly I think it would be greatly to the advantage of people trekking about to Lave such dipping places. 4827. Ymi don't think it would be a better plan to say they should be dipped at the tank of the fai luor on whose place they are when the scab breaks out ? — I don't think that would answ er. That man might be six hours from town, and he would have to travel to town to gel the dipping stuff. 4828. Mr. du Toit.] Is it for safety's sake that they want a heavy penalty enforced if 195 scab 18 fouud amoigst sheeji sent on an owner's permit ? — Yes ; but it must be prove! to have been done wilfully. 4829. You think the peaalty should not bo ialiioted if it can be proved that the flocks were healthy when they left home ? — Yes. 4830. Have you any idea how many dipping places would be required for all the public roads ? — No. 4831. Don't you think it would be very dangerous, if a trekking flock is found scabby, that the sheep should be allowed to continue for perhaps twenty miles further on to reach a Government dipping tank, and crossing over so many farms on the way? — That may be, but I consider that one of the safest ways out of the difficulty. 4832. When the sheep are already on a farm, would it not be safer to have them dipped there, rather than to allow them to go on ? — The owner of that private dip would be at liberty to charge whatever I e liked, but the Government could arrange itw own terms for the public dipping tanks, and people trekking could arrange their trek accordingly. 4833. What about the danger of allowing a man to go twenty miles further to reach a Government dipping tank ? Would it not infect the farmers along the road ? — I suppose we all have an idea of what scab is. If you are travelling along tlie road you may find a single fcheep infected with scab. I have been driving with thousands, and liave seen a sinijlc slieep infected, yet within twenty days' time I have not seen one other scratch himseli , so I don't think it would affect others to any extent, even if that t-ingle infected sheep travelled the short distance of twenty miles which you mentioned. 4834. Then you don't think scab is eo very contagious as it is supposed to be, because even in twenty miles the sheep would have to sleep once ur twice .'' — That one single sheep would not cause infection to any extent. 483j. I>r. Smartt.'] I take it you would not like scabby sheep to be drive:i uji to your homestead to be dipped, and most farmers have their dipping tanks at the homestead ? — Certainly. 4836. Would it not au.swer all requirement-^ if the Governmeit tanks were made to travel } — That would answtr very Avell if you could cany the water and veldi with it. 4837. Are you in favour of a compulsory simultaneous dipping act in conjunction with a scab act ? — Yes. 4838. Mr. Botha.] Are you acquainted with the districts of Fraserburg, Carnarvon, Prieska and Sutherland ? — Not with Sutherland ; I am with the other three. 4839. As a speculator, have you had opportunities of buying sheep up there ? — Yes. 4840. Do you think that country ia quite as suitable for a scab act as any other portion of the Colony ? — Yes. 4841. If it is unfair or dangerous for the rest of the Colony that scabby sheep should trek through the proclaimed areas, don't you think it is also perhaps equally dangerous and unfair that wool and skins from those parts should be sent over proclaimed areas to seaports or country villages ? — But there is always a remedy for that. There is danger in it. 4812. What is the remedy.? — I would have them thoroughly dipped and suited in a patent d'p. 4843. Would the produce buyers approve of it ? — I don't think it is injurious. 4844. Would not a sprinkling of a patent dip on skins and wool have the same effect upon sheep in a truck ? — Very few people would go to the trouble and expense of turning ever}' sheep over to see that every part was salted. 4845. You might make it the law, but would it help if you did? — It would be a security to have the sheep dipped in it. 4846. Then you don't think the sprinkling of a dry patent dip on a living animal will cure the scab — No. 4847. But it would have a decided effect upon wool and skins ? — Yes. 4848. It would not kill the insect on the sheep ? — No. 4849. Is there, then, any difference between the insect on the skin and on the sheep? —No. 4850. It is the same insect? — Yes. 4851. Mr. Francis.] How long do you think it would take you to clean a flock of sheep from scab ? — About twenty (hiyg. 4852. Then do you couHider a licence of three months is too long? — I dou't see the necessity for giving three m(mth8. It is too long, but in order to be reasonable, and to allow every facility for the working oi the act, it might be given. 4853. If you had your sheep perfectly free of scab, and your neighbours' sheep became infected, and you knew he could clean them in twenty days, don't you think it would bo unreasonable to give him three montlis to do it in, while at the time your sheep are in danger of becoming infected ? — It would be unfair to me, but I have always held the opinion that if the act is to be carried out in that way it wiU never work successfully. It should not be made too hard upon the farmer, because some of our farmers are not educated up to that extent. 4854. If the act were enforced, do you think it would be advisable under any ciicunisfances to suspend it for a time ? — I have always considered it is one of the most difficult questions in districts like this. I don't tliink it would be a good thing, because eveiy owner of a farm ought to know, and see when drought is coming on and he is obliged to trek, and he ouf^ht to have his stock clean for the purpose. [G. 1.— '94.] cc 196 4855. Do you tlunk the fines which are generally imposed for breaches of the act are sufficient ? — Yes. 4856. If you werp moving with say 2,000 sheep, and they became infected with scab, would you rather pay a fine of £1, or at the outside £,'1 and go on to your own home with them and break the law, or stop and dip them ? — I would rather dip them. 4857. Has the fact ever come to your notice that sheep are sometimes moved with a pass but without a permit .' — No. 4858. I believe you are a fieldcornet ? — Yes. 4859. Have you ever given passes to natives to move stock ? — Only during the first four months of the operation of the act. 4860. Have you a clean bill at jiresent } — Yes. 4861. Are j'ou aware of the fact that an inspector finding sheep infected with scab being moved along a public road can stop them to have them dipped ? — Yes. 4862. Mr. du Toil.'\ How would you lu mage to spriukle wool with dip ? — The ciuestion is whether the iicarus will go through the wool trade. 4863. But sometimes the bales got torn along the road, and the wool comes out, and sometimes the bales are torn with hooks ? — I am uot positively aware how long the acarus can exist off the body of the sheep. I would uot opeu the bale, but sprinkle it after it has been done up. 4864. Would that be a sufficient j)reveutive? — Instances of the kind you mention are very exceptional. 4865. Then don't you think it would be a poor safeguard ? — No, I think it would be a very secure one, because I have tried it with my skins for moths. Aberdeen, Saturday, 26th Novemher, 1892. PRESENT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha, ,, DU ToiT, Dr. Sjiartt, Mb. Francis. Mr. Johannes Anthowj Smith examined. 4866. Chairman.'] You are a farmer residing in the Aberdeen district } — Yes. I have been nine years in the district, and have about 3,000 sheep. 48G7. When you commenced farming here, did you tind scab very prevalent amongst your flocks ? — I think it was about the same as it is now. 4868. Was there any improvement when the act was put in force in the district? — There was more scab then than there is now. 4869. Then you think the act has done good in the district It — No. 4870. But if you see an improvement in the sheej), and there is less scab, surely it must be attributable to the scab act .'' — It is due to the fact tliat before the act the farmers had just begun to take the matter in hand, aud to dij), and so even if there hid been no scab act things would have improved, except that under the act those who otherwise would not do so were obliged to dip. 4871 . Do you think there would have Ijeeu the same improvement if there had been uo scab act ? — I think so. 4872. Then how is it some of the farmers did not dip un'il they were obliged (o by the act ? — My opinion is that these people saw the improvements which followed upon dipping, and would have been brought to dip without any act. 4873. Do you consider there is any use in having a scab act in the country ? — Not as the present act is. 4874. What alterations would you propose to make it suitable to your own views ? — Personally I cannot say the act has done me any harm, but it presses unduly on the poorer farmers. 4875. How do you explain it that the small farmers should suffer more than the large ? — The wealthy farmer has always the cash to pay for anything he requires, but the small farmer has to live out of his kraal, and for anything he may require has to negotiate sheep. 4876. We have it in evidence that sheep which are free of scab fetch two or three shillings more per head whe i sold at the sale than scabby sheej), so surely it would bo to the interest of every man to keep his sheep clean ? — I refer to their bartering their stock. 4877. Still they would get a much higher price for their stock if they were clean than if they were scabby, and uiust derive the same benefit ? — Yes ; they will of course know that. 4878. Then they must derive the same benefit in proportion to the large farmers ? — There is a difference between the poor farmers and the others. The small farmers have not a large quantity of sheep to sell, only enough for their own use, and perhaps one or two to barter for what they may require, and there is no one who requires more protection than the small farmer. 197 4879. But does not tho small farmer derive the same Ijenefit as the large from tte increased price for his wool, and getting more wool from clean sheep than scabby ? —Naturally. 4880. Then he must derive the same benefit in proportion to the large farmer? — I don't mean that poor farm"i-s should not keep their stock clean. 4881. Could 3^ou suggest any improvement in the net to meet the case you put ? — No, not at present. 4882. Do you thiuk, as has bepn ptated here, that it would be advisable for rToveniment to erect dipping tanks, aiul dij' ihe stuck belonging to these small farmers ? — 1 thiuk not ; t)ie Government has expense enough witli the act, and people who wish to dip their sheep can build their own tanks. 4883. Do you think these small farmers have the means to erect their own tanks if they wish to ? — Yes. 4884. As you say you have derived benefit from the act, do you think it would be advisable to extend it ? — I don't say so. 4885. Have you suffered any injury personally from the act ? — No. 4886. Do you think the act has done any good ? — More or less it did good to the ■wealthy farmers, but not to the poorer ones. 4887. Would it be advisable to repeal the act '? — Yes, the present act. 4888. What would you put in place of it ? — I think some act can be passed to compel people to dip their sheep, but I have not thought the matter out, and cannot offer any suggestions. 4S83. Would it be advisable to have a simultaneous dipping act? — Yes; if it is practicable I thiuk it would do good. 4890. Would a dipping act of that kind be more suitable than the present act, or would you have it in connection with tlie present act ? — I cannot say. 4891. Do you think the small farmers in this district would prefer a dipping act to the present scab act ? — I think so. 4892. 3fr. Francis.^ Is your objection to the act the fact that it presses hardly on this poor class of farmers ? — Yes. 4893. As far as you are personallj* concerned you have no objection to the act? — If I have not a clean bill it may cause me some slight inconvenience, but I have always managed to get along, and it is not necessary for me to live by bartering. 4894. Besides the objections you have stated, have you any other particular objections to tlie act? — Yes, there is one clause especially, by which a farmer can recover £20 damages for scabbj' sheep trespassing on his piroperty if lie holds a clean bill, over and ab'ive all pound and other charges recoverable. 4895. Suppose you had all your sheep clean of scab, and another man through negligence allowed some of his scabby sheep to mix with yours, thus perhaps cau-ing j-ou nn expense of £20 or £30, doi't j'ou thiuk tlio law should protect yoa ? — Scab is not so dangerous as that. 4896. Then do you think scab is not very contagious? — It is when the sheep sleep together. 4897. Consequently the case I liavo put might still happen, and your .sheep might become infected by a neighbour's ? — Yes, but it is not so dangerous as to cause damage to justify a fine of £20. 4898. What would it cost a man with 5,000 sheep to clean them ?- About £15 or £16, according to the length of the wool. 4899. Would it be advi.sablo for Government to obtain dip at cost price, and send it carriage free to the centres of the sheeji indu.^try? — The Government should have done that before they pioclaimed the act. 4900. What do you think is the cause of scab in sheep? — My opinion is that scab ia duo to poverty and is a blood disea.se. 4901. If your sheep became infected with scab, can you clean them by dipping ? — Yes. 4902. But that dip does not go inside the sheep : it only goes on the skin, so how does it affect the blood ? — It penetrates through the skin. I miglit ask j-ou why you drink medicine for a pain in your leg, although you put the medicine in j'our stomach. 4903. Then if sheep are once cleansed of scab, how do they become reinfected? — Through bad management,, poverty or contagion from other infected sheep. 490 1. If the disease is in the blood, how does tlio blood of one sheep infect the blood of another when they orae into contact ? — Everybod}^ understands that one sheep cannot infect the blood of the other : I speak of the fever. 4905. What do you mean by fever ? — Lung sickness and all diseases of this class are communicated by the fever which goes along with them, and naturally sheep which sleej) together in the kraal contaminate one another much more than if they ran in the open veMt. 4906. In spite of all that, you think if we had a scab act ou the lines you approve would be a benefit to the couijtry ? — I think so. 4907. Mr. Bo/ha.~\ Sboxdd a man with a clean bill be allowed to move his sheej likes without a permit from au inspector ? — I think so. 4908. Would it not offer more convenience, or occasion less inconvenience, to 1 inspector in every field-cornetcy ? — It would be butter if there were even two. 4909. If there is an inspector in every field-cornetcy, do you think the work cf done for much less than it is being done for now ? — I think so. 4910. Are you satisfied with the present system of appointing inspectors, up cc2 198 recommendation of the divisional council ? — No, I think they should be elected by the majority of the farmers residing in the fiold-cornetcy. 4911. Mr. du Toit.~\ Would not these poor people get the same price for the few sound sheep they want to harter althf a man dipping all his sheep if only one flock is iufcciod .' — No. 4914. Do you think an insect has also something to do with causing scab ? — Ycm. 4915. Which is the first ciuse of the disease, poverty in the blood or the insect on tho skin ? — The poverty. 4916. Then you thinlc the insect comes from the scab, not the scab from the insect .'' — That I cannot say. 4917. Can you cure scab at any time of the year, or in whatever condition the slioop miy be ? — If you dip sheep in the winter you can cure them, but if the veldt is very bad and they are in poor condition the result is very doubtful. 4918. Do }-ou believe scab cnn be entirely stamped out from the Colony? — No. 4919. Evun by the working of a suitable act? — Not unless the farms are enclosed; then it could be done more or less if all the wild animals are poisoned, so that the slieep could run night and day. 4920. Then the sheep would not be so apt to get poor? — Yes. 4921 Are j-ou in favour of a general dipping act throughout the Colony? — No, I am against compulsion for dipping. 4922. If such an act wore introduced might it not work well, as it would compel many people to dip who otherwise would not ? — I don't think so. 4923. Have you any idea how such a dipping act could be made to work ? — No. 4924. Br. Smnrft.~\ Have you over held a clean bill of health? — Yes ; I cannot say for how long. I havo not a clean bill now. 4925. With the exce])tion you refer to, have you ever had your flocks perfectly clean during the last five years ? — I don't remember, but I believe my sheep wore clean the year before the act came into force. 4926. Mr. Francis.'] Do you know of any other insect or animal that comes from poverty or disease ? — No. Mr. Alfred Miller examined. 4927. Chmrman.l Are you a farmer in Aberdeen ? — Y'es. I have been resident here for the last 22 years. 4928. Have you derived any benefit from the working of the act ? — Certainly. 4929. Do you think it would be advisable to extend its provisions to other districts ? — Certainly. 4930. To the whole Colony ?— Yes. 4931. Do 30U think the small farmers would derive as much benefit as the large } — I do. 4932. Can you suggest any alteration in the method of appointing inspectors ? — Only that it ought to be left to the civil commissioner to recommend the inspector, and not to the di^nsiotial council. 4933. Would it assist in the working of the act if farmers holding a clean bill moved sheep under their own permit ? — Yes, but I understand they have the right to do tliiit now, within the area, and I think that right should be extended so that they might move sheep throughout the country. 4934. Would you subject a farmer to a heavy fine if his sheeii were scabby when he moved them ? — A ver>' hea\-y fine. 4935. Would it be to the interest of the people and assist in the working of the act if Government erected dipping tanks and dipped sheep for small farmers, under supervision ? — I don't see any ditHculty in the way of an owner, or even an occupier, of land putting up a dip himself. I don't see why the Government should do it. 4936. Would it be advisable for the Government to erect dipping tanks on public roads or thoroughfares, in order to dip sheep among which scab broke out while travelling ?— As far as the act is extended now, only a portion of the Colony being under it, I think it would be ad^-isable to do so on the boundary lines, in order to dip the stock from the outside districts. ' ■ "". Should they be properly dipped twice and quarantined before they are allowed to 1 an unprodaimed into a proclaimed area ?■ — Certainly. Is there anything you could suggest to imi^rove the working of the act ? — The I reallj- think is desirable is to provide a greater number of inspectors, since in e of there being too few the act is not applied as it should be, and people are every day. Mr. du Toit.'] With regard to a suggestion that h.ns been made, would you apply y in every case w'oere scabbj' sheep are found Huiougst a flock beiucr moved, the owner could prove they were all cb an when lie Ict'i .■' — If there has been time jO break out during the jcurney. 199 4940. Would you be in favour of a penalty being inflicted if a man wilfully broke the law ? — The heaviest penaltj- sLould be inflicted on him. 4941. Are you in favour of a compulsory simultaneous dipping act combined with a scab act ?— Certainly, but there will be difficulties th.'it must be provided for. 4942. Do you think such an act could be worked .-' — Yes. 494-3. Mr. BnthaT^ With reference to the appointment of inspectors, do you think a magistrate who )iad ju.st been appointed to a jil.nc would be in a bet!er position to judge of a ii'.au's suitability than the divisional council .-" — I think he could more or less find out in a very short notice who are qualified men, and there would be less chance of his favouring individual friends. 4944. How would he find out 'i — Through the different oflBcials in the district, and he could make himself acquainted with the people. There would be intelligent farmers who could give him information. 4945 Might not these intelligent farmers also have their favourites ? — One might have one, and another another, but the magistrate would not be bound to any one lot. 4946. Which do j-ou think has more interest in the scab act, the members of the divisional council or the magistrate? — I think the magistrate n-iuld certainl}' show less favour in making the appointment tliau the divisional council, because in a good many districts, as far as I know, the wards are not represented in the way they ought to be, and consequently men are chosen as inspectors who are not suitable. 4947. Then do you hold that there is wisdom in numbers? — Not in every case. 4948. Mr. Francis.'] If your sheep became scabby, how long would it take to thoroughly clean them ? — I would thoroughly cure them in three dippings. The second dipping should be fourteen days after the first, and the third a fortnight after the second. 4949. Then do you think the three months' licence which an inspector is bound to give on an outbreak of scab is too long ? — Not at the present time. 4950. Would it be advisable to give a certain discretionary power to inspectors to grant a licence for one mtmth to tliree months, with the right of ajipeal to the magistrate ? —Yes, the iu'^pector ouj^ht to have tliat power, but under the circumstances, when the act lias only b en iri force a few years, il; could not be worked in the way it oujrht. Stock have not been so far cleansed that you could be quite certain to keep your stock clean, and if a man is limited to a shorter time he might not be able to do it. 4951. Do you think the fines at present imposed under tlie act are sufficient to deter a man from breaking the law ? — The fines are heavy enough if they are applied where necessary. 4952. Have yon. ever known cases where a man would rather break the law and be fined £1, than put himself to the trouble of complying with its provisions ? — Many cases. 4953. Then the fines are not sufficiently heavv to force sued men to keep the law ? — It would appear .so, because even a pjnalty of £20 does not deter people from moving scabby stock if they get the chance. 4954. Would you be ia favour of amen ling the la^v so that if a man had had a thrje months' licence, and had failed to clean his sheep, he should have to pay for a renewal ? — Not at present, unless there were a compulsory scab act throughout the Cdony, and the act had been in force a few years longer to give people a chance of keeping their stock clean from infection. 4955. Has the act been properly carried out in this district .-' — No, through the insufficient number of inspectors. They cannot do the work. That is the only reason. 4956. Have any breaches of the law come under your notice .-' — Ye;. 4957. Have you reported them ? — Yes. 4958. Do you think it would be advisable for the Gnverament t.^ suppl}- dips at cost price, free of railway carriage ? — -I think to supply the people Uke that would give a great stimulus to the working of the act. iJ/r. Jacob Johannes TFeideman examined. 4959. Chairman.'] You have been appointed b}- the farmers present to represent thoir views ? — Yes. 4960. Are you in favour of the scab act? — No, because it has failed to stamp out scab. One portion of the district of Aberdeen can bear with the act, but not atKjther portion, because one is poor and dry and the other has better pasturag>. Ttie act preD 204 Jfr. James Carey Xaoh exrtiiiiupd. 50G1. Chairman.~\ You are oue of tlie reproseutativos appointed at the mii^tia;^ this morning ? — Yes. 5062. Are you farming here ? — Yes, all my life. I liavo about 2,600 stock. 5063. Do you agree'^wiih the evidence given by Mr. Biggs } — Not entirely. 5064. Wliere do you disagree with him 'i — I don't agree about the boundary, and stock coming in from unproclaimed areas. Mr. Biggs s:iid sheep could come through if they were dipped, but skins should not be allowed ; but I would not allow either shoi.>[i, wool or ekins, as the wool and skins would bring in scab a little. 5065. Then you conijider the disease is far more contagious than Mr. Biggs does.' — Iti that respect I do ; he does not think it is contagious in skins, and I do. 5066. Would you prohibit wool and skins being brougtit in over the railway ? — Yes. 5067. How would you arrange for carrying ou the ordinary trade of the country ? — By having a general scab act. 5068. And supposing that is impossible } — Thej' would have to find some disinfectant. 5069. Would you have the trucks carrying skins and wool disinfected .'' — Yes, and the produce as well. 5070. How do you propose to disinfect wool and skins? — I don't know how j-ou would do it with the wool, but I suppose you could do it with the skins bj- mixing a very we.ik dip and sprinkling them with it out of a water-can, in the same way as merchants do it with arsenic to get the moth out. 5071. Do j'ou think there is as much danger of infection from wool and skins as from live stock P — There is more from live stock than from wool and skins. 5072. Would you not be companitively safe if 5'ou disinfect the trucks after quaraufin- ing and dipping the sheep at the port of entry ? — That might be just as good. 5073. Your firm opinion is that unless we have a general scab act, we shall never be able to stamp out scab .'' — Yes. 5074. If it is found impossible to have a general scab act, don't you think a line could be drawn, and that there would be a fair chance of protecting the proclaimed area if the line were properly guarded, and stock not allowed to cross unless they were th )roughly dipped and quarantine 1 } — It might be done ; I don't say it could. 5075. If such a line were drawn, do you think it would be advisable to protect a man outside the proclaimed area whose stock was clean by allowing him to prevent any scabby stock crossing over his farm .'' — Certainly no scabby sheep should be allowed to go over his farm. 5076. Do }'ou think you could improve upon the present methodof appointing inspectors } — No, I don't see how you can. 5077. What about dipping places on the main roads } — They should be made at every public outspan, and at every town or village or commonage. 5078. Are you in favour of a compulsory simultaneous dipping act in connection with a scab act ? — Yes, within a couple of months. 5079. Are there many natives in this district, carrying ou small farms } — There are a good many, in fact the district is overrun with them. 5080. Do you find that they dip their sheep projierly .' — No, they have to be constantly watched. 5081. Do you think it would be advisable for the Government to dip their sheep under Bupervision, charging them for the cost ? — Yes. 5082. Woidd it be advisable to do the same with regard to some big owners we hear of ? — It would do them no harm. 6083. Do they dip their sheep properly ? — I am sure a good many of them do not that 1 have seen. 5084. Are they one of the greatest sources of infection in the district ? — We generally find most fciib amongst them. 5085. Dr. Smartt.~\ Do 1 understand you to say you would not allow sheep to bo brought into the proclaimed area even after being dipped and quarantined ? — Only if it could not be helped. I am not agjiiust it at aU if they are well dipped. 5086. Do you consider it is possible to cure scab in fifteen days ? — No, I do not. 5087. Will you state your opinion? — If they are badl^ infected, I think it will tako at least three months to clean them. 5088. At all seasons ? — Yes, but it is worse in winter. 5089. If a troop of sheep infected with scab were thoroughly dipped in a recogni.spd. hot, solution, twice within fourteen days, don't you believe it would cure them ? — ^It w ould not cure them so far that j'ou would not see there was scab on them, because 1 have dipped them myself with a hot solution of lime and sulphur, twice within fourteen daj's, and it did not cure them. 5090. Mr. Francis.'] Do you agree with Mr. Biggs in regard to tlie licensing system ? — No, I think they ought to have six months to clean the stock in. 5091. Would you like the first licence given to a man to be extended to six months? — No, the first should be for three months, and afterwards it might be renewed for another three months without a fine. 5092. If you had all your sheep clean, do you think it would be fair to you that your neighbour should have a licence to keep scabby sheep for six months, during all of which 20S period your sheop would stand a chance of being reinfected ? — I should not object to it if he dipped well. 5093. Should a man be compelled to dip twice within three weeks after receiving his first licence .-' — Yes, be should dip them in that time. .5()y4. Do you believe scab is caused by au insect ? — Yes, I have seen it come out of an (lid skin ; the veteiiiiniy surgeon sliowed it to me. 5095. Do you believe that if j-ou use a proper dip it will destroy the insect? — Yes. 5096. Every one .'— Y'es. 5097. And you are aware that the egg which the insect lays hatches within fourteen days ? — 8o 1 have been told. 5098. Then if 3'ou were to dip your sheep three times within twenty-one days, would not all the insects be destroyed, if the dips were properly done ? — Yes, I think so. 5099. Yet you would be in favour of giving a man two licences of three months each .-' — Yes, it all depends on circumstances. Sometimes stock are very poor, and you cannot get them clean. I am not speaking of my own. And goats are harder to clean than sheep. My evidence refers entirely to angora goats ; I have had no experience with sheep. 5100. J//-. Botha.'\ Was the old skin out of which ycu saw the acartu come a goatskin ? — I think it was a sheepskin. ' 5101. About how old do you think the skin was? — I don't think it was a month old. 5102. Was it a dry skin ? — It was some years ago now. 5103. Chtirmanr\ Have you any further suggestions to make ? — I think the act would work very well if tlie permit system were altered in the way suggested by Mr. Bigga. 5104. Mr. Au, Toitr\ Would you force the act upon a portion of the country where people were strongly opposed to it ? — I don't mean that poi-tion of the Colony where they don't produce stock ; I would keeji those people outside the operation of the act if they don't want to come in. 5105. Do you think the act would work well in places where the people don't voluntarily help the inspectors in carrying it out ? — It would in time ; they would get used to it. Mr. Floris Noah Bellingam examined. 5106. Chairman.'] Are you a goat farmer in this district? — Yes, for night years. At present I have 1,600 goats. 5107. Do you agree with the evidence given by the previous witnesses? — There are some points on which I don't agree. One is the payment of inspectors. I think it would be better if there were an inspector in every field-cornetcy, nominated by the farmers in the ward. At present you cannot get at the inspectors when you want them, and therefore I think there should be more of them. 5108. Do you think the system of licences proposed by Mr. Biggs would meet tlie case better than the present one "r — In ^ome ways it would, but according to my 0|)iniun it would be better if there were an inspector in every field- cornetcy, so that he coidd attend to his work properly. 5109. Is there any other point on which you disagree with Mr. Biggs? — Yes, in regard to the unproclaimed areas. 5110. Supposing the sheep were properly dipped twice at the boundary between the proclaimed and the unproclaimed area, and were quarantined, would you allow them to come in ? — Decidedly. 5111. Would you allow breeding stock or slaughter stock .'' — In cases where a man has to leave the district he ought to be allowed to take breeding stock with him ; but not for speculation. 5112. You don't think it is necessary to dip skins and wool which are carried only by rail ? — That is a very difficult question, because I don't deal with them ; but my own opinion is the skins are a dead article, and if the trucks .are properly cleaned after the skins have been taken out I don't think it would make any difference. I differ from Mr. Biggs about the time for the licences, and I agiee with Mr. Nash. 5113. Dr. Smartf.] Are you in favour of a general scab act? — If possible, but in times of drought there are places where it would be very difficult to carry it out. During the w inter it is impossible to clean stock thoroughly, and the only way is to reach the summer. September and October are the best months, because of the dirt, and the skin on the goats gets loose. 5114. Chairman.] Would you recommend a temporary suspension of the act in any part of the country in the event of severe drought ? — When it is very cold, or at lambing time, I would suspend the act. 5115. Don't you think the six months' licence, of which you have already expressed your apjiroval, would give enough time without suspending the act ? — I should say it is too long in the summer, but not in the winter, because it is exceedingly cold then, and I know that this year I have suffered severely from the cold myself. 5116. How long are your winters ? — Almost from June to August. 5117. But that is only three months y — But it takes you another three months to clean them. 5118. 21r. du loit.^ It there- is an inspector iu each field-cornetcy, woidd you aUow DD 2 S06 them the same salary as that which the two inspectors receive now ? — No, considoriug the six would only have to do the work of tlio two, they slioiild divide among them the salary now received by the two. 5119. Then you don't think it necessary that an inspector should onl}- live upon liia salary? — No, he must have his own experience, and he can't have that unless ho furnis him'^elf, 5120. Do you mean that the blood or condition of the goats has soniGthing to do with killing the aeariis? The condition of the animal has a grp.it de il to do with scab. Of course, us the veterinary surgeon says, it is an insect ; I have not examined it through a microscope, b\it I believe it is. 5121 . Then you don't thoroughly believe that the scab is caused solely by an insect ? — Not solely by an insect. It is caused by drought ; the poorness of the animal gives the scab more chance. 5122. Do you believe poverty can bring on scab irrespective of infection? — I don't really believe mj'selE t'aat poverty can cause scab unless the animals ar(i infected. .512.3. But being once scabby, j'our experience has taught you that, although you have killed the nr/tnts, the skin will not get well before tlio .spring ? — The scale of the scurf f-ills away in ttie spring, and then I think the animal is quite clcun. 51 2 1. Then may an inspector be mistaken when he judges an animal by the appear- ance of its skin, and say the sheep is still scabby althougli the aonrus may be killed, but the appearance of the animal will not be quite healthy until the change of the season ? — Decidedly. 5125. 3r. Smarlt.^ Do you believe scab can be thoroughly eradicated fiom the Colony ? — I believe it can be done in a couple of years, and that it canuot come upou- taneously. "' 5126. Jfr. Frnnn'i.'] Would you have the inspector in each ward act soparatuly, or should there be a superintending inspector in the area to watch over them ? — I think the public should judge for themselves whether they are good men or not. 5127. If there wore six inspectors in the district, without any superintendence, the act might be administered very differently in the difiEerent wards ? — I don't see how the inspector can go beyond the regulations. Mr. Robert Heydenrgeh examined. 5128. Chairman.'] Are you farming in this district.? — Yes, for the last thirty years. Por three years I was scab inspector and so I have not much stock now. At present I have 400 or 500 goats. 5129. Do you agree with the evidence which has been given? — In some jwints, but not in others. I don't agree with Mr. Biggs, but I ngree with the others in most things. The first point on which 1 differ from Mr. I3igga is where he says scab can be eradicated in hftoen days. My experience has taught me that it cannot be. 5130. Do you agree with the other witnesses in that matter? — Yes; I think the scab act should not be made compulsory. 51.31. Do 3-ou believe in a general scab act throughout the Colony } — Yes. 5132. And that in connection with it there should be a general simultaneous dipping act ?— No. 5133. Do you agree that Government should establish public dipping tanks along the main roads for the use of travelling stock .? — Yos, especially at outspans. 5134. Should the Government supervise the dipping of native stock, and of all these small farmers and bywoners ? — In some cases, but some of these small farmers are very particular, because their stock is all thoy have to live on. 5135. But others are very careless '? — Yes. 5136. From your experience as scab inspector, are the small farmers more careless than the larger ones? — I canuot say I have found that; even some large farmers are very negligent. 6137. But you do think many sheep and goats in this district have been badly dipped .? — Yes. 5138. Mr. Francis.'] Did you have any difficulties iu carrying out the act when you were scab inspector ? — ^Great difficulties. 5139. In what way .? — Because the area I had under my control was so extensive I could not attend ti) these people at the expiration of their three mouths' licences. 5140. Were the fiues imposed for breaches of the law sufficient to deter people from breaking it ? — No. 5141. As the law is at present, are there not cases where a man would rather break it, and be fined, than obey it? — Yes; we had an instance here once, when a man brouglit some badly infected stock here which liad been quarantined by the other inspector, and he preferred bringing them in and running the risk He was fined £5. 5142. Do you think a system of paid licences would be better than the fines? — I think so. 5143. Would it be better to give inspectors a certain discretionary power in regard to the length of the first licence granted after an outbreak of scab ? — Yes. 5144. What length of time do you propose the inspector should have power to gfive? — The first licence I would make six weeks. 207 ■5145. That is, you would give diacretion.arj' power to the inspector to grant a liconie for auy period from six weeks to three months in the first instance ? — Yes. •5146. 2Ir. Botha.'] Having been a scab inspector, I presume you took an interest in all matters affecting scab legislation. Do you remember an amending scab bill which was introduced by me during tiie last session of Parliament ? — Yes. .5147. Do you agree witlt the several clauses contained in that bill, or not? — I fully agi'ce with the bill. 5148. If that l)ill had became law, woiild it have given satisfaction in this part of the country ? — Yes, and I don't think the Government would have had any necessity to ajipoint a commission in these parts. 5149. Dr. Smartt.] To which clause do you particular^ refer? — To the ai^pointment of inspectors in field-cornetcies, and the clause providing that in case a man does not clean his stock within twelve months, the inspector can clean them at his expense. 5150. Mr. du Toit~\ You are oppict distinctly 8a\s all stock that is to be removed out of the area must have a permit from ths inspector, whether clean or not. 5159. But if the suggestions of Mr. Biggs and others become law, that the holder of a clean bill should remove his stock on his own permit, subject to a heavy penalty-, do you think that would meet the case ? — Most decidedly. 5160. Still, those who had not a clean bill would suffer ? —Yes, in some cases, because they would have to go to the inspector to get one. 5101. Have you any idea how the act could be amended to meet this case ? — There is a clause in the act allowing two landowners to inspect stock and grant a certificate, and I think it would be the best way, if the inspector cannot be reached, to let the two land- owners come and inspect the stock and give a certificate accordingly. I can think of nothing better than that. 5162. T)r. Smartt.] What proceedings should be taken to ascertain whether a district wishes to come under the act or not .■' — A notice should be given, and then meetings should be called through the divisional council. 5163. Would you grant the act if the majority of the people were in favour of it? — I think it should bo a majoritj'. 5164. Would you not take a cumulative vote according to the number of sheep held by each num .'' — Yes. 5165. Mr. Francis.] Did you find any great difficulty in carrjdng out the act in this district as far as natives were concerned ? — In some instances. 5166. Would you give the Commission any suggestions as to any better method of carrying it out as regards the natives ? — The onl\- waj' would be to compel the native to dip his stock at the same timo as his master. 5167. Docs not the master usually ni:ike the native do so in his own interest? — Not in all cases. vSome natives have their stock separate from their masters, and when tho masters have told them to bring their stock at a certain time to be dipped, they have been very much opposed to it. 5168. Wore there any natives in your area independent of masters? — Yes. Mr. Complin Seach Birch, Scab Inspector, examined. 5169. Chairman.] You are scab inspector of area No. 16 A ? — Yes, I was api)ointed eleven months ago. 5170. Were you residing in this district before that ? — Yes. 208 5171. Were you farming ? — Yes, I have been farniiag all my life, and am still farming, and liave still about 1,000 goats. 5172. When you were farming, before you were appointed scab inspector, had you a clean bill of health ? — Before the act was proclaimed I lost my whole flock of 900 goats through scab, because I did not know how to treat the disease. 5173. After that did _you commence again ? — Yes. 5174. Do you find any particular points in the act which appear objectionable, or can you suggest any amendments .' — The only hardship or ditfioulty I fiud in the act is the sy.stern of removal by psrmit. It when I give a certiScate of health to a farmer I could give him certain forms to fill in as he sold his stock, I think it would bn a great relief. 5175. Then do you think a farmer should be allowed to move his stock on his owa penuit if ho has a clean bill .•' — Yes. 5176. Making provision, I suppose, for a heavy fine, should he wilfully move scabby stock ? — Yea. 5177. It that were d me, do you think the act would work well in this district ? — Certainly. 5178. Is that the only objection yju have to the act? — That is the only diflBculty I find. 5179. Do you think, then, that the farmers of Jansenville are in favour of an act provided they have more freedom in the removal of stock ? — Ya. 5180. Do you consider this district is freer of scab now than it was when you took over the duties nearly a year ago ? — I think the average is less this month than it has been before. 5181. By carrying out the act strictly, do you tliink you will be able to stamp out scab ia this area in a reisonable time ? — I should not like to say that, because I have found it very difficult to educate them in regard to dipping. A great many of the farmers I have been to, nearly all in fact, have no idea of the measurement of water, and will sometimes say that a dip holding 400 or 500 gallons will only contain 150, and consequently they mix the dip accordingly, thus making it too weak. 5182. Then do you think it would be advisable for the Government to erect dipping tanks, and dip under .supervision the sheep of farmers who dip in that way ? — Certainly, I should be iu favour of some dipping tanks at outspans, where the poorer class of farmers could get at them. The inspector is paid to help the people how to dip. 5183. Could you carry out your duties satis Eactorily it yoi h'id to sup3rvis9 the dipping of sheep throughout the district .'— Certainly not ; I should not have time. 5184. Then it this were inspection carried out, either somebody would have to be appointed to supervise the dipping, or nnre inspestors wjuld have to be appointed ? — If I had not to give permits, I could do it ; and if the area were equally divided between two inspectors, and I had to supervise, I could do so, bacause more thaa half the fariugrs are pariicular, and when I had once attended to a man I should not have to do so again. At present my area is Ini-gor than the other. 518.?. J//-. Fninck.j Dj you consider the p-es3nt method of appointing inspectors is the tiQst? — ^I should think the civil commissioner together with the divisional council are the representatives of the district, and ought to know the best men. 51 86. Is three months to ) long a term for a first licence .'—In some cases, but not in all. We cannot always give the same time. 5187. Would you be in favour of giving the inspector a certain discretionary power to grant a first licence for anj- period from one month to three months ? — Certainly. 5188. Have you had many convictin't know about the otlier four. 5218. Do you think the people in your district dip their sheep thoroughly well? — The fact of liaving c luparatively no scab at all is proof of that. 5219. D.ies that apply to the whole di.strict, including bj'woners and small farmers ? ^^In the neighbourhood where I live there were a number of small bywoners who had lots of from 15 to 50 goats, and there was not a clump that was clean, but to-day, so far as I know, they are all clean, all down the river. I know there was a good deal of scab, because I laiilt a dipping tank, and allowed my neighbours to dip right and left, and encouraged their dipping to get their stock clean, and so far have been successful. 6220. Would it be advisable to extend the provisions of the act to the whole Colony ? — No, there is not the slightest clianee of it. 5221. But your sheep and goats are now clean ? — I have held a clean bill of health for all my stock for four years, 5222. But in your neighbourhood they are all clean .' — As far as I know. 5223. And if you can Iteep j'our stock clean in that noighboui-hood, don't you think any farmer working on tlie same lines as yourself would bo able to keep them clean without a general scab act ? — The thing is that the Graaff-Keinet boundary comes within six miles of my boundary, and how am I going to stop the scab coming over ? I have a main road pas;vo their .stock on their own permit, under penalty ? — Yea. I think that would do. 5230. If that were done, would it be necessary to appoint more inspectors ? — There might be some responsible men, who could examine the farmers' stock. 5231. In case a lino is drawn, and a portion of the CjIouv remained in the proclaimed area, would it be necessary to protect the owner of clean stock, even a single farmer, out- side the proclaimed area, by allowing him to prevent any sc.ibby sheep passing over his farm on the maia road, or in auy other way? — I think such men ought to be protected. 5232. Jfr. Francis.^ If an inspector were appointed in each ward, would you allow tiiem to act independently, or should tiiore be a suporiuiendent in the area to overlook their work ? — No, T think that would be too expensive. You must have your head inspector, but he can manage more than one district. 5233. Are you of opinion that, sho dd a new scab act be parsed, it would be desirable to stai t it with a general simultaneous dipping ? — No, it would never work. 5234. Should all those who are under licence at that time be forced to dip at a certain tiuio ?- I don't see how you are going to force it. 5235. If it could be forced, do you think it would be advisable ? — Not even then. 5236. Should your sheep become infected with scab, how long do you think it would take you to get them thoroughly clean again ? — I once bought a clump of sheep rotten with scab ; I dipped them as soon as I got them in lime and sulphur, eight days afterwards I dipped them again, and ten days afterwards again, that was the third dipping ; and since then they have never been dipped. That was two years ago last July. 5237. Then do you consider that a three months' licence is too long? — If the licence is 211 gtanted in May it is too short, but if you get it in October or November it is unnecessarily long. 5238. Would it be advisable to give an inspector a certain discretionary power with regard to the length of the first licence, allowing an appeal against his decision to the resident magistrate ? — Yes, so far, but the iuspectors have that discretionary power, only we farmers don't all of us know it. 5239. According to the act the inspector is obliged to give three months on the first outbreak of scab. Do you think he should have di8cretionar3' power to give from one month up to three months, with an appeal to the magistrate ? — It might work ; I have not thought of that, but three months is too short ia winter and too long in summer. 5240. Are the fines generally imposed for breaches of the act sufficient ? — In some cases they are too heavy, but in most cases they are not heavy enough. A man once came into JansenviUe with, I think, eight sheep on a wagon, and they were scabby. He was a poor man, and the sheep were not worth the amount he was fined, and he was fined £5 and expenses. In another case a farmer brought a flock of sheep into the area, and he was only fined £5. 5241. Would it be well to have a system of paid licences .-' — I think so. 5242. If there were an outbreak of scab amongst your sheep, in the winter, and during a drought, would you rather dip them than let them remain scabby ? — In winter I would hand-dress them as much as I possibly could, until the warm weather came. 5243. Do you think it would ever become advisable to suspend the act, owing to drought and other causes ? — The act has been so long in force that a man has no business to have scab now. Several months ago a flock was moved into this district that had scab, and there was no necessity for that flock to have had it, but when the water failed they had to be moved. 5244. In the event of a partial act being put in force over the Colony, would you be in favour of a farmer living on the line of the proclaimed area being allowed to come under the act ? — I would give him the opportunity ; it is progress. 5245. Mr. Botha. '\ Do you believe that scab carried in skins and wool is as infectious as scab carried by animals ? — If the acan be alive it is just as dangerous. 5246. Do you think the eight sheep which were brought through the district on a wagon were as dangerous as if they had been driven along the road ? — No, but the wagon would have been just as much poisoned for the next eight sheep which came into the wagon, unless it were properly disinfected. 5247. Do you think the same principle should be applied to the trucks which carry scabby skins or wool to the seaport ? — Certainly, if they come from the improclaimed areas. 5248. Mr. du Toit.~\ Would you be in favour of forcing a scab act upon a portion of the country which is thoroughly opposed to it, as they think upon good reasons ? — If all the districts round one other district were under the act, I would force the district so surrounded to come under the act for the sake of the cleanliness of the others. And if 75 per cent, of a district were in favour of the act, I should force the other 25 per cent. 5249. Would the cost be too great to have an inspector in each ward .' — A farmer who could be trusted might be appointed inspector, and he could inspect his ward, because a ward is a small area, especially in this district, and he could attend to his own interests as well. I don't mean that there should be an inspector in each ward at £250 a year ; I think £70 or £80 would be ample payment. 5250. How long do you think will elapse between the time when a flock gets infected and the time when the infection shows itseK .' — From my own experience, I think six weeks. 5251. Would you subject to a heavy penalty the bidders of clean bills who send away small lots of sheep on their own permit even if it should be proved that there were some infected sheep among their flocks without their knowledge ? — Unless there is a heavy penalty the privilege will be abused. If scab breaks out two days after the flock leaves the farm, it must have been on the sheej) before they left, and if the owner had examined them properly he would have found a spot, and in that case I should say a heavy fine would make the farmer more particular. 5252. Might not the infected sheep be one of those which was sent away from the farm, and that the infection might have been picked up on the road, while the flock remaining on the farm was clean ?— I don't think so. If it broke out on the road i; would have been on the sheep before. 5253. But it may have been infected a week before you sent the flock off, and it would take another week on the road before the scab breaks out. Would you subject such a man to the same heavy penalty as the man who did it knowingly and wilfully .' — It would have to be proved whether the scab had come on to the farm before that. If that farmer could thoroughly prove to the satisfaction of a responsible man or court that his farm has been clean for months before, there might be some excuse ; but if his farm has been clean for the time, scab will not break out on the road. 5254. Unless such a provision is made in the act don't you think it would entirely take away the privilege it was intended to grant ? — No ; if my sheep had been clean for several months, I should not be at all afraid to send them away under that provision. 5255. But may not j'our flocks be infected without your knowledge by sheep passing over your farm, or in some other way ? — But a man must see it. [G. 1.— '94.] KB 212 5256. Might it not break out on the road before you Jsee it, and be only upon one sheep ? — I don't think it is likely to break out ; but if it did, you would rather it broke out on the road than have it on your farm. 5257. With reference to the little flock of sheep which 3-ou bought, and which were so scabby, have they been dipped since ? — I have not dipped anything for two j^ears ; this season I am dipping again just as a precaution. 5258. After dipping those sheep those three times, you have not dipped them again for two years .'' — No. I have a good chance now, because mj' neighbour's stock are all clean, and I am dipping them now to see if I can afterwards do altogether without dipping. 5259. Chairman.^ If you were moving a flock of clean sheep, and they should happen to sleep in the road on a place where scabby sheep have slept, how long would it be before scab would' break out ? — I cannot answer that question, as I have only had one experience, when I put a flock of scabby sheep without knowing "it among clean sheep, and six weeks afterwards prettj- well the whole of the clean flock was spotting. 5260. Br. Smartt.^ Would you select the ward inspectors referred to by you exclusively from farmers in the area holding a clean bill of health ?— I certainly would not select a man who could not clean his stock. 5261. Do you consider that in their own interests these men would be more particular to insist upon everybody cleaning their flocks ? — If you select a man who is doing his best to get his stock clean, that man will do his best to make his neighbours keep them clean. 5262. Are you now re-dipping for fear of reinfection from the Graaii-Reinet district, where the act has been repealed .-* — It has come so close to me now that I am doing my best to keep it away. I am afraid of its coming from there, as I have a main road through my farm. 5263. Chairman.'] Have you anything further to suggest?— If there is not a general act, I think the law should be made as lenient as possible in the proclaimed areas, and make the regidations on the boundary as stringent as you possibly can, and not allow a bale of wool or a parcel of skins, or even the shearers to come in without being disinfected. I consider that shearers shearing scabby sheep and afterwards crossing the boundary may infect flocks of clean sheep. Hr. Charles Lee examined. 5264. Chairman.'] Are you one of the representatives of the Zwart Euggens Farmers' Association .' — I am a member of the Association, and I volunteered to come and give my personal evidence. 5265. Are you farming in this district ? — Yes, I have farmed here for 30 years, and generally have about 4,000 sheep and goats. 5266. Do you agree with the evidence given by Mr. Berrington ? — I materially differ from him on some points. 5267. Do you believe in extending the scab act throughout the Colony? — I believe in a general scab act throughout the Colony, of a leinent character. 5268. Would it be possible to draw a dividing line, leaving a portion of the Colony outside the area ? — I certainly think it would create serious difficulties within the pro- claimed areas, and tha' it is not practicable. 5269. Would it be advisable to have a general simultaneous dipping act in connection with a scab act ? — It would be very difficult to carry it out, and no great benefit would be derived from it. 5270. Do you thiuk it would be advisable to erect dipping tanks at outspans and at any villages for the purpose of dipping sheep which may be travelling on the road, and on which scab may break out, dipping the sheep at the owner's expense ? — I think it would be an advantage. 527 1 . Are there not a great many natives in this district ? — Yes, with small lots of stock. 5272. Would it be advisable for Government to dip these sheep under supervision, and charge the natives with the expense ? — If little lots of sheep are found close to public places, such as outspans, if they could be dipped in that waj' at the owner's expense I think it would be very much better than driving them to a pound, inasmuch as it would preveni infection, and arrest the evil at once, and in that respect would be an advantage. 5273. In case a line of demarcation is drawn, would it be advisable to allow a field cornetcy, or even a single farm, adjoining the line to come in by applying ? — I think anj field-cornetcy or individual applying to come under should be allowed to do so, by all means 5274. Do j'ou agree with Mr. Berrington with regard to the protection of the farme; who lives in an unproclaimed area ? — On principle I should object to isolated farms havin{ any special supervision unless thoy could be joined on to an area ; it wovdd create difficulties and be impracticable. 5275. Is the present method of appointing inspectors the best, or should they b recommended by the owners of stock, giving a cumuLitive vote tb the owners in proportioi to the number of their stock } — My own personal f -^eling is that there should be inspector in every field-cornetcy, who should be recommended by the divisional ratepay^ers in eaol field-cornetcy, aud that Government should appoint them. 6276. Mr. du Toit]. What kind of stock do you farm with ?- -Principally goats. 213 5277. Br. Smartt.j Would you be in favour of establishing a Government dip depart- ment, from which dip could be supplied to the farmers at cost price, and free of railway carriage? — I don't see the necessity of it. 5278. If at the expiration of the first licence a farmer's flocks were still found to be infected with scab, would you issue a second licence and fine him, or would you allow the inspector the right to dip those sheep under his own supervision, charging the farmer with the cost .■■ — In the first place I object to the three months; I think thirty days is sufficient for the first notice, and I would rather the inspector should be allowed to give the owner notice to have the necessary material and appliances ready at a date to be agreed upon, and that the stock should then be dipped under the supervision of the inspector, as this would have an educating effect without causing irritation. 5279. Jfr. Francis.^ If we had a proper act properly carried out, are you of opinion that we could eradicate scab from the Colony ? — Certainly ; what one man can do a hundred can do. 5280. Do you think there may be times when it would be necessary to suspend the scab act in this district ? — If we had such an act as we are recommending now, an act which was acceptable to the country generally, I don't think it would be necessary ; but I am certainly of opinion that consideration should be given to individuals under circumstances of not having sufiicient water, and so forth, and also with regard to the winter months, particularly in this part of the Sneeuwberg. 5281. What about the second licence ? — I would give 30 days for the first and 2 1 days for the second. 5281, Chairman.'] Do you wish to add anything? — With regard to the points Mr. du Toit was putting, I should like to suggest that I don't think it woiild be right to have a strict fine under all and every circumstance in cases of the abuse of the right to remove stock under a clean biU. I quite agree with the proposal, and it is perfectly clear in my own mind that any wilful breach of such a law should be followed by a heavy fine, but it should be understood that th9 magistrate had discretionary power in cases such as Mr. du Toit pointed out. An individual may be able to prove that he was unaware his sheep were infected when he removed them, and that to all intents and appearances they were clean at that time. Moreover, I cannot agree with Mr. Berrington in regard to scab break- ing out in six weeks, because I am of opinion it may appear within 36 hours, and even less. Mr. Walter James Edwards examined. 5283. Chairman.'] Are you fanning in this district ? — In the Graaff-Reinet district, and I have 3,000 small stock, principally goats. 5284. Do j-ou come here as a representative of the Farmers' Association ? — Yes, I was appointed to meet you here. 5285. But have you come to give your own evidence? — I am the chairman of the Zwart Ruggens Favmeis' Association, and have been appointed by the association to ?ive evidence before tho Commission I have been farming on the same farm for the last 26 years. 5286. Is there less scab in the district now than there was a few years ago ?— Undoubtedly. 5287. Do you attribute that to the working of the scab act } — Certainly. 5288. You heard the evidence given by Mr Lee. Do you agree wdth him ? — Yes, pretty well on the whole. 5289. Where do you differ ?— He said he would make a leinent act ; I would make it stringent. 5290. I suppose you fear if a leinent act is passed that there would be more difficulty in stamping out scab ? — I am afraid it would be opposed, and there would be a difficulty in stamping out the disease. 5291. Do you agree with him that scab is liable to break out in two days on a clean flock if they sleep on ground where scabby sheep sleeji? — I think thfre is a chance of it. but that it would take a little longer, say eight days. But the acari getting on to an animal is likely to cause irritation, and irritation will cause biting. 5292. You mean it would be eight days before you could actually see it, but it may be even loss ? — Yes. 5293. Do you agree in every other particular with Mr. Lee? — Yes. 5294. Dr. Smarft.] Would you be in favour of a compulsory simultaneous dipping act being carried out in ci-njunction with a general scab act ? — I think it would be a wise thing to do if it could be carried out, but I see difficulties in this country, because in one part you might have fine weather, but in another it might be bad. 5295. If the Colony were divided into areas suitable to the climate, and dipping were enforced in the summer months, would you be in favour of it ? — I would certainly support that. 5296. Ifr. du Toit.] Would you be in favour of a more stringent act than the present one, as was suggested by one witness .-' — Yes, I would allow nothing to go from the infected arejis into the proclaimed areas, wool, skins or even shearers. I would have everj'thiiig Jisinfeeted, because there is not doubt that contagion is carried not only by the shearers themselves, but also by the railway trurks and wagons which convey wool from infected areas. EE 2 214 5297. "Would it not he more advisable to have a lenient act over the whole Colony rather than such a stringent measure over a portion of it ? — I would have a stringent act over the whole Colony, but if we cannot do tliat we must be content with a stiingent act over a portion of it. But I understand a scab act has been proclaimed in the Free State, and from what I can gatlier it is now perfectly clean, and if the Free State can get their stock free of scab the Cape Colony can do the same. 5298. Would you force an act upon a portion of the Colony where the people, upon good reasons, are opposed to it ? — I should be sorrj- to see anything of that kind, but still, if people will not accept the act, I think it sliould be forced upon them. 5299. Would it not be better to get people to accept the act voluntarilj' by making it as lenient as possible? — If it could be done I would advise it, but I am afraid it wUl not do. Many people are so neglectful of their farming interests that they would take advantage oi the leniency of the act. 5300. But you admit the present act has done much good in the area where it has been in force ? — Undoubtedly, and a great deal of tho non-success of the act has been due in some cases to the incompeteucy of the inspectors. 5301. Then do you think it would be advisable to have the same lenient act for the whole Colony, since for years so much benefit has been derivded from it .'' — Certainly, if it could be done, but if not, I would make it a stringent act. 5302. Dr. Smarti.^ Then j-ou consider, if the act had been thoroughly administered, scab ought now to have beeu almost eradicated from the proclaimed areas ? — Certainly. We have had splendid men as inspectors, and these men have to a certain extent stamped out scab ; but there are others who have been too easy, and I could name them if it were necessary. 5303. "Would j'ou allow stock to pass from the unproclaimed into the proclaimed area, if they were thoroughly dipped twice within fourteen days under inspection, subjected to a quarantine of one month, and ro-dippod under inspection on the frontier before crossing? — Yes, if they were properly dipped I think there would be no risk. I have cured stock in one dipping with lime and sulphur and salt, stock that were very scabby, although I took the precaution to dip them the second time, and they have been perfectly free ever since. 5304. If a compulsory general scab act were proclaimed over the whole Colony, what provision would you make for the six or twelve months for supplying the large centres of consumption with slaughter stock ? — I should certainly dip the stock, but at tlie same time butchers will not take it, and I tliink they are very wise. In a matter of that sort, we could not allow the people to starve, and shoidd have to make some provision, but I would only allow sheep to be moved which were declared to be clean. I don't think it woild require five or six months, and I should decidedly give one month's quarantine, because I maintain scab can be stamped out of any farm in one month. 5305. Your remark naturally applies to that portion of the Colony that is now under the piovisions of the scab act? — Yes. I regret to say I am now in an unproclaimed area again. 5306. Chairman.^ Have you a clean bill now ? — I have had one ever since tho inspector was first apjwinted, but of course I have not one now, as wo are no longer under the scab ac^, and I have been re-infected. 5367. Have you anything else to say ? — I think a system of ward inspectors would be far simpler and easier for the farmers. As it is now, with one inspector for a whole district, it often takes some time to get hold of him. At the same time 1 would not remunerate them at the same rate as the inspectors are now. 5308. As representing the Farmers' Association, would you be in favour of a Govern- ment depot for dip ? — It would be very handy, but I don't believe in farmers all running to the Government for help. The things are quite come-at-able for all farmers. Mr. Charles Genrge Lee examined. 5309. Chairman.'\ You are chairman of tho Zwart Ruggens branch of the Afrikander Bond .?— Yes. 5310. And come here as a representative of that branch ? — We had a general meeting of the branches of the Bond in that district, and I was nominated, together with the other two gentlemen here, Messrs. Joubert and Gouws, to represent those branches before the Commission. 5311. Have you been farming in the district for some time? — Yes. I have about 2,500 sheep and goats. 5312. Since the act has been in force, do you find there is less scab in the district than there was previously ? — Yes, considerably. 5313. Do you agree with the evidence which has been given this morning? — Not on all points. 5314. From your experience of the working of the scab act, do you think it would be advisable to extend it throughout the Colony ? — Provided it was a lenient act. 5315. Will you explain what you mean by aleiiient act? — lu the first place, to make it lenient we should want more inspectors t'uan we have now, and a man who held a clean bill should be allowed to write his own removal permits. Also, if a man has a dipping tank on his place he should be obhged to give the free use of it to all bywonors or anyone 215 else living on his ground. Those are the main points. I tate it that another feature in a lenient act should be that it would have the effect of educating those who don't understand the nature of scab, and how to treat sheep and dip them for it. 5316. Would it be advisable for Government to erect dipping tanks, and dip stock under supervision for smaK farmers and natives .-■ — If each owner of land is forced to provide a dipping tank on his farm for those who live there, I think the natives could use that. Outspans are so far apart, and I don't think the Government should have the right to buUd a tank upon a private property. In case a general act cannot be put in force, I think there should be recognized places on the main roads on the borders of the proclaimed area where stock coming in should be dipped, or at some other convenient place, the Government providing the dip at the owner's expense, and a tariff to be fixed at so much a hundred. 5317. In order to carry out that, do you think it would be necessary to dip the stock of natives and small farmers under supervision ? — After the third inspection of stock they should be dipped under the supervision of the inspector, if there is no improvement, and I would apply that to every fanner. 5318. For how long would you give a man a licence to keep scabby sheep? — For the first licence I would say two months, the second a month, and after that 21 days and then, if there was no improvement, they should be dipped as I said. 5519. How long would it take you to clean a scabby lot of sheep ? — It depends on cir- cumstances ; it may take three weeks, or a month, or longer. It depends on the time of the year, the veldt and other conditions, but under favourable conditions I think it would take two months to cure them, allowing three dippings, and then a time to see the result. 5320. Then they would be cured .-■ — Yes, so far ; but they might be reinfected again. 5321. Then you think two months ample time to clean sheep if they are kept on clean ground and do not become reinfected ? — Yes. 5322. If a line is drawn, should a field-cornetcy or a single farm adjoining the pro- claimed area be allowed to come under the act ?• — Certainly, I think it ought to be encouraged. 5323. Would you protect a farmer living right away from the proclaimed area, if his own sheep were thoroughly clean, by giving him power to prevent any scabby sheep cross- ing his farm ? — No, I would not give him protection outside ; he ought to come under the act. 5324. But suppose he cannot come ? — Since the scab act has been in force I have lived in a proclaimed area ; I have never farmed outside, and I don't see my way to give any expres.sion of opinion on that point. 5325. Can you offer any suggestions with regard to the working of the scab act ? — Besides what I have already stated, I would like to impress one point. It is necessary that those who don't understand the nature of scab, and who don't thoroughly comprehend dipping, should be strictly observed, and then I think the act would become general. 5326. Do you ag^ee with the way in which the inspectors are appointed ? — I think the farmers, the divisional council ratepayers, should nominate the inspector. 5327. Would you give them cumulative voting power ? — Each divisional ratepayer should have one vote, and if that were done it would not be necessary to make any other alteration. 5328. Mr. Francis.'] Do you consider the act has been properly carried out in your district .' —As far as it is capable of being carried out. 5329. Wciuld you be in favour of a system of paid licences after the first licence ? — Not in the present state of the country. 5330. If a proper act were pit in force, are you of opinion that we should be able to completely eradicate scab from the country ? — I think it would be necoFsary to pass a measure which should first act as a sort of educating medium, and that in years to come, when people have learnt and understand the dipping process, we should require a more stringent measure by which scab would be completely eradicated. But this would be a means to that end. 5331. Would it be necessary at times to suspend the working of the act, owing to drought and other causes ? — If a workable and a leinent act was proposed, I don't think it would. 5332. If your sheep bscome infected with scab, even in the winter, would you think it more advisable to dip them at once, and get rid of the scab, or allow them to go on during the w^nter ? — Speaking of the midlands, where I live, I think in most cases it would be preferable under present circumstances to hand-dress. 5333. Is it advisable to drive scabby sheep to a pound ? — No. 5334 What wotild you suggest to remedy that evil ? — That they be dipped at the nearest tank to the spot where they are seized. 5335. Are the fines generally imposed under the present act sufficiently heavy to prevent breaches of the act ? — They vary so much that it is very difficult to answer. In some cases they seem excessive, and in others they don't seem as heavy as they should be. 5336. Then would it be advisable to keep the discretionary powers of the magistrates within smaller limits ? — I don't see how that would help the matter, because he may perhaps put the heavy fine where the light one ought to be put. 5337. Mr. Botha.] Do you think the transport of scabby skins and wool dangerous in regard to infection ? — Yea. 5338. Is it as dangerous to put scabby skins and wool in railway trucks, as to put 21P scabby stock there ? — No, because the sheep keep on scratching, and they scratch the scab off, whereas the produce lies more or less still. 5339. J//-. (Ju Toit.'] Would you allow the same salary to inspectors, if there were more of them, as these receive now ? — Although I am in favour of increasing the number of inspectors, I don't think we should materially increase the amount paid to them. 5340. Then you are in favour of dividing amongst more inspectors the amount now paid as salary to the present inspectors ? — Yes. 5341. Would you then allow them to carry on some other business? — Certainly. 5342. Would you be in favour of making some provision in regard to the removal of stock by the holder of a clean bill, if scab broke oui on them without the knowledge of the owner ? — I think consideration ought to be shown to a man who unknowingly removed scabby stock, if he could prove it to be the case. 5343. If you can cure scabby sheep in three dippings, why do you want two months for the fiist licence '? — Because most of the farms are infected, besides the sheep. 5344. Would every farm and kraal get cleansed within two months ? — No, that is why I allow for a second period of a month, and a short period of twenty-one days. 5346. AVill the farm and kraals get cured of scab in that time? — No, but if the farmer has that time to deal with the worst "f it, he will be able to cope with it and keep it in check until he has more or less eradicated scab from his farm and stock. 5346. Have you any idea how long the acarus can live in kraals and on veldt ? — No, I could not give any idea. I know of a kraal that has been eighteen months without any stock Before that it had scabby stock in it, and when at the end of that time clean stock were put in they became infe(ted. 5347. Then if an act is proclaimed throughout the Colony, do you think it would be impossible for people starting to clean their flocks to have a olean bill within eighteen months? — I don't think that eighteen months would give every farmer a clean bill : but I do think that those stock which were severely affected would be less in number, and the scab would liave materially lessened. 5348. In case an act is proclaimed throughout the Colony, would not one month be too short a time for a first licence, so as to allow farmers to sell slaughter stock ? — I did not say a month ; it was Mr. Edwards who said that. 5349. Then did I understand you that even in winter two months would be long enough to cure scabby stock ? — I did not say anything about winter, but I would make an exception with June, July and August. I don't think two months would suffice when it comes to the winter, nor the one month either, referred to by Mr. Edwards. I think hand- dressing might be resorted to in the winter to keep scab in check. If the first notice of quarantine was given in June, I would make it three months, to the end of August, before the second inspection was made. 5350. Mr. Botha.'] With reference to the case you mentioned of the old kraal, do you believe that the acarus did not spread during those eighteen months beyond the old kraal, and that the evil was confined to that ? — We cannot see the scab acarus with the naked eye, but I am inclined to think it was lodged somewhere between the stones in the kraal, but I don't think it could be carried about by the wind unless it is mixed up with dry dung, and carried in that way. 5351. Br. Smartt.'] Are you in favour of having an inspector in every ward ? — I am. 5352. Would you select those inspectors from farmers holding clean bills of health in that ward ?--I think it would be advisable if a farmer could be had in each ward, with a clean bill. If not, they would have to go to the next. Of course it would depend on the people themselves : they would have the matter in their own hands. Perhaps a man may have a clean bill for only a month, and I would rather leave it in the hands of tlie ratepayers for fear of complications. 5353. Wliat provision would you make for adjoining districts to come under the operation of the act ? Would you be in favour of allowing the majority of residents in the district to petition to come under the act ?— I would leave it to the majority of stockowners, provided they are also landowners. 5354. Chairman.'] Not traders ? — In case of a general act, I think it would be weU to consider whether a clause could not be inserted to meet the case of the eastern districts which would not be wanted in the midlands. I don't know whether it is practicable, but I think farming operations are carried on differently there to the way they are here, and separate j)rovision might be made without having two separate acts, and if this provision for ward inspectors did not suit the eastern districts they might be allowed to make what alterations they wished. 5355. Do you think it would be necessary to appoint inspectors in every ward in the districts which are now absolutely free of scab ? — No, because there would be no work for all of them. The eastern districts are freer of scab than these ; they have a better rainfall than we have, and consequently have more water, and they are able to let their stock run night and day because they fence their farms. 5356. Dr. Smartt.] From your experience, do you consider it easier to deal with scab in a district in which as a general rule there is good food in the winter months than districts in which as a general rule the food in the winter months is extremely bad ? — I think where good winters prevail, scab is more easily dealt with than where it is not. 217 Mr. Viet Jouhert examined. 5357. Chairman.^ You are assistant chairman of the Zwart Euggens branch of the Afrikander Bond ?— Yes, I have been 25 years in this district and have 1,500 sheep and goats. 5358. Do you agree with the evidence just given by Mr. Lee ? — Yes, except on minor points. 5389. On what points do you disagree V — Only on small details that are not worth mentioning. I am satisfied to accept it. 5360. Do you think your views are the same as those of the majority of the Bond in your district ? — Yes, I think I and Mr. Lee represent the majority of those members who have a large interest at stake, and it is for that reason that we have been selected to come here. 5361. Mr. Botha.'] Do you think that to a great extent the carrying out of the act should be left in the hands of the interested persons in the district } — Yes. 5362. Chairman.'] Is there anything you would like to add? — If the number of inspectors were increased, it would do away with a great deal of the friction in the administration of the act which at present exists ; and that landowners holding clean bills of health should be allowed to grant permits to their servants. Mr. Jurgan Francois Gouivs examined. 5363. Chairman.] You are secretary of the Afrikander Bond in the Jansenville district ? — Yes, and a farmer. I have been here about ten years, and have about 3,600 small stock, almost all goats. 5364. Do you agree with the evidence given by Mr. Lee and Mr. Joubert ? — I agfree with everything except the time of licence. 5365. How long would you give ? — I think that sheep can be cleaned in a month, but I would not suggest a licence being granted for that period, but in three months, with provision for renewal for six weeks. That is the only point on which I differ. 5366. Dr. Smartt.] Do you think it would be advisable for the Government to establish a dip depot, from which farmers should be supplied with dip at first cost price free of railway carriage .'' — I don't think so ; the farmers should help themselves. 5367. Chairman.] Is there anything you would Uke to suggest? — Nothing. Mr, Ernest Frederick Gouws examined. 5368. Chairman.] You are a farmer in the Jansenville district? — Yes, I am 26 years of age, and farm with my father. 5369. Do you agree with the evidence which has been given this morning ? — Yes, except that I think scab breaks out in a week, and if the sheep are poor it will break out sooner than when they are in good condition. I also think hand-dressing should be allowed instead of dipping during the cold winter months. In summer, I think the licences should be limited to two months, and if the sheep are not clean then they should be dipped under inspection. Scab broke out among our goats, and wo cleaned it in a month with one of the patent dips. We dipped them twice within a month, and stamped scab out entirely. I don't see any necessity for a head inspector for the Colony, as the farmers themselves would look after the inspectors. Mr. David Hohson Nash examined. 5370. Chairman.] You are the scab inspector for area No. 16 ? — Yes, I have held the appointment since twelve months after the act came in force. 6371. When you were ajjpointed was there a great deal of scab in the district? — A great deal. 5372. Do you find now that it has considerably decreased? — It has. 5373. Have you found any difficulty in carrying out the provisions of the act ? — Yes, on certain points. I find it difficult to get stock properly dipped. 5374. Do you mean the faimers have not understood how to dip } — Yes, a good many don't know, especially natives. 5375. Are there any native farmers in this district ? — Not many locations, but the bywouers who live on farms. 5376. Do you find any difficulty with any other Ejj^pean small farmers ? — Yes, those who don't understand dipping, or are too lazy. 5377. Should the sheej) of such people be dipped under insf eetion by Government, the owners paying the expenses ?— I thinlr so. 5378. Is there any dithculty in getting dipping places for the dipping of these sheep? — Yes, the natives only have pots to dip in, and some have to borrow from others. 5379. In those places, would it be advisable for Government to erect a dipping tank, and dip those sheep at the owaers' expense ? — I should say on the outsjians. 218 5380. You would not carry this out on the farms where there are no dipping places? — Every farmer ihoukl have a dipping tank. 5381. Should every farmer be compoUed to have a dipping tank? — Yes. 5382. And all the sheep on the farm belonging to bywoners or natives should be dipped in it ? — Yes. 5383. Under supervision of tho inspector? — Yes, a certain time after the expiration of the licence. The first licence should be for two months, the second one month, and after that the inspector should came and see them dipped. 5384. Would you prefer that system to one of fining a man for not cleaning his sheep ? — Yes, because it would be teaching them at the same time. Many people are willing enough to dip, but they really don't understand how to do it, and either make it too strong or too weak. 5385. Would you be able to carry out these duties in addition to those j'ou have already ? — Not in my area. 5786. Could you suggest any alterations to meet that case ? — I would suggest that there should be one assistant inspector appointed to superintend the dipping in each ward, in case the inspector has not time to attend to it himself. 5387. Would that be a better plan than appointing one inspector for each field- cornetcy ? — Yes, I think so. 5388. Do you find any difficulty in meeting the wishes and wants of the people in regard to permits for the removal of stock which they may have sold ? — I do in regard to farms which are not actually clean. There is some trouble in going to give them permits and carrying on my inspection at the same time. 5389. It is said that the farmers in this district exchange stock for meal and food supplies, and it is stated tliat there is a great deal of difficulty, and in some cases of hard- ship, in regard to these people. Don't you think you would meet that difficulty very much better if you had an inspector for each ward, instead of having one inspector to cover the whole area ? — I don't think so. If they had a clean bill they can manage it very easily. 5390. It they have a clean bill do you allow them to move their sheep without a permit ? — Inside the area. In cases of barter or anything of that kind, every man who removes stock under a clean bill reports it to me, but if the sheep are infected they are not allowed to be moved without my own permit. 5391. Before stock leave the district, do you in every case inspect them and give them a permit ? — Not those people who have standing certificates. A standing certificate is granted to a farmer who has kept all the stock on his farm clean for twelve months, and they are only given by the inspectors, who know the best men. 5392. Do you think it would be a better system to allow farmers having a clean bill for some time to remove their stock on their own permits, subject to a heavy penalty ? — If they have a standing certificate, I should approve of their being allowed to move their stock into other districts in that way, subject to a heavy penalty if they wilfully moved them with scab. 5393. Would that be a great relief to the farmers ? — Yes, it would remove a great deal of friction, and the act would work much better. 5394. Mr. du Toit.'] Would you make any difference between the time of quarantine in winter and in summer ? — It just depends on the discretion of the inspector, because perhaps the pastm-age might be bad, and the stock in poor condition, and then a man might be allowed a little longer time. 5395. It is not as easy to cure scabby sheep in winter } — No. 5396. What difference would you make in the time of quarantine ?— You might give first two months, and then another two months in winter, and in summer first two and then one month. 5397. Mr. Botha.'\ Do you keep stock of your own ? — Yes, at present I have 2,000. 5398. Does the other inspector keep small stock ? — I beHeve so. 5399. Mr. Francis.'] Have you had many convictions under the act since you have been inspector ? — A good many, especially at the start off. 5400. Do you consider the fines imposed are sufficient to prevent people breaking the law ? — Some have been rather heavy, but it just depends on the evidence. 5401. Are you satisfied that the fines imposed are sufficient to prevent people breaking the act } — Yes. 5402. Do you think circumstances might occur in the district which would render it necessary to suspend the act ? — I don't think it ought to be suspended at all. 5403. Do you think that provision in the act which allows two landowners to grant a certificate has been any benefit ? — I consider it ought not to be in the act at all. 5404. Are you aware of the fact that, according to the letter of the law, you cannot give a standing permit to remevo sheep out of the area ? — According to the instructions which I have received from Government, I can. 5405. Is there any suggestion you could make for improving or facilitating the work- ing of the act?— It could be improved, but it depends on whether we have a general or a permissive act. I think it should be a general act. In cases of infected kraals, all farmers should be obliged to burn turf kraals and clean stone ones. 219 Mount Steward, Thursday, Id Becemher, 1892. PEESEXT : Mr. Feost (Chairman). Mr. Botha, ,, DU ToiT, Dr. Smabtt, Mr. Francis. Mr. Charles William Henry de la Harpe examined. 5406. Chairvian.~\ You are farming in the district of Willowmore? — Yes, adjoining Stej-ilerville. I have been there about 20 years, and have some 2,000 small stock, principally goats. 5407. You are the representative of the farmers who have come here to day and who aire opposed to the scab act ? — As it is at present. 5408. Are you put forward by the Afrikander Bond ? — I am not exactly put forward. I am chairman of our branch, but I have not been appointed to come here. I only represent the fanners present. 5409. During the twenty years you have been farming in the district of Willowmore, do you find that scab has increased ? — I cannot saj' it is increasing j ust now, but it was a short while ag'o. The scab act is not in force in the whole of Willowmore, only in the area in which I reside. 5410. When the act wag put in force, was there more scab than there is now.-* — I could not say. 5411. Can you see any improvement in the condition of the stock in that area since the act has been in force ? — I should imagine there is some improvement, because people dip more now than they did formerly, so I presume there must be less scab. I don't travel about much, but in my own area I think the scab is about the oame now as it was before the act was put in force. I was clean then and I am clean now, and my neighboui-s are still some of them quarantined, and they were scabby before. 5412. To what do you attribute this, to the working of the scab actor laxity of the inspector ? — To a certain extent it must be the fault of the inspector, in the first instance. The farmers don't use the dip properly, and in that way the inspectors are misled. 5413. In cases where there is no improvement in the stock, do you think it woidd be advisable that they should bo dipped under the supervision of a scab inspector } — Yes ; he would soon see who was careless and who was not, and could pretty safely judge whom he could rely upon. 5414. Do you think the reason why scab has not been more stamped out in this district is because the farmers don't use the dip properly? — ^ Yes, and another reason is that the stock are kraaled again in the same kraals they were in when the scab broke out, and so get re-infected, but of course there is a great hardship in that. Land is very scarce here, and making extra kraals means ruining a lot of veldt, but it can be eradicated. 5415. If the stock were properly dipped and placed upon clean veldt, do you think scab could be stamped out '? — Undoubtedly. 5416. Do you think it would bv) advisable that there should be a g-meral simultaneous dipping act in connection ^-itk the scab act ? — I think so, the dipping must be general. That is just where 1 am opposed to the present scab act, because it is partial. That is -why we have gone against it. We find very little improvement, because scab is introduced from the adjoining areas where the act is not in force. 5417. Then I suppose you are in favour of increasing the operation of the act? — I want a general scab act, with the condition that people with clean stock sliould have more liberty than they have at present. As long as I keep my stock clean, I should be allowed to do .18 I please with them without interference from an inspector. 5418. If the present system of permits for removal were done away with, and every farmer with a clean bill were allowed to move his stock under his own pass, do j^ou think it would meet your case ? — Exactly. 5419. Might it not lead to some people moving their sheep and giving them a pass when they were aflFected with scab .-' — It would perhaps in some instances, but we could hardly help that. There should be a heavy fine attached to it, and that would deter people and meet the case. 5420. Supposing it is found impossible to have a general scab act, have j'ou ever thought of where a line might be drawn to meet the case } —No, I should bo opposed to a partial act in any case. I am adjoining an unproclaimed area, and if we were to kei?p this partial act on for some time longer we should be without servants, because they would be going back to the unproclaimed area where they can move safely with their stock. They don't breed to sell to butchers, and if they find they are encumbered with the act they will simply move out. One boy who came to my place had to kill his goats before he could conte. 5421. Do you think the system adopted now of paying seivaats with stock is the cause oL that? — Certainly, but you would not get shearers otherwise. I would not have a servant without stock. [G. 1.— '04.] ?? 220 5422. Could the system of the appointment of inspectors be improved upon ? — I think the inspector ought not to be dependent upon the votes of the people residing in the area in vrhicli he is carrjang- out hia duties. He ought to bo appointed by GoTeniment without consulting the constituency. 5423. Do you find the inspector r. times favours certain persons ? — I imagine so. I could not prove it, but we think so 5424. If the Colony were divii ',>y a line, do you think any farmer living in the unproclaimed ar3a whose sheep ar. lean should be protected by giving him power to prevent anyone moving across his f m, even on a public road, with scabby stock ? — Yes, he ihould have that power, but if they were properly dipped and seen to I would not object to them going over, even though the scab were not entirely eradicate 1, because I don't think it is so infectious within the first seven or eight days after dipping. 5425. If dipping tanks were erected at the port of entry between the two areas, and sheep were proiserly dipped and quarantined there for a certain time, you think they might be allowed to come in in safety ? — I think so. 5426. But unless that were done, you would be opposed to it ? — Yes. 5-J.J7. If trade is done in skins and wool by farmers in the unproclaimed area, how would you regulate the entry of the produce into the proclaimed area .'' — I cannot answer that ; I have not thought of it. 5428. Do you think the farmers living in the proclaimed area should be protected ? — I am so opposed to a partial act that I should be directly against it. 5429. You say, either have a scab act over the whole Colony, or' have none at all? — Yes. 5430. Mr. IVancis.'] Are the fines generally imposed for breaches of the act sufficient ? —Yes. 5431. Would you have a system of paid licences? — No, but I tliink the inspector should see to the dijDpiiig of the sheep under his instructions, but at the farmer's expense. 6432. If your stock became infected with scab, how long would it take you to make them thoroughly clean ? — It all depends on the circumstances. I have done it within a couple of months. 5433. Is the time allowed by the act for a first licence too long? — No. 5434. In summer, or when the stock are in good condition, don't you thiuk they could be cleansed in less ? — I would give three months, because a man has not always the time. He has other work to do on the farm, perhaps evadicatiag the prickly pear, and you cannot force him. In summer time his sheep may be just lambing, and it would not do to dip them. 5435. Don't you think it would be an injustice to you, if youi- stock were all clean and your neighbour's infected, that they should be allowed three months before they were obliged to take any action in cleaning them ? — No, because there would be another remedy if the scabby stock came on my farm ; I could impound them, and there would be a fine attached to it, so that my neighbours would take good care that their stock did not cross the boundary. 5436. Have you known any cases in your neighbourhood where one farmer has summoned another for damages for scabby sheep infecting his ? — Not one. 5437. As a general rule, the farmers would not put that in force ? — They are not likely to. 5438. Under certain circumstances, do you think it would be advisable to suspend the working of the act in time of drought ? — I think so, sj^eaking now of a general act. 5439. In your experience, have circumstances ever arisen since the act has been in force when a man could not cleanse liis sheep in three mouths ? — I think so. We have had three months of weather when we could not dip without risk of killing more than we cured. 5440. Owing to rain, or to lowness of temperature ? — Both, and also to scarcity of water. 5441. But I suppose you have always sufficient water to dip the sheep? — I have, but some have not. 5442. Are there some farms in your neighbourhood where the water is so scarce that they cannot get enough to dip their sheep ? — Yes, on their own farms. 5443. Do you think that section of the act should be amended under which a man can drive scabby sheep to the pound ? — Yes, the farmer or whoever pounds them ought to be allowed to dip them first at the owner's expense. 5444. Suppose it is impossible to have a general act, and a single farmer adjoining the proclaimed area wished to be admitted into it, do you think it would bo advisable to allow him to do so ? — I think I woidd, if the act were only jjartial. 5445. Would it be advisable to place a certain amount of discretionary power in the hands of the inspectors, giving a right of appeal to the magistrate ? — I think it would be a good thing. 5446. Would it be well for the Government to supply dip to the farmers at cost price, and free of railway carriage ? — Yes, and to put tanks on outspans, or on Government ground, in conveinent places. 5447. If even the present law had beer properly carried out, do you think it would have tended very much to lessen scab in yoiir neighbourhood ? — Yes, but it woidd never eradicate it. 5448. Mr. Botha.'] The branch of the Afrikander Bond to which you belong is inde- peadeut of the other branches of the Bond in the same district ? — Yes. 2Sl 5449. You don't work together ? — No. 5450. Toil are the loader of that branch ? — Tee. 5451. Has not the movement here in opposition to the scab act more to do with diplomatic tact to gain more political power, or to break down the other side to a certain extent ? — I don't know. I have not considered it in that way. 5452. Do you mean to say the small stock in your district consists mainly of goats, and that they are generally scabby ? — Not generally ; they never were generally scabby. 5453. Is not scab in goats much more dangerous than scab in sheep? — My own ex- perience has been that I have cleansed them both in the same time. 5454. The scabby goat is not more liable to die than the scabby sheep ? — I think they are both equally liable. 5455. Dr. Smarft.'] Do you believe that an efficient scab act would entirely stamp out scab from the Colony ? — Certainly. 5456. Under such circumstances, if a certain portion of the Colony were opposed to a general scab act, would you be in favour of forcing it upon them for the general good ? — No, I would not force them, if it is any large area. 5457. Are there any farms in this district where it is impossible to water the stock in ordinary seasons } — No, only in droughts. 5458. Then how is it impossible to dip sheep in ordinary seasons on those farms } — There may be instances, but they would be exceptional. I have had a dearth of water ujj self, but I meant only in droughts. 5459. In ordinary seasons there is no farm in this district where a careful farmer could not dip his sheep ? — As far as I know. 5460. Mr. du Toit.'] If a portion of the Colony is opposed to the act, what would you suggest ? — I would try to lead them to understand that it would be to their benefit. 5461. And in case you cannot convince them ? — Then you can do nothing to them. If there is any good in the act you ought to be able to convince them. I should be opposed to a general act if it were made unbearable, so that I could not move my stock when clean. 5462. And if you cannot get a general act ? — Then I would rather have no act at all, in any part of the Colony. 5463. Not if 75 per cent, of the farmers ask for it ? — Then I would force the other 25 per cent. 5464. Are the hardships mentioned by you the only hardships under the present act?— Yes. 5465. Are there no some hardships as regards speculators? — Yes, that is while the act is partial, but if it were done we should all be in the same boat. I used to barter for my meal, and give stock instead of money, for both meal and grain, but now we find we are out of it ; people won't come over the boundary, they would rather turn back on account of the difficulty of getting certificates and permits to remove stock. 5466. Do yoxi think it would still press upon those who have not got a clean bill .' — Yes. Now it is pressing upon both clean and unclean. 5467. Mr. Francis.'] If you believed the reason w^ certain oppose the scab act arises from the fact that they were ignorant with regard to I nature of the disease, and that it was a sin to destroy the acarus, would you then force act upon them ? — Certainly ; that would be no reason at all. 5468. Chairman.'] Is there any suggestion you wo uid like to make.' — At present the act is too strict. A case came before the Court at SteytlerviUe where an inspector took goats from a wagon and had them impounded under the scab act, as the man was unable to produce his clean biU. Mr. John Edwin Na^h examined. 5469. Chairman.] Are you farming in this district? — In Willowmore, near SteytlerviUe, for about 25 years. I have between 2,000 and 3,000 goats and sheep. 5470. Is the scab act in force in the field-cornetcy where you live ? — Yes. 5471. Do you represent the farmers surrounding Mount Stewart ? — Yes. 5472. Before the act was put in force where you live, was there much scab there ? — Yes. 5473. Do you notice any great improvement in stock ? — Certainly, especially in skins. I frequently watch the skins which are brought to the different stores. Before the act was put in force there was scarcely a clean skin brought in, and now there was seldom one scabby. 5474. Are the skins brought to the stores from the district of Willowmore, or are they from outside ? — From anywhere. We are on the boundary of three districts, Willowmore, Uitenhage and Jansenville. 5475. Do you find any difference in the skins which came from the proclaimed area ? — I could not say where they come from. I see them brought to the stores, and having always taken interest in the question of scab, I noticed that before the act came in force there were any amount of scabby skins brought iu. I have often spoken to the store- keepers about it, and thej' tell mo there is a great improvement. 5476. Don't some of them come from the unproclaimed areai* — Yes. 5477. Do you see a great improvement in those skins ? — I could not tell which como from there, because I don't know where the people come from. ff2 322 5478. But supposing skins are allowed to come in from the unproclaimed area, scabby, do you think they are likely to spread the disease? — They are almost certain to, because very often they are brought in wet, especially by Kaffirs, and thrown out to dry almost at once, and the stock lie about too. 5479. Should there be a total prohibition of the importation of skins inco a proclaimed from an unproclaimed area in the ordinary way of business? — No. I think that would be too hard, but I would like to see skins brought in under inspection. People should not be allowed to bring them in until the inspector has seen and passed them. 5480. Would j'ou have all skins from unproclaimed areas dipped first ? — Any that the inspector thought were not otherwise fit to bring in. 6481. Are you in favour of a general scab act ? — Yes. 5482. Have you ever taken into consideration that there may be a great deal of difficulty in enforcing a general scab act throughout the Colony, and whether a line should be drawn, and where ? — No, I am not in favour of a lino being drawn. I would force the act on all. 5483. If it is decided to draw a line, would you include all the railways? — T have not had an opportunity of travelling westward, and don't know the country. I believe the western province are in general opposed to the scab act, and of course it would be for the people that way to suggest the line. 5484. If you were told by large farmers in the western province that they find it is impossible for them to accept a scab act, or even to stamp out scab, do you think it would be correct ? — I should not believe them. 5485. You believe no conditions exist under which scab cannot be stamped out? — No, I think there are no such conditions. 5486. And that in the interests of the farmers it would be a great benefit to have the scab act throughout the Colony ? — Yes. 5487. Would it be advisable to erect dipping tanks along the main roads or publie outsj)ans ? — Yes, public outspans. 5488. To dip all travelling stock at the owner's expense ? — Yes. 5489. Do you think it would be advisable to have a general .=imultanoous dipping act, whether the scab act were general or partial ? — Yes, I think that would be a very good plan. 5490. Would the farmers in your neighbourhood who have held a clean bill of health for two or three years raise any objections to dipping their stock, in the interests of the Colon}', in order to trj' and stamp out scab? — I think some would be sure to raise objections : they would under any oireumstances ; but I think simultaneous dipping would be advisable. 5491. If a farmer in the unproclaimed area asked for protection, would you g^ve him power to prevent any scabby sheep travelling along a road across his farm .-' — Yes, provided he put up a notice, warning people, at the entrance to the roads on his farm. 5492. Have you any suggestions to make with regard to the appointment of scab inspectors? — I don't think the present system is at all a bad one. As far as we are concerned we have done very well. We have a very good inspector. I think the appointments should be made without reference to the divisional council, but at the same time, if objections were made by the residents in the ward, I think notice should be taken of them. 5493. Mr. Frmwk.'] Have there been any great complaiuts in your locality with regard to obtaining permits to remove stock?— I have heard complaints, but not any serious ones. 5494. Has not a good deal of inconvenience arisen from that ? — I cannot say there has ; in fact, permits are often granted too easily. Last week I sold a few goats to a man for mealies, and I g' "t a permit from an inspector, but when the purchaser came to our place and I offered him the permit he said the}^ coidd be put in his own permit, as he had a permit for double the number to fiU up as he went along. 5495. Do you consider the section under which two landowners can grant a permit may be very much abused ? — Yes, and I think it should be repealed. 5496. Instead of the present sj'stem of permits, do you think it would be better to allow a man to remove his stock provided he had held a clean bill for one month previously, the responsibility being upon him to show that the sheep were clean, and subject to a heavy fine ? — Yes, a very heavy fine. 5497. Are the fines generally imposed sufficient to deter people from breaking the law ? — I cannot say they are. 5498. Woiild a system of paid licences be preferable ? — Yes. 5499. Would you increase the price of a licence upon every renewal ? — Yes. 5500. Do you think three months is too long for a first licence ? — No. 5501. Not under any circumstances ? — No. I have had to contend against scab a good deal myself, and there are times when I have had to work hard to get the stock clean in three months. 5502. Was not that on account of drought .' — No, not always. It depends a good deal upon the condition of your stock. 5503. On other occasions, could you not clean stock within a month ? — Sometimes, if all things are favourable. We don't have too much rain here. 5504. Would you give a discretionary power to the inspector, with an appeal to the magistrate ? — He should always give three months in the firit instance. 223 5506. Do you think anyone should be allowed to drive infected sheep to a pound ? — No, a man should be allowed to dip the sheep and charge the owner. It would be hard for a man to have to keep scabby sheep on his place. 5506. If a general act is found impracticable, would you be in favour of allowing a single farm adjoining the area to come under the act .'' — Yes. 5507. In order to assist farmers, would you be in favour of Government supplying them with dip at cost price, free of railway carriage .? — Yes. 5508. Are not shearers frequently liable to carry contagion with them from farm to farm ? — Of course, especially when they go working from one farm to another. 5509. What remedy would you propose ? — I don't know, unless you dip their trowsers. 5510. Do you think we could eradicate scab if we had a general compulsory act throughout the Colony ? — I am sure of it. 5511. We have evidence that the Colony annually loses £500,000 from the effects of pcab. Do you think it would be advisable to spend half that amount for two years in trying to eradicate it, or would you go on as at present ? — I should spend the whole of it. 5512. Mr. Jiotha.'] Don't you think it would be in the interests of all concerned that, instead of impounding scabby stock, the owner of the land shoiild simply institute an action for damages against the owner of the stock, and leave the stock to themselves .^ — In the case of a flock with a herd, but infection is mostly carried about by sheep which are lost, and stray in the place, and you don't know at first to whom they belong. 5513. Do you live close by, or in the Henley ward ?— I live on a portion of the farm Henley. 5514. How do you account for the opposition to the act in that place, since you and Mr. de la Harpe are both in favour of it ? — It is ignorance. 5515. Are the leaders of the people as ignorant as the rest? — No, they are not all ignorant, but there is a large class of ignorant men they are able to lead. 5516. But the leaders are not ignorant ? — No, but the people they lead are. 5517. Why do the intelligent men lead them so? — That I could not say. I don't know at all. 5518. Or don't you like to tell ? — No. Politics are generally at the bottom of it. It gives a certain amount of political power. 5519. Do you believe the infection is carried by skins and wool as well as by animals ? — I think 80. A bale of wool may be shorn from the scabbiest of sheep. Farmers often wait until the sheep get very scabby, and then shear and dip. 5520. Have you ever known a case where one farmer sued another for damages for the trespass of scabby sheep .'' — Yes, my brother-in-law, Mr. James Patterson, entered an action against an owner of stock for £20, but the party paid it up without going into court. 5521. Dr. Smartt.'j Would not the danger of infection from scabby skins and wool be greatly minimised if it all passed through to the ports baled ? — Certainlj', provided the bales were sound. 5522. Have you experienced any difficidty in identifying the owners of scabby sheep found straj-ing ? — Sometimes, but generally speaking j-ou can find thom out ; we generally know the marks of the people about us, though there have been cases when I have not been able to identify them. 5523. And when the owner would say they were not his? — Yes. 5524. Would it not be advisable to have a compulsory registration branding act ? — Yes. 5525. Are the number of inspectors sufficient ?— I don't think so. In some cases where the wards are small they can do the work. 5526. Would yoi be in favour of inspectors being appointed in each field-cornetcy, to be chosen from farmers in the field- corn etey holding clean bills? — My idea was that farmers should take it in turns to inspect the stock, but it is a thing I have not fully thought out yet. I shotild be in favour of your suggestion, but the question is whether you would get farmers to do it, because they woidd have to neglect their own work. 5527. At the expiration of a three months' licence, if sheep were still infected, would you consider it was due to the carelessness or the ignorance of the owner ? — It may be both. 5528. Under such circumstances, would it not be advisable to have these eheep dipped under the superintendence of the inspector, at the owner's expense? — I think so. 5529. Would that work better than a sy.stem of paid licences? — Yes, always allowing the farmer to chc ose his own recognised dip. 5530. Mr. du Toit-I What time would you give under a simultaneous dipping act to dip all the flocks ? — I think one month would be quite sufficient. 5531. Would everyone be able to shear within a month's time, irrespective of the differences in climate ? — People would not all be shearing at the same time. 5532. What month would you recommend ? — I think nearly all farmers shear about October, November and December, and you could choose a period out of that. 5533. Dr. Smartt.'] Have you many native squatters in your area? — They have all small dumpies. 5534. Do you find they are a constant source of contagion to their neighbours ? — I can't say a constant sour.'e ; some are scabby, but my e.xperience is the natives take more trouble than many white people. 5535. Would you be in favour of ever}- landowner holding small stock being compelled to have a properly constructed dipping tank on his property ? — Certainly. 224 « 5536. Would you compel him to put the use of that tank at the service of any person holding stock on his property ? — ^Tes. 5537. Mr. Sotha.'] How do the natives manage ? — They use the tanks on the farms ■where they live, though I have heard complaints that some of them cannot obtain the use of the farmers' tanks. In mj' neighbourhood, when a farmer dips, he insists upon the natives on his place dipping too. 5538. Chairman.'^ Would a farmer who was doing his best to eradicate scab allow natives on his farm to have stock without dipping when he does ? — Not a farmer who was doing his best, but many farmers dip against their will. I think the act should be thoroughly carried out, and a tank erected at every pound in the area, and outside also. Mr. Samuel Joshua ITobson examined. 5639. Chairmati.^ Do you reside in the Jansenville district ? — Yes, I have lived here sixteen years, and have 2,000 sheep and goats. Formerly I had always 10,000. 5540. Is there anything you would like to add to the evidence which has already been given ? — I would approve of a simultaneous dipping in the month of December, as shearing is generally finished in November, and it might be at any time from the 1st to the 31st of December. I agree with the suggestion regarding dip depots, and also that there should be sub-inspectors to see the compulsory dipping carried out, one in every ward, or if necessary more, and that there should bo three dippings. The dipping wiU never be properly carried out unless there is car«jful supervision. 5541. Do you think the Government would be warranted in spending a large sum of money in order to see the dipping properly carried out ? — Tes, it will never be properly done unless someone is standing by to see it done. I am in favour of a general act, but if that is impossible the western portion of the country might be cut off by a line drawn as far westward as possible, and places for crossing the line might be fixed where there should be dipping tanks and inspectors to see that all sheep coming over, scabby or not scabby, are properly dipped with two dippings, or else one in their own area and one on the border. We have often had scabby stock wandering about, and I don't know to whom they belong, and in such cases I think the farmer whose place they are found on ought to be compelled to dip them properly twice, at the owner's cost, and then send them to the pound immediately, the charge to be calculated according to a fixed tariff. It is ten months since I dipped my sheep, but I have not had the place long, and have not sunk wells yet. Mr. John George Buthie Rex examined. 5542. Chairman.'] Tou are assistant inspector for Henley, in area No. 15a? — Tes; I was appointed about four months ago. 5543. How long has this area been under the scab act ? — About 21 months. 5544. When you took over the duties, was there much scab ? — Tes. 5545. Do you attribute that to the manner in which the act was administered, or what ? — I consider the stock should certainly have had less scab than I found. 5546. Was that due to the laxity of the inspector, or what ? — I think after six months at the outside anyone has had ample time to clean his stock. 5547. When you took over the area, finding the stock was infected, did you put them in quarantine ? — Yes, for three months, and after that I gave them another three months if theyjsaid they had made diligent efforts to cleanse the stock. 5548. Do you think these men had made diligent efforts T — Some certainly had. 5549. And yet had failed to clean the stock ? — Tes. The stock is very much better as far as I have gone now, but they are not properly clean yet. 5550. How long do you think it would take to cleanse a flock? — Six months is ample time. 5551. How many dippings would you consider necessary.' — It all depends on the season, as regards drought. I have dipped as many as eleven times myself in less than six months. I dipped regularly every fourteen days. 5552. If you dipped a scabby flock twice, properly, and removed them on to healthy veldt, how long would it take to clean either sheep or goats ? — -I don't believe it is possible to clean goats, even in three dippings, in time of drought. Tou may clean either a goat or a sheep in three or four dippings. 5553. How many days should there be between each dipping? — Not more than fourteen. 5554. Then how do you reconcile that with your statement that it take six months ? — It is possible to do so, but I have dipped as m*ny as eleven times, and still the stock were not cured. 5555. Then you cannot cleanse a flock of goats or sheep in four dippings 7 — It is possible, but it cannot always be done. 5556. Do you mean that those sheep or goats became reinfected, or that you could not kill the insect ? — I should say they become reinfected more than anything else. 5557. Then you admit you do cleanse the sheep, but they become reinfected? — J 225 suppose so, because I quite believe you can kill the iu.boct in three or four dippings, a^id unless the stock were reinfected they would remain clean after that. I have tried m k^lf. after several dippings, shifting them on to clean ground, and have cured them. 55.58. Then scab is easily eradicated, but the dilficulty lies in reinfection ? — Yes. 5559. Can you suggest any remedy for thi.s ? — .\. general act is all ^that would' really eradicate scab. 5560. I understand the reinfection does nut take place on the farm where the stock are running, but comes from the outside } — Iq my case the reinfection has been on my own farm. 5561. To remedy that, must you not cure your own farm ? — Exactly ; it is/'possible. 1 should dip, and if I could not cleanse them I should remove them to a clean place. 5562. When you were dipping your stock, did you put them back into the old infected kraals ? — I did at first, until I had gained experience. 5563. Is that the plan generally adopted by the farmers here } — Yes. 5564. And then if course they become reinfected at once .'' — Yes. 5565. In carrying out the act, have you found much difficulty with 'the system of permits for the removal of stock, and have farmers complained to you about it? — Yes. 5566. How would you propose to meet that } — I have asked two or three of the most intelligent farmers in the ward whether they would act for me and grant permits so as to meet these people, and I found it was a great improvement. 5567. Do you think it would be better to allow the holders of clean bills to move their stock under their own permit } — Yes, if they were clean in one district, they would be considered clean in another. 5568. If that was carried out, would it meet the difficulty .? — Yes. 5569. Mr. Botha.~] What dip did you use when you dipped eleven times unsuccessfully.? — Lime and sulphur, eighteen pounds of each to the 100 gallons ; tobacco dip 80 lbs. to 100 lbs. to 400 gallons of water, and one of the patent chemical iiuids according to directions. 5570. What is the cause of the successful opposition to the scab act in your own district } — I have been trying to got at the bottom of it myself, but I cannot understand it, because a great many farmers who have had a clean bill ever since the act has been in force are the principal movers, more so than those whose stock is scabby. They say their grievance is in bartering stock and so on. Job room R 5571. Do you think scab is as fatal to sheep as to goats .? — It is much more difficult to cure in goats. I dipped goats eleven times, and if I had not smeared them I should not have had them clean yet. 5572. Do you use the same remedies for sheep as for goats ? — Yes, but I make it stronger for goats, and after dipping theiu so many times I resorted to tar and sulphur, and rubbed them with it after they were dipped. 5573. Dr. Smartt.'] We have it in evidence from Mr. W. H. Berrington that he purchased a farm supposed to be ruined with scab, cleaned all his flocks within three months, and has ever since held a clean bill of health ; he put every sheep after dipping into the same old kraal, and bought a troop of scabby sheep which he dipped three times, the second dipping within eight days, and the third within ten days. These sheep were also put into the same kraal, and he has never had a case of scab amongst them since. That was two years ago. How do you account for that .? — -I cannot account for it at all. 5574. Mr. du Toit.l^ What would you suggest in order to clean kraals? — Leave them altogether for about three or four months and make clean ones. I did so, and found they became clean. 5575. Do you think the insect could not live in kraals and in the veldt for more than four months ?: — I have found it so. 5576. Chairman.'] Have you anything further to say }■ — ^I don't believe iu this present system of stock coming in from outside a proclaimed area on a certificate by two landowners. I should quarantine the stock for at least a month, and dip them twice under inspection. 5577. Dr. Smartt.'] What guarantee would you have that scab would not be intro- duced into the proclaimed area if, as you say, it requires three or four dippings to clean them ? — It would be the inspector's duty to see that he could pass them, and give a clean bill. XTitenhage, Friday, '2nd December, 1892. I'RESENT : Mr. Feost (Chaii-man). Mr. BoTH.4.. I Dr. Smartt. „ DU ToiT. Mr. Francis. Mr. Maithys Swart examined. 5578. Chairman.'] You reside iu the Humansdorp district ? — Yes ; I have been there 32 years, and have about 12,000 sheop. 226 5579. I understand that Mr. Michaol Swart has been sent with you from Humansdorp as a representatire of the Humansdorp liranch of the Afrikander Bond ? — Yes. -- 5580. Was there any meeting of farmers held there iu connection with this question ? — No. 5581. When you commenced farming there, was there much scab in the district? — Very little ; much less than there is now. 5582. Was there much scab there when the scab act was put in force ? — Yes, a good deal. 5583. Have j'ou observed anj' improvement since then '? — A little. 5584. Do you attribute the fact of their being so little improvement to the working of the act, or to the negligence of the inspectors in carrying it out ? — To the working of the act. 5585. In what particular has the act failed there } — The acts compels us to dip at most unsuitable times, when the sheep are not in condition. 5586. How do you account for it that you have to dip so often ? — In order to eradicate scab by order of the inspector. 5587. But if you dip your sheep proparly two or three times, is not that sufficient to stamp out the scab ? — We euro the disease existing on the sheep at the time, but two months afterwards they are as bad as ever. 5588. How do you account for that ? Is it by infection from your own kraals, or by your sheep mixing with others ? — That I cannot say. The inspector orders me to make new kraals, so that they may not be reinfected. 5589. You don't think it is owing to sheep coming into the neighbourhood from other farms, and mixing with yours ? — Sometimes, but not always. I acknowledge that the disease is contagious, and that sometimes the sheep do get reinfected in that way. 5590. Then do you think if sheep we properly dipped twice or three times, and removed on to clean veldt, they would be free of scab altogether ? — For the time being. 5591. Would they got reinfected provided there was no scab on the veldt, and they did not mix with other stock ? — It is difficult to give an opinion. 5592. You have cleaned your sheep, and they have been reinfected? — Often. 5593. So you are convinced you can cure them by proper dipping r — Yes. 5594. Then do you believe the disease sometimes comes spontaneously .' — I cannot give an opinion. It sometimes breaks out in a way I cannot account for. 5595. Do you believe it comes from the blood by spontaneous generation } — I cannot answer. 5596. Are there no roads passing over your farm .'' — None on which stock move. 5597. Might they not sometimes pass without your seeing them ? — No, because the farm is enclosed. 5598. Then I take it you think the scab act has done no good? — Not in our district. It has done us harm. 5599. How long have you had your shoep free of scab ? — Two years at a time. 5600. Then would j'ou say the act has done you harm ? — No, it has done my sheep good, because it was no longer necessary to dip. 5601. Then if you could have kept tliera clean altogether, it would have been a great benefit to yoti to have the act? — Yes. When I had them clean for two years, it was ten years before the act. 5602. Would all the farmers of Humansdorp have dipped their sheep, and done their best to keep them clean if there had been no scab act .' — I acknowledge some are compelled to dip who otherwise would not. 5603. Then do you not think that these men who are negligent should be compelled to dip their sheep, and keep them clean if possible ? — If the act can be worked in a different way to what it is at present. 5604. In what particular is the act oppressive ? — We are obliged to move our sheep from one place to another, and in order to do that I must get a permit ; but should perhaps one or two shoep in the flock be infected I am obliged to dip them aU, possibly at a most unsuitable season of the year. 5605. If a change were made in that respect, do you think a farmer should be allowed to move his sheep on his own permit, provided he had a clean bill, and his sheep were all free of scab ? — If this had been done at first, it would have acted very well, but the farmers are now so opposed to the act that I believe the majority of them, where I am, will be satisfied with nothing less than its total repeal. They are not so wrong-headod, however, but that, if a proper act were reintroduced, they would refuse to come under it. 5606. If the act were amended in that respect, they would not be so opposed to it ? — If the farmers saw it would be useful to the district, they would all be for it, but as it now stands they kick against it, as it has put their sheep back greatly in condition. 5607. If we told you we have examined 25,000 sheep in one district, in which there is no scab, the whole district being free of scab, owiug to the working of the act, do you think the same thing could be done in Humansdorp provided it was carried out upon the same lines? — It aU depends on the peculiar circumstances of the dislrict. The circumstances in this district ma)' not be the same as thoy arc in Humansdorp. 5608. Hu\y can the act work differently ?— The climate and circumstances are different. 5609. But Komgha, the district I referred to, is close to the sea, and tho climate there is very similar to that of Humansdorp, and the grass veldt is much the same .' — Farming is 827 19 different with us ; we are obliged to kraal our sheep for the purpose of obtaining mauur.i for our lands. 5(510. Mr. Francis.'] What do you generally make your kraals of? — Stones and scantling, but mostly of stones. 5611. After you have got your sheep free of scab, do you put them back into the old kraals again ? — Before the act was enforced we did, but not afterwards. 5'U2. Is it not possible that after your sheep have been cleaned, they may become re- infected from your neighbour's sheep mixing with them in the veldt ? — It is possible. 5613. Might not that be the reason of their becoming reinfected on the occasion when you could not account for the sheep being reinfected ? — It is possible. 5G14. Do you believe scab is caused only by an insect ? — Yes. 5615. If that insect is killed by dipping, is it not impossible for the stock to get scab again unless another insect is brought there? — ^Of course, but tlio insect may conio in some other way than by slieep. 5616. If your sheep were perfectly clear, would it not be possible to disinfect the kraal? — When I dip my sheep, I put them into the kraal whilst they are still wet, and in that way I disinfect the kraal. 561 7. Do you think the present method of appointing scab inspectors is a good one } — No. 5618. What would you suggest as an improvement? — I would have one in each field- cornetcy, who should bo recommended to the divisional council by the sheep and goat farmers, and he should be appointed. 5619. If you had an inspector in each fieldcornetcy, would it be advisable to have a superintending inspector in each district over them ? — No. 5620. You would leave them to their own devices ? — Yes. 5621. With regard to the length of the Licence of three months given on the outbreak of scab, do you think it is too long or too short .' — I think it is about right. 5622. Would it n..t be too long at certain seasons of the year? — It is not too long for the first licence, but afterwards it should be left to the inspector to decide what time should be given. 5623. The present act provides that any man finding scabby sheep trespassing can take them to the pound. Might not that be a great cause if infecting other sheep ? —It might. 5624. What would you suggest as a remedy for that ? — I can give no opinion. We never pound sheep in our district. 5625. Do you think the farmers generally in your district dip the sheep properly 7 — Yes, as far as I know they follow the instructions of the inspector, and he looks after it himself. 5626. Are all the tanks measured, so that the farmers know the exact quantity they contain ? — As far as I know. 5627. Is yours measured ?- Yes, mine is marked for every hundred gallons. I dip properly. 562H. If a new act were brought in on the lines you suggest, do you think it would be advisable that everyone under licence at that time should dip the sheep twice, te give the act a start ? — Yes, at the proper time, whether clean or scabby. 5629. If the act had been carried out better in your district, do you think you might have reaped a greater benefit ? — I don't think the present act could be administered better than it has buen. 5630. If the act were amended according to your ideas, do you think it would prove a great benefit to the farmers ? — Yes. 5631. 3fr. Bolha.'] If a clause were introduced into the scab act leaving the working of it in the hands of each ward to apply it according to circumstances, do you think it would be an improvement ? — A great improvement. 5632. And that each ward should have its own inspector chosen by the stockowners ? — Yes. 5633. Do you believe tliat the merino sheep, as well as goats, are liable to produce scab independently of infection } — I cannot say yes or no, but I know it is very infectious. 5634. J)r Smartt.] If a modified act were introduced, would you be in favourof its being made to apply to the whole Colony ? — Each district should apply the act according to its circumstances. 5635. Do you think it would be possible to work an act if each fieldcornetcy could make it as light or as stringent as it liked ? — I don't mean that they should have the power to frame the clauses of the act : I referred to the appointment of inspectors and the removal of stock. 5636. Are there any farmers in the Humansdorp district holding a clean bill of health ? — A good many. 5637. Are there any farmers in the district who don't believe it is possible to cure scab ? — I don't know of any cases. 5638. You don't know of one single instance of a farmer in Humansdorp who says scab cannot be cured ? — I don't think so. 5639. Do 3'ou know of any instances in the district where men have dipped their sheep since the act has been in force who would not have done so if there had not been a scab act ? — Certainly. 5640. In those cases the act has _done good 'simply because it has compelled them to dip ? — I know »ome men who have never dipped, but have hand-dressed their sheep. [G. L— '94.] GG 228 5641. ITr. du Toil.'] Do you believe that scab on goats is also caused b_y au iusect ? — Yee, but 1 doa't know much about goats. 5642. Have you seen the different insects on sheep and on goats? — I have never seen the goats' scab, but the sheep I have. 5643. Do j'ou believe the scab on goats can be cured by dipping just as much as that on sheep ? — Yes, I think it can all be cured. 5644. But you have no experience of goats ? — No. I don't farm with goats. 5645. Do you believe scab can be entirely stamped out from the Colony } — No. 5646. Why not, if it is caused by an insect, and the insect can be killed by dipping? — I am not sure whether it is not spontaneous. 5647. Has your experience taught you that scab is very contagious ? — At times, when the sheep are in low condition, and when there is a good deal of moisture in the atmosphere. 5648. Which would you rather have, a partial scab act over the Colony, or a general scab act throughout ? — I think it would be sufficient protection for the proclaimed area to have well guarded ports of entry. 5649. Have you any idea how the ports of entry could be guarded ? — Sheep must be inspected before coming in. 5650. If the inspector considers them clean, would you allow them to come over the boundary from an unproclaimed area, or would you have them dipped first on the border, for safety's sake } — Tiiey should be dipped, because they nught have scab, although it might not be visible. 5651. How many times should they be dipped ? — One dipping would be sufficient for a clean sheep without visible scab. 5652. Are there more hardships to you under the present act than those you have already mentioned ? — Yes, in our district. In the first place there is a great difficulty with the woodcutters, many of whom are very poor, and when they sell their wood to a farmer they are often unable to get one or two sheep from him because he has not a clean bill of health. 5653. Then they actually cannot buy their meat for use in the forest ? — No ; they cannot buy from any flock which is under quarantine. 5654. Do you consider that is a great hardship } — Yes, they suffer great inconvenience from it. 5655. Are there other poor families there who have to barter meal, potatoes and corn for sheep? — Yes, there are agriculturists who have to buy their meat, and they suffer in the same way as the woodcutters. 5656. Are you aware of a kind of scab disease in these parts which takes the wool off the sheep in the same way as scab ? — Yes. 5657. How is it caused? — There are two sorts ; one is when the sheep gets fever, and the wonl comes off, and the other is when it comes in the feet and mouth, and it seems to spread all over the body, and makes it hard. 5658. What is it like when it appears at the mouth, and so on ?— The sheep get sores. 6659. Looking at the appearance of the body, do you think it is difficult to distinguish between that kind of disease and scab } — Anybody who knows scab can see the difference at once. 5660. You don't think an inexperienced inspector could make a mistake? — Yes, they could easily. 5661. Would you not therefore be the more in favour of inspectors being recommended by sheep farmers } —Yes, that is an important point. 6662. In your opinion, would it be very dangerous if the appointment of inspectors was left only in the hands of the Government } — Yes. 6663. They might appoint very clever men, but not men who were capable of distinguishing between two kinds of disease ? — Yes, they should be experienced farmers. 6664. Are you in favour of Government erecting dipping tauks on public outspans, so as to provide for the dipping of travelling flocks of scabb}' sheep ? — It is not necessai-y in Humansdorp, but it would be advisable in other parts of the Colony. 5665. Are you aware that trekkers, smousers and so on, when they have had an out- break of scab amongst their sheep on the road, have not been allowed by farmers to dip the sheep in their tanks .'' — I never heard of such a case. 5666. Still do you think there maj' be farmers who would object to it ? — Yes. 5667. And that they are quite right to do so ? — Yes. 6668. Chairman.'] Is there anything else you would like to state ? — Yes. In Humans- dorp they are trying their utmost to get rid of the act. I won't say there are not a few who are 'working for the act, inspectors also have friends ; but the great bulk of the farmers are working for the repeal of the act. The reason why I wish to get rid of the act is because Humansdorp never sends sheep out of the district. 5669. Mr. du Toit.'] If there is an inspector in each ward, would you give him the same salaiy as the inspectors receive now .'' — No, I would divide the amount now spent iu the district amongst them. 5670. Br. Smartt.'] Would you rather have a modified act for the whole Culony than no act at all ?— Yes. 6671. You consider an act of some sort or other absolutely necessary in the interests of husbandry ? — Yes. 229 Mr. Michael Swart examined. 5672. Chairman.'] Are you residing in Humansdorp ? — Yes, I have farmed there 15 years, aud have about 600 sheep. .5673. Do you agi-ee with the evidence just given by Mr. Matthys Swart? — Yes, entirely. o674. Is there anything you wDuld like to add? — In a cortaia section of the district the farmers have to get sheep from another portion for the purpose of kraaling them and using their niauure for corn land, and under the act there is a difficulty in getting them there, and alau in kraaling them, so that now these people are hardly getting anything for their lands, and the lands are deteriorating in value for want of manure. 5675. If these farmers have clean sheep does the inspector insist upon their not being kraaled ?— It is so seldom that they can get clean sheep ; in the Zitzikama and those places they cannot get them clean for the greater portion of the year, and when they are in quarantine they cannot be moved. 5676. Are you in favour of a scab act ? — Yes, of a general scab act but if one district is left out I think Humansdorp should be that district. The general act should be on such lines as have been suggested by the previous witness. 5677. Dr. Smartt.] But you are in favour of an act which would be more leinent to the careless farmer who does not do liis best to clean his sheep ? — Certainly not ; such an act would be no good. I believe in a general simultaneous dipping act under which all sheep should be dipped three times. 5678. You consider that if, in the interests of the Colony, the district of Humansdorp can bear a general scab act, there is no other district in the Colony which cannot bear it equally well ? — Yes, Humansdorp is the worst district in the Colony for sickness amongst small stock, and if they can come under the act all the other districts should be made to do so. Mr. Christian Zietsma examined. 5679. Chairman.'] You farm in the district of Humansdorp 1 — Yes, for the last five years. I have 700 sheep. 5680. When you commenced farming there, was there much scab in the district ? — Yes, especiallj' in the part where I live, it was very bad. 5681. That was before the act was put in force ? — Just when it came in force. 5682. Do you see any improvement in the stock since then? — Yes, a great deal; in the part where I live scab has greatly decreased. 5683. Do y.m attribute that entirely to the working of the scab act ?— Yes, because if you had seen the sheep before the act came in force, and now, it is proof enough. 5684. Have you a clean bill ? — Yes, for two years. I have had no scab the last two yearo. 5685. Is there much stock moved about in the district from one place to another ? — I don't know. Where I live there is not much moving of stock from our farm to another. There is no general trekking about. We generally keep our sheep on the farms all the year round. 5686. Are you in favour of a general scab act ?^Ye8, for the whole Colony. 5687. If Humansdorp can be worked properly under an act, do you think it can be worked any wher<^ in the Colony ? — Yes, but as so many of the farmers are against it they won't work in co-operation with the others, or scab would have been stamped out long ago. 5688. In what respects is the act objectionable .^ — So far as I am concerned I have no objection to it. 5689. What objections do the others make .' — There is a petition now being sigaod for tlie .suspension of the act, but I have never seen it myself, neither have they told me what is in it. But 8o far as I can make it out, they say they have been dipping all these yeari, aud cannot get rid of scab, .-Kid I attribute this to improper dipping, because if sheep aro properly dipped twice any fc ;b must be cured, if the sheep are put in a clean kraal. 5690 Do you kraal your sheep ? — All the year round, except in rainy weather. 5691. Would it be advisable for the Government to erect dipping tanks at certain places where there are no tanks and to dip under supervision the sheep of those farmers who say they cannot cure their sheep f — It would be a very good thing if Government were to appoint a competent man to go round and see the people dip their sheep properly. The inspector carries out his work as weU as he can, but he has to be continually on his rounds, and cannot see to it himself. 56 )2. Should there be a general simultaneous dipping act in connection with a scab act ? — That would be very good, in fact the best thing, and should be carried out at a certain time of the year. 5693. Do you find any great difficidty in getting permits for the removal of \our stock ? — Neve.-, because the inspector generally appoints an assistant in each ward, or in each community, and those people who have their sheep free from scab require no permits if they have a clean bUl. 5694. That is in their own area, but must you not have a permit if you move beyond it .' — We very seldom move the sheep out of the ai-ea in the part where I live. GO 2 230 569.5. If it is found impracticable to huvo a general scab act through the whole Colony, would it 1)0 advisable to draw a line enlarging the area at present under tlie act ; by taking in all the railway systems of the Colony, or in some other way ? — If we cannot have a general act, I think chat would be the next best thing. 5696. Would j'ou allow sheep to come from the uuproclaimed into the proclaimed area ? — Not unless there is sufficient proof that they came from a clean tlock, and had beeu dipped twice first. 5697. yhoidd Aey be dipped twice and quarantined on the border ? — Yes. 5698. Do you think then it would be perfectly safe ? — Yes. 5699. In (^ase this line is drawn, do you think a man living outside the area should be protected iu the same way so that he had the right to prevent scabby sheep travelling over the roads through his farm ? — People living iu the unproclaimed area, whose sheep are clean, should be protected in some way. 5700. Could you suggest any alteration in the method of appointing inspectors? — I think the present system would work very satisfactorily if the areas are not too large. In our district it works very well, and the whole act would work well if it were not that some of the peuple will not co-operate. 5701. You don't think it would be advisable to altur the system of inspection, and have an inspector in each fieldcornetcy .-' — I don't know whether you will find so many reliable and competent men. 5702. Mr. Francis. \ How long do you think it would take you to clean your sheep if they became infected .'' — It would take some time before I could be certain that they were clean ; but if I dipped them twice in 14 days and put them on clean veldt and in a clean kraal, it would not take me more than a month, no matter how scabby they might be, winter or summer, although I would not advise dipjiing after March and before October, because in the winter the wool is generally long, and you might get a cold, rainy day and lose a number of sheep. 5703. Then you consider the three months' licence is not too long in the winter, but is too long in the summer ? — Yes. 5704. Should inspectors have a certain discretionary power to grant a first licence from one month to three months, with an appeal to the magistrate ? — I think so. 5705. Are the fines generally imposed for breaches of the act sufficieat to deter people from breaking the law ? — I think they are rather small. 5706. After a man has held a licence for three months, and the sheep are not clean, would it be a better plan to make him pay for a renewal ? — Yes, that would be the best plan. 5707. And at the expiration of that licence, make bim pay double? — Yes. 570H. Is there not a great danger of infection if scabby sheep are driven to a pound? — There is, because the farms over which they had to pass, as well as the sheep on them, miglit be free of scab, but a few of these infected sheep might stray amongst them and remain on the farm. 5709. What remedy would you suggest in regard to that ? — I think the only remedy woidd be to dip them at the owner's cost at the nearest dipping tank before driving them further. 5710. Would it be advisable for Government to supply the farmers with dip at cost price, free of railway carriage ? — I think so. 5711. If the act had beeu properly carried out in Humansdorp, do you think you would have derived a much greater benefit from it than you have at present? — I don't kncjw the extent of the inspector's authority, but I think if he had had more power we should have had more benefit. 5712. Then you would be in favour of a more stringent act ? — Yes, or no act at all. 5713. Are there any natives in your neighboiu'hood .'' — Yes, but no native farmers. 5714. If it is found necessary to draw a hne of demaracation and a farmer on the border lines in the unproclaimed area wished to come under the act, would you allow him to do so ? — Yes. 5715. Then you consider if we had a general compulsory act throughout the Colon)' that wrt could eradicate ecab from the country ? — It would take some time, but with a more stringent general act I think scab could be eradicated entirely. 5716. Mr. Botha.'] In what part of Humansdorp do you live.' — In the Zuurbrand ward. 6717. What is the principal occupation of the people in that ward? — Sheep farming and agriculture. 5718. Who is your inspector? — Mr. Lou wrens. 5719. Is he here to-day .? — No. 5720. What distance does he live from you ? — He is living on a neighbouring farm, about two hours' ride. 5721. So you can always get at him at any time ? — Yes, but I have never yet required him. 5722. Are you acquainted with the whole of the district f — No, I said I was only referring to the part I live in. 5723. Do you know anything about the Zitzikama and the woodcutters? — I know the wook'Utters generally take their wood to Humansdorp and sell it there, and sometimes at Port Elizabeth. 231 •5724. In going to Humansdorp and returning to Zitzikania, do they travel through your ward ? — No. .5725. So you aie not in a position to .say whether the statements made by the Messrs. iSwart are correct or not ? — No. 5726. But 30U admit they are respectable farmers in the district ? — I know very little about them. 5727. Who produces the b^st wool in the Huraansdnrp district ? — I cannot say, but the largest farmer iu the district is Mr. du Plossis, and he is in favour of the act. 5728. Have you any wool shows in Humansdorp ? — Yes. 5729. When was the last show .'' — Nearly twelve months ago. 5730. Who exhibited wool ? — Mr. Swart and a number of farmer-., inchiding Mr, du Plessis. 5731. Can you remember who took the prizes ? — Not at the last show, but at the show before this Mr. Swart took the prize, but it was not for scab'ny wool. 5732. You don't remember who took the prize at the last show .'' — No, I was not there. 5733. Br. Smartt.~\ I suppose the judges at the Humansdorp show would not have awarded a prize to any wool showing a trace of scab ? — I don't think they would. I don't think it would be allowed in the show yard. 5734. Under those circumstances, if Mr. Swart's wool took the prize twice, would it not lead j'ou to think that a good deal of his evidence is not borne out by fact ? — I cannot see the difficulties that Mr. Swart and his neighbours say they suffer from, because in the iieiglib.-ctor, and the inspector gets a good salary, but that is not the reason nhy they support the act. The reason is that they have derived benolits from the act. There is now a petition being signed in the district by a number of people because a man's frieud or cousin or father is riding about with it, or has perhaps been prosecuted nnder the act. Mr. Jacob Meyns examined. 5748. Chairman.'] You are a farmer In Humansdorp? — Yes, for the last eight years. I have about 1,000 shtep 5749. Do you agree with Mr. Zietsma's evidence ?— I do inmost thing.", but for ot:o tiling. 1 dou't think there is so much dang'-r in bringing wool and skins fi-om an unpro- claimed into a procltiimed area but that it may be allowed, when brought in by trains or on wagons. 232 5750. la there any other point? — I wish to 8ay that, although I am a young man, 1 was farming on my own account at the time the act was proclaimed, so that I have beon under it as long as any other farmer. I have >)eon ia the district of Humansdorp, :ind have travelled over a good many other districts, from Humansdorp through Uiteuhage, Somerset, Cradock. Steynsburg, Albert and Aliwal North into th" Free State, and I h^ve seen that the flocks there were fairly clean. I havo also been iu tlie district of Barkly, a part of which has been proclaimed, and a part unjH'oilaimod. ■ind I could not h'llp noticii«g that the sheep in the proclaimed area were much cloiner than those outside. A few mouths ago I went into the western province, into George, Mossel Buy and Iliversdalo, whi<:li are unproclaimed, but it is miserable to see how the flocks there are inf'^cted with scab. I should say I have seen three flocks of about a thousand each, and they c-intainod more scab than the whole district of Humansdorp. 5751. Dr. Smarlt.^ Would you not like to qualify your statement by saying that if you had not had a scab act in Humansdorp j'our condition woidd have been the same? — Exactly ; it was in about the same state before the act. Before the act was p it in force, I came across flocks of shnep in Humansdorp iu which there was not a 'ingle sheep not aifected with scab; and now, if the}' say a flock is badly infected, you fiad about thirty infected sheep in a flock of 800 or 900. 5752. Chairman.~\ Therefore you are strongly in favour of a stringent act for the whole Colony ? — Strongly. 57o8. Mr. Botha.^ You represent the farmers, but no particular society ? — Yes, no particular society. 5754. By what means weie you elected to represent them ? — A few days ago we heard that the Commissioa would sit here, and a small number of our farmers came together and arranged between themselves that one or other of us should come, but as they could not decide who it should be, I offered to come. 5755. You volunteered to come ? — Yes, with the consent of the others They did not want to come. 5756. Do you and your fellow delegate live close together ? — Yes, he is my next door neighbour. 5757. Are you on good terms with the scab inspector .' — Yes. 5758. Are you in any way connected with him ? — In no way whatever. 5759. Does he live cl se to j'ou ? — About two hours away. 5760. Do you agree with everything the previous witness said with reference to the Swart famQy, that they are respectable farmers, and that all who know them look upon them as respectable men, and that their statement is to be believed? — There is apart of their statement I don't quite believe in. 5761. Is it that you do not agree with it, or do you think they wilfully make false statements ? — I don't believe in it. 5762. Do you believe that whatever they said they believe to be true? — I consider some of their evidence is not borne out by the facts, 5763. Mr. Francit.^ A respectable man be a prejudiced man .' — Yes. 5764. Dr. Smartt.^ Do you agree with Mr. Matthys Swart when he says thfit the scab act has been altogether inefiicient in causing any appreciable diminution of scab in Humans- dorp ? — No. 6765. Do you consider that the absolute facts which have come under your notice of the diminution of scab in the district prove that that is not the case ? — Yes. 5766. Mr. du loit.] Why do you consider it is less dangerous to move wool iind skins than to move stock ? — Bf cause wool is loaded at the store or house, and taken on to another store in the town, and it is not likely that sheep are kept just on that spot, and that an insect should be dropped from the wool or skin. 5767. Then you think scab cannot be carried from an unproclaimed area into a pio- claimed area by wool and skins ? — It is not an impossibility, but I don't think it is very likely to happen. 6768. Don't you know that buyers sometimes pull pieces of wool out of bales, ami throw tliem about, and could not scab g>t on to these people s > that it might be carried iu that and in other ways? — I am aware > f it. 5769. Mr. Botha.^ Is it not quite possible that some wagons which caiiy wool and skins might also carrj- giafs and sheep? — Yes, and then they might be infected. And if scabb}' sheep liave been cariied in railw.iy trucks, other sheep afterwards put in them might become infected, but I don't think that is the greatest -danger in regard to the spreading of scab. The greatest danger is from live sheep. Mr. Tliomas Witherulye Guhb examined. 5770. Chairman.^ You are a wool washer in Uitenhage } — Yes, for 20 years. 5771. During that time have large quantities of wool passed through your hands from most of the districts of the Colony } — Yes. 5772. Do you find more difficulty iu washing scabby wools than clean? — I don't sup- pose there would be any mateiial difference if they are undipped. 6773. They wash about equally well ? — I will admit that with the scabby wool we don't 233 get the bulk or the lustre. With a strong, healthy wool it opens out better, and washes a hotter fonn altogether as a snow white. 5774. Then scabby wools, wh^n washed, are not of the same value, although of the same longth ? — They would not be the same length. If you have clean and scabby wool, and mix the two together, you won't get a uniform snow white. There will be more waste from thf scabby wool. .577.5. Supposing 3-ou have ten bal^s of clean sound wool of good length, and ten bales of the sanie quality and length, but soaljby, would you get the same result in both cases?— In the parcel of ten bales which were not clean, you would get a lot of morts in the wool in consequence of the scab, and the wool would be of uneven lengths, and so that sample would not be of the same value as the other. 5770. Then in j'our opinion, wool is very muih deteriorated in value by scab? — Certainly. 5777. Do you find that dipping materially affects the wool ? — The washing properties of wool are absorbed by the dip, and of course we have those difficulties to contend against in our business, but the effect of dipping in diminishing the amount of scab is to strengthen the fibre and lustre of the wool, and my experience during the last five years is that the wool produced in South Africa is undoubtedly improved. I could give you the districts, viz. : — Cradock, Somerset, Graafl-Eeinet, Willowmore and pretty well all the Karoo district.-i. To my mind the fibre and texture of the wool from these places has infinitely improved during the last five yoar.«. At the same time, the introduction of dipping was the worst thing thnt could have happened to us as wool washers. 5778. Do 3-ou mean that this has tended to injure your business as a wool washer ? — Yes. 5779. In what way ? — I think the analytical chemists should answer that. We find these dips absorb the washing properties of the wool, the yolky matter and the alkalis which are naturally in tbe wool, and we have to introduce all kinds of foreign matters to counteract this, for the purpose of washing, and this costs money. 5780. Does it cost you more to wash dipped wools than undipped wools ? — It is coming to such a pass now that we can hardly wash at all at a profit. The wools are so much lighter in consequence of being semi-fleece washed, and at the same time, through the com- ponent parts of these dips, the washing properties have been exhausted, that we have actually more wool to wash and have to use more material to extract the foreign matter which has been put into the wool. We have more wool now in the bale Take Aberdeen wools ; they used never to be less than 64 to 66 per cent , and now thej- are down to about 54 to 56. 5781. Do you attribute that to the dipping ? — Certainly, they are semi-washed when thej' come to us. 5782. Do you think the operation of the scab act has materially increased the value of the wools of the country ? — As far as length and strength is concerned, I think mj'self that the wool has very much improved. 5783. 2fr. Botha.'] Are not large quantities of wool now shipped in grease ? — Yes. 5784. And it is gpnerally the better quantities which are shipped? — Yes. 5785. Br. Smartt.] Does not your firm wash for a large portion of the country .-" — Yes. 5786. Do you find that wools coming from districts under the scab act are lighter and freer of scab than wool coming from districts outside ? — I am not prepared to saj' ; I don't always know where all the wools come from, and I don't know what districts may be under the act ; but in Graaff-Eeinet, Somerset, Beaufort, Cradock and so on there is a difference of at least six to nine per cent, in the loss on the return of snow whites compared to five years ago. 5787. Have you noticed whether the wools coming from these districts are much freer from Fcab than wools from districts more to the north ? — We seldom see scab, from Graaff- Eeinyt particular!}' ; and I do a great deal in wools from there. I do a great deal now with the Free State wool, and find a lot of scab in it. It is a paj'able wool to wash. 5788. You wash a great deal of wool from the GraafE-Eeinet district ? — Yes. 5789. Are you con^-inced that the wools coming from there during the last three or f(mr years are freer from scab than fcjrmerly ? — Certainly. 5790. If we have it on evidence that scab is more prevalent there the last tivo years than previously, your experience would load you to say it is incorrect ? — I should doubt it. I suppose if I have handled a hundred bales during the last three months from there I have handled a thousand, and I very seldom see scab. 5791. Mr. du Toil.'] What length of wool do you think could be dipped without doing it permanent injurj- } — I don't think dipping injures the wool at all. 5792. Does it not interfere with the washing ? — Wool ought not to be dipped more than a fortnight after shearing, that is, speaking as a wool washer. If you want to derive the benefit from dipping, j-ou ought to dip the sheep direct'y after they are shorn, aud then the germs which maj- not have been affected bj- the first dipping will come to the surface within a fortnight, before which they should be dipped again, and those sheep ought not to be dipped again until nest shearing, an' if there are any scabby marks they should be hand-dressed I don't hold with the principle that because an old ewe scratches her ear the whole flock should be dipped. She shoidd be hand-dressed, aud put back when cured. The difliculties we have to contend against in our business are from the mistaken ideas of some of these farmers who think they are going to 234 increase th« weight of their wool by dipping just before shearing, and impregnate the whole of the flocks with the properties of the dip, but without its coming into cimtact with the skins at all, because the fibre of the wool absorbs the dip, and they run away with the i.s.~\ Then do you think a man with a clean bill might be allowed to move sheep on his own permit ?— Yes. 5974. "Would that do away with a great deal of difficulty ? — Yes. A great deal. 5975. Do you think the present method of appointing scab inspectors is the best ? — No, I think every ward should have its own inspector, recommended by the divisional council, as at present, dividing among them the salary at present paid to the inspectors in each area. 5976. Should a man be jjermitted to drive scabby sheep to the pound ? — No. 5977. If a man finds scabby sheep trespassing on his farm, what should he do with them ? — He should dip them at the expense of the owner before he sends them to the pound. 5978. If there was a Hue dividing the colony, should any farmer living on the line be allowed to como under the act ? — Yes. 5979. Mr. Botha.'] You know the district of Zitzikama ? — Yes. 5980. Are sheep bred there ? — Yes, on a jiortion of it. 5981. If any one cai'ries goats or sheep on his wagon, would it do harm to other people? — Yes, he might infect the farms on which he outspans. 5982. Chairman.'] Is there anything you w ish to add? — "When the scab act was pro- claimed in the district of Uitenhage, I was against it to the death. I said the act was nothing more than a means of ruining the laud, because the disease proceeded from God, and we could not cope with it, but afterwards 1 was convinced it was possible to stamp out the disease. Wlien the act was proclaimed, my own goats were in such a condition that they were rotten with scab, and I was going to cut the throats of sixty, but I saw a recipe in a newspaper and dipped them accordingly and cured them. So that though I was against the act at first, I am am now heart and soul in favour of it, and if it is possible I should like to see it over the whole Colony. I consider it would be good for many people who don't know the benefits of the act if they were compelled to come under it. •5983. Mr. h'otha.~\ Why do you think so mauy farmers are against the act ? — Many people say that because thej' think it is a visitation of providence, but I think there is some- ihing else. I think it is because they are not particular enough, and don't take sufficient interest in their stock. J/r. Johannes Ludwic Moolman examined. 5984. Chairman.] Are you farming in the district of Uitenhage ? — Yes, for five years. I have 500 sheep. 5985. Do you agree with Mr. Marais' evidence ? — I agree with him entirelj' about the act, and everything else, except that I don't think he can clean his stock in six weeks ; it will take at least six months, and I don't think scab will ever be altogether stamped out, because we have to kraal our stock. The act causes much inconvenience in dealing with stock in the way of barter. Mr. William Naxh Kirkman, .icah inspector, examined. 5986. Chairman.] You are scab inspector of area No. 15 A ? — Yes, for about four years* 5987. When you wore appointed, was there much scab in your area ? — Yes. 5988. Were most of the flocks iiifected ? — Yes. 5989. Did you have much difficulty in carrying out the act then ? — Yes, there was a great deal at first ; people did not understand what they had to do in the way of dipping, and many of the people were against the act. 5990. Is there less scab now } — Certainly, 75 per cent, of the stock was scabby, and now about 3^ ^jer cent. 5991. Do you attribute this entirelj' to the working of the act ? — Entirely. 5992. Are there many small farmers and natives in your area ? — Not many natives, but there are many small farmers. 5993. Did you find that many of the farmers did not use the dips properly, and is it still the case } — Yes, because they don't take the trouble to measure the water in the tank or to weigh the dip. »12 6994. Wlien yo\i have boeu inspecting, have you not pointed out anr] shown thom ex- actly how to use^t ? — Yes. On all these orders to dip all the recognised dips are niontioned, and the way to use them, and every farmer quarantined gets that order, but still niauy don't do it properly, and make the dip too weak. 5995. When no improvement is made after sheep have been quarantined, do you think they sliould be dipped under inspection ? — Decidedly. 5996. Shoulo8t price, free of railway carri..ge ?— It woul I be a good thing. ■ 6024. Would you alter the law in this respect of impounding scabby sheep found on a 242 a. man's farm? — No ; there is danger, but I cannot see any remedy, because you can't have a dip on every roadway. 6025. Should not the man have the right to dip the sheep at the cost of the owner before removing them ? — Yes. 6026. Under a partial act, would you give any man living on the border the right to come under the act ? — Tea. 6027. If the law were amended and properly administrated, do you think scab would be eradicated ? — Yes. 6028. Mr. Botha.^ If dipping tanks were built on aU farms where there is smaU stock, would that do away with the evils arising from the scarcity of tanks in the district ? — Yes. 6029. And any bywoners or natives living on the farm should have the right to dip in these tanks ? — Yes ; very few farmers prevent them now. 6030. Because there is some difficulty in erecting tanks on main roads and outspans ? —Yes. 6031. And in that way the difficulty might be overcome? — Yes, to a certain extent. 6032. Chairman.'\ Do you wish to add anything? — I have collected the following state- ments from produce buyers in the country, and I may say that 30 owners holding 75,000 stock were all in favour of the act, whereas about 36 owners holding 15,000 were against it, and it is a g^eat pity that the voting for the act cannot be taken on a sliding scale according to the number of stock. The statements are as follows : — Mrs. Watson, Wolvefontein, 26th Januarj-, 1892. I am a general dealer at Wolvefontein. I buy a lot of skins, and have done so for the last twenty years. Since the scab act has been in force I am sure that I have bought fewer scabby skins than I did before. I can't say that this fact has been on account of the act being in force. G; E. Pearcey, Maklees Kop, 26th January, 1892. I have been a general dealer for the last thirty-five years or more, and have bought a lot oE produce in my time, and can say that there has been a very great imj)rovemont in wool and skins since the scab act came into force, in fact, I very seldom get a scabby skin now. J. Albut, Two Waters, 26th January, 1892. I have been a general dealer for about thirty-five years. Since the act has been in force I have noticed a decided improvement in skins and wool. B. Rudman, Springbokflats, 2l8t March, 1892. I have been keeping a general business for about sixteen years, in that time have bought a lot of produce, wool, skins, mohair. My experience is that there is very much less scab since the act has been in force. In my opinion scab has decreased to the extent of at least 75 per cent., and the improvement in wool and mohair has been very marked. I hardly ever buy a scabby skin now. J. W. Grewar, Klein Poort, 25th March, 1892. I have been in business as a general dealer for about eight years, and have bought a good deal of produce in that time, and I can state that since the scab act has been in force I have bought very little scabby produce, and the improvement has been very marked. Mr. Thomas Jones Patterson Grewar, scab inspector, examined. 6033. Chairman'] You are scab inspector for area No. 15 ? — Yes, for Port Elizabeth and a part of Uitenhage. I was appointed last January. 6034. Do you agree with the evidence given by Mr. Kirkman ? — Not altogether. 6035. In what don't you agree ? — I don't think a line should be drawn. For several years I was a farmer in the Richmond district, one of the coldest parts of it, and I never found it too cold to dip, unless the sheep were so scabby and in such low condition that it would have been dangerous at any time. My opinion is that where a farmer has water enough to water his stock he should always have water enough to eradicate scab, because that can be done at one time of the year and the man has done with it, but the water for stock he must have continually, and he surely would not farm on a place where there is not sufficient water to water the stock. It takes much less water to dip than to water the stock, so I don't see why any line should be drawn. If we do that we shall never get out of the difficulty. I have been over a part of Victoria West, Brit 's Town, Griqualand West, the [G. 1.— '94.] 11 243 Transvaal, the Freo State and Mossel Bay, and many other places, and I cannot see why there should be a line drawn at all. 6036. You think there is no part of the Colony where the scab act could not be carried out?— No. 6037. Not even in the north-western parts? — I have never been as far as that, but as I said, if there is sufficient water to water stock, there is sufficient to dip. With regard to pounding stock, if I am a fanner, and detect a scahby flock on the road, the danger ie already there, and if the flock is driven to a pound, however near it may be, the danger is increased. Therefore I would suggest that farmers should be compelled to dip the flock where they are just noticed, and at once, and if they have not to go more than five days further, to let them go on and be dipped and quarantined at their destination. That would do away with dipping tanks on the outspans. It would be inconvenient for the man, but the danger is already there. If the nearest dipping tank were on an adjacent farm, they should go there. I think the time for the first licence is too long. During the eleven months that I have been inspector, I have found that the first three months has been too long. I would make it two months, and then leave it to the inspector whether to give another month or six weeks. Of course such a short licence would come hard upon the inspector, but it ought to be done. Farmers to whom I have given three months wait until the last month, and then they dip. They say they have dipped them before, but I don't know whether that is the case. Then I give another three months, and the eame thing occurs over again. I think a paid licence after the first would be a good thing, and that a man should be bound to dip within 14 days after receiving the licence, and to dip again within the prescribed time. 6038. Do the natives in your area carry out the dipping properly } — The first day I went out I inspected seventeen native lots, all clean ; the eighteenth was a white man, and his had scab. I inspected over a hundred native flocks, and found one scabby case, and I believe I inspected about twenty white farmers' lots, and I don't think there were three clean lots amongst them, These are facts which I can prove. 6039. Do you think it would be advisable to have the stock of farmers who do not carry out the dipping, and of natives, dipped under inspection ? — If these dipping tanks are built, they shoul>l be built at these large locations, because the natives have no tanks, and I don't know how they keep their stock clean. 6040. Should a small farmer with a few sheep, say from 50 to 500, be able to keep them clean more easily than a man with 5,000? — Certainly. 6041. Because it appears from the evidence we liave taken that the difficulty is with the small farmers ? — The reason is that they are too careless, and don't care what becomes of their sheep. These natives are living on the farms of men who have scab. I think I have 16 Hottentot's flocks, out of which ten were scabby and six nearly clean. The others were Kafirs. 6042. Mr. du Tvit.'\ Would you saj' a man must dip within fourteen days of receiving his licence, even in the « inter ? — That you must leave to the discretion of the inspector ; but I would say 14 days at anj' time. I farmed in the Sneeuwbergen, one of the coldest parts, where there is no comparison between that and this, and fourteen days is long enough there, unless the weather is very bad. I have never known fourteen days continuous bad weather, during which sheep could not he dipped. 6043. What number of sheep were in the twenty flocks of the white farmers ? — They were all small lots, but mj' reports would show. 6044. How was it the native flocks were clean ? — I asked them, but I could not find out. 6045. Had they dipped ? — Not that I know. I found them in that condition, and they have continued like that ever since. 6046. Chairtnan.'] Is there anything else you wish to say ? — I should like to read the following letter I received in reply to one I wrote to Mr. Holt, representing the firm of Dowitt & Co., Port Elizabeth. Port Elizabeth, 2nd April, 1892. T. L. P. Grewar, Esq., scab inspector, Uitenhage. Dear Sir, We were pleased to receive yours of the 18th ult., re the Government inquiries, as to whether we were disposed to recommend that a general stringent act should be enforced to carry out the scab act. There is but one opinion vrith all competent buyers and users of wool, viz. : that it shall be as strictly carried out as the vaccination act at home. We are perhaps one of the biggest shippers of skins and wool in the Colony, and in skins alone, there is f uUy one-third shipped as damaged, which we have to invoice at nearly one-half the value of the sound. The result of all this speaks for itself, or should do to intelligent legislators. It is only this mail we received the following extract from our home people. " We are sorry to report the 62 bales, ex Lilian, have turned out unsatisfactorily, as many of the bales contain a great deal of scab. We are sorry to have to make this complaint." These 62 bales were a miscellaneous shipment and came from different parts of the Colony. Another proof that these affected wools are not confined to one district. This is only a sample of the many complaints we get about Cape wools. We would suggest that 244 there be far more scab inspectors in order to tlioroughly cope with this — doubtless the biggest enemy the fanners have 'if they only knew it^. There would naturally be more expense, but the farmers and Colony generally would be permanently benefited a few years hence. We must apologise for not replvdng to yours sooner, but the writer has been endeavouring to have a meeting of all the skin and woi. 1 buyers here, and from the result of our conversations, the resolution would have been verj' unanimous that it is necessary the act must be thoroughly and efficiently carried out. Unfortunately the meeting did not come off as some of the principal buyers were away when the others could have attended. "We remain, dear sir. Yours truly, p. pro EoBT. Do WITT & Co., CSigned) James Holt. Pwt Elitaleth, Monday, 5th December, 1892. PRESENT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. BoTiL*., ,, DU TOIT, Dr. Smartt, Mr. Francis. Mr. Sydney Bryan examined. 6047. Chairman.'] Tou are of the firm of Messrs. Tolson and Bryan ? — Yes, dealers in skins and wool here. For about 15 years I was with Messrs. Dunell, Ebden & Co. and have only just started business for mys^lf. fi048. During the time you were produce buying for Messrs. Dunell, Ebden & Co., did large numbers of skins and quantities of wool pass through your hands from all pnrts of the Colony ? — Yes. 6049. And from the Free State as well ? — Yes. 6050. Were these skins and wool more infected with scab a few years ago than they are now? — Taking it all round, I don't see any very great improvement. 6051. Have you not noticed any improvement in any particular districts ? — The districts from which we generally get skins are Somerset and Jansenville, and they are qtiite as bad as they were. Those are angora skins. 6052. And sheepskins ? — We get a small proportion, but they are equally scabby. 6053. What about the skins from Victoria West and Hope Town } — There is a decided improvement that way. At one time they were' very much affected with scab. 6054. Do you find the same applies to the wool as regards the improvement in scab } — The wools were formerly very much scabbier than they are now. 6055. Is there any improvement in the skins from Bedford and that part ? — They are better, but I never found them particularly scabby. Occasionally, here and there, we get scabby skins, but not to the same extent as other districts. 6056. What is the difference in value between a good sheepskin and a scibby one ? Thfl ruling rate at present is 4|d. for sound sheepskins, and 3Jd. for damaged or scabby. 6057. Have you more difficulty in getting rid of the scabby than of the sound skins ? — All skins are sold on their own merits. 6058. What is the difference in value in goatskins ? — According to the present quota- tion it is 7Jd. for sound and 3d. for damaged. 6059. Is that for boer goats ? — Yes. 6060. And angoras ? — There the difference is still more marked. The ruling rate at present is 4Jd. for sound, and we only give 2d. for damaged, and there has been a verj- large proportion of damaged skins coming in lately. 6061. Where do they come from? — The angora districts are chiefly confined to Jansen- ville, Somerset and Cradock. There are some from Graaff-Eeinet, but not so many. 6062. Mr. Francis.'] Do you get many skins from the Transkeian territory, from the natives ? — No ; very few indeed. 6063. J/r. Botha.] Damaged skins are not only those affected by scab, but when skins are torn or badly got up they are also classed as damatred .' — Yes, or moth eaten. But from Somerset and Jansenville the skins classed as damaged are principallv scabby. 6064. You don't get many skins from Graaff-Eeinet, but perhaps other houses get more ? — Yes. 6065. You have not received any skins from Messrs. Proudfoot & Co. ? — No. 6066. Dr. Smartt.] Do you consider the skins coming fiom Hope Town, Victoria West II 2 245 and Richmond way are better now than tliey were five yeais ago ? — I think bo. There is more care taken. 6067. On the whole, do you consider that the bulk of the produce sold now in Port Elizabeth is freer of ecab than it was five years ago ? — Produce generally is. G068. To what extent, roughly ? — It must applj in tho same way to goats and angoras as it does to sheepskins. There is no improvement in goats and angoras. 6069. Is there a great improvement in wool and sheepskins ? — A very decided improve- ment ; perhaps there is a reduction of 20 per cent, in scab in sheepskins, t 6070. Mr. du Toil.'] Then you cannot say for certain that the scab act has materially improved scab in skins ? — Not as regards goats and angoras. But I think there has been an improvement in sheepskins, as far as the operation of the scab act is concerned. 6071. But you name three districts in which the skins have been very much improved, and in which there is no scab act ? — Possibly ; I cannot account for the improvement. 6072. I understood you to say there was no improvement in Jansenville, Somerset and Cradock ? — In goatskins, those districts produce very few sheepskins, and what there are are very poor. The sheepskins are from Victoria West, Richmond and bo on. 6073. From which districts do you get the most scabby goatskins, from Somerset, Cradock and Jansenville, or from Hope Town and Victoria West ? — We don't get any goat- skins from Victoria West and Hope Town. 6074. Chairman.'] Do you see any improvement in wool ? — Yes, of late years. 6075. The last five years?— Yes. 6076. Does that apply to aU wools coming from every district .' — No. We used to get a great deal of scabby wool from Murraysburg, but we don't now. Fauresmith was particu- larly infected with scab, and there is now a slight improvement. 6077. To the same extent as Murraysburg '? — I would not like to say. Both have decidedly improved upon what they used to be. 0078. Does the same remark apply to angora hair ? — That has not been particularly affected wilh scab ; it is very occasionally we come across fleeces affected with scab. It is a remarkable fact that though you may get a very scabby skin, it has not the same effect on the hair as on the wool. 6079. What is the difference in price between wool affected with scab and clean wool, if of the same quality and staple ? — I should make a difference of a penny a pound ; I should pay a penny a pound more for wool I knew to be perfectly sound. 6080. Do you make any great difference in the price of wools that have been dipped, no matter what dips they have been dipped in ? — It does not apply so much to long wools, but it does to short. Dipping affects short wools more than long, for combing purposes. Dipped, short wools are about a half -penny a pound less in value than short wools undipped. 6081. Supposing the wool is di^iped at ten months' growth, would it affect the value then as far as you are concerned as a buj-er ? — It just depends on the style of dip used. Not unless some very hurtful dip was used that prevented the wool from growing. 6082. Afr. Franct/:.] I suppose the very fact of our wool being infected, would lower the price on the home market .' — Yes. 6083. And if there was really no scab in the country, the value of the produce passing through your hands in the year would be some thousands of pounds more than it is at present? — Yes. 6084. Mr. Botha.'] Who is the principal butcher in this place ? — I should think Messrs. Hill & Co. 608.5. Are they largely connected with shipping .'' — Yes, the next largest to them would be Mr. George Newton. 6089. Chairman.] Is there anything you would like to add ? — I have often been asked my opinion about dips, and I have often inquired, during the last fifteen years, from a wool- washer in Uitenhage, who is now dead, what is the best dip to use, and he always said that a lime and sulphur was the best dip, used of course in proper proportions and at the proper time, immediately after shearing. It would kill the scab so that the wool would grow, and any injurious effects would be thrown off, and the animal kept clean. The next best dip, in his opinion, is a pure solution of tobacco, and if that were universally used it would be a good thing for the Colony in more ways than one, not only for the eradication of scab but also the cultivation of tobacco. 6087. Mr. Botha.] Of course your house would make a difference in price between scabby and sound wool ? — Wool is always sold on its own merits. 6088. But you consider healthy wool worth more than scabby ? — Certainly. 6089. Because it fetches a better price in the home market ? — Decidedly. When I was with Messrs. Dunell, Ebden & Co., we had complaints from time to time from America, and we have had repeated complaints about scab. They have told us we must carefully avoid all scabby wool, because they cannot use it when the fibre is rotten. 6090. So in the English and American markets they properly inspect wool before buying it .' — They are very much more careful than we are here. With reference to those two dips, lime and sulphur, and tobacco, there is no doubt about their efficacy, but the one jioint is, how do they affect the wool for scouring purposes ; and I have been told by a man experienced in wool washing that unless one of those dips is used the result is always bad. There was always something wrong, either he could not get them clean, could not get them dry, or there was a double washing, or something else. At the present time every wool- washer is complaining about the colour of the short wools on account of the dip stains, 246 One matter came under my personal o'bservation in connection with dipping for scab. A brother of mine is farming in the Fauroaiuitli district of the Free State, and when 1 was there about four years ago, Mr. Faiire had old-fashioned notions and would not dip or take much trouble with the sheep, which were very scabby, and their fleeces hanging down. I spoke to him about them, and he would not listen at first, but when I went there again about twelve months afterwards he had become convineod of the loss he sustained by scab, had taken to dipping and improved his flocks wonderfully. He said he would not do with- out dipping at any price, and as far as scab is concerned there has been a great improve- ment in the wools he sends. As far as my memory serves me, the comj^laiuts we have had from America have been particularly with reference to wools from that district, and from Murraysburg. Mr. John Boioen examined 6091. ChairmanP^ You are manager of Messrs. J. Daverin & Co.? — Yes, produce brokers. I have been 17 years with the firm. We arc principally sellers ; we don't buy. 6092. Have you connections with most of the midland districts ? — Yes, pretty well all over the country, but chiefly in the midlands. 6093. Have you found any difference during the last five years in the amount of scab in wool and skins ? — There is decidedly less scab in wool, but I don't think there is less in skins. 6094. Does this apply to all the districts ? — I think we get most scab from Cradock, Murraysburg, Victoria "West and Hope Town way. 6095. And the wool you receive from Bedford, Beaufort and Graaff-Eeinet ? — The Graaff-Eeinet wool has improved very much. We have not had much scab from there the last few years. 6096. Was there more scab in wool and skins from Graaff-Eeinet before the act was in force than there is now .'' — In the wool, but I don't know so much about the skins. Of course it ought to apply to both, but it seems we have had quite as many scabby skins coming down as we have ever had since I can remember. 6097. What is the difference in the value of scabby skins as compared with good ones? — Taking all skins, I should think 35 per cent. 6098. Does that apply to broken and damaged skins as well as to scabby ones .-' — The bad skins we get are principally damaged. In goat and angora skins the difference in value is considerably more, because you take goat.skins worth about 7|d. when sound, and 3d. damaged, that is 70 per cent, and it is the same with angoras. But in sheepskins it is about 35 per cent. 6099. Then do you think the farmers of the country are losing very heavily by having Bcab among their flocks ? — Very heavily, because a lot of these scabby skins are almost valueless, and often scarcely pay for shipping charges on this side. 6100. That being the case, why do you ship skins that are almost valueless ? — It depends on the market ; sometimes there is very little demand for them on this side. 6101. When the market is pretty good, all skins sell ; but when it is bad, these are the first to suffer ? — Yes, of course they never fetch anything like good skins ; there would always be a difference in value, whether the market is good or bad. 6102. Is there the same difference in price between scabby and sound wool as between scabby and sound skins .^— There is a considerable difference, especially for the combing wools that are shipped from here. A lot of the combing wools that go from here to America suit that market very well, but if they find scab among them they say the wools are useless, because it makes the fibre so very tender. After the wool is combed, and made into torns, it is made into yarn, and it is when it is being made into yarn that, in cjnsequence of scab, the fibre breaks. 6103. What is the difference in price in America between sound and scabby wools ? — They cannot use scabby wools at all ; they won't buy them. 6104. — Then you don't ship scabby wools at all to America ? — No ; a man would not buy scabby wool here for the American market if he knew it was scabby. 6105. — What becomes of these very scabby long wools ? — I think they are chiefly made into very cheap clothing. The Germans use a good deal of them. 6106. — What is the difference in their value hero ? — About a penny a pound, perhaps more. It depends entirely on the amount of scab. 6107. Mr. Francis."\ Do you make much difference in price between dip^jed wool and wool that has not been dipped ? — Yes, there is a difference, because as a rule the dipped wools do not become a good colour, and that detracts from their value. They do not become snow-white. 6108. Would you make any difference in price in buying wools of that description ? — Yes, about ^d. to id. 6109. Then the fact that our sheep are infected with scab almost closes the market to our wools ?- — To a good deal of them. 6110. — I presume skins which are infected with scab are almost useless for farming purposes ? — Quite, because if you get a scabby skin, with scab in the centre of the hide, or in one particular part only, when the skin is laid out and sorted, it cannot be worked up, as this scabby part being quite rotten drops out. 247 6111. Mr. Botha.'] Do you consider the wool, in peneriil, which comes from MurrayBburg just asjbad'as^thatjfrom Cradock ? — Yes. 6112. So the scab act has done no good to Murraysbuig ? — It has done good ; there is less'scabjthere'now than fdrmerly. 6113. Are the wools in the Murraysburg district just as bad as the Cradock wools } — There is a certain amount of scab in both places. 6114. But you consider GraafE-Eeinet wools are better? — They are very much improved. 6115. Br. Smartt.'] "Would it not account for a much greater proportion of scabby skins coming from a district like Graaff-Eeinet that owners were so anxious to eradicate scab they slaughtered sheep affected with it .' — It might account for it. 6116. Have you noticed any improvement in the wool from the Brit's Town district during thejlast five or six years ? — A g^eat improvement. The improvement during the last three or four years is marvellous ; in fact, it is getting to be one of the best wool districts in the colony. 6117. Do you consider that is largely due to their being much freer from scab than formerly ? — Yes, they are very much better. 6118. When you refer to dipped wools being so much lower in value on the market than other wools, do you mean wools which were dipped when the fibre was tolerably short ? — No. I was alluding to wools which are dipped when the fibre was tolerably long. 6119. You find no deterioration in value in wools dipped immediately after shearing? — No. 6120. Mr. du Toit.'\ Have you any idea of the quality of the wool coming from Hope Town and Prieska, as regards scab, compared with Brit's Town ? — There is a great difference in the wools from Hope Town, in regard to scab and everything else. The Brit's Town wools are far superior. 01 21. Are you speaking of scab or quality? — From all points. A large quantity of these wools pass through our hands ; more than any other sellers in Port Elizabeth, of those wools. 6122. What is the quality of the wool arriving from Colesberg and Philip's Town? — Colesberg has improved a good deal, especially this year. About Philip's Town wools I don't know much ; we don't get so much long wool from there, it is chiefly short wools. 6123. What is the condition of the Eichmond wools as regards scab? — I think, like Brits' Town, it has improved a great deal. 6124. Do you get wool from Victoria West ? — Yes, and I think the remarks I made with regard to Murraysburg would also apply to that district. There is a good deal of scab. 6125. Can you say what is the condition of the wool coming from Hope Town now in comparison with some years ago ? — Comparing it to-day with what it was some years ago, it is undoubtedly improved ; five or six years ago, if you offered a buyer a lot wool here, and said it was Hope Town wool, he would have been very loth to buy it from you. 6126. Chairman] On account of the scab ? — Scab and general condition. 6127. Is there any point which has been overlooked that you would like to refer to ? — I don't think so. Mr. Herman Hall examined. 6128. Chairman.] You are a produce buj'er ? — Yes, I have been here twelve years. 61 29. During that time have you noticed any difference in regard to scab ? — I think the wool is freer from scab than it was twelve years ago. 6130. Is it freer now than it was five years ago ? — I think so. 6131. And skins ?^I have nothing to do with skins, only wool and mohair. 6132. Do you deal with most of the midland districts ? — Yes, aU districts, and all sorts of wool, but not short wools. 6133. Is there any difference in the long wools coming from the districts of Graaff- Eeinet, Fort Beaufort, and Bedford, which have been under the scab act, and those from Victoria West, Hope Town, Eichmond and those places which have not been under the scab act ? — The wool from the Graaff-Eeinet district is much better and freer from scab than it used to be, and the wools from Eichmond and Hope Town are better, but especially Brit's Town. I reckon they are as good as any wools we get. They have improved more the last twelve years than any district. 6131. Does the same thing apply to angora hair? — We don't often got scab in angora. 6135. Do you find that wools of moderate length, dipped in any dip, deteriorate in value ? — As a rule we give less for wools that have been dipped, because they lose more ; they don't yield the same weight. They lose two or three per cent, more than wools that have not boen dipped, and with certain dips you will never get the colour back. 6136. Po it is of less value to you as a buyer? — Yes. 6137. Have you had dealings with America ? — No, ours is all English trade, direct to the manufactiirers. 6138. Do you get much difference in price, when shipping wools to the manufacturers, between clean wool and wool affected with scab ? — For our purposes we could not sell them 248 scabby wool ; it would not do for coanbing purposes because it would break, and as a rule scabby wool would not be long enough for us. As a rule scabby wool does not grow to the full length, and if it does grow a fair length it breaks in the staple and so it cannot be combed. We don't buy them at all. There may be a few scabby fleeces amongst them, but they have to be sorted out at home. They could not be used in the combing trade. 6139. If the scab act were enforced throughout the Colony, would it be a great benefit to the sheep farmer.s ? — Undoubtedly. 6140. Mr. Francii.'] I suppose that the very fact that there is scab in this country louvers the price of our wool on the London market .' — I don't think so ; people judge for them- selves. 6141. Would it not be very difficult to go through a large parcel of wool ? — They cuuld easily j|[8ee if there was scab in it. 6142. However small the quantity of scab might be? — Yes. 6143. Have you any idea what loss the country sustains from scab being amongst our flocks ?— No. 6144. I suppose it is not only that the fleece infected by scab is rendered unworkable, but there is also a gr3at deal of waste in the manufacture ? — Certainly. I don't say it ie unworkable, but it reduces the price for certain purposes, and must be used for shoddy, or a lower class of stuff. 6145. Mr. Botha. 'I Of course there is great competition in buying produce, especially wool ? — Yes, there are numbers of buyers. 6146. As so much depends on the quality of the produce, is every buyer very particular to inspect it properly ? — Yes. 6147. Br. Smartt.^ Could you form any idea of the diminution in the percentage of scab in the majority of clips coming to Port Elizabeth now and five years ago ? — I could not say exactly, but I know there is much less now than there used to be. It is very seldom we find scab in good clips. The best farmers m Brit's Town, Graaff-Eeinet and Beaufort West seldom send scabby wool, but generally it comes from the back country behind Victoria West, Prieska, and so on. 6148. Do you find mor« scab in the smaller clips ? — Certainly. 6148. Clips of three, four and five bales ? — Certainly ; that is where the scab is. Mr. John Mcllwraith, Mat/or of Port Elizabeth, examined. 6150. Chairman.^ You are the mayor of Port Elizabeth, and also a produce buyer in this town ? — Yes, and a produce seller. I served an apprenticeship of five years to the wool- iorting trade at home, and have had 24 unbroken years' experience of the local trade in South Africa, and I should like to explain that my business gives me very special facilities for observing everything relating to this question. We have perhaps the largest wool ware- houses in Port Elizabeth, and enormous quantities of wool pass through our hands every year. We see the wool coming in from every district ; and if I have no direct dealing with it, I see the wool and hear what is said about it. The same with regard to skins. 6151. Was there more scab in skins and wool five years ago than there is now .' — Undoubtedly. 6152. Does this apply to skins and wool from aU districts ? — Yes. 6155. Is there a greater improvement in the districts where the scab act is in force ? — In those districts where the scab act has been in force I have particularly noticed a marked improvement, not only in the growth of the wool, but also in its length and condition. I have observed a very marked improvement in Graaff-Reinet ; Murraysburg wool has also improved, but not to the same extent. Bedford shews a marked improvement, but I don't think the same can be said of Somerset. I should not say that Humauidorp had improved, but it does not matter what district you go to, if you get a good clip that a man puts his name on, you hardly ever find a trace of scab in it, whether the act is in force there or not J 6154. Then speaking generally, the large farmers throughout the Colony are producing wool which is comparatively free of scab ? — Yes, and even small farmers in districts where the act is in force. 6155. Then the small chps of wool from districts where the act is not in force are the scabby wools ? — Generally. I may say, solely. 6156. Do you deal with much wool from Cradock ? — I have had a good deal to do with Cradock. 6157. Have they improved to the same extent ? — ^They have improved of late, but I don't think nearly as much as the Graaff-Reinet district. 6158. In regard to angora hair, do you find much scab iu that ? — Sometimes, but there has been a wonderful freedom from scab in hair and skins since the enforcement of the scab act in those districts from which we get the skins. 6159. Have the hair and goatskins materially improved in JansenviUe and Somerset? — We get more scabby skins from Somerset than from almost any district I know of, whether goatskins, angoras or sheepskins. 6160. What is the difference in value between a good goatskin or sheepskin, and scabby ones ? — The price of a good goatskin, free of scub, is 7Jd. to 7^d., according to its appearance, and so on ; the price of scabby skins is 2d., and it is difficult to sell them at that ; buyers would rather leave them than touch them. 249 6161. That is a9 regards goatskius. What abjut angoras ? — Sound angora skins are selling excGptioaally low just now, at 4Jd., and the damaged are 2d. 6162. Under the head of " damaged," do you include all skins damaged by tearing, and so on ? — Yes, but you seldom get torn or moth-eaten goatskias now, because the railway communication is so rapid, and the consignments come down so regularly that it is only scab which has to be dealt with in those skins. 6163. What is the diflEerence in price between sound and scabby sheepskins ? — Tliey are more liable to tear, and get damaged generally: the least thing will put a hole in them, or tear them in the handling, and daoiaged comprise moth-eaten, torn, or scabby skins ; wo class them all as one. Speaking from memory, I think sound is about 4Jd , and damaged 3id. to 3^d. 6164. Then I suppose you consider the stock breeder who owns scabby stock loses very considerably in the sale of his skins and wool ? — I have seen parcels of angora and goat skins from Somerset and other districts sorted out, and a third of scabby skins is a common occm-rence, and I consider that a dead loss to the farmer through Ids own carelessness. 6165. How long ago did you see that .'' — We never get a parcel of skins from Somerset but they sort enormously with scab. We cannot tell where all skins come fnm, but I reckon that these are general! j' purchased from small farmers throughout the whole district. 6166. Would it be advisable to extend the provisions of the scab act throughout the Colony .' — If South Africa is going to maintain its position as a wool growing country, and if the farmer wishes to derive the full benefit of his industry, a general scab act throughout the Colony, the Transvaal, and the Free State is imperative. 6167. No matter what the conditions of some districts may be with regard to scarcity of water or any other cause, you still consider it would be advisable to enforce the scab act, even in those districts ? — That is a very delicate question, which those administering the scab law would have to take into consideration, but I say that if obstacles can be overcome the scab act should be general, without exception. When a buyer comes to a bale, the first thing he does is to pull out some of the wool, and if farmers onl}' knew how their wool gets as it were cast on one side without proper examination when the first piece the buyer happens to pull out is from a dirty, scabby fleece, they would take more pains to eradicate scab from their sheep. On such occasions, the first thing which passes through the mind of the buyer is one of aversion, a feeling of fear lest he may contract some skin disease through handling it, and he simply throws it away, and perhaps for a few scabby fleeces that wool is all cast on one side. 6168. You don't buy it unless you are obliged to ? — No, unless there is something very keen in the market to compel you to offer for it. 6169. Mr. Francis.'] What difference would you make between a bale of scabby wool and of clean wool .-' — The difference in value wUl not admit of any comparison. I sat at the sorting table for five years, learning my business at home, and whenever I came to a scabby fleece it was thrown into the worst quality we had. It was made a soab quality, because the scouring machine will not take out the deposit round the scab, and even if it passes the scouring machine, it breaks when it gets into the yarn and goes to waste. It is more imperative now that there should be no scab in our wools, because they are getting into a class on the American market that they never had before ; consequently the wools are very often not sorted, and a scabby fleece, even in a good clip, may do a great deal of damage if there is a trace of scab in the yarn. 6170. In buying wool here what difference do you make in price between scabby and un-scabby wools, with reference only to scab ? — If a man could put his hands on a good clip of wool, and simply say there is no soab in it from one end to the other, I should say scabby wool would fetch half-penny a pound less in the grease. If it were very scabby, the difference would be more. 6171. Do you think the very fact of Cape wool being infected with scab, lowers the price in the home market ? — Q-eneraUy speaking it does, but not strictly speaking. 6172. Would not a man buying wool on the home market rather buy a parcel which he knew came from a country where he knew there was no scab, than a parcel from a country where he knew there was scab ? — In that respect you are right, but on the other hand wool buyers are so educated to their business that they never go by prejudice. The marks are no consideration either. When once a man has bought a brand of wool with a good name, he approaches it year after year with confidence, but before he forms an opinion he cuts the bale and examines it for himself ; but then the evil comes, because if he finds the smallest trace of scab it makes him suspicious about the whole. 6173. Have you ever considered the question how much the Colony is losing in all ways from scab ? — No, because I have no statistics at my command, and cannot get them without a great deal of trouble, but I think you could obtain this from the chamber of commerce. In our business, I simply deal with the facts as they come. 6174. But I suppose the produce which passes through your hands every year would be many thousands of pounds more in value if it were all free of scab ? — I should say the skins and wool which pass through my hands would undoubtedly be worth thousands of pounds more. 617.5. With regard to wool which has been dipped after the fleece is of five or six months' growth, would it make any material difference in your price for it whether it was dipped or undipped ? — Only when wool has attained that growth ; of course it is not a 250 benefit to us for the farmer to dip his sheep, speaking from a wool buyers' point of view. Dips are more or less of a sticky nature, and the wool takes in the dip much more thea than if the sheep were dipped immediately after shearing, consequently I don't think the farmer really loses anything if he is compelled to dip, because the stickiness of the dip makes the dust and other matter adhere to the wool, and g^ves him a :;reater weight per fleece. He gets a lower price per pound, but in consequence of the extra weight he gets about the same value altogether. 6176. Still, the fact that wool has been dipped lowers its value? — It does in one sense, but it does not lower the return t« the farmer. 6177. Mr. Botha.~\ Can you remember the names of any farmers in areas not under the scab act who produce clean wool, free of scab, in districts such as Richmond, Brit's Town, Hope Town, Carnarvon, Victoria "West, Colesberg, Fraserburg, or Albert .' — There is really nothing to take exception to in nearly all the good clips having the names on the bales, but I may say we have a clip in our stores now from an unproclaimed area, held by Messrs. James Lamb & Co., from the Beaufort West district, which is perfectly free of scab. A. man can keep his flock clean in an unproclaimed area, but it gives him twice the trouble to do so because of negligent neighbours. Another very serious point to the consumers of meat is that for people buying mutton it is a great comfort to know that the sheep sent to the market are perfectly free of scab ; and if I knew that my butcher was buying sheep from a dirty flock, and I could get it from a butcher who got it from a clean flock, I should go to that butcher. 6178. Br. Smartt.'] If our wools are to hold the slight favoiir which they have received within the last couple of years on the home market, you consider it is absolutely essential to keep them free of scab? — Most certainl}- ; beyond a doubt. I will just mention Graaff- Eeinet, which has made enormous strides in wool-growing. These wools are looked for now every year by buyers, and I put that down simply to the improvement worked by the scab act, and the general interest taken in the production of wool in Qraaff-Reinet. It is a district I have had a great deal to do with. 6179. Then do you consider it an enormous calamity that Q-raafE-Eeinet should not remain under the operation of the act ? — It is one of the most retrograde steps that Qraaff- Eeinet could possible have taken. 6180. And ruinous to the farmers ? — Yes, and the good name of the district. 6181. Unless the district does not soon come again under the operation of the act, do you consider that the position recently obtained for its wools on the Port Elizabeth market will be seriously interfered with } — Certainly. 6182. Mr. du Toit.'\ Would any kind of dip be equally hurtful to wool of six months' growth ? — Generally speaking. Of course the kind of dip that a farmer sh add use is a matter in which he can be guided to a very great extent by the up-country storekeeper to whom he sells his wool, who can make inquiries respecting it, or, if he can send his wool direct to the market, he can get the best advice from his agent. 6183. Have you any experience of the effect of a lime and sulphur dip on long wool? — Properly mixed, I believed it is a very good dip ; but if it is not properly made, and boiled, and allowed to settle and clear thoroughly, it is a very dangerdus dip to use, and I think less of lime and sulphur than I do of anji;hiug else as regards wool. If it is used immediately after shearing it is a capital dip, but it is always risky at six months after shearing, even although it is well settled and boiled. 6184. Would you prefer one of the other patent dips ? — Yes. 6185. Chairman.'\ Is there anything else you would like to say .'' — Only to again im- press upon the Commission how necessary I consider it that we should have a general scab act for the welfare of our supplies of mohair and wool ; and also I hope the Commission will take as much evidence as they can here, because there is no doubt we do about three- fourths of the wool business of the Colony, and have the very best an.i most experienced men, who are trained and brought up to the business, so that the Commission can get as valuable information here as anywhere in South Africa. I have never attended a Com- mission with more pleasure, simply because of the importance of the subject. I have repeated that twice already : I think it one of the most useful Commissions ever appointed in South Africa. Mr. Thoma» Douglass examined. 6186. Chairnmn.'\ You are connected with the firm of Messrs. Bagshaw & Sons, tanners and curriers ? — Yes, I produce two tanned skins, one with scab and one without. The scab on a skin makes it worth nothing at all. This is a bastard sheepskin, with more of the merino in it. 6187. Was that skin tanned in the same way as ordinary skins .^ — Yes. The other clean skin is from the same lot, and is just about the same kind of skin. 6188. What is the present value of the skin which was soimd when you received it .' — 3/-, and I should be glad to get 1/- for the other, but I can't get it. 6189. Is not the scabby one heavier that the other? — Yes. 6190. And if it had been sound, would it not be more valuable than the other .' — Yes; we go by the size of these skins, not by the weight. It would have been worth 6d. more. 6191. Then there is an actual loss of 2/- or 2/6.? — Yes. We can hardly sell these [G. 1— '94.] KK 251 scabby skins, because they are no use for linings. They would be no good for lining a boot. 6192. Why do you tan skins so badly affected with scab ? — In Africa we do, but not in England T could not .«ay why, but I get a consigniuent of skins for the firm, and have to account for each individual skin. What is done witli them afterwards I don't know, but to me they are almost valueless. This one is q .ite useless, but some are sold for making blacksmiths' aprons. 6193. I suppose amongst the skins you receive, there are soine on which you cannot see any scab before you put them into the tan pit ? — Not until we get the hair off, and then we can see it at once. When the hair is off it is liko this sheet of paper, and you will see scabby patches. 6194. Do you have serious losses, as a tanner, owing to these scabby skins ? — Yes, but it is not as bad now as it was. We don't have nearly so many now. 6195. How long is it since this improvement has taken place ?— Within the last two or three years. 6196. Would not your business be much more profitably carried on if scab were eradicated altogether from the country ? — Certainly. It is )iarder to work with scabby skins, all through, and we get nothing for it. Skins of this class are put into the glue pot in England, and made iuto glue ; they are worthless for tanning purposes, and are worthless to ship tanned. When you take the wool off a scabby skin you take off the outside coating of the skin. It is the same with hides ; when they are scabby we can hardly do anything with them, except for a cheap class of sole leather. Mr. John Love Stemart examined. 6197. Chairman.'] You are a f«llmonger, tanner and currier? — Yes, the name of the firm is the Algoa Tanning Company, and it has been carrying on business for three years. 6198. Do you tan all kinds of skins and hides ? — Yes. 6199. Do you find that scab is less prevalent amongst the skins now than it was three years ago ? — Tanners won't use scabby skins. Three years ago we were using up about 2,000 sheepskins a week, but we had to give it up gradually, as we found our prices were coming down. We used to ship them to England tanned, but we found the prices were falling and had to g^ve it up. And the price of the wool from these skins also went down to about half what it had been. 6200. To what do you attribute this ? — To scab in the skins. I can show you samples of sheepskins. H^Te is one which I would call a good, scabby skin, but we can use it for nothing, it is so thifk. Diririi,' the last sixteen months I have had to refuse orders for England over and over again, because I could not get the proper skins ; they were all too scabby. Last week I bought 300 picked sheepskins from one of the butchers here, paying him threepence extra for them, and when they came to my place «'e had to throw out 8.5 which were rendered unsuitable by scab. I produce other scabby skins. Here, however, is a fair sample of a good skin, which all the others ought to be like, and the same process would have made them into just the same leather if they had not been scabby. They cannot pro- duce better leather than that in England, and we can get 7/6 for each of these skins in Birmingham and Walsall. There is no butter leather in England than that. The scabby skins would not be worth 2d. in England, and we have thousands of these scabby skins which are unsaleable. We can work up 2,000 skius a week easily. If we put a scabby skin into cheap veldschoens we cannot sell them ; we have 800 pairs now, but we cannot sell them. At the pri>sent moment we have 200 or 300 bales of these scabby, tanned skins in London, which we cunuot sell at any price. We used to ship them regularly, and also the wool, but wo had to give it up, although we have the latest machinery for washing and drying wool and skins. We will not buy any more now, but as soon as we can get better skins we will go ahead again. They won't let us break a parcel to pick them, and as there are so many scabby skins in the bales we won't buy any. Jfr. Walter Lane examined. 6201. You are a fellmouger .■' — I was, but since 1872 I have been in the produce business. Before that I was with Messrs. Dyster, Nalder & Co., in London, from 1867. I have been in the tanning trade ever since I can remember. 6202. You heard the evidence given by Mr. Stewart? —Yes. When I first remember the Cape, we did not know the " hogsback," and they were not introduced here until about 1870. It was an American who first discovered this fault in the skin; it used to make leather like that exhibited just now by Mr. Stewart, and none knaw at first what it was, but afterwards they discovered that it was caused by scab. Since then it has increased rapidly, and is stUl increasing, both in sheep, goats and cattle. 6203. You say it is still increasing ? — Of course in the Colony we are getting a larger proportion of hides and skins than we ever did before, owing to the opening up of the back c untry by railways, but in the back country scab is not so prevalent as it is near the coast in districts like Cradock and so on. In Carnarvon and part of the back country there is no scab, but I think it has been creeping up recently in Victoria West, Murraysburg and 252 Richmond. There is more in Cradock, Somerset and Adelaide among the angoras, and you will invariably find that the lambs which are drowned in heavy weather are all slightly scabliy. They have no strength, and cannot stand the cold weather ; the skin suffers, so that the cold penetrate* right through it, and they have practically no cover frem the hard weather. 6204. Mr. Botha.^ Do you buy skins from the butchers ?— Yes, I am very careful about them. I get rhem from Messrs. Baker & Co., and Mr. Hill, and they always avoid buying scabby stock, but many of the small butchers buy sheep that are scabby. 6205. Chairman.'] Do you get scabby skins from the butchers? — Not from the big butchers, but from the small butchers here ; but lately .some scab inspectors have bean sharper upon the men who send stock down here, and have turned them back, so the last few months we have been pretty free. 6206 Dr. Smartt.~\ From your business point of view, I supposo you consider a scabby skin to be one on which there is a mark of scab, although it may have come from a sheep which was perfectly cured as far as infection was cincerned ? — Certainly ; but we always notice that scab is gradually creeping into all the outljang districts, where they never knew before what it was to have scab — Victoria West, Richmond, Murraysburg and Carnarvon. 6207. Chairman.'] Supposing a butcher slaughtered a hundred sheep which may have had scab six months ago, and you had the skins perfectly free of scab, would you still see the traces of scab } — -Yes, but thf* skins would not be as bad as those Mr Stewart showed you. Probably when the scab is being gradually eradicatf^d the skin will come to proper condition again ; but it would take months to restore the s in to its proper condition, and to get rid of the effects of the scab, though it can be done with proper care. We receive nearly 100,000 skins a month, and 25 per cent, are scabby, but when I first came here in 1870 we did not know what scabby skins were. 6208. How was it three years ago ? — It has been gradually coming on ever since about 1875 imtil now, and when there is a drought scab is accelerated among small stock. 6209. Is theri- more scab now than there was two or three years ago? — There is, parti- cularly in goats, but not so mucti in sheep. During the last 12 or 18 months they have not been so bad as formerly, but there have been more scabby angora goats than ever before. In the Zwart Rtiggens all the angoras are more or less scabby. I question whether you could find 25 per cent, sound in the angora districts. I don't believe they ever dip them. 6210. Mr. Botha.'] How do you buy your skins ? — All my goods are collected in the country and sent to me. All the angora skins we ship go to America, the English market having abandoned Cape skins owing to their doubtful character. When I came here the price of goatskins was Is. 2Ad. a pound, and now it is 1\A. a pound, the reduction in price being on account of the doubtful character of the skins. I have upwards of 10,000 skins for which we cannot get a penny a pound, but for which we could get about 5d. if they were sound. Scab not only makes skins nearly worthless, but a scabby angora cannot yield within 25 per cent, of hair that a sound angora will yield. I have noticed scab to be more prevalent amongst angoras than in other small stock. During the heavy rains every drowned skin that comes here is invariably more or less scabby, and at least 90 per cent, of the farmers' losses from rain are really caused by scab. 6211. Mr. du Toit.] Is scab still increasing among angoras? — Yes. 6212. Even in the proclaimed areas ? — I will name the districts. They are Cradock, Tarka and Adelaide, f)f which Cradock is the worst. Jansenville has not been quite so bad att ly, but we have had a good many scabby skins from Steytlerville. Mr. John Mill examined. 6213. Chairman.] You are a butcher in Port Elizabeth ? — Yes, for twelve years. 6214. Do you find any difference in the quantity of scab amongst sheep and goats during the last three years? — I should say certainly not. 6215. Are all the sheep and goats which come to you free ? — Yes, since the scab act has been in force. 6216. Do you generally know whether they come from a proclaimed or an unproclaimed area ? — I should think they nearly all come from a proclaimed area, but I could not say for certain. I have known one or two instauces where stock coming from an unproclaimed area has been stopped, and there has been a good deal of trouble. Not long ago several troops were coming from Houtkraal to another butcher, with a certifi -ate from two farmers iu the district that they were free, and when they arrived at Witmos station two lambs weie fouud with a speck of scab on them, the size of a shilling I was told, and in consequence of that the whole lot were sent back again. 6217. Do you never get sheep or goats with scab ? — ^I know nothing about goats, but we never get sheep with scab on them. We get nearly all our sliHep from the Beaufort West district, sometimes from Bedford, but the last four or five months they have all been from Nel's Poort, and they have all been beautifujly clean. 6218. If it is stated here that skins purchased from butchers in Port Elizabeth are affected with scab would you say it is not correct } — As far as I am concerned, but I would not answer for every butcher. 6219. You don't thiuk scabby sheep are slaughtered ? — I should say certainly not since the act has been in force ; I could not say before. KK 2 253 6220. Have you any idea whether the skins would show signs of scab if the sheep had been infected with scab three or six months before you get them ? — It is very hard for me to say, I never have a sheep longer than a mouth. 6221. And as long as he shows no sigps of scab on the skin you are perfectly satisfied? — Yes. In the old times, before the act was in force, we have had sheep with a slight touch of scab, but it was no detriment to the meat. We never have them very scabby, only a touch here and there. 6222. Mr. Francis.'] Have you been put to any inconvenience by not being allowed to remove scabby sheep down to Port Elizabeth ? — No, because we have never bought out of the area. 6223. Then I presume that it is because you alwa3's buy in a proclaimed area, the sheep holding a clean bill, that you have no trouble ? — Yes. We only had any trouble once, when a party bought us some sheep in Cradock, and then we had them dipped. 6224. If you bought sheep which had been recently dipped, do you think it would have any effect on the meat ? — No. 6225. Mr. Botha.'] Would it be injurious to slaughter stock to have them dipped just before you received them ? — I should not like to say for certain, but I don't think it would. 6226. Would it affect their condition ? — No, I don't think so. 6227. Then you would not object to buy stock when it had just been dipped ? — Not as long as they were in condition when I bought them. 6228. Where do you receive your stock ? — At the goods sheds, on municipal land. 6229. Where do you keep them ? — We have our kraals about three or four miles from here, at Cawston, which I think iH outside the municipality. 6230. Do you ever lose stock from there ? — Perhaps we may lose one now and then, but our loss is very little indeed. We don't give them a chance, as we only get ten or twelve days' supply at a time, and give the order for another lot just in time to replace them. 6231. When the sheep are once in your hands they are as safe as if they were in the butcher's shop ? — Certainly. 6232. Chairmmn.] Would you like to add anything? — Only that I think the law is rather stringent. 6233. Mr. Botha.] Do you think, after stock has once been trucked for the butcher, that they might be aUowed to come through ? — Yes, because if they are taken out again, are the trucks disinfected ? The sheep may just as well go on to the butcher, because a butcher would not mind having scabby sheep coming into contact with his slaughter stock. 6234. Chairman.] Supposing you had four truck loads of very scabby sheep, would you allow them to come on ? — ^I never knew of such a case. 6235. Mr. Botha.] As a rule, are not very scabby sheep poor ? — ^Yes, they are not fit for the butcher. Port Mixabeth, Tuetdty, 6M December, 1892. FKXSEirr : Mr. Fkobt (Chairman.) Mr. Botha. I Dr. Smaktt. „ Dtr ToiT. Mr. Fnijroii. Mr. Oeorge Sohert% examined. 6236. Chairman.] You are a partner in the firm of Messrs. EbeU & Co. ? — Yes. I have been connected with the firm in Port Elizabeth for about ten years. 6237. You are the principal buyer of produce for the firm ? — Yes, we buy about 40,000 bales of wool per annum, and are the largest wool buyers in the Colony. We are repre- sented in Natal, King William's Town, East London and Cape Town. 6238. When you joined your present firm ten years ago, did you find wool and skins very much infected «ith scab ? — Decidedly. 6239. During the next five years did that increase, or was there any appreciable change ? — I think it kept up until about 1885, but then the farmers got very bad prices for wool, and I found that they tried to do something better, and I think in 1886, when wool was al its lowest, we had better got-up wools than before. 6240. You are aware that that was about the time when the scab act came into force } — Yes. 6241. Did you find the improvement general, or was it confined to those districts in which the act was in force ? — It was not general. Of course you are speaking only of the Colony, not of the Free State. 6242. Has this improvement in wool continued up to the present time in certain dis- tricts ? — Yes, especially in the Kaffrarian districts. 6243. Have you noticed any improvement in the wools coming from the diitricts under 264 the proclaimed area of Ghraaff-Eeinet, Somerset and Bedford ? — Graaff-Eeinet, decidedly, Bedford, decidedly, but not Adelaide. In my opinion the Adelaide farmers have gone back in regard to the get up of the clips, but in fact the bulk of them are not shabby at all. Somerset, I can't say ; I don't think it has improved in the same way as Bedford. 6244. Outside the proclaimed area, do you do business with Richmond, Victoria West and Prieska .-'—Yes, with Prieska and Victoria West. 6245. Have you found any improvement in their wools during the last few j'ears, as regards scab ? — I should not like to make such a remark g^-neral. There are better wools coming down from there, but I don't think the bulk has improvtid very much. 6246. Do I understand you to mean that the large clips of wool have improved, but nut the small clips ? — No ; there are clips which have decidedly improved, and occasionally we get better clips from there, and freer from scab ; but the bulk of the farmers in Carnarvon and Victoria We,st have not improved in the same way as Bedford, Graaff-Eeinet, and especially Brit's Town. For instance, wo used generally to get very bad wools from Brit's Town, and I think that district is one which has advanced more than atiy other Midland district. 6247. Do you get many small clips of four or five bales ? — I cannot very •voU judgn of that, because down here we get a collection of clips, and cannot say whether this collection consists of twenty small clips or only of ten. They all come down under the mark, and we don't know how they are made up. 6248. Do you do much business in skins '?— Nothing at all here ; we do in KaSraria. 6249. Prom your experience of those districts in which the scab act has been •nforced, do you think it would be advisable to extend the provisions of the act through. )ut the whole CJolony ? — I should certainly think so ; it would be better both for the tanner and the buyer. 6250. Would it be advisable to enforce a compulsory act in the districts lying far away to the north-west, even if they were opposed to it ? — I can only judge as a wool buyer, and from thw wool I see and buy I sh'uld certainly say it would be better if we had a uuiversal scab act, because then we could certainly pay more for the wool. I don't know how much the farmer loses by scabby sheep, but I should think the production of wo"\ is smaller on a scabby sheep than on a healthy one. 6251. But the quality of the wool is very inferior ? — It has also deteriorated in value, but when the wool is manufactured at home the scabby parts have to be taken out, and put in at a lower value, therefore we must take that into calculation, and pay loss for the wool in the grease here. 6253. Supposing you had two parcels of wod offered you, each cousisting of 20 bales, the one free of scab and well grown and the other scabby, what difference would you make in the value of the two clips ? — I should say the free wool would ouly demand the out- sorting of ten per cent., while the scabby wool might under certain circumstances demaid the out-sorting of 20 or 25 per cent., which has to go into a lower class, which is naturally of less value than good wool. 6253. How much a pound difference would you make ? — The scabby wool would naturally be not so well grown as the healthy wool, and several circumstances would have to be taken into accotmt, so that the difference might be over a penny, but in some cases only a farthing. If the wool is good but contains scabby portions, the sound part may be just as healthy as part of a good clip. 6254. Would you make a conside»able difference ? — Certainly, and apart from that, scabby wool does not loo'c so well in the sample, and you would have more difficulty in selling it in the grease at home than sound, good-looking and health}* wool. And naturally, when a buyer at home sees scabby wool, he will make a larger allowance in most cases on account of its scabby condition than he would if he saw a good, healthy, well-grown wool, and would buy the latter even in preference, apart from the intrinsic value of the wool. 6255. Do you consider the farmer loses considerably evorj'year by scab ? — Yes, both in weight and price. 6256. Mr. D-a7ieis.'] Are you acquainted with the wool which comes from the frontier districts ? — I know Cathcart wools very well. 6257. — Has there been any improvement during the last five years with regard to scab in those wools ? — Yes, I think we are getting very good wools from the Cathcart district. The Miles, and others there, have very good clips. 6258. Do you consider that dipping injures the wool very much .' — It might injure the appearance of the wool. I have seen dipped g -ease w ))ls which look unsightly, but I don't consider that the intrinsic value of the wool is inat'jrinU}' lowered. As far as short wools go, our woolwashers complain very bitterly that nowadays, when dipping is gii ng on s > heavily everywhere, they havM great difficulty in washing the wools well ; but as far as I am concerned I am not interested in that, and I don't care whether the wool is dipped or not. They will get that out all right at home. 6259. Do you send much wool to America ? — Yes, but we have only to send the very best wools there, and only grass veldt wools, because they are lighter ; the heavy duty pre- vents our sending the heavy Karoo wools there. They want wools which range with the lightest Natal wools; for instance, the Bedford wools and the Cathcart wools ; but tiioy must be all sorted, because our people there declare it is no good paying the high duty on locks and pieces. 6260. Do you have any complaints from America with regard to scab ? — I cannot say !55 that, because I would not send scabby wool to America under any circumstances, whatever the price niny be. 6261. Jfr. Bofha.l We had some Port Elizabeth tannera here yesterday, who said that of late years scab in skins had incroasod very much, and in fact they brouglit us some samples to pIiow ; hut you state that scab is diminishing. How do you account for that ? — Scab has certainly decreased ; we arc still getting a lot of scabby woijI down here, but in a good many ilistricts, such as Medford and otbers I mentioned, there is a decided improve- ment. I must say I believe the value of a skin is much more deteriorated l)y scab than the value of wool, because T liavp mysplf .seen prepared skins in which the marks of scab wore distinctly visible, nnd where the skin breaks. 6262. T should have thought that scab could be detected in skins in their raw state, perliaps not s > well as afterwards, but enough to prevent them going into the tan pits ? — We don't dp'l much in skins. There is another great mistake being maHe here in skins: thej' are nut sorted, hut are all more or less bought in bundles, .some being good and some mixed, and it is really a speculative thing t<> buy them in bundles. You don't know what you are buying. 6263. Dr. Smarit.'] I presume your firm buys skins largely, and all you buy you ship direct to England ? — Yes, direct to the tanner at home. 6264. And I suppose the tanners who buy in Port Elizabeth buy smaU parcels, they din wools ? — Yes. 6269. Especially the Argentine wools ? — Yes. 6270. If we cure and eradicate scab from otir wools, do you consider they wonld compote very favourably on the Londcm market with the bulk of Argentine wools ? — -It was only a ver3' small quantity of the Argentine wools that used to go to London, but they are on the Eur.'peaii market now, and generally speaking the Argentine wools are of course stronger than ours ; at the same time, we are already i;ottiug better wools in some parts here than those whii h come from the Argentine, and besides, the bulk of the Argentine wools have a j'ellow tinge when wa.shed, while a good many of the South African wools already produce a good white snow colour, when washed, and in that respect we can already send just as good wool from here as they can from the Argentine. 6271. Then if we could eradicate scab, and improve the breed of our wools, do you think that the better class of Cape wools would supplant the .\rgentine wools on the Euro- pean market ? — Yes, and Cape wools are alread}' in some respects prtsferred to the Argentine, hecause the bulk of the Argentine wools are burry, a small burr which is worse than the large one, because it will go into the machine and spin into the cloth, and if you wear a woollen shirt on y"ur body with these burrs in it, they would scratch you. From some districts here we get almost free wools, and that is simply a rarity from the River Plate. 6272. Mr. du Toit.'] Is ecab on the decrease in Adelaide ? — I have not seen many scabby wools from Adelaide, and as far as scabbj' wool is concerned, Adelaide is as free as Bedford. I said particularly with regard to the Adelaide wools that they are not so well sorted as the others. 6273. What effect has the scab act upon you as buyers ? Does it lead you to be more suspicious of wool coming from an unproclaimed area than of wool coming from a pro- claimed area ? — I must confess I rely entirely upon my own judgment, whether wool couieB from a scabby district or not. 6274. You don't think that even the name of our wools will be much improved on the European market when it becomes known that the whole Colony is under the scab act ? — That is a very difficult question to answer. 6275. Do the}- always go on the merits of the wool there ? — It would first have to be proved that all the wool was clean before the buyers would take any notice of it. btit if that were proved for three years ruLning it would of couise have a healthy effect. I may say tliat, thongh the buyer at home may not have found scab for a thousand timef , h'^ will not take it for granted the next time there is none, neither would I. 6276. With reference to the effect which the scab act has b:id upon the decrease of scab during the last four or five years, has your experience led you to conclude that the dec: ease biis only been in those parts where the scab act has heen proclaimed, or mostly there .'' — It is difficult to answer that, because the seasons have also a good deal to do with scab. In good sea^on8 we may get good wool even fi-om a scabby district, and we should feel the scab much more in a trying season than in a season when there is plenty ..of rain. 6277. Have you noticed whether it has also diminished lately in the unproclaimed areas ? ■ — Yea, but not s • much. I don't know whether Richmond is proclaimed, but I should say it is, because it delivers less scabby wool than Victoria West and Carnarvon : Carnarvoii has advanced very Uttlo, if at all, and next to that is Victoria West. 256 6578. Do you remember the condition of wool from Hope Town ? — Yes, and I am not satisfied with it. 6279. But in comparison with former j'ears? — Y-^s, I may say that in comparison with C.irnarTon, Hope Town has improved mor'. We are occasionally getting some better clips from Hope Town, but we are also getting somu drealfil rubbish, full of sc^ib. 6280. Have you noticed any speciiil clips coming from the districts which yo'i .u ."itioa outside the area which are better than tue bulk from there ? — Some are v^ry g.jo I and fr^e of scab. 6281. If a small part of the fl-^ece is inf ecte 1 with scab, would the iv hole fleece be damaged ?— No, but in sorting, the scabbj' pieces should be carefully removed, for thcj- are inferior in quality and colour; in fact, I should think the farmer could do tha:, and ihrjw it with the locks and pieces. 6282. Don't you think it would be in the inter^'sts of the farmer if these very scabby pieces were put on one side and destroyed i — I don't think so, in the interests Dt the farmer, and speaking as a wool-bu3'er, because however bad wool may be italway.s has a marketable value. 6283. "Would you mix the scabby wool with the locks and pieces ? — Yes. 6284. Don't you mean it should be with the locks, but not with thp bellios or skirtings ? — I would put it in with the worst part of the wool which comes from the sheep, generally called locks. 6285. As a rule, do you soit your wool before shipping it? — ^No, it would be too expensive. 6286. Therefore you must be quite sure th^it the w )ol you ship is clean ?^I wuuld buy scabby wool as readily as clean, but at a less price, and under some circumstances I might make more money out of scabby wool than clean. 6J87. Do you have it washed here first ' — No. 6288. Dr. Sm.arttr\ Will there not be a greater loss from scabby wools not only from the greater percentage of out-sortings, but also a greater percentage of noils when passing through the combs ? — ^Yes, the sorting out in the c imbing mill would be decidedly greater — under some circumstances ten per cent, greater — than with a h'^althy, soun 1, fi-ee wool ; and besides, the healthy wool wiil give a less percentage of short wool, called noils, than scabby wool, even after the out-sorting. 6289. Chairman.'\ Is there anything you would like to add ? — Only that for us wool buyers the whole thing is simply a matter of calculation ; it is all the sam^' to me whether I have before me a clean or a scabb}- wool, and as long as I can get it at my price I shaU buy both parcels, and I believe the loss is entirely the farmer's. It is not only because we iiuy wool on its own merits, free or scabby, but their losses in wet weather must be enormous with scabby sheep, both on account of the weight and the value of the wool. 6290. For those reasons, do you think it would be advisable to have a general scab act? — Yes, and as soon as possible. It would be a very good thing for the farmers. 6291. More in the interests of the farmers than of the storekeepers ? — Yi's. Mr. James Holt examined. 6292. Chairman.~\ You represent Messrs. Jowitt & Sons of London ? — Yes. 6293. Iiow long have you been carrying on the business of the firm in Port Klizabeth ? — About 3j years. We are wool merchants and general produi-e buyers. 62'.i4. When you came iiere, did you find produce very much affected with scab ? — Yes, we knew that at home, where we see more Cape wools in tlie London sales than \re do here. I have been attending the sales there for twenty years, and we dreaded the ("ape wools more than an^' of them, although there has been a great improvement during the last t-n years. Twelve years ago we hardly looked at Cape wools unless pressed, but now they have improved very much in Cathcart, King Willia n's Town, and round there, and some of the better bred wools are sought after as much in London as .some Australians. Twelve or fifteen years ago, many of the wool buj'ers used to have a holiday when the bulk of the Cape wools were being sold. 6295. Do you think that improvements are still going on? — Yes, but if you allow this to stand as it is, I am afraid the scab wiU increase again, which we don't want. I have just received a complaint from London about the wool, and if this matter is neglected the evil will overtake you again. 6296. Does the improvement you speak of apply also to the midland districts ? — I never take notice of where the wools come fiom, unlei-s they are special wools, of which we get a considerable quantity from East London and King William's Town. The wools here are very miscellaneous. The ordinary wools running from 4Ad. to Jd. may comp from Basuto- land, but I take no notice of them. I value the wool on its merits, and it is a mistake to inquire where it comes from, because they get carried away by a district being called very good or good. 6297. If two clips were offered to you, one perfectly free of scab, and widl grown, and the other the same number of bales but scabby and Hi-grown, what differeuce would you make ? — I should leave the scabby wool alone altogether. Only the otluT day I saw a magnificent cUp, and was going to buy it, but all at once I came upon a fieec" with .scab on it, and though there may not have been any more scab you cannot risk these things. 6298. You passed over this clip because you found only one scabby fleece ? — We cannot 267 go through the whole clip, consisting perhaps of 40 or 50 bales. Ti happen"! that we b)iy a clip in which we don't detect any scab, That is how it sometimes happeii=i that we b)iy a clip in which we "don't detect any scab, and the sorter at home classes it as sound wool. The scab is not detected when the wool comos to be made for tops, and is sold to a speculator guaranteed as sound, and when the top comes to be made into yarn, the yarn does not show it, and the spinner who makos the yarn sells it to the manufacturer, who makes the cloth, and then this yarn breaks, and you have all sorts of claims and arbitritions about it. That may be only one bale, but in the course of manu- facturing, first scouring, then combing, then carding for spinning, it mixes in, and breaks. Then you havo to use it for something where it will not break. 6299. Do you consider that the Colony loses considerably every year a large sum of money throuojh scab ? — I should have liked to have had more time to consider the question, but I calculated that what with skitis, angoras and its effect on sheep, the farmers li ee half a million a year. It is the farmers who lose it, and I believe it would come to that amount. I reckon that up to a certain sum in skins alone. 6300. Do you deal largely in skins also ? — -We are about the largest exporters of skins, especially sheepskins. 6301. Do you find any improvement in skins? — No, unfortunately, I have just received MesBTs. Blaice & Oo.'s, tender for last week, that is to say, they call for tenders every two or three weeks for th" purchase of their skins, and this is the last they have issued. There are about thret> firms here who sort their skins, and out of this list there wore 3,996 sound sheepskins, and 2,413 damaged, that is two-thirds, and the difference in price was 28 J^ per cent. 6302. And the whole of this loss is borne by the farmers ? — Yes, but I don't want to mislead yo-u, the damage is not all caused by scab. The butcher sometimes hacks the skins about, but I thould think about f of the damage is caused by scab. A great many of them are torn when being put into bundles. 6303. Do you find that the goatskins are as much affected with scab as sheepskins ? — More so, but I have kept out goats and angoras, because I find I can do much better by selling them here than by shipping them home. 6304. If it were not for the scab in these goatskins would you sell them here?— I should ship them, because we have a good outlet for them in America, but they are dead against the scab. There is also the question of the value of the sheepskins at home. Con- sidering the low price of wool, most people cannot make out why sheepskins are so high, but if skins were fetching at home now what they did three years ago, we should bo buying skins here now for 3f d. instead of 4f d. Some farmers complain that they ar(! not getting more for their wool when sheepskins are so high, but the reason is that two or three years ago a new machine was invented for splitting sheepskins into three, when they are sound, and each one of the three is equally available. This is the reason why the sheepskins are so much higher than wool in comparison with what they used to be. 6305. Then do you think that no matter what it might cost to work, it would be advisable to carry out the scab act throughout the Colony ? — Undoubtedly. Last April I wrote to some Uitenhage people very strongly on this subject. Then as to the value of scabby wool, it makes a difference of Id. or 2d. a pound. At the large sales at home the wool is arranged in large piles of a hundred packs, the pack being 240 lbs., representing 250 bales of greese wool, and if scab is in there it is very difficult to detect, and it is all mixed up together. If that is found out in time it is different, but in the manufacture of wool there is both the warp and weft, the warp being just in the loom and the shuttle going across it, with the weft which has to be very strong. You may have the same length for the warp out of a sound bale, and the other wool may cost as much, but when they find it is tender it has to go into the warp. The weft is put on spindles, and if it breaks you should .see the trouble the boys and girls have in mending it, and thou it is not sound. The warp is worth, say £17, and the weft £15, so it doos not go to waste, but it makes a difference in price. If you could get the scab out of 50 bah's all together into one bale, you would only lose a sovereign, but as it is now the whole pile is spoilt. 6306. Mr. Francis.] "Would it be advisable when a farmer is shearing his sheep to throw out all fleeces infected by scab ? — If you could trust the man to take all the scabby pieces out, you would save a lot of money, and in that way you might only get about half a bale of scabby wool out of the clip. 6307. At the same time, if a man could warrant his clip of wool to be entirely free from scab, would you be able to give a higher price for it? — Yes, but the difficulty would be how to find it out here ; the wool might go to England or America, and how could you settle it afterwards. Every farmer would swear his flock was free from scab. 6308. Is it a fact that it is almost useless to send scabby wool to America? — Of course, no one wants scabby wool in any country. 6309. Is it a fact that the home buyer would rather purchase wool from a country known to be free of scab than from a country where scab is known to exist ? — Undoubtedly, but he cannot give so much for his wool, all the same. There is often a dead heat between the Adelaide and Queensland wool, and the best wools gi-own here, in the western province, in Cathcart or Kei Eoad. You don't get much scab in these good wools, and tlien tbe question comes, you have got the quality that the Australians have, and a quality very much in vogue at home. The extra fine wool in Australia has been a little overdone, and if your special clips are equal to the Australian they will now give you the advantage. The Australian wools for extra quality have been overdone, and have declined a good deal 2S^ in value. It would be a good thing if every one did like Messrs. Blaine & Co., and sent instructions to every man who seuds them skins telling them how to cure them there, how to treat them, how (o send them down and preserve them, and the result is he gets a better average than anyone else. Many a time ttieso skins are damaged from want of attention up there ; they are often perfectly sound when tiken off the sheep, but are neglected, put in the sun and become cracked. 6310. Di> you find much wool damaged by dipping? — Yes, it isa great pity, but from all account'^ T believe some of these farmers will not follow the instructions, aud mix dips together, aud one may kill the other. Only last week in Uitenhage a scourer charged 5/- a hundred to scour; it cost liim half-a-crown in .soap alone to got out tho dip. It is a great pity that tho farmers do not stick to tlm dip which they fiud by oxporiHuco to bo the best. 6311. Uo you consider that dipping not only spoils the colour of the wool, but sometimes injures the tibre? — No, it does not injure the fibre, but farmers and storekeepers often send wool direct to Uitenhage, whereas if they had sent it here, and it was a decpnt wool, tlioy wool probably have got more for it, as, if a nasty dip has been used, it gets a bad colour and feel.s bad. They may lose 6 per cent, by doing it in that way. There are one or two dips that they can scour almost without any special preparation. 6312. I presume it would o ly injure the colour of the wool after a certain growth? — I don't know about that ; I only see the wool when dipped. 6313. Br. Smartt.~\ Taking into consideration the large loss annually suffered by the Colony from the prevalence of scab, do you think the Government would be justified in devoting a large sum of money from the general revenue for the purpose of coping with the disease? — I should say so, because you would reap the benefit in the long run. It would be money well spent. This country ought to be an enormous wool country, and if you look at Australia and Si>uth America you will find they make their money out of wool not gold. 6314. Chairman.] Is there anything else you would like to add ? —1 should like to say that the Government ought reaUy to consider very seriously the question of the eradication of scab in this country, aad if they do give a little out of the public revenue for that purpose it will be a great benefit. It is like the vaccination act at home : there is always someone against a good thing, but unless the majority is to have some power you will just remain where you are. If a little assistance were given by the Government, or more active measures taken, you might see a wonderful change in five years, and five years is not very long. In another two years. South America will overlap Australia, and South America has only been growing wool about 20 years. Twelve years ago they sent 200,000 bales to England and the Continent, weighing 9 or 10 hundredweight, and last year it was 400,000, equal to 1,200,000 of Cape wools, almost up to Australia. Australia has more droughts than we have here, and they have to go to more expense in sinking wells. Somerset JEast, Wednesday/, 7th December, 1892. Mb. Frost (Chairman). Mb. Botha. ,, DTJ ToiT. Dr. Smartt. Mb. Francis. Mr. Emanuel Andrew Pieterson examined. 6315. Chairman.'] You are a farmer in the Somerset district? — Yes, I have been here about 20 years. I have about 2,000 small stock, principally goats. 6316. I understand that you and these other three gentlemen have been appointed to represent a certain section of the farmers in this division ? — Yes. 6317. Was scab very prevalent here when the scab act was introduced five years ago? — Yes. 6318. Has there been any improvement among the stock during the five years the act has been in force ? — Yes, a great improvement. 6319. Have you any idea of the percentage of scabby goats in j-our part of the division? — I think there is very little scab in my neighbourhood, but in ray area. No. 12, Somerset East, South, I think you might take \h per cent, as being scabby. 6320. Have you seen the returns issued by tho agricultural department up to the end of June, 1892?— Yes. 6321. Do you think they are correct as regards the reduction of scab ? — Yes, I think so. I don't say they are correct to a few stock, but they are approximately. The inspector is in the best position to judge of this, because he travels about, but it is impossible for me to say, as I stay in one place. Then, when Mr. Hofmeyr was appointed ins^jector in my place, I saw in the returns that he had a larger amount of scabby stock at that time than Bedford, and I was not astonished at it, because I thought ho was new to the work, aud this year he is close to the other inspector. Then these returns are six-monthly. There may be large numbers of scabby stock in our neighbourhood now, but wheu the inspector was on the farm they may have been clean. In June 3'ou will always fiud the returns of scab are less ; we have the summer in front of us, and dui'ing the summer the scab gets better. I have worked through the returns, and although I don't say they are correct, yet I say that, for the above reasons, they are approximately so. "When I was inspector mv returns and those of tho [G. l.-'94.J " U 259 Uidford inspector always went together, and I see tliey do in these returns, so I think they in list bt< (correct. fi.'Vi'i. If I were to toll you that according to information wo havo received the Bedford district has improved very considerably with regard to scab, more e-ipecially in skins, and that Somerset has gone back in very much greater proportion du:ing the last two or three j'ears, would you say it is not correct ? — Not in my area, but I don't speak of the whole division. 6;}23. We have it on clear evidence that, during the last two or throe years, of the skins, especially, received from those two districts, those fro'n Bedford liave f;ono on increasing in value and with less scab, while those from Somerset have gone ou decreasing in value, and with more scab ? — Tliat is not my opinion. 0321. Of (!Our8o you are full}' aware of the damage sustained by skins, especially for lauulng purposes, by scab ? — Yes. 6325. We took evidence from three tanning companies in Port Elizabeth, and they all agreed with regard to the damage done to the skins, and the representative of one company produced skins of which I now show you fair samples. These two skins were put into the tan pit together, and tanned, being of equal quality except thiit one was scabby and the other not, and ho assured ui that the good skin is worth 7s. fid. in London, and is as good leather as is produced in any part of the world, whilst the scabby one, although it under- went e.xactl}' the same process is not worth 2d. In fact, they are of less value than they would have been as ordinary skins, because thej' could havo put them into the glue pot, but now they cannot ? — Before the scab act was enforced here, when a farmer came into town large number of skins were thrown oiit as defective, but I have not seen -that since. I don't eay a scabby skin has not been sold since then, but not to my knowledge. 6326. Then do you think the scab act has done crnsiderable good to the district of Somerset .' — Yes. 6327. Would it be advisable then to extend its operations throughout the Colony ? — Yes. 6328. You tliink the act could be carried out in any part of the Colony just as well as it is here ? — Yes, provided a few amendments were made. Firstly, the scab areas are always liable to have scab introduced from other districts, which is one great objection to the present act. If wo want to get rid of scab we must have a general act, and the Government must do what it can with the Free State Government to have an act there. We also have a great deal of trouble with regard to the removal of stock ; under the present act the farmer is of ten hanilicapp k1, and not so much the scabby as the large farmer ; and the best way to satisfy all the farmers would be to provide that no scabby stock should be removed, and that anj' farmer under quarantine must remain under quarantine until the stock is clean, but that if ho his had a clean bill for three months he should be allowed to move his stock under his own permit, provided he gives notice to the inspector, subject to a heavy fine in case ho moved scabby sheep. At present this removal business is a very difficult one for inspectors. A farmer farms with a lot of scabby sheep, and when he wants to move them he expects the insijcctor to get him out of the difficulty. Of course the inspector is often ia a fix to know what to do ; he does not tluuk the stock is proj)erlj'- dipped, and the responsi- bility is put on him of m^ ving the stock or refusing, but if the farmer can do it himself under a heavy fine, the responsibility rests with him, and that would teach him to keep his stock cleaner. 632'J. If a farmer has a clean bill of health for three or six months, would you allow him to move his stock on his own permit ? — Six montlis is rather long. If we could run in two or three farmers for moving scabby stock under their own permit, the act would work for itself, and if the farmer gives notice to the inspector in the way I suggested, the inspector would be on the look out. 6330. Would it be advisable to have a general simultaneous dipping act, say for one year, in connection with the scab act '? — Yes, it would certainly be a good thing if the stock W Te properly dipped twice in a fortnight. 6331. If it were properly carried out, with good dips, do you n<5t think it would tend more to stamp oat scab than anything else that has ever been done ? — It would go a long way to help us to eradicate scab. In my opinion, we must be very careful with regard to the removal of stock ; and another thing is that it is no use for some of the farmers to dip uuless tliere is someone to superintend the dipping. 6332. Do you think it advisable that all sheep dipped at this particular time should be dipped under inspection ? — Yes. I know by experience that there are very few farmers in our district whose tanks are properly measured, and who dip according to the rules laid down. 6333. Supposing it is found impracti -able to carry out a general scab act, and a line wore drawn thrcjugh the Colony, separating one poition from the other, have you any idea how and wht re h should be ? — I have seen suggestions made at Graafl-Reinet on the subject, but not being acquainted with the districts I should not like to express an opinion, exc pt that I consider that those who came under the act should be protected. ()334. Would you allow any sheep or goats from the unproclaimea area to come into the proclaimed area ? — Not uuless they have been dipped at least twice, under inspection, and quai'antined on the border. 6335. Supposing a collection of farms, or even one farm, in the unproclaimed area, altogether away from the line, had the sheep thoroughly clean, should they be protected 260 by being allowed to prevent any sheep, or goats infected with scab passing over their farm on tb» roads ? — Yes. 0336. As you have been an inspector, you know how they are appointed. Do you agree with the present system ? — Yes. 0337. Mr. du Toit.'\ Dou you believe that scab is caused by an external insect? — Yes. 6338. And that it can be cured at anj' time by dipping properly ? — Yes. 6339. Are you aware of a skin disease v<=-ry much like scab ? — ^Yes, especially in goats. 6340. Can you cure that also hy dipping ? — \ won't say by dipping, but by external applications. 6341. Without giving any internal medicine ? — Yes, but I think it is rery often good to give something internal. You can give sulphur to a sheep or a goat. When goats have scab, the parasites are generally very clo.se to the skin, and in applying the dip many farmers don't cure the scab because tlie insects are too deep in the skin, and tiie dip does not reach them. But if they are properly dipped they must be cured. I believe we can cure scab without any internal medicine 6342. Do you often find this kind of skin disease ? — Yes. 6343. Do you find any difficulty in distinguisliing bttweeu that kind of skia disease and scab ? — I could not tell the difference before I was appointed inspector, and then I studied the matter. 6344. Do you think inexperienced inspectors often run the risk of being mistaken in their judgment ? — Yes, I made mistakes myself at first. 6345. Do you consider scab to be very contagious? — Yes. 6346. Would it infect clean flocks if scabby sheep simply came on the veldt without mixing with them ? — It is possible. 6347. Have you any idea how long the acarus can live on bare ground, kraals, bushes, and so on ? — Not from my own experience, but I believe they can Hve a long while. 6348. Are you in favour of forcing a scab act upon a portion of the population who are thoroughly opposed to it ? — Yes. 6349. Would you make the act more lenient than it is at present, or more stringent ? — In some respects more lenient, and in others more stringent. 6350. If holders of cleju bills were allowed to reiuove stock, don't you think it might happen that the stock so removed was infected without the owner'.s knowledge, and that he might be fined although he did not wilfully break the law, and would you fine such a man if he could prove that it was unintentional? — As a rule, no fine is inflicted when it is proved that things have been done in ignorance. 6351. Would you be in favour of adding the words willingly or unwillingly? — Yes; another great difficulty is to prove the case before the magistrate, and it would be very difficult for the inspector to prove whether it has been done knowingly or not. 6352. Would it be possible for a farmer always to know whether his stock have got infected ? — No, I don't think so. 6353. Then you admit scab might sometimes break out without a farmer expecting it ? — Yes, but I as a farmer would take the responsibility of moving clean stock on my own permit. 6354. How would you know whether they were infected ? — ^If there was the least doubt, I would not move them. 6355. Would you always dip, for safety's sake ?— Not if I was sure that they were clean. 6356. Would you not then run a risk of being fined ? — In my opinion the risk is not great. 6357. I suppose you have often seen the acarus '^ — -Yes. 6358. Br. Smarti.'\ In which class of small .stock is scab most prevalent in this division? — I think among the goats, because we have more goats. 6359. Then the scab inspectors' returns arn not approximately correct when they state that there are twice as many cases of scab among sheep as there are amongst goats in this division ? — I said the number of infected stock. 6360. In both areas there are more c ises of scab among sheep ? — It may be so. I believe the returns are approximately rorrect. 6361. Then on re-consideration, iii would say that your answer that there is more scab among goats than sheep is incorrect r - I am saying what I think, but I never took note of it. As I said, the returns are only six-monthly, but I think there is more scab among goats than sheep here. 6362. It is stated by a large produce dealer in Port Elizabeth that more scabby .skins come from this district than fi-om almost any district in the Cape Colony. From your know- ledge of the stock in the district, do you consider that statement to be correct ? — No. 6363. Mr. Botha.'] You suggest that a flockmaster holding a clean bill for more than three months should have the right to move stock without a permit, but by giving notice, and at the same time you would hold him responsible for whatever might happen. You decline to make any allowance for fear the privilege might be abused, and you think this privilege of so much value that every farmer who malces use of it should accept the respon- sibility. For this reason you woidd object to any provision being made in the scab act by which a farmer who was unfaithful to his responsibility, and moved scabby stock, might bo able to find an excuse ?• — Yes. 6364. Mr. Francis.'] If a man is liable to a heavy fine for wilfully moving sheep unde r his own permit, do you consider that the onus of proof should be put on him that he did not LL 2 261 do it wilfully, and not on the inspector tJiat he did ? — I believe it ought to be so in all caKOS of scab. 6365. How long do you think it would take you, under ordinary cii'cumstances, toch'an a flock of sheep infected with seal) ? — Sixteen days. 6366. Then do you consider the pvosent throe months' licence is too long? — ^Yes, too long altogether. I would make it 42 daj-s for the first licence. 6367. Do you consider that the am.)unt of fines generally imposed for broaches of Uio act are sufficient to deter men from breaking the law? — No, I think they are riiliculous. 6308. When you wore inspector, did you ever find auy case where a man profeiced to break the law and be fined rather than to carry out the act? — Yes. 6309. Tlion do you think it would bo a better system to have paid licences? — I have often thought of tliat, but I cannot saj' I am in favour of it. 6370. Then how would you suggest that the act should be enforced ? — I think the best way would bo to fix a minimum fine. But wo have several minimum fines in our present act, and even now the magistrates don't inflict them. 6371. Under the pre.sent act a man has the right to impound scabby sheep. Do you think that should be amended ? — I am not in favour of that. I would send the stock back to the owner, or if ho cannot bo found, destroy them. 0372. As insiiector, have you known any case where one farmer has sued another for damages for infecting his sheep ? — 1 have heard of one. 6373. Do 3'ou con.sider that the act has been properly carried out in this district? — No. 6374. Wliy? — One reason is that the insjiectors are not in a position to carry out the act. They don't recoivo support from the supporters of the act. Very often you may wish to briug a case against a man, but cannot get any evidence against him, aud should you bring a case j'ou are bullied by tlio authorities and sometimes by the magistrate, and after all the man is only fined five shillings. 6375. Are there a sufficient number of inspectors in this district to carry out the act ? — Not at prosenr. 6376. If it is necessary to divide the Colony into two portions, woidd you give a farmer or fieldcornetcy the right to come under the act if they adjoined the proclaimed area ? — Yes. 6377. If an inspector cannot distinguish between scurf on the sheepskin and scab, do you think ho is fit to be an inspector? — No. 6378. If a proper act were put in force, and the farmers and inspectors did their boat to carry it out, do you think it would be possible to eradicate scab from the Colony? — Yes. 6379. Br Smartt.'] Do you think it would be desirable for the Government to establish a dip depot, aud supply dip to the farmers at first cost price free of railway carriage ? — I think so. 6380. "Would that be the feeling of the majority of the farmers in this district ? — Yes. 6381. Would it be advisable for Government to erect public dipping tanks on the main stock thoroughfaies of the Colony ? — If we have a good scab act, we shall soon get ri 1 of scabby sheep travelling on the road. The reason why they do so now is that the act icj at faidt in allowing the removal of stock. 6382. If the Colony were divided into a proclaimed and an unproclaimed area would you suggest that Government dipping tanks should be erected on '.hefiontier ? — No, I would simplj' say that no stock should bo introduced. 6383. Would you not allow stock to be passed over into the proclaimed area after being dipjjed twice under supervision, subjected to a month's quarantine, aud dipped again under inspection on tlio frontier? — If we cannot get tlio introduction of stuck into the proclaimed area prohibited altugetber, we must be satisfied with suuiething better tlian we have now. I object to any stock coming in. There are several farmers here who have no dipping tanks at all, and I consider every farmer should be compelled to have a dipping tank. 6384. Would you oblige every landowner to allow anybody who has stock on his farm to have the use of his dippiug tank? — Certainly, the farmer ought to be responsible for the cleansing of the stock ou his place. My experience as un inspector was tbat the troublo was with the bywoners who have a small lot of stock. A farmer with several thou ;.iad stock will do his best to keep them clean, because of the loss he would otherwise incur ; but the bj'woners don't care much, as they cannot make a living out of the few they pussoss, and their stock often infect the farmer's flocks. 6385. Mr. du 'loit.'] Would 42 days be long enough to cure scab even in winter? — It can be done in 16 days, but I said 42 days in order to give ample time, both for sheep and goats. 6386. Chairman.'] Taking into consideration the loss sustained by the Colony through scab, do you think the Government would be warranted in sjiending a large sum of money for one or two years in order to try and eradicate it altogether ? — Yes. Mr. Huns Jurgens Moolman, P's. son, examined. 6387. Chairman.] How long have you been farmiug in this division ? — Twenty-two years. I am farming with goats, and have about 2,600. 6388. Do you agree with the evidence given by Mr. Pieterseu r — Yes, entirely. 6389. Is there anything you would like to ask ? — Nothing. 262 Mr. Uaiifs Jurie Moolman, Sr., examined. 6390. Chairman.^ How long have you been farming here? — Tbirty-seven j'ears. I have about 3,000 small stock, chioHy goats. 6391. Do you agree with Mr. Pietorson's evidence ? — Not altogether. I dou't think the owner should have the right to move his o vn .stock on his own permit, because it would be very difficult for liim to prove at times tliat the stock were clean when lie removed them. I think he should be allowed to have a pass from two landowners, who should first inspect the stock, and if they find the sheep free of scab give him a certificate of removal. If they find the sheep are not quite clean they slioidd bo properly dipped once in a recognised dip, and then allowed to be removed. There are many different kinds of farmers, some witii large and some with small flocks, and under ihe present law it is very difficult to barter stock, and very small farmers are unable to obtain clothes for their children in exchange for wool and hair. There are others who are agriculturists, who are prevented under the present sy.stem from bartering their grain. A man must now first get a permit from an inspector, and with the best will in the world to oblige him the inspector cannot do it, because he is so often away from home on dutj", and when he returns he finds ten or a dozen letters asking for ponuits (jf removal, all from different directions. He has the power now to see stock properly dipped, and then to give a permit for removal, and why should not the owner with the two landownei-s have the same right. The inspector should also have the power, in cases where a man is negligent in dipping, to appoint somebody in the neighbour- hood to see the sheep are properly dipj)ed, and to enforce the payment for attendance, and that would do away with the difficulty of being short of inspectors. 6392. Mr. Botha.'\ Do you think the.^e two landowners would be in a better position to declare whether the farmer's sheep are free of scab or not than the owner himself? — No, I don't think so, because there is a danger that the sheep might not be at the homestead, but at out stations, and the farmer might have numerous flocks, consecjuently it would be difficult for him to know exactly what is going on. There may have been a stray scabby sheep among them, without his knowledge, and he might be fined heavily, and stiU have no knowledge of this sheep having been among them. 6393. Might not th« farmer catch out this stray sheep, leave it beliind, and bring the rest of the flock up to be inspected by his neighbours ? — Yes, there is a danger of it, but you cannot always prevent falsehood. 6394. 3fr. Francis.'] We have it in evidence from practical farmers and inspectors that the certificate of removal by two landowners has been very much abused ? — I believe it, under the present act, because the act is worth nothing. 639.5. Do you think the landowners examine the sheep thoroughly now before giving permits ? — T don't think so. Mr. Johannes Cornelius Latter examined. 6396. Chairman.] Are you a farmer here? — Yes, for 21 years. I have about 2,000 sheei) and goats. 6397. Do you agree with Mr. Pieterson ? — I differ on more than one point. I don't agree about the number of scabby sheep and goats in the division ; I think it is wrong altogether. .\8 far as I know, in my portion of the district, area No. 13, there is more scab now than there was last year, and I think if you go properly into it you will easily find the number given in the return on one farm alone. 6398. Do you attribute this to the uegligouce of che inspectors, or what ? — It is very diflS.cult for me to say. I don't like to blame the insijecttirs, and it is partly owing to drought. The head inspector is partly to be blamed for the increase of scab, because by his action scab is increased instead of being suppressed. He met a man about six miles away from the farm, trekking with scabby sheep, and instead of sending them back to the farn from which thej' came, he sent them over seven farms to be irapountled, a distance of 30 miles further, ■^^ithout dipping them first, although there was a good dipping tank • a the farm where the head inspector first met the stock, and at the poun 1 there was none, S''. the poundmaster sent tliem baca to the owner's tank. In that way the head iuspocior wai the cause of a good deal uf the spread of scab. 6399. Are you aware whether the farmti where the stock were first stopped would ha\o given permission for them to have been dippud in his tank ? — He would have dune so under any circumstances. 6400. Do you disagree in any other matter ? — We ought to have sis inspectors for tho district, one in each fieldcoruetcy, who should receive the same salary altogether which is now paid to tiie two inspectors, aid I think the men would be forthcoming. I dou't agree with regard to big owners ; if it were examined into I think it would be found that in many cases the big owners' sheep wore as clean as those of the farmer, and I say this from ex- jjerience as an eye witness. I think the landowners have too many different things to attend to, and therefore sometimes neglect their stock. I agree more with Mr. Moolman, senior, in regard to the removal of stock. 6401. Are you in favour of a general scab act? — No, I would only proclaim the law « here tlie people are in favour of it. 6402. Mr. du Toit.] Would you compel a farmer to allow scabby stock which are travelling to be dipped in his tanks ? — No. 263 6403. Then what should tlio head inspector have done in the case you referred to?- - Sent the stock hack to the place they came from, because that road was already infected. 6404. Dr. Smartt.] Would you select the inspector in every fieldcornetcy only frim farmers who held a clean bill of health, if possible? — Yes. 6405. 3fr. Francis.l If a flock of infected sheep wore found on a public road, after having come 40 miles, and were then within a mile of a pound, would you scud them back ? — Yes ; I hold to the principle of sending them only over ground which had already been infected, unless the owner of the land agreed to let thorn pass. 6406. Are you aware of tlie fact that, in sending those sheep to the pound, the head inspector was simply carrying out the Ifttor of the law, by which he was bound to act ? — I was under the impression that he must know the law and acted accordingly. 6407. Br. Smartt.^ Would you prohibit stock entering a proclaimed area from an un- proclaimed area under any circumstances whatever ? — I would not object as long as they are clean. 6408. If tliey were thoroughly dipped and quarantined, you would allow them to pass through ? — Yes. 6409. Chairman ] Do you think it would be advisable to erect public dipping tuuks along the main roads, at public outspans, to dip siieep travelling on tha roads, infected with scab ? — I think that is very necessary. 64 10. And that the Government should find dips at these places at cost price ? — Yes. Mr. Rohert Featfterstone examined. 64 11. Chairman.'\ Are you a farmer here ? — Yes, for sixteen years ; I have about 5,000 guttcs and sheep, in about equal numbers. 6412. Will you state your opinion with regard to the working of the scab act in this division ? — It is very defective. In the tirst place there too few inspectors ; there is more work than two insjieetors can do. In tho second place, I think they are too lenient, and in many cases also I find that tho inspectors try to evade the act. 6413. How are the inspectors too lenient? — I don't think they prosecute enougli. They give licences to clean stock from time to time, and give too long. For instance, a man gets three months at first, and at the end of that time if he shows that he has made any effort at all ho gets another three months, and so on, until we are almost where we wore when tho act came in force. 6414. But is not that according to tho law? — After the first Uconoe be over give a month. 6415. What would you suggest should be the law ? — To begin with, three months is too long for a first licence ; two months is ample, and if all the farmers were warned that if their sheep were not clean in two months they would be fined, it would have a beneficial effect. 6416. Then do you think a system of paid licences after the first wovild be very much better ? — That would l^e a very much quicker way of rooting it out. There is only \ here thoy cannot be kept clean if the farmers are adverse to doing so ? — I don't know ol any. 6420. Rn you think it would be better, i •• .i in districts like i^iat, to ha-.o a general scab act? — I iiui told that in some parts of thi jlony there is no water at certain times of the year, so that they cannot dip their sheep, but if that is the case or not I don't know. As far as I am aware, I think a general scab act would be the proper thing. 6421. Do you think a man could farm in any peirt of the Colony where there was no water for his stock to drink ? — No. 6422. And having water for his stock to drink, he would be able to find water to dip them in ? — Yes. If evi ryone throughout the Colony were compelled to dip at a certain time of the summer, when there is usually plenty of water, and to dip at one timn, that would be the shortest way, and then there would be no necessity to dip at those other times. Of course it would have to be in the summer, when everybody could dip. 6423. Would it be advisable to have a general, simultaneous dipping act in counection with the scab act ? — Yes, November would be a very good month for it, as there are several good months following it, so tliat if stock became reinfected they could be dipped again half- a-dozen times, if necessary, during those months. 6424. Do you think there is as much scab now in Somerset as there was five years ago ? No, but I think there is a very great deal more than those returns show. I don't think 364 the sheep are as scabby as they were before, but there is a very muoh larger proportion o! scabby sheep here than would appear from those returns. 6425. Then you don't think those returns to the 30th Jane last are correct? — No, speaking of my own surroundings. I am living near Pearston, and in that neighbour hoo.l there is a great deal more than is given there ; I should say 20 per cent, would be within the mark instead of 1.} per cent. 6426. Di you attribute that in a great measure to the laxity or easy way in which the act is carried out by the inspectors ? — Yes, and I think ther : are not suificient iuspectors. They really cannot g.;t through the work. 6427. Woulil it he advisable to have dipping tanks at certain places such as outspans, for the purpose of dipping .scabby sheep wlieu travelling ? — I think it would be a very good move, but if there wore a proper act, prop^u-l^' carried out, especially a simultaneous dipping act, there would be no necessity for that. 6428. Do you think it would be better to throw the responsibility on the owner of stock, by allowing him to give his own pass provided he held a clean bill for three or sis months V — Yes, I think it would do away with a gi-eat deal of the feeling agiinst the act, because now the complaint is they cannot move stock readily, and under the arrangement you pro- pose if they moved s-cabby stock they would suffer for it. In case a farmer gave a permit for his own sheep, and scab broke out on the road, I think the inspector should be warned, so that he could examine the sheep on the farm, and if he found anything amongst them to lead him to think that the farmer knew it at the time, so that if the farmer was known to be a careful man he could be brought before the magistrate, who shi^uld have it iu his discre- tion to fiuo him or not, because a man cannot be answerable for sheep at all times. They may become infected without his knowledge at an out-station, and he may have given the peiTuit in good faith. 6429. Supjiosing it is found impos-sible to have a general scab act, have you any idea nlijre a line c )uld be drawn, and whether it should include the railway systems of the Colony ?— Undoubtedly' it should. 6430. If that were done, what provision would you make for sheep coming from the unproclaimed area into the proclaimed area, or would you not allow them to come in at all '? — I think the suggestion was a good one that the sheep should be dipped twice under proper supervision, quarantined for a month and then moved over the border. If that were done under proper supervision it would be sufficient, and then dipped a third time. The act should be made as workable as possible, so as to give every man au opportunity of disposing of his stock. 6431. If that imaginery line were drawn, and any farmer living in the unproclaimed area had clean stock, do you think he should be protected by having the power to prevent any one moving across his farm on main roads with scabby sheep ? — I would give him every protection. 6432. Mr. du Toil.'] Do 3'ou think two months is ample time to cure a flock of sheep in winter ? — If a niau takes proper precautions he need not have scab in winter. That is why I suggest a simultaneous dipping in the summer. 6433. Hut although the flocks may have been dipped in November, don't you (hink there might be an outbreak of scab iu May or June ? — I think the outbreak would be long before that, if it was caused by reinfection from old kraals, and if a man kept it down there would be no reinfection in five months. The greatest difficulty is not from one's own farm, but from the iioighi'ours, and with a simultaneous dipping act that danger would be avoided. I have had my sheep cle:in three tiines, and three times they have been reinfected by my neighbours, and the last time it was in the middle of winter, and 11, flock of ewes which would be lambing in two months. I dipped them, and in ten da^s intended to do so again, but thej' were in too poor condition. 6434. Might thfiy not get reinfected in the winter from an old kraal ? — It is a question how long these insects live, and even experts don't seem to know. But I don't think they wid live five months. 6435. Have you found that flocks, especially goats, can be cured just as easily when in poor as when in good condition ? — I think so, provided you dip ; but they are more suscepti- ble to iufnotiou then, b' causo thoy tire iu a condition iu which the insect likes to live. 6436. Over how m.inj' years would you extend the simulianeous dipping act ? — Two years should bo sufficient, but it depends very much more on the inspectors than the farmers whether th- tV cks aie kept clpau or not. Some farmers will not go to the expense of dipping, or will not us> dip sufficiently strong, but if they had to paj' for scabby sheep they would keep them clean. To he fair to tlie careful man the law should be stringent. I once pointed out to an inspector a flock on my veldt which he himself said was rotten with scab, iind when I asked him how it •■as possible to keep my flocks clean he said 1 should prose- cute ; but everyone uudurstands that one farmer does not like to prosecute another, because we are very isolated, and don't like to be on bad terms with one another, an J I considered it was more iho inspector's duty to run that mm iu than mine, because he was a paid servant of the Goveriimeiit. 6437. Would you be in favour of having those flecks dipped under proper supervision ? — I don't think sup^rvisiiu is mcessary. If the farmers understood that they had the summer months t i dip iu,Hnd if the »t.)ck were notcloanth.jii thoy would be s^ubjectto a heavy fiue, it would be sufficient It is not iguwrauce on their part, though I think there are a few who believe the scab is not an insect at all, but these men ought to be taught that it can be cured, by means of a heavy fine. 265 6438. If moro innpeotors are appointed, would you pay them tho same rate as they receive Tiow ? — I don't tliink the Govoinment should consider the money at all in such a case. I would not limit the expenditure to a few hundred pounds when the eventual saving to the country vould he so g^-eat. ()439. Then you iire in favour of more inspectors only for a limited time ? — Yes. Two men are not sufficient for the Somer-set district; they cannot inspect all the docks in the time. 6440. Do you bolieve that a gi'mral scab act would stamp scab entirely out of the Colony ? — Decidedly, if proper measures were taken. 6441. Are you aware of that kind of scurf which has been referred to this morning ? — I have soRU very little of it mv.sclf. I have liad no case myself. When stock have been very poor, and thrive afterwards, tho skiu loosens, but that is not scab. The skin does not become hard, but the outer, thin skin ccmies off. 6442. Do you know whether tliis disease is fatal ? — Not the thing I am speaking of. 6443. You have not seen flocks die from it t — No, it is not a disease at all ; it is just a loose skin on the animal, especially above tlin shoulders, from having boen poor. I have only seen it in goats, not in sheep. 6444. We have been told that though scab in goats can be cured, the skin does not recover before spring ? — That is not my experience ; I find when scab is cured, the skin begins to grow at once. 6445. Dr. Smartt.'] Are you in favour of Government dip dep6ta ? — It would be a great boon to the people. 6446. Would you confine the selection of iuspectors to those farmers who hold clem biUs for their own flocks ? — Yes, but the inspectors are Government officers, and no bettor man could be appointed to select them than the civil commi»sionor. He is the highest Government officer in the district, and is responsible to a certain ox'ent, and I thiuk would make a wise selection. I would not leave it in the hands of the farmers. 6447. Would you allow single farms adjoining the proclaimed area the optiim of coming under the act ? — Certainly ; I would offer every inducement to every man or district to come iinder the act. 6448. Would you be in favour of allowing field-cornetcies or districts adjoining the proclaimed area having the power to come lyider the act by cumulative votes, according to the number of sheep held, or by individual flockmasters in the district, instead of by a two- thirds majority of voters in the divisionul council list ? — Yes, because the interests of the district would then be represented. 6449. From your own experience as a piactical farmer, do you consider tliat even with the present scab act. if it had been fully and thoroughly enforced in this district, there would have been sixty per cent, less scab ? — There would have been very much less indeed. 6450. Do you believe that the statement made in Port Elizabeth as to the large preponderance of scabby skins from Somerset East is correct ? — I can quite understand that it ie so ; I know a large proportion of the shet-p in the district are scabby. 6451. If a partial act were in force, would you allow slaughter stock to pass through to the ports after one dipping, instead of being rigorously dipped like the others ? — Pro- vided they could get to the end of their journey in ten days, and were dipped under super- vision, because I know that some fanners dip (vith stuff far too weak. 6452. Do you consider that there would be any danger of reinfection from skins and wool passing from the unproclaimed into the proclaimed area ? — I think so. more particularly skins. 6463. Would you prr)hibit skins and wool coming in and being deposited at local stores in the proclaimed area ? — I would. 6454. Would you interfere with their proceeding in the ordinary cour.^e of trade from the unproclaimed area to the ports for exportation '? — I don't know, because the trucks would be fuU of infection. There would be no objection if the trucks were disinfected. 6455. Do you consider it should be incumbent on the railway authorities to disinfect all the trucks which cany stock, whether scabby or clean ? — Certainly, otherwise any stock going to or from a show would become infected, and would also carry it throughout the district. 6456. Mr Francis.^ Would you allow scabby sheep to be driven to a pound without taking measures to disinfect them ? — No, the man ought to have the right to dip them him- self, and charge for them, otherwise he would sow the infection broadcast. 6457. Have any efforts been made in this district to repeal the present act ? — Yes, a petition was got up, but I don't think quite a sufficient number of signatures were obtained to it. 6458. Do you know what reason was given by those who were in favour of doing away with the act ? — Principally because of the difficulty in moving stock about, particularly with speculators. 6459. Then if the permit clause were done away with, and a man allowed to move stock when he had a clean bil, do j-ou think it would remove a geat deal of the opposition to the act? — I think so ; it is a hardship. 6460. If an inspector were really fit for his office, do you think he would always be able to decide whether a skin disease was scab or not '? — I should eay so. In the days when we had so much stcekgras about, I have seen cases where it was very difficult to detide, but it could always be seen with a magnifj'ing glass. 6461. Was it i.(,t the duty of the inspector, when you pointed out the scabby sheep 26Q trespassing on your farm, to take legal action against the owner of the sheep ? — That was my impression. 6462. I presume the man only held a licence to keep scabby sheep on his own farm ? — Yes. 6463. Chairman.'] Is tliero aaything you wjuld like ti> add? — Some time ago, the act- ing inspector came to my farm aud I told him I liad already g^ven notice of scab. He said he had been inspecting many flocks on thi-> side of Somerset, and only one was clean. That was during October. 64 G4. Mr. Francis.'] If an inspector does not carry out the law, as in the case of the sheep which were trespassing, what action would you take again.st him ? — -I think he should be liable to a fine by law. 6465. Chairman. \ Do you think the farming interests of the Colony demand that the Ooveruraent sliould spend a large sum of money during the next year or two to eradicate acnb ? — I think so, and it would be far cheaper in the end. This act has >)een in force for m;iny years, aud wt- are little b -ttei: off, but if there were a general act, thoroughly carried out, 8cab would soon be stamped out of the Colony. Mr. Henry Turner examined. 6466. Chairman.'] How long have you been farming here ? — About 35 years. I farm with sheep, goats and ostriches, and have from 2,000 to 4,000 sheep and goats. 6467. Is there any point you wish to bring before the Commission, or do you agree with Mr. Featherstone ? — In general I agree exactly. 6468. Do you believe in a general scab act, a general simultaneous dipping act, the necessity for an increased number of inspectors in this district, the inclusion of a single farm or field-cornctcy adjoining the proclaimed area, the protection of a careful farmer outside the proclaimed area and the I'ppointment of inspectors by the civil commissioner? — Yes. 6469. Are you in favour of the establishment of Government dipping tanks at out- spans ? — 1 don't see there is any necessity for that. 6470. Do you think it would be advisable to establish a Government dip depot ? — Yes, that would be one of the best things that could be done. 6471. Do you agree with the proposed permit system of removal? — Yes. In regard to goats, Mr. Featherstone is quite correct in what he says that there is a disease among them that is not quite understood. It is a kind of skin disease, and you can cure it, but it comes in the form of warts, and will break out again next year, and I have found that it will come tlie following year to the progeny of those goats, and the only thing to be done is to fatten them up and kill them. 6472. Is it contagious ? — Yes. 6473. Mr. Francis.'] But that is easily distinguished from scab? — Yes. 6474. Mr. du Toit.] Would you put that man under quarautine ? — No, it is not so con- tagious as that ; it is neither scab nor scur.". All farmers nr-.; familiar with it. 6475. Is it caused by an external insect ? — I don't think so. 6476. Do you think it is advisable thut tho inspector should at times have a magnifying glass with him ?— Decidedly, in order to be able to dHcide properly at sight whether it is scab or not. 6477. Especially under a general scab act, in order to convince the farmers that scab is caused by an insect ? — Yes. 6478. Chairman.'] Have you anything to add ? — I was the first in this district to have a tank, and I have kept out scab mure or less, but it is impossible to do so thoroughly if your neighbours have it. 6479. And is that the reason why you suggest a general act ? — Yes. At the present time one of my flocks has been clean for t«o years. Lust winter ^\as very severe, but my sheep having no scab, and running night and day, 1 lost none, wliUe my neighbours on three sides lost heavily through scab, and their sheep were krualed. Mr. James Frederick Fleischer Bowker, Scab Inspector, examined. 6480. Chairman.] You are scab inspector of area No. 13? — Yes, since November, 1888. 6481. Are you the first inspector appointed to this area ? — No, Mr. Pietersen had the whole district, and then it was divided and I had the nort'uern part. 6482. When you were appomted « as there a good deal of scab in the district ? — I only found one clean flock. 6483. To what extent were these flocks infected ? — At least 75 per cent. ; that was when the act had been in force about six months. 6484. Have you seen any great improvement in the sheep smd goats since then ? — Certainly. 6485. Then do you think, when the Commission is told t':.at there is almost as much scab now as then, judging by the wool aud skins which come to the ports, that it is not correct ? — Certainly not, and in support of thut, I may say that we had a circular sent round to the local shopkeepers asking for tho return of the sjabby skins, and 1 am sorry I have not brought the replies s ith me. [G. 1.— '94."! MM 267 6486. Have you experienced much difficulty in carrying out the act? — Yes, the fanners as a rule never support the inspector. 6487. What suggestions would you make? — I think there should be three inspectors instead of two. 6488. How would that help you ? — It would make our area much smaller, and we could pay more attention to the farmers who don't dip jiroperly. 6489. Do you think that, generally speaking, dipping is not carried out properly ? — Certainly it is not. 6490. Do you apply this remark to all the farmers, or only tD the smaller ones ? — To 75 per cent, in my area, who I think ought to have supervisiou over tlioir dipping. My area consists of 85 farmers with 41,000 small stock. 6491. How many farms are in your area ? — 175. 6492. That will give about 500 sheep and goats to one farm ? — Yes. 6493. But I suppose a good many of those farmers have much smaller flocks? — Some have only 80 and some 2,000 or 3,000. 6494. Do the bulk of the farmers who have large flocks require supervision ? — No, I think the majority of the farmers holding large flocks do not require any supervision. 6495. Then does your remark apply generallj to the big owners ? — Not alono to the big owners ; many of them want supervision although they are landed proprietors. 6496. Would it be advisable to have a general simultaneous dipping in connection with the scab act ? — Yes, twice a year. 6497. How long would you continue it ? — Under a general act, to stamp out scab, I should say two or three years. 6498. Would it be necessary to dip the sheep twice a year, even if there were no scab among them .'■ — For the first year, as a precautionary measure, just before the winter ; but I woiild only apply that to the first year. 6499. Do I understand you to say there is a very great improvement in the condition of the stock in your area .'' — Yes. At the present time there is about 2^ per cent, affected. 6500. According to the returns of scab on the 30th June last, published in the Oatette, there were then 1^94 sheep and 218 goats affected, but we are told by produce buyer.s in Port Elizabeth that the skins received from the district of Somerset are more scabby now in proportion than they were a year ago } — That may have been last winter, when we had an increase of scab, and some farmers lost 200 or 300 goats, the skins of which were sent away without being cleaned from the mud. 6501. There has been a considerable increase in scab during the last few months .' — Yes, in July and August we had very heavy weather. 6502. So you don't think the skins which were said to arrive from the district of Somerset were scabby ? — No. Many farmers sent down skins, but they looked scabby because they were so dirty. 6503. Do you think the present system of carrjang out the scab act works as efficiently as it might ? — Certainly not. 6504. What suggestions can you give for improving it? — Every man should be allowed I I move h's stock when and where he likes, so long as he holds a clean bill of six months' standing, subject to a penalty if he removes scabby sheep. Also, there should be dipping tanks built on outspaus, if it is possible, but I don't see how it is to be worked. 6505. Would it be advisable to have an inspector in every fiell-cornetcy ? — Cortainly not, because in my own area I have given my field-ccrnets a free hand to grant a permit whenever called upon, so that community has always had an inspector in their ward. I have -eldom had an application made to me for a certificate, as they all go to the field- cornet ; but as soon as you make the field-cornet an inspector, he will have to bo absent from home on duty, and there wiU be just the same difficulty as there used to be here. 6506. When field-cornets are appointed by you to issue permits of removal, do they examine the flocks before they are moved ? — To my knowledge, thoroughly. 6507. Have you ever found any scabby sheep being moved in the district under field- cornet's permit ? — Only in one case, when a field-cornet went to grant a permit, and I saw the stock half-an-hour after he had granted it. I reinspected the stock and found three or four scabby sheep among them I coidd thoroughly depend on the field-cornet, but not on the man who removed the sheep, who I believe had hidden away the scabby sheep, and I ordered the field-cornet to cancel the jwrmit at once. When a man has held a clean bill for six months, we give him a standing permit and a clean bill combined, under which he can go wherever he likes — from here to Cape Town it he likes— but he takes all the responsi- bility. Of course we are very careful in granting that certificate. 6508. Mr. du Toit.'\ Have you ever met with kind of skin disease amongst goats ? — I have seen a few cases of it. 6509. Was it difficult to cure by dipping ? — Not so difficult as the ordinary scab. 6510. But we have it in evidence that it is much more difficult to cure ? — That is not my experience at all. 6611. You are not aware that it requires smearing? — When you have to smear a goat it is for scab, but when there is loose skin on the back and neck it is not scab, but the looseness of the outside Kkin, and after shearing that falls off, and the sheep gets clean. 6512. Is it not possible that the skins of which the merchants complain have that kind 268 of scurf and not scab ? — Judging by the samples of tanned skins I was shown this morning I should say decidedly it was scab. 6513. Do you find any difficulty in distinguishing between that kind of scurf and scab ? — No. 6514. Have you seen that kind of skin disease among sheep too '? — No. 6515. Do you examine sheep in kraals or on the veldt ? — Both. 6516. Can you conscientiou.sly give a man a clean bill when you havo examined two or three thousand sheep on the veldt? — If I have sufficient help to have them ollected. 6517. Are you aware that steokgr^s also sometimes makes tho wool lousio? — I had a great deal of trouble with that in my area, so that aa ordinary farmer ridiugby would say the sheep were all scabby. I have seen lambs only a month cM killed with it. 6518. Should not the inspectors carry a magnifj-iug glass wifh them? — Certainly. Government did 8upj)ly us with a very inferior one, and I alwa3's carry one that belongs to me ; it helps me to convince the farmers. 6519. Do you think it is possible to efficiently administer an act whicli is forced upon a portion of the community ? — I think a scab act must be over the wliole Colony, in the in- terests of the country. I think the farmers ought to be taught better, and they want a more stringent act. 6520. Have you any idea how long the acarui can live on bare ground and in kraals ? — No, but I know of an instance which occurred in my own area, where a perfectly clean flock came from Bedford, where Mr. Davidson was then the inspector. They were put into an old kraal, which I believe had not had sheep in it for six months, and within twenty days they became infected. 6521. If holders of clean bills for six months were allowed to give their own permits, don't you think a penalty should only be inflicted provided scabby sheep were moved under that permit wilfuUj'? — I agree with Mr. Featherstone's suggestion with regard to that. 6522. If you examine a flock, and give a permit of removal, perhaps overlooking a scabby sheep, so that two days afterwards scab breaks out, do you run the risk of being fined ? — No, but the farmers can report us to Government for giving a certificate in such a case. 6523. At any rate, I suppose your position would be much safer if the act were so amended ? — Yes, if the farmer took the responsibility. 6524. Dr. Smartt.~\ Do you find much more scab, proportionately, among the flocks of small owners than those of large ? — Yes. 6525. And that many of these men are unacquainted with the principles of dipping ? — Quite, and out of the 85 farmers, perhaps half of them are living from hand to mouth, and have not money to buy dip with. 6526. How long do you think it would take you to thoroughly clean a flock of sheep ? — If I could keep them quite away from the old kra^ds I should say 21 days. 6527. What period would you suggest for a first licence ? — Not to be hard on any farmer, I should say a month. 6528. If the sheep were still affected at the expiration of that time, would you j)ut it down to carelessness or want of knowledge ? — Certainly. 6529. Would you suggest that the shjep should then be dipped under the supervision of an inspector or some proper person ? — Certainly, if we want to s*^amp scab out of the Colony. 6530. Then I take it you are in favour of a Government dip depot ?— Yes, but the majority of these poor farmers are tied hand and foot to the shopkeepers, and would not have any money to go to the Government with. 6531. Have you had many prosecutions under the scab act in your area? — A good many. 6532. Was there any difficulty in getting convictions ? — Yes, I have had cases thrown out owing to exceptions taken by attorneys. 6533. Mr. Botha.~\ Do you keep a register of the stock belonging to every stock owner in your area ? — Yes. 6534. What distance from your ii^sidence is the farthest stock owner ? — Twelve miles. 6535. Do you live in your area ? — Yes. 6636. Have you anyone to represent you in that distant portion of the area, in case people want permits of removal ? — Mr. Featherstone is the field-cornet, and there is another three hours away. 6537. Is there anybody in the Zwagershoek district ? — Yes, Mr. Connor. 6538. How far is the farthest part of Zwagershoek from youi- residence? — Fifty-seven miles. 6539. Have you another assistant ? — Yes, the field-cornet in No. 6 ward. 6540. Are they paid to perform these duties? — Yes, by Government. 6541. Who appoints them ? — The Government, on my recommendation. 6542. And you think their assistance is quite necessary in the interests of the public ? — Certainly. 6543. How are they paid? — 7/6 a day and 1/6 an hour for horse-hire. 6544. Have you always means to make sure that the Government is not overcharged ? — Everything is put in front of me befoi'e I send it. All returns are sent to me direct. 6545. Can you tell us the average expense per annum for these four assistants ? — About £12 a piece. MM 2 269 6546. Mr. Francin.l Are the fines imposed sufficient to prevent breaches of the law ? — The farmers laugh at the fines. 6.547. They would often rather break the law in spite of the fine ? — Yes. One fani'T at Pearston sold 120 sheep at 12/6 and sent them to Poit Elizabeth without a permit. Jle made a profit of £30, and when I sued him he pleaded guilty and was fined £1. Ho should have been fined £20. 6548. Would a system of paid licences work better? — Certainly. 6549. In carrying out the act, do you receive any help from the police ? — No. 6550. Would it not be advisable if the police were instructed to report all brraclu ; of the law which came imder their notice ? — They wore always instructed to do bo, but I n<;ver bad a case reported by them. 6551. Do the farmers report .'' — No. 6552. Have you any native owners of stock in your area ? — Yes. 6563. Do thej' give you any trouble in carrj-ing out the act ? — Vfery little. 6554. Do they begin to see the benefit of the act ? — Certainly. 6555. What is about the number of persons who hfld licei'ces to keep scabby shee]) or goats in your area ? — I can hsirdly say from memory. 6556. Don't you think the permit of two landowners for the removal of stock may be the cause of scab being carried about ? — Certainly. 6557. Is it a great advantage for field-cornets to have power to grant those permits ? — I think so. 6558. We found at least one area which was perfectly free oi scab under the prefont act, while in this and other areas we find a great deal of scab. How do you account for it ? — Pome areas are smaller, apd all the farmers are fenced, and the farmers all pull together. In the other areas a portion of the farmers pull together and the others don't, and Somei'sot is one of them. 6559. If there were a good act, do you think we should be able to eradicate scab from the country ? — Certainly. 6560. In granting a standing permit to remove stock out of the area, do you do it under the law, or under instructions which you have received ? — Under instructions. 6561. Chairman.^ How long would it take you to inspect every flock in your area? — More than three months. 6562. And how long to reinspect a second 'ime ? — I could only get through the whole of my area in 3i months. 6563 How long would it take you if you have other duties to attend to besides inspection ? — I reckon it takes me eight months to get througli the whole of my urea twice. 6564. As a matter of fact, you cannot inspect the stock ? — No, the area i.s too large, and every time -s^e bring on a prosecution is a loss of two day.i to us. When I took offici' as inspector I found rhere was a good deal of friction on account of the difficulty people had to get permits. Tiie act said they must fir«t apjily to the inripeetor, who toiild autlioripe the field-cornet to grant theiu, but seeing the nitticulties in the way of working this I granted a general power to mj" field-cornets to issue permits without asking me. and this has been continually done. The opponents of the act bring forward the question uf the difficulty of getting permits when they want them as a great objection to the act, but iu my area they have had better facilities than if there had been an inspector in each ward, who .would often, as inspectors have, to be away from home. Tho assistant magistrate here has always supported us. Mr. Arend Mofmeyr, scab inspector, examined. 6565. Chairma)i.'\ You are scab inspector of area No. 12 ? — Yes, fe.r two years. 6566. Do you ag-ree with Mr. Bowker's evidence, generally ? — Yes, pretty much. 6567. Do you consider the returns published in the Gazette of the operation of the s.'ab act to tho 30th lune, 1892, to be correct ? — 1 thought so Kt tho time. 6568. Since those returns were prepared, have you hwd an increase of scab in both g. ats and sheep ? — Yes, especially in sheep. 6569. What is about tho percentage now of infected sheep and goats ? — ^It is less now than it was a month ago, owing to the summer months coming on. 6570. Do you think there is more scab now than wlien you took over the inspectorship two ye;irs ago '? — No, very much less. I cfnisidor the fines imposed are too email. Tho other daj' a man defi( d the whole act, and I was put to all the loss of time and the expense of coming into the town to prosecute him, ai;d he was only fiuei 10 -, which I uuderstand was a lower fine than the law provided. If wo had had a more stringent act, with heavier fines, we should have done much m^re to (tamp out scab, but now many people prefer run- ning thfi risk, because thero is alwaj-s the p(>;-sil)ility if their getting off altogether, and if they are caught they h.-4ve only £1 to pay. On the otlirr hand, if thej- go to tho expense of dipping, they lose the dip and the animals aro not what they were before for slaughter. 6571. If sheep are jsroperly dipped on a fine day, do you think they would lose much in condition ? — No, I don't think they would lose anything at all. 6572. You think that is only an excuse ? — Yes. 6073. Mr. Botltu.'] What is the farthest extent of your area from your residence ? — I 270 am much more (cutr:il t)ifiTi ^fr. Tlo iker. From my residence to the limit of my area it is about eight hours to the south and four to the north. 6374. How many field-cornetcies have you? — Three, oue of which is in the town. 6.375. How many assistants do you employ ? — Only the three field-tvirnets. 6376. Have they to g^ve attendance whenever thej' are asked to do so by owners of stuck '?— No, I have never given a general right to inspect. I don't sign a voucher unless I have authorized them to go and gi-ant the pennit. 6377. But how do you manage w-ith a place eight hours from your residence, if tlie owner wants a permit, or to be inspected ? — He must ask or write to me, and I write back Hnd say I authorize the field-cornet to go if I cannot go myself. 6378. If a speculator or stock buyer airived on a place in the morning, and want'id to remove stock that da}', how would you manage ? — Then it is at the owner's risk and responsibilit}-, and he has to make the best of it, and apply to me as soon as possible, but it is certainly a difiieiilty. 6579. Is it ao insurmountable difficulty? — Yes, but I say that when stock are quaran- tined they must not be rem>ved until they are thoroughly clean, and the owner should not apply fur a permit until they are. But if he holds a clean bill he should be allowed to move. 6580. Out of his district ?— No, only within the district, and I think it would be a very good thing if possible to erase the words "within the limits of this area" altogether, and make it apply all over the country, provided the inspector has notice when stock is sold. 6581. What is the good of having an assistant in the neighbourhood if the party who wants his services must first come to you? — ^V^len they have a clean bill, I allow them to go with that and get a permit from the field-cornet. 6582. Then a fieid-iorne!: can act without your knowledge when the owner has a clean bill? — Yes, because field-cornets have granted permits when sheep have been under quaran- tine without going to look at them. 6583. But you can grant a permit of removal from one farm to another even with no clean bill ? — Yes. 6584. And you can substitute the field-cornet to do the same ? — Yes ; then I authorise him to go and inspect the stock. 6585. Can you tell us what is the additional expense in your area for the assistance of fii'ld-cornets or sub -inspectors ? — No. The one in town gets a salary, but I don't think the other two have run up to £12 a year for the wo together. 6586. What does the assistant in town get ? — I believe £12. 6.')87. Is it possible that the expenses for inspection in the whole district of Somerset might at any time have been as high as £1.000 or £1,200 per annum ? — T cannot say how it could be, unles? it wa-. just at the timi; of the census, when the field-cornets did the in.'pectoi-'s work while th y were busy with the censu>. 658S. Then you cm HI it make au estimate of what tue expense maj' have been in one year ? — No. 65811. Mr. Francis ] Is it a fact that, according to the letter of the law, you cannot give a field-coiTiet a standing order to grant permits, but that he must apply to you on every occa-iou } — I don't see where it comes in iu the act, or the inspector's regulations, that he may give this standing light. 6590. Does not the act say on every separate occasion ? — Yes. 6591. When a man has a clean bill, do you give hiui a standing permit to remove his stock out of the area ? — Not as a rule, but when people ask me, and I know their stock is generally clean, I do give them a standing permit. 6592. Are you aware that, according to the reading of the act, that is not correct .-' — It is in our regtilations. 6593. Chairman.^ Do you work according to the instructions, or the act itself? — I use both together. 6594. More by. the instructions than the act ? — Yes. 6595. Has the assistant inpector in town any special powers more than the field-cornet outside .'—Yes, so far that he may gi-ant a permit without my aut -ority, ■ :! 1 I don't dgn ii voucher for it. It is for the t.wu only, and mon- especially for natives and butchers. It often happens that I go and inspect a flock, especiaUj' sheep, and when I see that they aro perfectly clean with the '-xception of a little scab just beginning to come out on five or six of them, I have to quarantine the whoh; flock, but put down as scabby only those which are actually infected. Shortly aftei weirds a large number may have scab, and then people say the inspector's returns are incorrect. 'i5V'5. Then do you think it possible that there may be a troop of goats within five or six miles of the town more than h-^lt of which have scab ? — Yes, it is possible. They may be under quarantine. 6597. How long does it take you to inspect even flock in your area ? — Quito three months, and if I am delaj'ed by rain or anything, there will always be a few farms over- due. 6598. Do you inspec; all the farms in something over three inoutLs .'' — Yes. 6599. So you may not have visited this flock near the town for nearly three months ? — No, I have \isiied all the flocks round here during the dast two months, aud there was a g^eat improvement. 271 6600. So if ouo half of this flock is infected now, the whole must have been infected during the winter ? — Thoy may have been clean thou, aud scab may have broken out later, but it does spread rapidly in the way I explained. 6601. Has it come to your knowledge within the last few days that there is a flock of gouts within a few miles of the town, inspected by you shortly since, and now badly infected with scab ? — No. 6602. And you don't know if it is so ? — No, not in my area. 6603. Mr. Botha.'\ Are you living on a farm ? — Yes, about two hours away. 6604. Have you any small stock of your own ? — Yes. 6605. Who inspects them? — i do myself. 6606. Mr. Francis.^ Do you ever find scab in them ? — Yes, I am sorry to say I do, and I can account for it, because I cannot look after them properly. 6607. Mr. Botha.'\ Was the inspector before you also a farmer ? — Yes. Somerset East, Thursday, HtA December, 1892. Present : Mr. Fbost (Chairman). Mk. Botha, I Dr. Smartt, ,, DTJ Toit, I Me. Franois. Mr. Albert Spiers examined. 6608. Chairman.^ You are carrying on business here as a produce buyer ? — Yes, and a general merchant, for the last ten years. 6609. Will you give the Commission your views in regard to scab in skins ? — The first question put before me was that it has been stated that Somerset East is the worst district for scabby angora skins. That is acounted for in a great many ways. In the first place. Port Elizabeth is very fond of sending their scabby skins here to sell, and more than once we have been advised by our Port Elizabeth fi-iends to be on the look out for them, and when they have come we have naturally held off. Further than that, when merchants render account sales from Port Elizabeth they put down so many damaged skins, but you are not to assume that those are all scabby. When a goat dies a natural death, and is skinned, unless that goatskin is put through a very special process of salting to extract the blood, it is no use for tanning aud is only tit for glue ; and this is so well known to the trade that skins of that kind are also thrown out as damaged. During the last few months I take it that 90 per cent, of the damaged skins have been from animals which have died natural deaths. In my own opinion, taking tho skins from an ordinary all round farmer, the per- centage according to our experience would run 5 per cent, of scabby she^^pskins aud roughly speaking 7^ to 10 per cent, of angoras ; but it frequently comes less, because butchers' skins are picked. 6610. Are you personally aware that damaged skins are sent here for sale from Port Elizabeth ?— Yes. 6611. If a Port Elizabeth buyer tells us that he purchased skins from a large firm there by tender, and that out of something like 4,000 skins 2,000 were damaged, seven-eighths or more by scab, you would be rather inclined to doubt it ? — Yes. If he said by scab, other- wise I should put it down to dead skins. 6612. I don't say they came from Somerset ? — I can hardly understand it. I cannot believe it was an ordinary coUeotion of skins. My statements are not mere guess-work ; I took out statis'ics for about six months of our business a short time ago. We filled up a T'turn for the . i\il commissioner, and I took a preat deal of pains over it. 6613. Br. Hiiia/ttt.'] I take it you mean thiii t'le m jority of scabby skins in P )rt Eliza- beth are doliborately sent up for sale here by the merchants at Port E! zabeth, Ihjy paying the carriage 'i — Not the majority ; they do it, bdt it is done so quietly that you cannot tell when or how they are sent. 6614. Is rather a large bulk sent up ? — No, but it would make a diflferonce. 6615. Could you give us any approximate idea of the number ? — No, it would be im- possible ; but there are scores of traders who go about in wagons buying skins, and who perhaps send them from here. 6616. I take it that merchants in Port Elizabeth absolutely buy these skins in the Bay, sort them, and send them up hero for resale ? — No, that I cannot say. I simply say they do send and have sent damaged skins into Somerset East, and then we get warning of them. 6617. Port Elizabeth merchants? — Produce buyers, or someone connected with the trade there. 6618. What is their object ? — To got rid of tliem. They are only fit for the glue-pot. 66 U'. Do they think the produce dealers here are so foolish that they can ease off on them skins which have practically no market value in any other part of the world ? — I con- fidently beheve, though I cannot prove it, that it is done in other places besides Somerset East, in the same way as feathers are sent from Port Elizabeth to Graham's Town. 272 6620. You could not give tbe Commission proof of any individual oaso of such a thing having been done with skins ? — I don't think I could. Some years ago a parcel was offered to us, but we declined it at any jjrice, and the man who had the skins said, "Do give some- thing ; they have been sent up from tlio Bay to sell." The firm who offered it does not exist now. 6621. You could not trace any particular case during the last two years? — No, but I have been warned within that time to look out for them. 6622. Mr. Botha.'] In buying skins, can you always detect those which are affected by 80 lb ? — Yes. 6623. So you are in a good position to protect yourself from buying them ? — Uudoubt<'dly. 61324. Mr. Francis. I What becomes of the damaged skins which are sent here from Port EKzaboth to be sold ? — I could not say. 6625. If they were purchased by a merchant here, would they in all probability be sent down to Port Elizabeth again ? — -Undoubtedly, it is the only market. 6626. Consequently, if damaged skins were sent up from Port Elizabeth and sold here, and were sold again in Port Elizabeth, the merchant who bought them would have the opinion that a large number of scabby skins came from Somerset East ? — Certainly. 6627. Dr. Smartt.'] Could you give us any approximate idea of the number of skins which leave Somerset yearly ? — It would be next to impossible, because there are an enor- mous number of smouses in this district, and I suppose fully seveirty per cent, of the skins are bought up by thorn, and of course this is ouly the town of Somerset, and they pass through early in the morning and miss the town altogether. 6628. Have you any idea of the percentage of skins sent away from Somerset, made up in parcels and sent back here from Port Elizabeth, and again forwarded to that place from Somerset? — None whatever. Mr. Johannes Arnoldus Vosloo examined. 6629. Chairman.] You are a farmer living in this district ? — Yes, for eight years. I have about 1,460 sheep and goats. 6630. 1 understand that you and these other three gentlemen come as representatives ? — Yes, we are in favour of the repeal of the present scab act, and we were appointed to represent the views of those whj are dissatisfied with the act. and who are opposed to any scab act, because we don't think it will be of any use. 6631. Will you state your objections to the scab act? — The farmer is handicapped by thieves and wild animals, which makes it impossible to treat sheep for scab as they should be treated. We are obliged to kraal them, and of course that system is so favourable for the spread of scab that it is impossible to eradicate it. My own opinion is that if sheep could run hero as they do in other countries where pcab has been stamped out, we could stamp it out here also, but as we cannot do that, the effect of the act is so injurious that by and bye people will have nothing left. The working df the scab act in these parts is the cause of tlie increased oppusiiion, people being forced t < such au exteut. I will state a case in point where people have been treated very badly. Not long ago, a man took thirteen truck-loads of sheep to Witmos station, and they not only stopped the sheep there, but would not allow the owner to take them out of the trucks at Oradock, a place which is not in the area. If that had been aUowo ! the loss would not have been so great, as they had to go back to Hout Kraal station. Sheej) from outNide the area are perhaps put into trucks which have already become infected from carrying scabby wool or skins, and the same thing is done in the area, so the fact that scabby sh^ep are found in a truck is no proof that they were scabby before they were put in, and this illustrates the hardship which is caused by the bad administration of the act. The farmers see what injustice is done to others, and it makes them more opposed to the law. They consider that no more damage could have bf>en done it' the sheep I have just referre i to had been allowed to go on to their destination, especially as there is just as much scab betwoou Witmos station and Port Elizabeth as there is in Craduck. Even in this proclaimed area it appears to the farmers that the Government s. ts to work in a way to force the law ujaon the people, and the people are unnecessarily prevented fi-om doing business. It looks very peculiar that even in cases where a man's neighbour's sheep nre scabby, and his are clean, he is not allowed to .send hiB clean sheep to that neighbour's. If things are to be done with a view of eradicating ."cab, why not clean the scabby portions of the Colony before puttinj^ restrictions upon other stock coming in. I admit tliero are parts of the Colony where the scab act can be much better applied than in ray particular U'-ighboui hood ; for instance, between Queen's Town and Natal they have not to contend against the same difficulties as we have here, beciuse wild animals are not so numerous; they even have thii'vos, and Government is to be blamed for the existence of thieves. As for tlie appointment of inspectors, that is tlie cause of great discontent among- the people. They should not be appointed by the Government, but by the poojile who have an interi'st in tliem, and who know them ; ,iud there sh mid be more of them, ^o thiit in the case of removal of stock they could be ea.'^ily found. 6632. Did the .sheep travelling in the trucks bi come infected in thi trucks? — I don't; say they were, but they may have b>'ou. 6633. Tiion you believe scab to bo \m-y contagious? — Not so had as they sa}'. 6634. Then how is it you say it was possible for those sheep to have been infected with 278 scab when they had only heen in the trucks one day ? — They are packed closoly into the trucks, consequently the infection will take place much sooner by the hungry insect getting hold of the sheep. 6635. Then, as those sheep were only in the trucks a few hours, it must be rery con- tagious iiuloed to affuct sheep to such an extent as to be visible in that short time ? — As soon as tho insect bites the sheep, of course the sheep will suratoh, and you can see the insect. 6636. Then do I understand that, when the scab inspector examined those sheep at Witmos, he found the insect in the wool, but found no visible si^ns of scab on the body ? — There was nothing, as far as I know. 0637. If you saw a truck-full of sheep, and examined them, and found no signs of scab ■ Oil thom, would you examine them for scab to find whether there was any insect in the wool ? — I would not look so narrowly as those who are bent on finding faxdt, and who try to make things as diSicult as possible. 66 '.8. If you were buying a tiuck-load of sheep in that way, would you examine them for scab, or would an inspector, unless there were some ind'cations of scab? — No. 6639. You would first want to see some bare place on the sheep which led you to suppose there was scab ? — Yes. 6640. Do you thiuk the scab inspector at Witmos did not see these bare places in tho sheep before he examined them ? — I heard there was a fresh place. 6641. You know that any sheep arriving from an unproclaimed area into a proclaitned area must bo returned ? — That is the law. 6642. Do you thiuk it would be advisable to allow any sheep which may be scabby to come from an unproclaimed area into a proclaimed area on to your farm ? — I should have no objection to have scabby sheep driven into my kraal. 6643. How do you propose that inspectors should be appointed } — Sometimes the Government takes no notice of the recommendations of the divisional council, and I would propose that the divisional council should appoint them, because they know everyone in the district, and the Government does not. 6644. Would you recommend that there should be an inspector in every field-cometcy ? —Yes. 6645. Would that meet you as far as the working of the act in that respect is con- cerned .'' — It would do away with the objection to some extent. 6646. I unilerstand you are not in favour of a scab act at all ? — ^No, because it will not oflEect its object here. 6647. And you have no objection to scabby sheep coming into your kraals ? — The little good it does will not justify the expense, I would not object as long as my own place is infected. 6648. But supposing your own place had been free of scab for twelve months, would you object then ? — I have seen it reappear even after twelve months ; there are so many things they can live upon. 6649. I' I teU yi.u that the district of Komgha has been free of scab for some years, do you think it would be right that scabby sheep should be taken iuto that district ? — In a large district like that, it stands to reason they would have a right to complain, especially a district bo far advanced as you say Komgha is. 6650. If the scab act had been carried out on tho same lines here, don't you think scab would have be.u er dicated here al.so? — No, not here. It would destroy the stock. 6651. 2Ir. du TbiY.] When slaughter stock in transit on trucks is found scabby, do you think it should bo allowed to go on to its destination ? — Ye-, especially ai the same trucks carry scabby skin-' and wool. •> 6652. Just as much as skins are allowed to go from an unproclaimed area ? — Yes, they should also make some arrangement as regards that, more particularly as they come from a district whicli is not clean. 6653. Have you iotmd that scab is not so contagious as it is supposed to be.' — Yes. 6654. Have you any proof of that ? — Scabby sheep have often been mixed with mine for days, and aftme to inspect the stock, and ask me how many scabby animals there are, and if there is scab I simply say they have aU got it, and I think they report accordingly. In other cases I believe that jjerhaps wliere half the stock is infected tliey will say that three or four have fcab, because they ask the owners how many scabby animals they think there are, and that is why many people don't believe that the returns are correct. 6691. Chairman.'] Do you positively state that no scab inspector ever inspected your sheep ?— Not properly. 6692. In any way ?— They come and look at them, but they have never used a magnify- ing glass and convinced me that there was scab. They only catch the sheep and inspect them closely. They sometimes come once a year. Perhaps I get a licence for three months, and it is seven or eight months before they come again. The area is too large, and the inspector himself is too big a man. 6693. Mr. Francia.] What area do you reside in ? — No. 13. On one occasion, the day after I had properly dipped my sheep in lime and sulphur, the insjiector saw them and declared them to be scabby, and on making inquiry I found that he had seen them eai-ly in the morning when the sheep got up, and some scratched, as sheep will do at that time. Mr. Joachim Andriea Ueydenrich examined. 6694. Chairman.'] How long have you been farming in Somerset East? — .\bout thirty years altogether, but only two or three in this division. I have 2,500 sheep and goats. 6695. Do you agree with what the previous witnesses have said? — I do not thiuk that scab is < aused by an insect ; it is not all caused in that way, but the inspector has never ■hown it to lue, so I don't know it. Some seal) comes from steekgras and fi-om the tick, and unless the inspector has sufficient experience he cannot distinguish which is which. There is a disease similar to .scab, caused by fever, which no dipping will cure. I had 1,800 sheep, but by means of the scab act all but 250 were killed. That is why I am opposed to the act. Since the introduction of the scab act until now there has been a very large expenditure for the inspectors, but the farmers have not obtained a better jirice for their wool. The people of tlds country don't co-operate enough to carry out an act, and therefore it works badly. I have nothing to say against the insjiectors themselves, but they are not competent to understand the nature of shoep, goats, or scab, and although we have had thy scab act for five years, I don't see that it has improved the condition of scab one bit, and I go about a good deal. I don't farm \^^ith dirty stock. The tanks are impoifoct, but we can eradicate scab without any act or any expense. A great many tanks are too small to thoroughly scour the sheep, but if we improve our tanks we shall bo able to clean our sheep without any inspector, and save all the expense connected with the act. I formerly lived in an improdaimed area, wliero tlie fainiors mot and decided to clean their stock without any act ; we cleaned our sheep, and they are still clean, but th(! district remains an unproclaimed area. I sent stock from there to Somerset without any trouble for two winters. That was Cradock. 6696. 3rr. du Toit.] Could the scab act be amended so as to meet the object in view ? — The old scab act might, by which a man could send scabby sheep to the pound, and charge £10. 6697. Do you think that there are some inspectors who have no knowledge of scdb ?— I know one who had sheep dipped which were not scabby, and which died, because th^y were aifected with fever, or some other disease. 6698. If the farmers co-oporated with tho inspectors, could the act be carried out in this district y — I oauiiDt say. 6699. But when they co-oporatod without an act they eradicated scab ? — Yes ; it would be done if all the country co-operated. 276 6700. Consequently the scab act would be the cause of keeping scab in the country in- stead of eradicating it ? — Yes, the present act would, because it is unjust. 6701. Would it not be a great benefit to the farmers if a means were found to eradicate scab ? — There is a remedy, but the existing laws are not suited to the farmers. Mr. Juste Eagar Blennerhiisset examined. 6702. Chairman.'\ You are a produce dealer in Somerset ?— Yes, I represent Messrs. H. David & Co., and have been here 2i years. 670.3. You have been requested to give evidence in regard to skins ? — Yes, some that were sold last month iu Port Elizabeth. On the Sth November, 1892, I forwarded 750 angoras, 370 of which, weighing 1,483 lbs., were good skins, and 380 were declared damaged, weighing 1,072 lbs. Upon receipt of their statement, I wrote to ask our people in Port Elizabeth regarding this large quantity of dainaged skins, why they included pelts in what they called damaged. Their reply was " you are quite mistaken in supposing that the short-shorn angora skins and pelts are included in the damages, as they were and are always disposed of amongst the sound skins. The damaged skins consist of scabby skins." On the 29th November I forwarded again 729 angora skins, 389 of which, weighing 1,384 lbs., were disposed of as good, and 340 called damaged, weighing 943 lbs., were sold at 60 per cent, less than the price I received for the good ones. This was the case in both in- stances. Our correspondents in Port Elizabeth are Messrs. Adolf Mosenthal & Co. 6704. If these two sorts of skins had all been sound, they would aU have been sold together at the higher rate ? — All in bundles. 6705. Then you consider tho farmers of Somerset have lost sixty" per cent, upon these scabby skins ? — Yes, as the prices wUl shov, viz., in the first case i^A.. for the good and 2d. for the damaged, and in the next, 4Jd. for the good and 2d. for the damaged. 6706. Mr. du loit.^ Consequently you think there must be a great deal of scab in existence in this district ? — There is more than is rajjorted by the inspectors. 6707. Have you some returns of earlier sales during the existence of the scab act? — We forward a large quantity of skins every month or two, from which a large proportion has been returned as damagdd, but more last November than at any previous time. 6708. Speaking from memory, how would you compare the returns just given with former sales ? — Some produce buyers in Port Elizabeth to whom I spoke on the subject in February last told me that 33 per cent, of the skins are scabby the whole year round. I argued the point with him, and said it was impossible when our district shows we hare not 83 per cent, of scab. 6709. Has the scab increased or decreased here .' — I was not here before the act was in existence. Last year's returns of scab showed about 33 per cent., and this is 60 per cent. ; it has not decreased in this district since last year. 6710. Were the damaged skins aU scabby ? — Yes. 6711. Were not some of them torn, or damaged in some other way — perhaps from drowned animals ? — No, I wrote about that, and they said they were simply scabby skins, not neglected pelts. 6712. When goats and sheep die from cold and disease, are not the .skins full of blood, and in that way as defective as if they were scabby ? — I don't buy such skins. 6713. Dr. Sinartt.'] From your own personal experience, and the reports you have received from j'our representatives in Port Elizabeth during ^.i- years, are you in a position to give an emphatic denial to the assertion mace that only fi 3 j)er cent, of the sheepskins and 7i^ to 10 per cent, of the goatskins iu this division are r icted with scab, and that the percentage is very much higher? — Yes. 6714. Then you consider the statement made to us by pro Juce buyers in Port EUzabeth, that more scabby skins arrive from this district than from almost any other district in the Colony, may be correct ? — I won't say that, because I say it is impossible. 6715. Has it ever come under your observation that it is a practice to send scabby skins from Port Elizabeth to Somerset and sell them here, and send them back again to Port Elizabeth, thus swelling the percentage of scabby skins coming from here ? — Not a single instance has come to my notice, and I think it would be very foolish, because carriage would have to be paid on a lot of scabby skins from the Bay to here, and then again back to the Bay. 6716. You think there are very few foolish people of that kind in Port Elizabeth to send the skins, and fewer foolish shopkeepers here to buy them ? — Certainly. Mr. Marthinus Lombard examined. 6717. CAaerOTon.] How long have you been farming ? — 25 years ; eight in Somerset. I am also a speculator. 6718. Do you wish to give evidence with regard to the removal of sheep? — Yes. The diflSculty is I might possibly buy 400 or 500 sheep when there is no time to lose, and a month before they may all have been put under quarantine because there was a small spot of scab on one sheep, so that I cannot remove any of them without the permission of an inspector. Even if a farmer has a clean bill you cannot remove the sheep into another area : but here, m2 the inspectors have met us half way in that respect, and allow us to do it in opposition to the law. I have bought some lots which were perfectly clean and some not ; the clean I could not move without permission, 1 ut those which were not clean I could dip at once and remove, consequently there is more difficulty with the clean than with the dirty shoop. But I think this difficulty can be easily removed with the assistance of dipping tanks. For instance, there might be a dipjnng tank in Cradock, and when I was able to buy sheep beyond Cradock at a cheaper rate, I could take thom there, dip them, and send them on to be trucked. We want more insijectors ; the present number cannot cope with the work. In my neighbourhood there are several small farmers who have only a few sheep and who obtain all they require from the smouses, but owing to the absence of an inspector it is generally impossible for these farmers to do an}' biisiness with the smouses when they come tliere, or to obtain the necessar}' provisions, because the sheep cannot be removed even if they are clean. In regard to the magistrate, I am not in a position to state whether he has always done his duty, but I know of a very poor man, disabled in body, who owned a few hundred goats, and had to herd them himself and live by them. He broke the law and trekked without permission, was brought up, and I believe in that case the magistrate dealt very leniently. In my district scab is not very prevalent among goats, except from June to August. At that time I have seen nearly every farm scabby, but if you went to those farms now I don't believe you would find any, and nearly every farmer I asked said ho did not fjelieve that scab was contagious. I believe that scab and skin diseases are so mixed up that nobody knows the difference, and they are all equally injurious. 6719. If the law were altered, and the owner of stock who had held a clean bill for six months were allowed to move stock on his own permit, would it meet the case? — I think so. 6720. Then you would not object to the act .-' — No. 6721. Has the act done much good in this district? — ^It is not so bad as it was before the act. 6722. Br. Smartt.^ Do you consider it would reaUy be a calamity to this district were the scab act to be repealed m toto ? — I do ; but not for myself as a speculator. 6723. Are you in favour of a general scab act ? — I prefer a partial one, unless all the districts were prepared to accept it. 6724. Mr. Francis.'] Do you consider there ought to be much less scab now than in the month of June ? — It is getting better now in the summer months. Mr. Jan Johannes Vudoo examined. 6725. Chairman.'] Do you farm in this district ? — Yes, I was born here, and now live in the neighbourhood of Witmos Station. I have about 2,000 sheep. 6726. Will you give us any information you can on the subject of the sheep whioli were turned back at Witmos ? — Mr. da Toit's sheep were on the way to the Port Elizabeth market, from Hope Town, and when they came to Witmos they were stopped by the inspector, and de-trucked by his order, because one sheep was infected with scab according to his opinion. I saw the sheep myself, Init I could not see the scab. There were 360 sheep altogether, and I saw them after they were taken out. The inspector wanted to impound the sheep, but they had to cross the Fish Eiver to get there, and the river was down, so they remained at the station. The pound was also in the proclaimed area; 18 or 20 miles from Witmos. The owner wished to take them back to Cradock, about a mile, or otherwise to my tank, about three miles, but he was not allowed to. Then he tried to sell them, and Mr. Probert, who was also a kind of assistant-inspector, bought them for about £70 less than Mr. du Toit had paid himself. Tliere are two Mr. Proberts, one the inspector who stopped the sheep, and the other who bought them, and who is a field-cornet, acting I believe under inspector Bowkor. Then Mr. Probert re-sold some at the station to a butcher, and the others he took to his own farm near me, about 8 or 10 miles, crossing Mr. Jourdan's farm on the way, through a narrow, rugged bushy kloof, with steep mountains on each side, while from the station to the boundary of Cradock it is so level that it is used as a racecourse. The balance of the sheej) were sold to a Cradock butcher, and I have been told they were not dipped before being removed, and I am certain that the Witmos butcher did not dip them. A month after, there were still some left, although the river was not full all that time. The same day that the sheep wore taken from the trucks I crossed the river on horseback, and it was not very strong ; in five or six days' time the sheep might safely have crossed. I am altogether opposed to inspectors and a scab act, but I would not allow scabby sheep to trespass. My experience has taught me that the inspectors do more damage to the stock of the Colony than good. Farmers are brought up to the care of sheep. Mr. William Atmore, Chief Constable, examined. 6727. Chairman.] You are chief constable of Somerset East, and field-cornet of ward No. 1 ? — Yes, and tsmx^orary scab inspector. 6728. Do jou give permits for the removal of sheep ? — Yes, when natives move through, or butchers ar(i moving stock, so that there may always be somebody at the office for that purpose. If I go outside the town, I only do so as a field-cornet authorised by the inspector, 6729. Are the sheep in your ward much affected with scab ?— The town is pretty clean, hut on one or two farms close by there is a good deal of scab, both in sheep and goats. 6730. Have they been dipped ?— Yes, but they don't always make the dip strong enough. There is one rich farmer, a Mr. Nel, who fails in this respect, and he was brought 6731. How long have they been bad ?— Sometimes, through the efforts of the inspector they are got clean, and lately they have been improving, and now have a clean bill for the first time. I pas^ through once or twice a week, and I have not noticed any>cab lately. I think the inspectors ought to be present at the dipping of stock and see that the dip ia strong enough. In refereace to the field-cornets, I make out the vouchers '.for scab services, and eeS that they are properly certified, and during the last twelve months the actual amount paid for the two areas for five wards was t'25 5s., and, with the one I have included, the amount would be about £30 altogether. 6732. Mr. Botha.'] What distance does Mr. Connor live from Mr. 'lu Plessis of Zwager's Hoek ? — Twelve to fourteen miles. 6733. Mr. Bowker's farm where he resides, is near the town ? — Abaut four miles from here. 6734. Is not that in a corner of his area? — Yes, the very last farm. 6735. The p.ople you refer to as having scab, and not trying properly to cure it, live about an hour from here ? — Ye«. 6736. Considering that these places are so conveniently under the eyes of the authorities, if they are badly managed as regards scab, is it not much more necessary that places twelve hours from here should have somebody stationed at that corner of the area? — Mr. Connor lives there. 6737. But is it not very difficult country? — Yes. 6738. Considering the country, is not the position of the officers very inconvenient? — Yes. . , , ^ 6739. Mr. Francis.] You grant most permits for natives' small lots ?--Yes. 6740. Do thoy sometimes bring stock with a pass but without a permit ? — Yes, I had a case the other day, and the man was fined five shillings, and sold his goats for lid. a piece to pay the fine and the expenses. Mr. Alan Gardner Ba/vison, Superintending Scab Inspector, examined. 6741. Chairman.] You are the superintending scab inspector? — Yes, I was appointed in March, 1890. 6742. Previous to that were you a scab inspector? — Yes of area No. II, Bedford. 6743. When you handed over that area to your successor, was it free of scab ? — No, but as far as I can gather from the inspector's reports it was freer that it is now. 6744. How do you account for that ? — I think the cause is the leniency of the inspector, and another is the lenient fines imposed by the magistrate ; but I may add I found the area too large myself. 6745. l3o you think the present law is not stringent enough ? — The magistrates don't inflict heavy enough fines, but even the maximum fines are too light. 6746. How do you carry out j'our duties of inspecting the inspectors ? Do you give notice, or make surprise visits ? — At first I gave notice ; then days were appointed for the inspectors to be at home, and I sometimes took advantage of those days, but lately I have made surprise visits, and go through the district without an in.spector knowing anything about it. 6747. Do you inspect the inspectors, or the sheep ? — The sheep, as many flocks as I think necessary, or a certain farm. I take notes of the state of the sheep, and when I return home I compare it with the inspectors' diary or reports, and in this w.ay I fiud I can generally arrive at a just conclusion of how the work has been done., 6748. When you have made one of these inspections, how do you find that the reports agree ? — In the majority of the districts I find far more scab than the inspectors' reports show. 6749. Have you come to the conclusion that the returns submitted by the inspectors to Government are not correct? — Not in every case, because scab may have increased between he time of my visit and the inspectors' ; but there are many cases in which the reports are not correct. 6750. Do you ascribe this to the inefficiency of the inspectors ? — Yes. 6751. Do you think that they have too much work to do in every area? — Nearly every inspector in the Colony is overworked, with the exception of Komgha, Seymour, and Kokstad, and I think more inspectors should be appointed. 6762. Would the system of appointing inspectors in field-cornetcies meet the case better ? — No, every inspector ought to be independent, and have no other work but the inspections to carry on. 6753. You think if these areas were sub divided and properly worked by more inspectors, they could clean them in a very reasonable time ? — If the act were made slightly stricter, especially in regard to a three months' licence, which I consider the weak point in the whole act. I think an inspector should not give more than two months ; it should be left to his discretion to give any period he likes not exceeding two months, and with thf^t 279 licence he should g^ve orders to dip once in ten daya after its issue, and a second dipping^ within fourteen days after the first. 6754. I suppose you find, in most cases, the farmer who gets a licence leaves his sheep alone untU the time is nearly expired ? — Yes, that has been the practice. 675o. You think it is essential that in giving the licence the inspector should state that the sheep are to be dipi^ed within a certain number of days, and if that is not done that the farmer should be brought up under the act ? — Yes. 6756. Do you think the farmers as a rule dip their sheep properlj' ? — -No, I can safely say that 50 per cent, of them do not know what their tanks hold, and when they do they don't mi.K the dip strong enough, or keep the sheep in long enough. Every man who owns a tank should be required to keep a gauge and exhibit it to the inspector upon request, and the gauge should have every 25 gallons marked on it. 6757. Would it be advisable to introduce a simultaneous dipping act in connection with the scab act ? — I don't think you could carry out a simultaneous dipping in each district, because in some districts they shear later than in others, but I should advocate a general dipping, as simultaneous as possible. Some owners move stock from one district to another shortly after shearing, and if the period for dipping occurs shortly before they move, they may have to dip them again on arrival at their destination if it should happen that the time for dipping in that district was later than the other. 6758. Don't you think it would be well worth while to go to some considerable expense to carry out a system of dipping, and that the farmers themselves who shear at different times would meet the case in order to get a general dipping in November or December ? — If it could be done it would have very beneficial results. It was put in force in Natal, but could only be worked for two years. 6759. I only mean for one or two years ? — If it could be done for one year, as a trial, it would be a verj' good thing, if you could get the farmers to co-operate ; and any man whom the inspector considered unfit to dip by himself, shoiild dip under inspection. 6760. Have you any idea how many men it would require to supervise these dippings, and the expense ? — I could not say exactly now, but in some districts from two to four. 6761. Would six be enough in every district ? — Yes. 6762. What should tliey be paid for two months' work ? — By tariff, ten shillings a day, but not according to the number of sheep they dip, or they would hurry through the sheep to get the money. 6763. Do you think the Government would be warranted in going to that extraordinary expense in trying to stamp out scab .'' — Unless extra inspectors were appointed, it would be the only way to eradicate scab. 6764. You have lately been inspecting in the Transkei. How is the act working there .-• — In the one district I inspected, very well indeed ; the natives have dipped, and dipped properly, but then it has been done in every instance by traders, who build the tanks and dip the sheep at so much per hundred. This has been going on since July, 1891. 67C5. If that system is carried on, do you think scab will be eradicated there? — I don't think the traders would be as competent as sub-inspectors appointed by the inspector, be- cause the traders often mix the dip too weak. It should be done under inspection. 6766. Would the improvement in the Transkei be quicker then than it has been in the Colony ? — I am certain of it. 6767. I suppose you believe in a general scab act ? — Certainly. 6768. Unless the areas are extended, do you think it wiU be very difficult indeed to have very much improvement in the working of the act ? — If we had a well defined line in the Eastern Province, including those districts sending stock to Eastern Province ports, I think with good inspectors and a stricter act we could eradicate scab if no stock were introduced. 6769. Where could you draw that line ? — I would include in the area Barkly West, Herbert, Hope Town, Brit's Town, Victoria West, Beaufort West, WUlowmore, UniondaJe, and Knysna. I am going by those places from which the slaughter stock come. 6770. Would you allow any stock to come from the un proclaimed into the proclaimed area ? — Not on any condition whatever ; there ought to be a minimum penalty of £50. 6771. What provision would you make for those people farming in the north-western districts to sell their stock ? — They have their market in Capo Town. We never get stock from Carnarvon. 6772. But Johannesburg does ? — They would have to make some provision on the rail- ways for that. If the}' are cut off from their markets they wiU the sooner come under a general act. 6773. Would you aUow a farm or ward adjoining the proclaimed area to come under the act ? — No, not unless a large area came in. 6774. Do you think it would be dangerous to allow a single farmer to come in, if he was most anxious to do so ? — Yes, I think they ought to adhere to the line drawn in tha first instance. 6775. Should the Government erect a very subtantial fence on this line, so as to prevent stock trespassing ut any time ? — I hardly think that would be necessary ; individual farmers would do that if the fencing act were in force there. 6776. Have you found that to be the case now ? — In many instances along the Cradock border. 6777. Would they carry it out ?— I don't know ; I have not sufficient knowledge of th(^( 280 part of the country. If the Government were prepared to undertake that expenditure, I think it would be the best plan, but that is generally the outcry. It would be the best protection you could have. 6778. Do you think any improvement can be made in the appointment of inspectors ? — Certainly. I think the divisional councils ought not to recommend them : they should not be consulted in the matter. The magistrate's opinion might be asked, but I ought to have the chief say in the appointment, becau^a I have to work with the inspectors, and I am responsible for their acts. 6779. Do jou fiud that men are often appointed who are, at any rate, not very efficient as inspectors ? — I do. 6780. And you have no voice in the matter ? — Until lately I have had no control, but now they do sometimes consult me, and generally do not appoint without my approval. Tbe other day a man was appointed whom I consider to be thoroughly incompetent. In the Transkei my advice is never asked ; the native affiairs department appoint theii- own inspectors. 6781. Have they good and capable men there? — A few, but some are incompetent. One has recently been appointed who is incompetent in every way ; he has no knowledge of scab, of the ways of the natives or their language, and it requires tact and discretion to avoid irritating the natives. I should not have approved of his appointment. 6782. Do you fear that ill results will come of it ? — They would be much better for the act in that district, and he may quite spoil it. 6783. Mr. du Toit.~\ Do you consider the time you suggest would be long enough to clean a scabby flock, even in winter ? — I do. 6784. In some parts of the Colony would it not be too cold, especially if the sheep were in poor condition ? — In a month's time you would always get two fine days to dip, and that is all you would require. 6785. But would you always get two good days within a period of fourteen days ? — I think Bo. 6786. Would it not in some respects be inadvisable to give too much discretion to inspectors ? — -Competent men woidd not abuse the privilege, because if they gave a shorter period than one month, no magistrate would convict a man if the weather made it impossible for him to dip. 6787. Are you aware that there is often friction between inspectors and farmers ? — No, I am not aware of anything particular of that kind, but the farmers are not ready enough to complain of inspectors ; they will suffer a good deal before they will complain, because they are afraid at his next visit he may show his indignaticn. 6788. You would allow wool and skins to cross the border? — They should be dis- infected first, but I don't think there would be much trouble with that if my lino were adopted, because I have drawn it so as to hamper trade as little as possible, and they could deal with the Western Province either in wool or slaughter stock. 6789. But don't jou know that the northern parts of the Colony, such as Prieska and so on, send theu- wool and skins to Port Elizabeth .-" — Yes, in those cases the wool and skins should be first thoroughly disinfected. 6790. Cannot the sheep be disinfected too ?^Ye8, but they might break out again, and the wool would not. 6791. How would you disinfect wool ? — I have not had any experience in that, but if it cannot bo done I should not allow it to be introduced at all. 6792. Would }-ou force the act upon a portion of the Colony where the people are opposed to it .' — I should be opposed to p.oclaiming a general act if the Western Province were against it, because in that case it would have no more effect there than it has had here, and the western farmers would be prejudiced against it ; but if scab were eradicated in the area I have named, any Grovernment would be justified in forcing the act on them. 6793. Do you know of a kind of skin disease in sheep and goats, but especially in goats, which very closely resembles scab ? — I know of no disease in slieep which is similar to scab, but there is a fever which causes them to lose their wool. With goats there is scurf, but any inspector could detect the difference by finding the insect. I think scurf is only the first stage of scab. 679-1. Should the inspectors be provided with magnifying glasses? — They are all pro- vided with them, and those I have seen are large enough to detect the insect with. 679.5. Are you aware that this scurf is more prevalent now than :t was some years ago? — I hold it is only another name for scab, but some people will make any excuse. There is a certain skin disease in goats which has the appearance of scab, which can be rubbed off, but if it is the true scab and you rub the skin it becomes rough. You can always find out by examining. 6796. Can it be cured by dipping .^ — I think so, but if it is scurf I think that is more a blood disease. 6797. Is it just as serious as scab ? — No ; it is caused in many cases by poverty. 6798. It has been stated in evidence that it is more fatal than scab ? — Theu it must be 8 ab, but they won't acknowledge it. 6799. It was stated in evidence this morning with reference to the large number of scabby skins said to come from this district, that possibly they were nut all really atfectsd with scab, but with scurf? — I cannot say without examining them myself, l)ut many scabby skins must have been sent down from here, because there is a good deal of scab in this district, Last week I was through some parts of it. 281 6800. You don't know of any kind of scurf which is not scab, but is fatal ? — No ; if they die of that scurf it is poverty. With the bulk of them the scurf is really scab. 6801. Br. Smartt.~\ Do you consider it would be advisable that you should have more power than you have now ? — Yea. 6802. If you received more power, are you prepared to take the responsibility which would naturally accompany it ? — I am. 6803. You are prepared to be responsible for the working of the scab act either in the whole Colony or a portion of it ? — Ye». 6804. Under such circumstances, do you thiuk the dismissal of incompetent inspectors should be left entirely in your hands i — I think so. 6805. Have you found, upon investigation, that a great deal of favouritism is shown by inspectors at the present time '? — There is certainly too much shown. 6806. If an inspector knows that he has been appointed by the vote or support of a certain man at the divisional council meeting, should he find scab on that man's farm, is there not a great deal of temptation to be more lenient in dealing with him ? — Yes, with some inspectors there is. 6807. Do you think the present system of inspectors billeting themselves on farmers is a good one, and in many cases becoming under obligations to them ? — It is a bad system, but one which it would be very difficult to do away with. I think in many cases the act is better worked in native districts, where the inspectors have no friends, than in European districts. 6808. Do you think it a bad system that inspectors are appointed in districts where they are well known, and have many relatives and friends in their area .'' — That is one of the weakest points ; they ought not to have any friends, and should be strangers to the district. An inspector ought to be independent of any other work, and his salary should be sufficient to keep him ; and if he is found showing any favouritism, it should be in the power of the head inspecior to shift Ixim to another district. 6809. With these alterations, and your own powers increased, how long do you think it would take befoae you could eradicate scab from the proclaimed area ? — I think it could be done in three years. 6810. So that you consider the present inoperativeness of the act is due to bad legisla- tion ? — A g^eat deal of it. 6811. Would it be advisable to erect Government dipping tanks on the main thorough- fares within the proclaimed area at certain stations ? — I think it would be a very good plan, but if the inspectors carried out their instructions strictly there would be no necessity for it, because no scabby flock would travel at all. 6812. Would you alter the act so that, should an inspector find a scabby flock on the road, he should have the power to quarantine them, and that provision should be made at the nearest possible point for thoroughly cleaning the sheep ? — Yes ; I think it is most absurd to send the shoep all the way to the pound ; they may have to travel over several farms. 6813. Would it be a good plan to have portable dipping tanks at the head-quarters of each inspector to meet emergencies of this sort ? — There are portable dipping tanks in many districts already, but it would be just as well for each inspector to have one at his head- quarters. 6814. Would you have any sheep entering a proclaimed from an unproclaimed area provided they were dipped twice in a recognised dip, under inspection, quarantined for a month, and dipped again under inspection on the irontier before passing over ?— Yes, I object. I think everything ought to be cut ofP. If a line is drawn it should be adhered to hard and fast. 6815. Would it do away with a good deal of the friction which exists now if Govern- ment started a dip depot, and supplied dip at first cost, free of railway carriage, all over the Colony ? — I think the traders and storekeepers would object to it. It would be good for the natives, but I don't see the advantage for Europeans. Most Europeans are independent farmers, and are quite comjietent to buy their own dip, otherwise they should not bo allowed to keep their sheep ; but the natives are often incompetent to mix the dip properly themselves, and require authorised supei-vision. 6816. You would not feel inclined to make any provision for the poor classes of white farmers in districts like Humansdorp, Uitenhage, and even Somerset East ? — I don't see why it should be done. 6817. Mr. Botlia.'] Do you know that the present pay of some of the inspectors is insufficient for them to keep up that position of independence } — Yes. 6818 What do you think would bo a reasonable and sufficient salary .' — I think £300 a j'ear. 6819. How many inspectors would be sufficient for an ordinary district ? — Taking one district with another, I think joii would have to double the number of inspectors. 6820. Do you know that tne piosent insjjectors are not always appointed on the recom- mendation of divisional councils ? — Not always, but it was the rule at first. 6821. Don't you think the residences of the j^resent inspectors are not always so situated as to be convenient for the proper discharge of their duties .' — I am quite &itme of it. 6822. Does uot that apply ^pry forcibly t'l this district? — Yos, in Mr. Bowker's cuso. Mr. Hofmeyr has moved. 282 6823. These two inspectors were not appointed on the recommendation of the diviBioual council 't — I was not consulted in either of these appointments, although Mr. Hof meyr was appointed after I received this post 6824. Do you know that when the scab inspector had resig:n(>d, applioations were invited, and after a new inspector had been recommended by the divisional council, the man who had resigned was allowed to withdraw his resignation, and tlie now recominondation fell through } — I have no official information on the subject. I believe a telegram was sent to me saying that the man recommended by the divisional council was not considered to be competent, but I did not advise in the matter. 6825. But you are not in a position to say that the divisional cuuucil of Somerset East is responsible for the inspectors now holding office in this distiict ? — I have already said I had no information regarding any appointments in this district. 6826. With regard to certain trucks of sheej) sent back by you from Witmos to Hout Kraal, were you obliged to do this } — The act distinctly says they must be sent back to the place they came from. 6827. Under no circumstances were you able to treat with tlie owner of the sheep, and have allowed him to unload them much nearer if he could have got a place ? — No. 6828. Not if the first farmer beyond the proclaimed area was willinK to receive the sheep ? — I have nothing to do with whatever any farmer is willing to do ; I must abide by my instructions and the law, and section eight of Act No. 33 of 1888 provides that under such circumstances the sheep must either be impounded in the nearest pound, or sent back to the place where they came from. 6829. Then as you understand the law, you were obliged to send them back to Hout Kraal ?— Yes. 6830. If they had come 500 miles further, would the same rule have applied } — Yes, and I should have sent them back. 6831. Do you think the law on that point should be altered ? — I think it would be quite sufficient if they were sent into an unproclaimed area. 6832. If there is any report that you acted in that way because the owners of the stock became impudent, there is no reason for it .'' — Certainly not ; I could not have been treated better by any gentleman than I was by them. They admitted I was simply carrying out my duties. 6833. Mr. Francis.'] In the return for the area in which Pearston is, it says there was 1^ percent, of the small stock infected with scab in June last. We had it in evidence yesterday that at least 20 per cent, is infected. Which do you think is correct ? — It would be hardly right for me to express an opinion without seeing the stock, but I may say that in my annual reports for the last two years I have said that the small stock in that neigh- bourhood was badly infected. 6834. Would it be advisable to have a system of paid licences ? — Dipping under inspection would completely do away with that, because I think the inspector should be responsible for flocks that were not clean after the first licence. 6835. At present do all the inspectors receive the same salary ? — With the e.xception of one or two assistants. 6836. At the same time, you find a great differeiice in the way they carry out their work ? — Yes. 6837. Do you consider some difference should be made in inspectors' salaries, and that they should be classified ? — I do. 6838. At present the only punishment for neglect of duty is a reprimand or dismissal ? — When they stay more than two days at a time at home they can hive pay deducted for that time, but I don't know that it has ever been done. 6839. If they were classed in first, second and third salaries, with diiiereut r.ites of pay, would that not provide means to punish or reward them according to their abihties ? — Yes. The one great want is that inspectors should be admitte i to the fixed establishment of the civil service after five years' service. At present there is no inducement to an inspector, although he may be injured at any moment by a fall from his horse ; he is not treated as a civil servant would be. 6840. Can you carry out your own work as you would like to .' — No, especially in the Transkei. 6841. Would it be better if you had some assistance with superintending inspectors ? — I could carry out my duties in the Colony. The Government asked mo latnly whether I would rather have another superintending inspector or a clerk, and I asked for a clerk, but I could do my duties better if the Transkei were placed under another inspector. 6842. Do you find that there arc great complaints with regard to the difficulty of moving stock tmdor the present system ol permits ? — Yes. 6843. Would it be advisable to allow a man with a clean bill to move stock on his own responsibility subject to a heavy penalty if he could not prove that it was not wilful? — I think it would be a better plan to make the owner responsible ; it wou d be very difficult to attach the onus to any inspector. I tliink the proposal would do away with a great deal of the objection to the act, but the stock should not be allowed to bo moved until they had been cleaned at least six weeks. It is for the want of this precaution that so many out- breaks occur. 6844. As far as you know, do the inspectors receive any assistance from the police ? — Very little ; only in Komgha, so far as I can remember. [G. 1— '94.] 00 283 6845. If a large number of inspectors were appointed, and scab was partially eradicated, could not a good many of them be dispensed with after a time? — When scab is entirely eradicated. 6846. Dr. Smartt.'] If it should be contemplated to introduce a now act, would you suggest that before it was promulgated all inspectors should receive notice that their services would be dispensed with on a certain date, but all would be eligible for re-appointment ? — Yes, and I consider a great many would have to go. 6847. Would you be in favour of protecting a careful farmer in an unproclaimed area, who had clean stock, if he placed a notice on the public thoroughfares across his farm that his flocks were free of scab, and allow him to prevent any scabby sheep passing over his property ? — I don't see very well how you could carry it out, because it might be the only way the stock could travel, and the whole of one side of the district might want to trek along it. 6848. Chairman.'] Is there anything you would like to add ? — With regard to Mr. Brown's dismissal at Cathcart, whick I presume was done upon my recommendation, I should like to say I was not informed of it by Government until after I had received two letters from private individuals applying for the post, and I then wired down to know whether the information I had received was correct. I consider that any important com- munications to inspectors should pass through me, so that I may know what is going on, and I know for certain that some important matters have been sent direct to the inspectors. Bedford, Friday, 9th December, 1892. PRESENT : Mr. Fbosi (Chairman). Mr. Botha, I Dr. Smartt,. ,, DU ToiT, I Mr. Francis. Mr. Oeorge Bennett examined. 6849. Chairman.] Have you been appointed to come hereby the Afrikander Bond ? — No, our meeting will not be held until next week. I come as a sheep farmer. 6850. Are you farming in the district of Bedford ? — Yes, for 48 years ; I have between 2,000 and 3,000 sheop. 6851. Ten years ago was there much scab in this district ? — Yes'. 6852. Did it increase until the scab act came into force ? — It continued about the same. 6853. Did you find any difference after the act had been in force a year or two '? — No. 6854. And now ? — We are quite as bad as when we started, because we have no act ; it is no act at all. There are so many loopholes to creep through that it is impossible to keep down scab ; but if there were a general act throughout the Colony we might eradicate scab. 6855. Then unless the .scab act is made general, you think it is almost valueless? — It is no good at all unless it is general, and then the Free State and Transvaal must join us. 6856. We have it on evidence that since the act has been in force the stock in the Bedfoi d district has vei-y much improved ? — I have not seen it, and I can prove that during this last winter there was as much scab as before the act in the Mankazana ward. 6857. Do you attribute that to the laxity of the inspectors, or to what ? — There are not sufficient inspectors in the first place. Secondly, you may clean your sheep to-day, and your neighboui-'s sheep may reinfect them to-morrow, and you will have the same work to do all over again. 6858. If there were a general scab act, would it be advisable to have, in conjunction with it, for the first one or two years, a general compulsory dipping act ? — Certainly. 6859. Do you think the farmers in your ward dip their sheep properly ? — That is a hard question to answer. I think there is some very slovenly dipping going on, and that many farmers don't keep their sheep the proper time in the dip. 6860. Holding that view, do you think it would be advisable to have sheep which are improperly dipped by farmers dipped under compulsion ? — If there is a general act, but not otherwise. If there is a general act it might be done for a certain number of years, to see if scab can be stamped out. 6861. If the sheep are properly dipped, do you think you could stamp out icab ?— If there is a general act I think it is possible. 6862. And if these sheep were thoroughly dipped, do you think scab would be stamped out ? — I think so. 6868. Are there many native locations in your ward ? — Yes. 0864. Do they dip properly ? — No. 5865. Do they make the dip at its proper strength } — As a rule they don't buy any dip at all ; they wait till the master has finished, and dip in whatever is left. 284 6866. But if they did that, would it not be the- proper strength? — Not if they dip once. They never bring the sheep a second time to the tank. 6867. As you are so strongly in favour of a general act, I suppose it would be no use asking you anything about drawing an extended line, as you would not be in favour of drawing any line anywhere? — No, nor of the amondmeut of this act. 6868. But supposing a line had to be drawn, do you think the farmer whose farm is thoroughly clean should be protected to the extent of being allowed to prevent any scabby stock passing over his farm upon main wagon roads, or in any other way ? — Yes, not even scabby wool or skins. 6869. Tou believe the disease is so contagious? — Yes ; taking the trouble he does he should be protected. 6870. Do you agree with the way the inspectors are appointed ?^No ; I would like to see an inspector in every ward — a good, practical man, not just a young counter- jumper. 6871. Would it also be advisable to have an inspector over the division ? — I don't think so ; they have the magistrate. 6872. Do you think these inspectors would do their duty without any supervision at all } — If they were practical, good men. I think you could find such men. 6873. I suppose one of the great faults in the working of the act is the system of permits for removal of stock ? — No, the great difficulty a farmer experiences is that he goes to the expense of cleaning his sheep, and the next day they are mixed with scabby sheep again. 6874. But still, there has been a great outcry from farmers that they could not get an inspector to give them a permit when they wanted to remove sheep, and if that difficulty were obviated a good deal of the friction between farmers and inspectors would be removed ? — I have heard that. 6175. Would it be advisable to allow farmers holding a clean biU of health for six months to remove stock on their own responsibility, under a penalty ? — I do. 6876. Would that meet the difficulty ?— Yes. 6877. Mr. Francis.'] Suppose your sheep became infected with scab, how long do you think it would take you to clean them thoroughly } — I think a month. 6878. Then do you think a licence for three months is too long ? — Too long altogether. 6879. How long would you suggest ? — I don't think it should be more than a month, but there would be a great difficulty if scab broke out when your sheep had a nine or twelve months' fleece on them, because if he dipped them the farmer would think his whole twelve months' clip will be spoilt, and he would also have to use almost twice as much dip. 6880. Would you give a certain discretionary power to the inspector to grant from one to three months' licence ? — Yes. 6881. Are the tines generally imposed sufficient to deter a man from breaking the law ? — No. P882. Have instances come to your knowledge where a man preferred to break the law and be fined rather than carry out the law ? — Yes. 6883. Then would you be in favour of a system of paid licences .'' — Under a general act. 6884. Do you think it would be advisable to give a man the right, under any new act, to remove scabby sheep to the pound ? — No. 6885. What should a man do with scabby sheep trespassing ? — Report it to the magis- trate, and the owner should be compelled to pay the expenses in connection with that man's dipping, and getting scab out of his place again. 6886. Should the person seizing the sheep dip them at the owner's expense ? — Yes, and his own too. 6887. WouH you have public dipping tanks on public roads ? — No. 6888. Should the Government supply dips at cost price, earriage free ? — I believe it would be a good thing. 6889. Should two landowners in an unproclaimed area be allowed to give a certificate for the removal of sheep into a proclaimed area } — I would not do it. 6890. Have you known any instance of one farmer summoning another for damages for trespass by scabby sheep ? — No. 6891. Have your sheep ever became infected by the sheep of others trespassing? — I dare say they have. 6892. And you took no action in the matter ? — No. 6893. Mr. Botha.] How many field-cornetcies are there in this district ? — Six. 6894. What amount would be sufficient to pay ior an inspector in each ward, provided he had to inspect every farm in the ward montlilv, and be a practical man .' — I think £100 a year, if it is a general act. 6895. Br. Smartt.] If it is found impossible to include the Transvaal and the Free State, would you still be in favour of a general act for the (Colony, provided there were ports of entry on the frontiers, with grazing places and strict quarantine ? — As long as their produce is not allowed to come through at all. 6896. I take it you consider that a great deal of the dissatisfaction with the present act is in consequence of the inefficient way some of t'le inspectors carry out tbeir duties ? — It is not that ; they can't do it, 00 2 385 6897. Would you be in favour of inspectors being appointed in field-cometcies from farmers holding clean bills ? — I would. 6898. You tbink if his own stock were clean he would be more likely to see that the ward was kept clean ? — Yes. t'899. Who would you suggest should recommend the appointment of such inspectors ? — The inhabitants of the ward. 6900. Do you mean everybody on the divisional council list, or the owners of small stock ? — All stock owners in the ward. 6901. Wou'd you allow sheep from outside the border to pass into a proclaimed area if they were dipped twice under careful inspection, subjected to quarantine for one month, and dipped again on the frontier, also under inspection, before they passed over ? — I would not have them in at all. 6902. Mr. du Toit.^ Do ,you believe that scab is caused by an insect .'' — I do. 6903. Are you aware of a skin disease caused by fever, or some internal insects ? — No. 6904. Can you cure scab in the winter, when the flocks are in poor condition, in just as short a time as in summer ? — No. 690.5. Then would you require more than a month in the winter? — It all depends on what part of the district it is, because if you dip sheep up in the mountains in June, July or Aujiust when they huve long wool, you stand a chance of losing half of them. 6906. What would you suggest to remedy that evU ? — I could not suggest anything; it is a difficult question, becnuse a flock might appear dean and may break out just about that time, when they are in Idw condition, although you have dipped them twice. Then a fall of enow may come, and you may lose half your flocks. 6907. Woidd it be best to leave it to the discretion of the inspector ? — I woull in that case. 6908. Maj- there not be some danger that, in consequence of friction between inspectors and farmers, some inspectors may make a bad use of that discretionary power ? — Not if they are the proper men. , 6909. What countries have stamped out scab entirely ? — In England, America, France and Australia all the scab has been stamped out, and according to different people's state- ments, the climate of Australia is very similar to our own, and I believe it has been done there. 6910. In Komgha and King William's Town we have seen that scab has been almost entirely stamped out. Are you aware whether it is so ? — I have seen no farmers from there, and I don't know anyone from there, so I cannot say anything about it. But I don't believe it. 6911. Would you force a scab act upon a portion of the Colony which is thoroughly opposed to it ? — If two-thirds of the Colony were in favour of the act I should, decidedly. 6912. Have you any idea how long the atarut can live on bare ground, or iu kraals ? — I have no idea. 6913. Have you known of any cases, from your own experience, where clean flocks have become infected by simply going on the veldt where scabby sheep have trekked ? — I have seen them become infected within five days. 6914. Have you ever seen, where there are a couple of infected sheep in a clean flock, that they have been cured by hand dressing and that no further outbreak has occurred in that flock ? — I have never heard of it. 6915. Then if scabby sheep mix with a clean flock, if only for a couple of hours, you believe it would have bad results '? — Of course it would. 6916. How would you ascertain what proportion of the Colony was iu favour of a scab act ? — I would give one vote to each stock owner. 6917. Mr. Francis.'] Is it a fact that sheep infected with scab are far more liable to perish in cold raias than if they are clean ? — Yes. 6918. Consequently, if they become infected in the depth of winter, and the scab is allowed to go on without dipping, there would be a great risk of losing a large number of them ? — There would be a risk. 6919. With regard to the discretionary power to inspectors for a first licence, don't you think all fear of partiality might be avoided by giving an appeal to the resident magistrate ? — Certainly, I approve of that. 692i). Takiug into consideration the loss the Colony sustains from scab, both in skins and wool, do you think the Government would be justified in spending a large amount of money for two or three years in order to endeavour to stamp out scab ? — I should say for five years. We should be repaid for it. 6921. Mr Botha.'\ Don't j^ou think you would be able to get ward inspectors for less than £ 1 00 ? — Suppose a man has a couple of flocks himself you must make it worth his while. No decent man would take the billet for £50 or £60 ; it would not pay him. It would be better to pay a good man and be done with it. 6922. Chairman.'] Is there anything else you wish to say ? — Only that if there is a gonf>ral act, the inspectors should give notice the day before they aie coming to see the sheep, so that the flocks may be got into convenient places. 286 Mr. Louts Norton examined. 6923. Chairman.'] Are jou farming in the Bedford district ? — Yes, for 18 years in the Mankazana ward. I have 1,400 sheep and goats. 6924. Do you agree with Mr. Bennett's evidence ? — On many points. 6925. On what points do you differ? — In th*^ first place, I don't agree with keoping all produce out of the Colony from the Free State and Transvaal, such as wool and skins, under a general act. 6926. "Would you keep stock out } — Not if they were quarantined and properly dipped at the ports of entry. I don't believe in a general scab act at present ; I think Government must protect us first, and now we have to kraal our sheep on account of native squatters stealing stock. 6927. Are those squatters on Government ground? — No. on private ground. 6928. How can the Government interfere with private farmers having .squatters on their ground .-'■ — I don't know, but they steal our stock. "We must have our stock protected some- how, and do away with the private locations. 6929. If the private locations were done away with, and there were no squatters on farms, do you think the stock stealing would cease .-' — Certainly, in large numbers, but it will never cease altogether as long as we have a Kafir servant, because one's own herds slaughter them. 6930. Is not this question of native locations far more in the hands of the farmers than of the Government ? — No ; I live in amongst native locations, and I have no power. It is the farmers themselves who are keeping the locations. 6931. Then how can the Government interfere ? — By legislation. "We are trying now to take steps to clear them out under the present law. I did not know that the question was in the hands of the farmers themselves. As regards scab, when a few spots are showing among a flock, you can stamp out the disease without dipping. I have seen it done myself. fi932. "Would you object to a partial act, it a general act were found imposnible, under quarantine regulations ? — Yes. 6933. Do you think the farmers in the proclaimed area would be perfectly safe if it were properly carried out ? — Yes, but that would be the difficulty. 6934. Do you think the pay of inspectors in field- cornetcies might be less than £100.' — I think it might be fi-om £75 to £100, but I believe in paying them well. Mr. .John Rennie examined. 6935. Chairman.'] You are a farmer in Bedford ? — Yes, for thirty years. I have two or three thou":and sheep. 6936. On what points do you agree with the previous witnesses ? — I agree with a general scab act, but if that is impossible I would take a partial one,' under strict regulations. I don't know where the line shoxild be drawn, and I would not allow any stock to come into the proclaimed area. 6937. If sheep were properly dipped two or three times on the border, under inspection, and quarantined a certain time, don't you think you might allow them to come in ? — No, if they don't want the act, let them remain outside the area. 6938. "Woiil \ it be advisable to have a general simultaneous dipping act in the pro- claimed area iu ^j.^ujaucdou with a scab act '? — For two years. 6939. "Would farmers who have held clean bills for two or three years object to dip '? — - I don't think ttey would. 6940. Do you agree with the system of inspection, and the appointment of inspectors ? — I don't see a better waj-. 6941. Are there sufficient inspectors to carry out the act properly? — Not for the first two years. 6942. "Would you have one in each ward ? — Yes, and I think £100 would be. a good pay. 6943. In case a line were drawn, would you allow a single field-cornetcy or even farm adjoining the area to come under the act } — Yes. 6944. "Would you protect the (iwner of clean sheep on a farm in the unproclaimed area by giving him power to prevent scabby sheep crossing his farm ? — Certainly. 6945. Generally speaking, do the farmers dip properly ? — The majority do, but not aU. 6946. Have you any native locations in your neighbourhood with stock ? — ^Not very near. 6947. Do the natives dip their sheep properly ? — I don't know anything about the native locations, but the farmers who dip properly havn their natives' S'leep dipped at the same time, and if the natives won't do it, the farmers do it for them. 6948. In cases where it is known to the inspectors that a farmer does not dip properly, should those sheep be dipped under inspection ? — Yes. 6949. Is the reason why scab is so constantly breaking out in some farmers' flocks because they don't dip properly ? — Yes, and the quarantine regulations are too long. I believe the quarantine regulations have killed the act. The time should not be longer than six weeks for the first licence, and afterwards, if the sheep were not clean, the farmer should 287 pay for another licence, and if they are not clean after that he should be heavily fined, and the sheep dipped under inspection. 6950. In case a farmer has held a clean bill for six months, would you allow him to remoye sheep on his own permit, subject to a heavy penalty ?^Ye8, that would meet the difficulty. 6951. Mr. Francit.] Are the fines at present imposed ■sufficient to deter a man from breaking the law ? — No, they are inadequate ; a man might often prefer the fine. 6952. Is the two landowners' certificate a fault in the act .' — Yes. 6953. Have the farmers here generally done their best to assist the inspectors ? — I think so. 6954. If there is an inspector in each ward, should there be a superintending inspector to see that their duties are properly performed? — I think so. 6955. If wo have a proper act properly carried out, do you think we could eradicate scab from the country ? — I think scab can be eradicated. 6956. And that it would be a benefit to the whole country, even if a large expenditure were incurred during the next two years in destroying it ? — Yes. 6957. Is infection often carried about by shearers ? — I cannot say I have noticed it. 6958. Mr. du Toit.'] Is there less scab now in Bedford than there was when the act came in force } — Yes. 6959. Although the act is very partial, and has not been carried out as thoroughly as it should have been, you think the Colony has derived much benefit from it ? — Very great benefit. 6960. Have you sometimes found that a couple of sheep have had small spots, amongst a clean flock, and that by hand-dressing them you have prevented its spreading ? — I once cleaned a flock myself in that way. 6961. Then you don't think scab is as contagious as it is said to be ? — It is a very con- tagious thing. I don't pretend that it is not. 6962. If a clean flock simply goes on the veldt where scabby sheep grazed a few days previously, would the clean flock run the risk of infection ? — Yes. 6963. Br. Smartt.'^ You don't think hand-dressing would be a safe principle to go on if we wish to eradicate scab .'' — Certainly not. 6964. Would you be in favour of giving the superintending inspector a good deal of power, and of making him responsible for the working of the scab act ? — Yes. 6965. Then would it not be fair to such a man to give him some control over the appointment of the inspectors who work under him f — I think it would certainly work better. 6966. Mr. du Toit.'\ Have you heard that poor people suffer hardships from not being able to barter stock for meal and other things because they are under quarantine ? — I can't say I have heard of any case in my neighbourhood. I have heard of cases far away, but I don't know whether they were correct or not. 6967. Do they barter in that way in your neighbourhood ? — Very seldom. 6968. Mr. Francit.'] Is it a well-known fact that when sheep are in good condition, with long, yolky wool, tlie acarus has great difficulty in pasiing through to the skin and causing visible scab, whereas when the sheep are in low condition and the wool dry, it acts much more rapidly ? — It would seem as if it acts more rapidly when the sheep are in poor condition. 6969. Mr. Botha.'] If we had another superintending inspector, who lived in Graaff- Beinet or King William's Town, or some other place, and did not know Bedford, do you think he would have been in as good a position to select and appoint inspectors for Bedford as the local flock owners ? — I presume he would not put a lot of names into his hat and take out one at random, but that he would get information from people in the district. 6970. Does it not stand to reason that, if the people do practically recommend these men, they should take the responsibility of thoir recommendations ? — If the superintending inspector found a man was unsuitable, he could suspend him. 6971. Then you think it reasonable that he should make inquiry from the people in the district who do know ? — Certainly. 6972. Br. Smartt.] Do you know of any cases where inspectors have been appointed under the present system, in which individual friendship has been the cause of their obtaining their appointment, and not their fitness for the position .-" — I don't know of any case. 6973. But do you think such a thing is possible under the present system? — It is possible. 6974. Is it probable ? — ^Yes, probable. 6975. Mr. du Toit.'] Would you not allow holders of clean bills to hand dress until the next shearing if there were no outbr.^ak of small spots on his sheep when the wool was long? — They are allowed to do so now at the discretion of the inspector, and I would allow that. Mr. Andries Breyer examined. 6976. Chairman.] Where are you farming ? — In Fort Beaufort, the last two years. I have 1,600 sheep. 6977. Are you a delegate from Fort Beaufort ? — ^Yes, from the Winterberg branch of the Afrikander Bond. 288 6978. Will you state what you have been sent here to represent from that branch of the Bond ? — -In my neighbourhood there are differences in the circumstances ; some farmers live in the low country, and some in the high country in the mountains. Some have low veldt to which they move their flocks in the winter, and back to the high veldt in the summer, and in case scab breaks out there is the difficulty of removal, and there is also a, difficulty in dipping, on account of the climate. When a man moves fi-om a low to the high veldt, and is quarantined, he cannot get back again, and is obliged to dip there, and the danger is that after the first dipping the sheep fall off in condition, but as they have to be dipped a second time before they can be removed they remain too late in the season on unhealthy veldt, and there are heavy losses. The same thing applies to both winter and summer. Another way in which the scab act often causes great difficulty, and perhaps loss, is having to dip ewes that have lambs. The ewes lose their milk, and the lam\»8 suffer in consequence. 6979. Mr. Botha.'] Do you think the farmers are a good deal to blame for the way they dip the ewes you refer to, and that if mixed and applied properly the dip would cure the scab without hurting them } — No, because it affects the stomach, and reduces the mUk. 6980. Br. Smartt.'] Then are you against a scab act in any shape or form .?— Yes, because of the thievinj?, native locations, bad servants, and other difficulties. 6981. Do you believe that dipping has any effect in diminishing scab ? — It keeps it down under certain circumstances. 6982. If there were no act, would you as a rule dip your sheep ? — I dipped before there was a scab act, but I did so when it was convenient, and I knew it was the proper time. 6983. Do you think there are any farmers in the district of Fort Beauiort who would not dip their sheep if there were no act ? — I don't know any such farmers. 6984. Mr. du Toit.'] You don't think the act could be amended so as to do away with your grievancei ? — The present time is not suitable for a scab act ; we must first have other laws to protect the farmers better. Mr. Jihrahatn Cottzee examined. 6985. Are you a farmer in Fort Beaufort .?— Yes, for fifteen years. Since last year I have only been farming with ostriches, owing to the difficulties I experienced with sheep, but I have been appointed to come here by our branch of the bond because I understand sheep farming. 6986. Do you agree with Mr. Dreyer ? — Yes, in every particular. 6987. Is there anything you would like to add? — Although I am not a stock farmer, I can see as an agriculturist that the present scab act is injurious to the Colony. As producers of grain, we might go on togt amongst the stock farmers, and barter our grain, by which we should benefit the stock farmers as well as ourselves, but the act presents so maiiy difficulties that we are obliged to give it up, and that does harm to all parties. Even young beginners are prevented from making use of otherwise good opportunities to carry on their business, therefore I am of opinion that it lias an injurious effect upon the community in general. As for the present decrease in scab, there is nothing of the kind in the Fort Beaufort district. At first, both the English and Dutch speaking farmers, and all large stock owners were strongly in favonr of the act, many of them thinking it would be a boon, but they are now convinced that none of their expectations have been realised, either in stamping out the scab or getting a better price for their wool, and that on the contrary the act has only increased their difficulties. The best farmers will admit that their stock has decreased since the introduction of the scab act. To be successful, a farmer requires perfect liberty, but under existing circumstances the scab act is unbearable. 6988. Dr. Smartt.'] Do you desire to tell the Commission that the decrease of stock in the Fort Beaufort district in the last six years is due to the operations of the scab act .' — Yes. 6989. Alone ? — I will not say the scab act is responsible for everything, but in most cases it has something to do with it. 6990. Will you believe it if I tell you that there is another district which is not under the operation of the scab act which has less sheep now than it had six years ago in conse- quence of sickness ? — I was going to explain, when I was interrupted. I will not !-ay the scab act is the only cause of the drawbacks to sheep-breeding. There is such a thing as wire-worm, and there are other diseases ; but it is principally due to the scab act, and I can prove that by referring to its effect on the lambs. . The scab affected my ewes in winter, and when I would have undertaken to hand-dress, I was ordered by the inspector, accord- ing to his duty, to dip them, and the result was a decrease in the number of the ewes, causing me a great loss in lambs. I must believe what is told me about that district, because I don't know anything about it. 6991. Mr. Francis.] Did you have the locusts in the Fort Beaufort district last year, before the winter ? — Yes. 6992. Did they not greatly damage the pasturage there ? — Yes. 6998. Did not that greatly injure the small stock in the district? — Naturally. 6994. Have the small stock in the Fort Beaufort district been infected with wire-worms the last few years ? — Yes. 6995. Did not that cause great losses in stock ? — Certainly. 5996. Do you know that in some parts of the Cathcart district, through these causeB, at least 50 per cent, of the lambs have been lost this last year ? — ^I believe it. 289 Mr. Thennis Christoffel Botha examined. 6997. Chairman.'] You are a farmer in the Fort Beaufort district? — Yes, for 44 years. I have 1,800 sheep. 6998. Do you agree with the two previous witnesses ? — Yes, but I should like to make one point more explicit. Our ewes lauib here in April, and at that time they have long wool, the weather is cold, and if they are dipped they would have to stand all night with wot wool, which is extremely injurious to them. I am opposed to an act of any kind. 6999. Mr. du Toit.] You don't thiuk the act could be amended so as to take away j'our grievances ? — No, not under the present circumstances. Bedford, Saturday, IQth December, 1892. PRESENT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. ,, DU ToiT. Dk. Smartt. Mr. Francis. Mr. Mills Knight, scab inspector, examined. 7000. Chairman.'] You are scab iuspoctor for area No. 117 — ^ Yes, for nearly three years. 7001. When you took over this area, was it comparatively free of scab .? — Yes, there was not very much. 7002. And now ? — Just at present there is a little improvement, but a couple of months ago there was a good deal of scab in the district. 7003. To what do j'ou attribute the outbreak of scab at that time ? — It is in the winter, and farmers are very reluctant to dip their sheep with long wool, and resort too much to hand dressing. 7004. Was any large number of stock brought in from any other district during the winter? — No, perhaps little lots came in. It is principally the Kafirs who come in with small lots from Cradock, and sometimes from Somerset. 7005. Are these small lots generally free of scab ? — They are not always infected, but they often come in without the necessary certificate, and in some instances are scabby. 7006. Do those who bring passes have permits signed by landowners ? — Yes, residing iu Cradoek. Those coming from Somerset are as a rule protected by a permit. 7007. If the importation of sheep iuto this area bad been stopped altogether, do you think you would not have had such a serious outbreak last winter ? — I don't attribute it to that. I don't think there is nearly so much harm done by stock coming in from unpro- claiined areas as some people imagine. The most harm is done within the area by one farmer's sheep infecting auother'.s, though I don't say that sheep should be allowed to come in, on the contrary, I think they should be stopped. 7008. Do you think a fair time is now allowed for cleansing sheep? — No, it is too long. I would suggest a month. 7009. Could J'OU clean a tlock of sheep of scab within a month ? — Not at all seasons in the winter ; but some arrangement might be made for the renewal of the licence if the circumstances warranted it. In a case of that sort, I would suggest that if a man refuses to dip, the inspector might call upon one or two farmers residing in the field-cornetcy to inspect the sheep, and let them decide what he should do, because it is a responsible thing for an inspector to order a man to dij) his sheep, perhaps at the risk of great loss. 7010. Do you think an inspector would insist upon any farmer dipping his sheep if the weather was so bad or the stock were in such miserable condition that a serious loss would be sustained ? — He is allowed to use his discretion, but he may perhaps order a man to dip, and immediately afterwards the weather may come up, and the man may lose a lot of sheep and put it down to the inspector. 7011. Have you ever known the weather in the district of Bedford to be such that a man coiild not dip a sheep within a month ? — Yes, when we have continuous rains in the winter it is semotimes rather awkward* 7012. Have j'ou known a whole month to go by when there were no days sufficiently fine V — Perhaps the weather was favourable between time<, but the sheep have long fleeces, and the owners don't care about dij^ping. 7013. But have you ever known a montli to go by iu this district when a man could not dip ? — No, provided he dips with a long fleece. 7014. Don't you think, if your plan regarding the order to dip were carried out that you would relieve the inspector from all responsibility ? — That may be ; but I only suggest that because it is sometimes an awkward thing for an inspector to decide. The farmer has all sorts of excuses, and I think the landosmers might share in the responsibility. 7015. Would not your proposition entirely relieve the inspector from responsibility? — I mean that the farmers should inquire into the circumstances and decide with the inspector what should be done, and I would qualify my previous answer to that extent. 390 7016. Do you think anyone is tit to be a scab iaspector who is not prejiared to take the responsibility upon himself of deciding, when scab has broken out, that the sheep should be attended to at once ? — Ho should, certainly ; but there are often cases where a farmer argues the thing, and says lie cannot dip them. The inspector should certainly be able to decide it, but at the same time I think it would be inoro satisfactory to the farmers if my suggestion were adopted, and it would relievo tlie inspector of an amount of responsibility, as the farmers would shure it with hiiu. 7017. Do you think you would ever bo able to stamp out scab in this district if you were to carry out the act in the manner you havi' proposed ?--I should feel inclined to think so, if the inspector only called upon one man, as long as he could choose hiui. 7018. As you have now so much larger powers than you would have under your own proposal, how is it that you have not made more progress ? — ^There are times when it is often inconvenient to dip, and the iaspector does not perhaps like to compel a man to do so, on account of the weather not being altogether favourable. 7019. What fui'ther suggestions would you make by way of improving the working of the act ? — T think a licence should be paid for after the first notice, and if on the inspector's second visit the sheep are not clean the amount of the licence should be doubled, and it might be increased afterwards in the same way. 7020. Don't you think if the sheep were not found clean ujjon the expii-ation of the second licence that the inspector should step in and dip them under his supervision ? — That might be done, but I don't think it would be necessary if the penalty was sufficiently heavy. 7021. What would you do if a man did not clean his sheep at all ? — I think the inspector should certainly dip them. 7022. Do you think that the generality of farmers in this division, large and small, dip their sheep properly ? — Yes. 7023. You think the dip is properly made, the sheep kept in the full time, and the dipping efficiently done ? — -I believe in 99 cases out of 100 they are thoroughly well dipped, but they are allowed to go back to the old kraals and become reinfected ; when a few spots break out they are not afraid of it, and resort to a little hand dressing, and sometimes are not very particular about it, and so it goes on. 7024. Are there many natives in this district with small stock? — There are some. 7025. Do they dip their sheep properly ? — Yes, I think on the whole the natives can be held up as an example to many white people. 7026. Their sheep are cleaner and better kept '? — Yes, there have been a few exceptions, but very few. 7027. Are you in favour of extending the provisions of the scab act all over the colony ? —Yes. 7028. In case that is found impracticable, have you ever thought of where a line could be drawn, and whether it should embrace the whole of the railway systems ? — No, but I think such a line should include as much of the colony as possible. 7029. If such a line were drawn, would you allow any stock to come into the pro- claimed area ? — Not at all ; not under any circumstances ; even after dipping and quaran- tining. 7030. Should a farmer in the unprociaimed area, whose sheep were clean, be allowed to prohibit scabby .sheep crossing his farm .-' — Certainly. 7031, — In connection with a general scab act, would it be well to have a general simultaneous dipping act ? — Yes, that is one of the first points. 7032. — Do you think the farmers here who have had a clean place for two or three years would co-operate in the attempt to stamp out scab, and dip their sheep ? — I think they would. 7033. If they objected, should they be compelled to do so? — Yes, because they would reap the benefit afterwards. 7034. Mr. Francis.^ "Would you not give a discretionary power to the inspector with regard to the first licence, from one to three months, with an appeal to the magistrate .' — No, I think one month should be granted, and an inspection of the sheep under quarantine should be made every month. 7035. Would it be a good thing if Government suppHed dips at cost price, carriage free ? — Yes, it might be an inducement to them to dip. 7036. Are there sufficient inspectors in your area to properly carry out the act .' — No If the act were systematically worked, and there were simultaneous dipping, I think it would require three inspectors to do the work in this district. 7037. Would you allow a fanner in an unprociaimed area, but adjoining the line, the option of coming under the act ? — Yes. 7038. Do you think the shearers sometimes carry the infection from one flock to another in the shearing season ? — I have never seen it proved, but many farmers think it is the case, and I don't see why it should not be so. 7039. Is it sufficient to have one superintending inspector to supervise all the inspectors within the areas ? — At present I hardly think one man can do it. 7040. Mr. Botha.'] In case there were three inspectors, what salary should each receive in order to induce competent men to take the appointment, and to give their whole time to the work ? — I should think £200 might do. [G. 1.— '94.] pp 291 704 1 . Wliat do you think of the present method of appointing inspectors ? — I don't see how it can be improved upon. 7042. Were jou appointed upon the recommendation of the divisional council ? — No. 7043. How can you satisfy yourself that passes are given by landowners, and not by bijwoners, to the natives who move with Btock? — They may be bijwoners for all wo know. We have no check upon them, and take it for granted that they are landowners. 7044. Of course you are aware that passes are often forged ? — I have heard of cases. 7045. Which do you think would have the better effect, in the interests of all, if the stock owner does not succeed in curing his sheep, a heavy fine, or that the inspector should have the right to attend to the dipping personally ? — I think a heavy fine, because the inspector may attend to the dipping, and directly he is gone the sheep may go back to an infected place and become reinfected. 7046. Then do }'ou think that if people do not succeed in eradicating scab, it is due to wilful negligence ? — In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred. 7047. Br. Smartt.'] We had it on evidence yesterday from Messrs. Bennett and Rennie, that while the majority of farmers dip, many in this district do not keep their sheep long enough in the tank, or don't make the dip strong enough, and that accounts for a good deal of the scab in the district. Do you believe that? — No, because of late it has beou so often brought home to them that they see the absurdity of it. I think they generally dip them properly, but allow them to become reinfected. 7048. What dip is generally used in the district? — The different Government dips. 7049. Is much lime and sulphur used ? — A good many people are tiiking to it latterly. 7050. If sheep were properly dipped in a hot solution of lime and sulphur, do you think they would be liable to contract the disease within three or four months afterwards, even if mixed with scabby sheep ? — I think they might. I don't know how long the dip would remain as a disinfectant in the wool, but I don't think it would be a.s long as you say, if the slieep were allowed to mix with scabby ones. 7051. Do you think it possible for a man to clean a large number of sheep, on a farm where the kraals and veldt had been badly infected, within three months, and lo keep them clean for four yoari, although they used the same kraals ? — It could be done bj' constant dipping, and it would depend upou the state tlie slieep were in, and whether they only had a little scab. It might be iD08sil)Ie, but in iiij' experience I have not found it the case. I have examined the sheep after dipping, and found them cured, and they have liecome reinfected, and I can only put it down to the old kraals. 7052. Then do you consider that sheep dipped in a proper solution of lime and sulphur, warm, are liable to become reinfected within three weeks or a month ? — No, but within three months. 7053. Mr. du Toit.'] How many dippings do you think are necessary to cure a scabby flock ? — It depends on the state they are in. If they are very bad, three dippings are some- times necessary ; in other cases, when there has been very little scab, I have known them cured in one, when there are merely a few small spots. 7054. Can j'ou cure everj' kind of scab bj- dipping, or is there not some skin disease which requires internal medicine? — No, except in cases of fever, when the wool falls off ; but I don't know of any diseaso of the skin. 7055. You are not aware of a kind of scurf, especially amongst goats ? — No. When they have lon^fleeces they get a scurf in the wool, but it is not scab. There is a vast difference between scurf and smb. 7056. Is scurf serious ? — I don't believe it is, but many people are in the habit of putting down real scab to scurf. 7057. Canthat scurf bo cured by dipping .' — No. I don't think it is a serious thing. 7058. If sheep had to bo dipped three times, do you think three good days could always be found in one month during the winter ? — As a rule it could be done. 7059. Would a month be sutficient to clean a flock at any time of the year? — There may be instances when it might be impossible. 7060. How would you deal in such cases ? — There are very few such exceptions. 7061. Then could you overlook them ? — I think a man should pay for his licence if it is enewed, because if the slieep are properlj' attended to before the winter sets in, they won't get scab in the winter, that is, if there is simultaneous dipping, because at present they would get reinfected fi-om their neighbours. 7062. Ton would not make any allowances for exceptional cases of an outbreak in a very cold month, and at a time when the sheep are in a very poor condition ? — I think it is only due to a man's neglect if sheep get scab in the winter. 7063. W^hy would you not allow any sheep to come in from an unproclaimed area? — Because the disease may be introduced in that way, and if we want to eradicate scab we must be very strict. 7064. Would you force the act upon a portion of the community who are thoroughly opposed to it ? —Yes. 7065. Mr Francis.'] Would it be more advisable to allow a man who has a clean bill to move his sheep out of the area on his own permit, subject to a heavy fine in case he wilfully moved scabby stock, or do you prefer the present system ? — Under our instructions we can give that authority now, and I think it should be made law. 7066. Chairmun.~\ Would you like to add anything ? — I think masters should be held responsible for their native servants' stock. In cases where stock is brought in from other 292 districts the master is really often to blame. The natives don't understand the law, and are driven away by their masters. With regard to moving stock from summer to winter veldt, and vie* verm, I think there should bo a tank on every place. Mr. Rohert Hart Pringle examined. 7067. Chairman.'] You are farming in the district of Bedford? — Yes, for 30 years. I have about 8,000 sheop and goats. I have been elected a delegate to represent the Bedford Farmers' Association. 7068. During the last few years, have you noticed any diminution in scab in the flocks in this di.strict ? — There seems to have been an increase of scab this last year, iu my ward, compared with the two previous years. That is, from whai I have heard and seen. 7069. Do you attribute this to stock being brought into the area, or is it in the area itself? — I think it is principally from outbreaks in the area itself, owing a good deal to our having had a dry winter, and the scab not having been thorouglily stamjied out. 7070. If the act had been more vigorously enforced, do you think scab would have been stamped out before this outbreak occurred ? — Yes, if it had been vigorously enforced. 7071. What alteration would you recommend in the present scab act iu order to carry it out more efficiently ? — That the time allowed for cloaniag the flocks should be very much reduced, from three months to six weeks ; that a fine be inflicted for every renewal of a licence, and doubled each time. 7072. Would that be a better plan than allowing the inspector to take over the sheep after the second fine and have them dipped under liis supervision ? — If the inspector could do it, a great deal of good would be effected in that way, but I can't see how he could undertake the work. Still, if the sheep were dipped under his supervision the benefit would b« very great, because many of the farmers work in such a negligent way, and don't use strong enough dip, or keep the sheep in long enough. They only try to pass muster. 7073. Then you don't think that 99 per cent, of the farmers in this district dip their steep properly ? — No ; I should not think 50 per cent, dipped properly. 7074. Do you attribute the outbreak of scab to this? — Yes. 7075. Are you in favour of a general scab act throughout the whole Colony? — Decidedly. 7076. If that is found impracticable, especially in the north-western districts of the Colon}', have you any idea where a diviiling line should be drawn ? — I am not sufficiently acquainted with the districts to say, but where there is sufficient water for sheep to drink, there is sufficient to dip. 7077. You don't think there is any district in the Colony where the farmers could not carry out the scab act if they made up their minds to do it ? — Not as far as I am aware of. 7078. You think this talk of scarcity of water, and so on, is imaginary, and not real ? — Simply an excuse. 7079. If a line were drawn, would you allow any stock from the unproclaimed area to enter ? — None at all, and I would have a proper fence made between the two areas, if three- fourths of the Colony were brought under the act, otherwise we shall never get scab eradi- cated if there is uny communication between the two areas. 7080. If three-fourths of the Colony were in favour of a scab act, don't you think the one-fourth should be compelled to come under it ? — Yes, they should. 7081. Should a farmer with clean sheep outside the area be protected by being allowed to prevent any stock crossing his farm ? — If it could be done, but I don't see what machinery we have for protecting such a man outside the area. 7082. Suppose he put up a notice that any scabby sheep would be prevented crossing his farm, so that traders and others knew that they woidd not be able to cross it ? — If it could be done, but if he is on a main road I don't see how you are going to protect him. 7083. Do you think the method of appointing scab inspectors is capable of improve- ment ?— In this district I believe the Government appointed them without any recommenda- tion from the divisional council. I think the present system works fairly well, because there is a certain amount of jealousy and favouritism if the divisional council recommends, although it might give more satisfaction. 7084. Is one inspector sufficient for this district, or do you think there should be one in each field-cornetcy ? — More inspectors are necessary, but not one in each ward. I think two are enough for this district, and that would do away with the complaint of not being able to find an inspector when he is wanted. 7085. Would it be bettor to allow owners of stock who have had a clean bill for six months to move their stock on their own permit, subject to a heavy penalty ? — I think it would be desirable, and it would remove many objections to the present working of the act, as well as with a great deal of the friction which now exists. 7086. Would it work satisfactorily ? — That remains to be proved, but I think it would be a much better plan. 7087. AVould you have a compulsory simultaneous dipping act, in conjunction with a scab act, for the first year or two ? — Yes. 7088. in the interests of the Colony, would owners of stock who had held cle;in biUs for three or four years, dip their stock at the same time without demur? — I think uiost of the farmers who have clean bills are enterprising men, with the interests of tho Colonv at heart, PI' 2 293 and I think thej' would not object for their OTcn sakes. It would prevent them being infected by their neighbours. . 7089. If that were arranged, what time of the year would you propose ? Would you have the same time for the whole Colony, or arrange the districts according to climate ? — I think all farmers have sheared by December, and the end of November or the beginning of December would bo the best montli, because the end of December is such a busy time. 7090. Mr. I<)-ancis.'] Do you consider the fines imposed for broaches of the act have been suflScient to deter men from breaking the law ? — They are quite inadequate; it often paid men to keep scabby sheep. 7091. Is that one of the reasons why the act has not done the good it was expected to do ?— Yes. 7092. Would you have public dipning tanks at certain places on public roads for the benefit of people travelling with stock ? — ^I should have no objection to that, but if the act is properly enforced there should be no scab l)reaking out on the road. 7093. Would you allow scabby slioep to be driven to a pound, as is done now ? — It might do harm in some instances, and I think they should be dipped at the owner's expense before being removed. 7094. Should tlie Government supply dips at cost price, free of railway carriage .' — I don't think we ought to come upon the Government for everything. 7095. If we had a proper act, properly carried out, do you think we co\ild eradicate Bcab in a few years ? — Yes. 7096. Considering the enormous loss to the country at present from scab, do you think it would be a wise policy to expend money largely for that purpose ? — Yes, it would pay in the long run. 7097. If a farmer Hving on the line in the unproclaimod area desired to come under the act, should he be allowed to do so .' — Yes. 7098. Do you think it would be well to classify the inspectors according to the manner in which they carry out their duties ? — Yes, to encourage them to take an interest in their work. 7099. Is there a danger of an inspector who lives in one district for a long time becoming partial to certain people, and would it not be advisable to remove inspectors occasionally from one area to another ? — If it was found that an inspector was showing partiality.. 7100. Do you think there is not sulficient supervision at present over the inspectors, and that the superintendent is not enough ?• — -I think so, one man cannot very well do it. 7101. Would that be a great chei'k on the work of the inspectors ? — Yes. 7102. And consequently the act would be better carried out? — Yes. 7103. Would you give a discretionary power to inspectors with regard to the length of the first licence, with an appeal to the magistrate ? — With reference to the first licence it was resolved by the Bedford Farmers' Association to recommend that before the licence was f ranted, the party with scabby sheep should give a written guarantee that within fourteen ays of receiving it he would dip the sheep, and redip them fourteen days afterwards, and that the licence sh,)uld be for six weeks. We fiud that so many farmers do nothing until the period of the licence has nearlj' expired, and then dip, and when the inspector comes he cannot tell whether they are properly dipped or not. Some farmers might consider it to their interest to pay for an extended licence. 7104. 3Ir. Botha.'\ Do you live close to any railwa}' line or trading station whore wool and skins are handled ?— I am within a quarter-of-an-hour's ride of a shop where wool and skins are bought. 7105. Can you say whether wool and skins are infectious as regards scab? — I should think if sheep came in the neighbourhood of these skins, and rolled about on them, they would be likely to become infected ; and where vfool is ridden over the main roads, and the bales are torn open and the wool dropped out along the road, it would be a source of infection. 7106. Under any circumstances, do you consider they are sufficiently infectious to infect the trucks in which the produce is carried? — Yes, certaiiily. 7107. Br. Stnartt.'] Are you acquainted with the district of Fort Beaufort ? — I simply pass through it. 7108. Do you agree with the .statement that the scab act is largely responsible for the diminution and deterioration of stock in the district during the lust six years .'' — No, I don't believe it. 7109. You don't consider such a thing is possible? — No. Long before the act came in force the stock in that district was diminishing rapidly from disease. 7110. Would it be advisable to give the superintendent inspector more power, and to make him resjionsible for the working of the act ? — 1 would give him more power and responsibility. 7111. In that case, would you give him the sole power of sanctioning the appointment of all inspectors .'' — I have not thought much of that subject ; but if we gave him more responsibility, he should have some authority with regard to the appointment of inspectors. 7112. Under such a system, do you think wo should be likely to have more efficient inspectors than we have now ? — Ye.s. 7113. Mr. du Toit.^ As a practical farmer, has your experience taught you that scab on goats and sheep is caused solely liy an insect ? — Yes. 294 7114. You are not aware of a kind of skia disease which, is verj' much like scab? — There is nothing on sheep that I haye even heard of like that, but there is something which occasionally appears on goats, resembling loose scales, especially when they have long hair, but so far as I can judge there is no insect connected with it. It is simply the skin which scales off, and it ha« no serious effect. 7115. Have you always been able to cure scab by dipping at any time of the year, and in any condition of the stock .' — Yes, I believe it tan be done, but when she«p are improving in condition they seem to recover more rapidly', because the scab insect does not seem able to breed quickly when the animal it in good condition owing to the natural oils of the animal which act as a deterrent. When a flock in good condition becomes infected, the disease will spread very slowly, but when the sheep are falling in condition the whole flock will be infected in a few weeks. 7 lie. Would you obtain the opinion of three-fourths of the stock-owners of the Colony with reference to the scab act ? — Yes. 7117. Are you aware of hardships regarding the barter of stock, especially for the poorer people .-• — It is to their interest to have scab eradicated. There is so much latitude allowed to people, and so much dishonesty in evading the law, that I would try and avoid leaving any looitholes to creep out of it. 7118. Would you not in such cases allow the sheep to be sent off after a landowner has come there and seen them properly dipped ? — Not if they are under quarantine, unless they get a permit from an inspector. They must get a clean bill first. 7119. Chairman.'] Do you believe the Colony loses heavily, say at least a quarter of a million annually, through scab ? — Yes, I believe quite that, not only in th» wool but also in the condition of the stock. 7120. Then don't you think the Government is warranted in spending at least a quarter of a million in trying to eradicate scab ? — Yes. Mr. Sermanus Gerhardus raw Niekerk examined. 7121. Chairman.] Are you farming in the Bedford district ? — Yes, for 11 years, and I have about 1,800 sheep. I am a delegate from the Bedford Farmers' Association. 7122. Do you agree in ayery particular with Mr. Pringle .' — Not in every particular. 7123. Where do you differ '? —I don't see how it would be possible to prevent people moving stock fi'om unproclalmed areas into proclaimed areas. That would be a great hard- ship, because a wealthy man may reside in an unproclaimed area, and may wish to become a resident in a proclaimed area, and may have valuable stock, but he wiU have to sacrifice them all for the sake of moving into a proclaimed area. 7124. Would it be advisable to let them come in under certain conditions? — Yes, that tanks should be placed on the boundary lines, and the sheep properly dipped once on the line. 7125. Would you allow them to come in if they were dipped twice under inspection, and quarantined on the border .' — Yes. 7126. Do you differ in anything else ? — No, I think the simultaneous dipping should take place within two months. I would not allow a farmer to move stock on his own permit, even if they had been clean for six months, because if scabby sheep are moved, the harm is done. I think they should be inspected before they are moved. 7127. Mr. Botha.] Before an inspector is apjjointed, do you thiuk ho should be known to and recommended by parties in the district for whose services he is appointed } — Through the divisional councU, decidedly. Mr. George King, senior, examined. 7128. Chairman.] You are a delegate of the Bedford Farmers' Association, and a farmer in this district ? — Yes, I have farmed here for .37 years, and have between 6,000 and 7,000 sheep and goats, in partnership with my sons. 7129. Do you agree with Mr. Pringle's evidence .' — The greatest difficulty we have to contend with is the removal of stock. When I am ready to move I can't find the inspector, and until I get his authority I can't move the sheep, although they are clean. We are in a worse position than those who are outside the area, and I don't see why I should not remove my sheep under the bill of health which I hold, and take the resjionsibility myself under a penalty of not less than £20 for the first offence, and afterwards double. I would allow sheep to come into the proclaimed area after being thoroughly inspected on the border, and for any attempt to pass scabby sheep I would make a penalty of £50. When thej- come to the area they should be inspected again at the first point thej' came to, and if scabby the owner should be fined £50, and the sheep dipped at his expense. In all other respects I agree with Mr. Pringle. I don't, however, agree with the recommendation of the divisional council for the appointment of inspectors. The superintending inspector is responsible for carrying out the act, and therefore we might expect very few bad ajipointments under his recommendation. The failure of the scab act is greatly owing to the throe months' licence system. 7130. Dr. fimartt.] I believe you are a large exhibitor of stock at agricultural shows ? — I have been. 295 7131. Would you be in favour of making a provision to allow exhibitors of stock at such shows certain facilities to pass into the proclaimed area ? — Yes, by a certificate from their field-cornet, and under certain provisions, without dipping, but after inspection. 7I.'52. Mr. Pringle. I think my colleagues misappr Isend me. What I intended to say was that if three-fourths of the Colony came under the scab act, I would not allow stock from the other fourth to come in under any consideration, but if not, I would allow them to come in under the dipping and quarantining regulations referred to, and in this my colleagues agree. Mr. Jeremioi Josiat Bouwer examined. 713;). Chairman.'] You are a delegate from the Baviaans River branch of the Afrikander Bond ? — Yes, I have farmed here for 35 years, and have 3,000 sheep and goats. 7134. Will you state your views in regard to this question? — Our wish is to have an improved act, and that it is desirable to have a general act. The divisional council should recommend the inspectors to the Government for appointment, and the general act sliould be combined with a simultaneous dipping act, within ten days, the 10th to the 20th December, and the sheeji to be dipped again within fourteen days. If it is the law that the owner of quarantined sheep may allow them to go over the public roads, we should like it altered. I will now give my own opinions. I object to sheep with long wool having to be dipped within three months before shearing; they should be hand-dressed, and dipped after shearing, and the same should apply to ewes when lambing. All trucks carrying stock and all skins should be thoroughly disinfected after use. If a man can prove that unforeseen circumstances, such as rain, prevented him complying with the act, he should not be punished. I should like a distinction to be made between scabby sheeji and goats, 80 that sheep should not be quarantined if scabby goats mixed with them ; and inspectors should be appointed in every field-cornetcy. Mr. William Lomhard Roux examined- 7135. Chairman.^ You are also a delegate from the same branch of the Bond? — Yes. I have farmed in this district for 12 j'ears, and have above 1,000 sheep and goats. 7136. Do you agree with Mr. Bouwer's statement? — Yes. The present act requires amendment, because we are not sufficiently protected now, and I would like a general act to give us more protection. I think there is a misunderstanding with regard to the simultaneous dipping, and that two months would be a reasonable time, in or about November or December, because most of the farmers have finished shearing then ; and I think this is tlie opinion of our branch. One instance of insufficient protection is that a man may take a number of sheep out of a troop that are infected, and though those he takes out may apj^ear to be clean, he may remove them into a proclaimed area under a certificate of two landowners, and six weeks afterwards scab may break out. 7137. Mr. du Toif.^ Would you give the inspector in each ward the same salary as the one receives now ? — No, I should think £50 would be sufficient. 7138. Then you would allow them to carry on some other business.-' — Certainly; a fortnight would be quite sufficient to inspect the ward properly, and wherever possible, I would recommend that these inspectors be appointed from farmers holding a clean bill of health. Mr. Joseph Horatio EdwarAi examined. 7139. Chairmanr\ You are a farmer in this district .-' — Yes, for 25 years, audi have from 7,000 to 8,000 sheep and goats. 7140. Do you wish to make a statement to the Commission? — Yes. I advocate a general scab act, or if we cannot get that, an extension of the present one. After that, make the act as stringent as jjossible ; at present it caimot be effectively worked. I am here in the interests of the border farmer, and if the area be extended, there wUl still be border farmers, and I should like to know what protection will be afforded to these men. I would advocate the erection of a good wire fence as the only means for their protection. It would not protect them altogether, but it would go 90 per cent, towards it. Very little has been said about farms adjoining one another, and this is one of the principal points. I think the scab act was put in force at the wrong time. It was started here in the winter, and I think it should be strictly enforced in December, when simultaneous dijiping should be resorted to, and six months' notice given, because many farmers excuse themselves by saying they have no dipping tank, others no water, and during 'hese six months they can con8tru<:t tanks, and if they can't get water by any other means they can ride it there. As tlie areas are at present, simultaneous dipping would bo of very little use. 7141 . Br. Smartt.^ Are j'ou farming only in the proclaimed area ? — No, I have one farm adjoining in the unproclaimed area. 7142. How do you move your stock from one to another ? — I have to get a certificate from the inspector. 296 7143. Would you be in favour of single farmers coming in ? — ^It would help very little. I would rather have the smaller places come in. 7144. Would you be satisfied if a Hue were drawn so as to cut off one-half of your farming operations ? — Yes, if it were in the public interests I would waive that. 7145. Mr. Botha.^ How long has the act been in force here? — ^Five or six years. 7146. How long did it take you to get a clean bill? — I have never had a clean bill beyond sis months, because then I get infected again, being on the border without pro- tection. If the act is made too stringent, people outside won't come in. First get them in, and then you can make the law more stringent. Cradock, Monday, I2th Decemler, 1892. PRESENT : Mk. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. ,, DU ToiT. Dr. Smahtt. Mr. Frastcis. Mr. Isaac Petrus van Heerden examined. 7147. Chairman.^ I understand that you have been appointed with these other gentle- men to represent the views of the Afrikander Bond in this district ? — Yes. I have lived 40 years in this district, and have 5,000 sheep and goats. 7148. The evidence you will give to-day will be that of everyone belonging to the Bond in the district of Cradock ? — Yes. 7149. Seeing that Cradock is the boundary division adjoining the proclaimed area, and is next to Tarka and Bedford, which are under the act, have the Cradock farmers found any difficulty in moving stock into the proclaimed area ? — Yes, often. 7150. In what manner ? Is it in the removal of clean sheep ? — Even with clean sheep, because sometimes the sheep are clean, but when they get to the boundary they are inspected so closely that the smallest and most insignificant spot is the cause of more trouble. 7151. I suppose 3'ou have never had any difficulty in moving perfectly clean sheep into the area ? — It is very seldom that a lot of sheep succeeds in passing ; they are generally turned back. 7152. Then I take it most of the sheep removed from Cradock to the railway are scabby ? — So the inspector says. 7153. But I presume he would not return them if they were not scabby? — You must take into consideration that we never seud sheep away until they have been closely inspected by two impartial men, before they sign the permit of removal, but notwithstanding, those things do occur. 7154. Do you know of any sheep which have ever been stopped which were free of scab ? — That is just where the difficulty comes ; there is sometimes a difference of opiniou as to what is scab and what is not. 7155. But you understand what scab really is.? — I know what it is as well as the inspector does, because if there is no itching and scratching there cannot be scab. 7156. You admit that scab is a contagious disease ? — Naturally, there is no doubt of that. 7157. Don't you think farmers in the proclaimed area are bound to bo protected from sheep coming in infected with scab ? — Yes. 7158. He is under the fines and disabilities of the act, and must be protected in every way .'' — That is quite right. 71.')9. Do you think the farmers in the Cradock district have suffered in consequence of the scab act being in force in the lower districts ? — Not the farmers, but the speculators. 7160. Then do you think the interests of the Cradock farmers would be better served if the act were extended .-' — Not the present act. 7161. Under some law ? — It is very difficult to make a law for this country that wiU answer all purposes. 7162. Would it be advisable to alter the law, and then extend its operations ? — I can- not answer that question as a delegate. 7163. What is your opinion? — If the law were altered or improved, then I would first see how it worked before I would accept it for my own district. 7164. In what respects should the present law be altered? — My objection is that when an inspector arrives at my place he lays down the rule for me how to dip the sheep, but if I am not under the act I can decide upuu the most convenient time myself. Even in winter, when the sheep are poor or lambing, the orders of the inspector must be obeyed, and thit is what I object to. 7165. But you are not living in a proclaimed area, and so of course you are not subject to these visits from an inspector .'' — -That is why I enjoy my business. 7166. Do you keep your sheep free of scab ? — As well as I can. 7167. Does that apply to all your neighbours and surroundings ? — Yes. 7168. Do all the farmers in this division dip their sheep and keep them clean ? — Yes. 7169. Then I suppose there is very little scab in the district of Cradock ? — I have been about, an 1 am in a position therefore to say that there is uo more in this district than ivy, the proclaimed areas. 297 7170. Then you think all the farmers in this district clip their sheep properly ? — It depends on circumstances. Naturally, had farmers are not equally particular. The par- ticular man does his best to have his sheep clean, but others who arc more indifferent don't come up to the mark. 7171. If all tlie farmers in this district dipped their sheep properly, would there be very little scab here at all ? — Certainly. 7172. Would it be advisable to have sheep dipped under inspection ? — I would have no objection to there being proper supervision, to see that every man dipped his sheep properly. 7173. We have it as evidence that more than 60 per cent, of the farmers in the pro- claimed areas don't dip their sheep properly .' — That I can readily believe, because we are likewise situated. 7174. Then in case any alteration is made in the scab act, do you think it advisable that there should be a simultaneous dipping in conjunction with it, for one or two years ? — It all depends on the season, but I think it would be very good. 7175. If an act of that kind were properly carried out, don't you think you would in all probability stamp out scab ? — Yes. 7176. Is there any other alteration you would like in the scab act? — Another difficulty is that a man might have several farms in the same district, with other farm in between, and his sheep might be on one of his farms where the water supply was artificial, from dams, and the water might give out just when scab appeared. In such a case a man has no right to move his flocks from this farm to another of his own farms, because of the scab. 7177. What would you suggest } — That a man should have the right to move his sheep in the interests of his property, from one farm to another of his own. 7178. But you believe that scab is very contagious. Supposing you had a farm between these two farms and your sheep were perfectly clean, would you object to scabby sheep crossing over your farm ? — Under such circumstances I say they should have the right to go over the clean place, so as to protect the interests of the owner of the sheep which had to be moved. 7179. Cradock is now outside the area. If you have a large farm, and a large quantity of clean stock, do you think you should be protected by being allowed to prevent scabby sheep crossing over your farm as long as your sheep remain clean ? — It would be very^desir- able, but under such circumstances I think it would be equally necessary that the man with scabby sheep should have the chance of saving his flock. 7180. Still, you think a man should have that protection, and should be able to say to the owner of the scabby flock, were he a speculator or anybody else, " I will not allow them to pass over my farm ?" — As far as possible. 7181. But is not the only protection possible to allow a man to prevent scabby sheep travelling over his place ? Are you prepared for that ? — No, I will n»t go as far as that. Our Colony has many drawbacks, such as drought, and we cannot compare with other countries, and we must act accordingly. 7182. From your knowledge of the Cradock district, is there a single farm in the district in which sheep and goats can be kept, and there is not sufficient water to dip them } — I can mention fanns which in dry seasons have not sufficient water to keep sheep on them. 7183. But before that water was dried up, was there not plenty of water to dip the sheep? — Yes, but then they might have been lambing, or something else may have prevented it, until gradually it got dryer and the sheep got poorer until they were too poor to dip, and have had to leave that farm without there being any opportunity of dipping them. 7184. Are you opposed to a general scab act ? — As far as the present act is concerned. 7185. 3[r. du Toit. \ Do you give this evidence on behalf of the Bond? — Yes, with the one exception where I gav6 my own opinion with regard to an improved act. 7186. At what times would you Hke the act to be suspended? — It all depends on the rain. It should be suspended in winter, and at lambing time, and when the sheep are poor. 7187. At such times should hand dressing be compulsorj' ? — Of course that should never be postponed. 7188. Have you any idea whether your sheep would become infected by simply going on the same veldt as scabby shoup had been on several days before ? — No, I don't know by experience that the disease is so infectious. 7189. When soabby sheep mix with clean sheep, do the latter become infected ? — Yes. 7190. Do a couple of sheep sometimes get infected in a clean flock, but the disease is arrested by hand dressing and goes no further;— No; you can keep it in check, but it is impossible to clean scab unless you dip the whole flock properly. 7191. I» scab spread at any time of the year, and in any condition of the sheep, with the same rapidity .'' — Yes, it makes no difference whether the sheep are in good or bad con- dition, but you can clean a sheep in good condition more easily than a poor one. 7192. Can you suggest any further amendments to make the act suitable to Cradock ? — There are all sorts of little difficulties, and I would rather not say in what way it could be improved or altered to be suitable for Cradock. 7193. Would you be in favour of having an inspector in each ward, who should be a farmer with clean flocks ? — If the act were amended so as to be suitable for us. 7194. I>r. Sviartt.] I take it that you consider it would fce possible to eradicate scab 298 from the Cradock district under an amended act ? — I have no doubt scab can be eradicated or cured, but whether it will ever disappear altogether from the Colony is another question. 7195. I take it, furtlier, that when it is said the Afrikander Bond as a body in this district are totally opposed to a scab act in any shape or form, such is not the case ? — Thoy are strongly opposed to tlie present act, but I don't know what might liappen. 7196. With regard to the suspension of the act which you recommend, would it meet your requii'ements if it was only put in operation for the first two years after the act was enforced ? — If I shear my sheep in April and May, and dip them properly, I know they are cured, I see it ; but the inspector comes and says they are not, althiugh I am convinced that they are, and there is the difficulty. 7197. Mr. du ToitT. If the inspector showed you the insect by means of a magnifying glass, would you believe that he is right and you are wrong ? — Seeing is believing. If he does that, I will believe. 7198. Dr. Smart/.^ Und«r those circumstances, would you agree to that clause being imperative after the expiration of two years ? — I cannot answer for tho Bond, and I would rather not answer for myself. I have no objection to every man being obliged to dip his sheep properly under the supervision of properly qualified persons. 7199. Scab is very contagious, consequently if scabby sheep are allowed to move freely for all time through the country, it wiU be utterly impossible to eradicate the disease? — If the sheep are all dipped simultaneously there will be no scab. Of course, if the inspector dips the sheep under his own supervision, scab must cease, and if there is no scab why should not sheep be moved without permission '? 7200. But it is perfectly possible that sheep may be dipped under the superintendence of an inspector, and be cleaned, but that very soon afterwards they may become reinfected, and a careless farmer would take no steps to re-clean them himself ? — The inspector must see that they are not put into old kraals, but on good veldt. 7201. Would you be in favour of a compulsory, simultaneous dipping act being enforced, under inspection, aU over the country ? — Yes, to have a dipping act by itself. We all believe in dipping. 7202. The Colony being divided into areas according to climate ? — Yes. 7203. If such an act were in force, would you be in favour of Government establishing a dip depot, to supply dip at first-cost price and free of railway carriage ? — That is just what we want. 7204. Do you think such an arrangement would do away with a good deal of the dissatisfaction which now exists with regard to being compelled to dip sheep ? — Yes. 7205. Mr. Botha.'j How should the inspectors be appointed in the field-cornotcies ? — They should be recommended by the inhabitants of the ward, at a public meeting, and the man who gets the most votes should be recommended. 7206. Mr. Francis.'] Should all the inhabitants of the ward vote, or only the stcck- holders ? — All European stock-holders, no matter how few they may have. 7207. If your sheep became infected by scab, how long do you think it would take you to clean them by dipping? — Twenty days. 7208. If they are properly cleansed, do you beUeve they will never have scab again unless they become reinfected ? — I am perfectly certain that scab comes from infection, but I must admit I have had isolated flocks in the mountains, and although they never came in contact with any other stock, still it does happen that scab reappears. 7209. Do you believe that scab is caused solely by an insect ? — Yes. 7210. Consequently, unless that insect is carried to clean sheep, they can never become scabby again ? — I think so myself, but I don't know how long the insect can live in the veldt, and it might be carried in a Kafir's blanket, or in other ways. 7211. If you can clean your sheep, and they can only become infected by the insect being conveyed to them, don't you think other farmers can do the same ? — Certainly. 7212. But I presume there may be some farmers in the district who may be too negligent to cleanse their sheep as you do .'' — Certainly ; that is why I want the inspector to see them properly dipped. 7213. Consequently, if there is any scab, and there is no dipping act, it is the careful farmer who will suffer ? — It is so now. 7214. Then are you not of opinion that you and all careful farmers ought to h'.ve some law to protect you in 3"0ur farming ? — A reasonable law. 7215. Are you aware that in many of the Australian colonies scab has been completely eradicated, although they suffer more severely than this Colony for drought ? — I have read it, but I don't know whether it is true. 7216. WiU you believe that the Commission have had it on evidence, not only from the inspectors and inhabitants, but also from their own inspection, that in the district of Komgha the stock is completely free of scab under the present act ? — If you say so. 7217. If you believed that this country is losing £500,000 every year from the fact that the stock is infected with scab, would you think it advisable for the Government to spend a largo sum of money for the purpose of eradicating the disease from the Colony ? — That is why I approve of a dipping act. Certainly, if that is true. 7218. Cliainnaii.] Would you like to add anything ? — I should like to know why are sheep turned back from Witnijs station on the smallest suspicion of scab, but wool and skins with any amount of scab are allowed to pass scot free, without the slightest super- vision, to any market in the Colony. [G. 1.— '94.] QQ 299 7219. Do you thiuk the convnyanco of wool and skins by rail should be prohibited? — No, but the same liberty should bo allowed for live stock for tho butcher. 7220. Do you consider it would be right to allow sheep affected with scab to be loaded off the trucks and distributed in the proclaimed area .•' — I would only allow them to go to Port Elizabeth. 7221. Dr. SinarU.l If that were achieved, would it remove a groat deal of tho opposi- tion to the present act ? — Yes. Mr. Philip Ludoiicm du Plessia examined. 7222. Chairman.'] How many years have you been farming hero .' — All my life. I have about 2,0(,'0 sheep and goats. 7223. Do you agree with Mr. van Heerden's evidence ? — To a groat extent. 7224. In what do you differ ? — He said it is only speculators who lose at present through tlio law, but I thiuk it is the farmers who suffer most, or just as much. 7225. In what way do thoj' lose ? — Because we can't sell our stock; speculators won't buy, and if they do it is returned by tho railway. 7226. But are not healthy sheep allowed to pass through without any difficulty ? — It seems that the inspectors try to punish the Cradock farmers here, because we won't come under tlie act, and that is why they are more particular. 7227. Can you mention any case where sheep not affected with scab have been returned ?— They returned tho sheep of a certain Mr. van Heerdon lately. They could not detect scab in the sheep, but went back to the farm to detect it there. 7228. Was there no scab on the sheep which were returned ? — They wore not satisfied with looking for scab on the sheep in the trucks, but went back to inspect the flocks on the farm, and that shows what animus exists in regard to the Cradock farmer. 7229. Then do you admit there was scab amongst the sheep when they were returned? — I don't admit it. Mr. van Heerden's witness swore there was no scab, but the inspector's evidence is taken before that of others. 7230. But if he found the scab, and satisfied some one at WitmosB there was live scab, he was bound to return them, and I understand you admit there was scab on those sheep, and also on the farm from which they came. Do you know of your own knowledge whether the sheep were free or not ? — I did not sec them myself. 7231. Is there any other point ? — Another grievance is that the law permits sheep to pass through under the permit of the landowners, but notw ithstanding that the inspector sends them back. 7232. Should the sheep be inspected when they arrive at the boundary, or should they be allowed to go into tho proclaimed area without any permit at all V — Having obtained the approval of two landowners, I think they should be passed without any interference. 7233. Mr. Botha.] Are you under the impression that when sheep come on the railway line from Cradock, Middelbuig, or any district not under the scab act, the inspectors are inclined to be more severe than when they come from proclaimed areas ? — Yes, I am under that impression, and so are others. 7234. Mr. Francis.] By allowing two land owners to give a certificate of freedom from scab, may it not be the means of spreading the disease, because they might not see the whole of the flock from which the sheep are taken ? — I thiuk the sheeji ought to proceed, and if there is a breach of the law the man who is the cause of it should suffer, and not the speculator or the owner of the flock ; that is, the men who fiignod the certificate. 723.3. Are you aware that if clean sheep have com(! from a flock containing scab, they are also aceounted scabby according to the law, and that if mi inspector found a lot of sheep he suspected of having como from such a flock it would be his duty to inspect the sheep on that farm ? — No, I did not know that. 7236. Then the inspector you mention who inspected the sheep on that farm was simply performing his duty, if such is the law ? — Certainly. Mr. Paul Willcm Michau,jr., examined. 7237. Chairman.] How long have you been farming in Cradock ? — Eighteen years. I have between 3,000 and 4,000 sheep and goats. I sometimes speculate. I am the secretary of the local branch of the Afrikander Bond. 7238. Do you agree with Mr. van Heerden's evidence ? — Mostly. 7239. In what do you disagree .'- — I think scab inspectors should be rec >mmended by those registered to vote for members of the divisional council, and that in addition, the inspector should be a resident in the ward, and the owner of at least 1,000 sheep or goats, giving the preference to a man with clean stock. I don't agree with Mr. van Heerden that the Bond is opposed to any form of scab act, but I do think a very great proportion of the Bond would go with an improved scab act, notwithstanding that they are opposed to the present one. I think tho suspensory clause should be inoperative after ihe second year, in case of a general f cab or a general dipping act, and without one of these I don't see how we are going to eradicate scab. If there is a law it should be a general one. I can understand that inspectors are more particidar wheu scab comes from an unproclaimed than from a proclaimed area, because coming from a scabby district they might have scab ; but I don't 300 think it can te proved that the inspectors are more stringent simply because districts won't come under the net. I also differ that the signers of the certificates should be responsible, because under those circumstances nobody would be found to sign them ; and I think it unjust that those who simply sign should be responsible instead of the owner of the sheep. 7240. Mr. du 2oit.'\ If the scab act were put in force in Cradock, would you be in favour of holders of clean bills being allowed to move their stock on their own permits, subject to a hoavj' penalty for wilful contravention of the law ? — Yes. 72-11. With regard to flocks under quarantine, would you allow a farmer to call in a neighbour to see th;it the dip is properly prepared, and the sheep which are to be sold dipped in that neighbour's presence, and the sheep sent away upon a certificate from the neighbour to that effect ? — Yes. 7242. Br. Smari/.~\ Do you consider that an act of some sort or other to deal with the spread of scab is absolutely essential if sheep farming is to be carried on properly in the Cradock district ? — Yes. 7243. Ifr. Botha.'] If you buy a lot of fat sheep for the butcher, would you be satisfied if they were dipped first } Don't you think it would have an injurious effect upon them ? — Not nil kiiii'ls of dip. There is one patent dip which would be injurious, but as a rule they are not. Mr. Geri Venter examined. 7244. Chairman.'] How long have you farmed in Cradock? — Twenty-seven years. I have 3,000 sheep and goats. 7245. Do you agree with Mr. van Heerden? — I think there should be two compulsory dippings a year, but nothing more. Mr. van Heerdon said tho law causes great incon- venience to people wlio live in an unproclaimed area, in regard to the removal of stock into a proclaimed area, but I cannot agree with this, inasmuch as stock has to be dipped before it passes over the boundary of a proclaimed area, and then it is supposed that they are no longer scabby. I should not bo convinced, even if the inspector at Witmos showed me the insect on my sheep with a magnifying glass, because the sheep may have been put into a dirty truck, and the infection might have come from the truck, aud not from the farm at all. The trucks should be disinfected. 7246. Do you differ iu anything else ? — No. 7247. Do you believe that aU the sheep sent from an unproclaimed into a proclaimed area are properly dipped before they are sent in ?— Yes, as far as my personal observation and experience goes. 7248. Do all the farmers in your neighbourhood dip their sheep properly ? — No ; they all dip, but not properly. 7249. Are some of the sheep paid to Kafirs and s.-nt over tho border not properly dipped? — I cannot say. As far as I know, I think they make the dip strong eu'iugh, but perhaps they allow the scab to remain too long among the sheep before they begin to dip. 7250. Dr Smartt.] Do you think tboro is one single farmer in the district of Cradock who is not prepared to state to-day tho number of gallons his t.mk holds? — I don't think there is a single man who does not know what his tank holds. 7251. Have you ever been at hand on your uoighbours' farms when they dipped their sheep ? — Often. 7252. Do you wish to tell the Commission that in aU these cases you have S3en these men weigh their dip, measure their water, and mii it on an exact proportion ? — I have not seen how they mix it, but I have seen them dip. 7253. But don't you think that many of the men wliom you have seen dip their sheep, j ust throw in a certain quantity of dip without measuring it, and add a quantity of water ? — I cannot say. 7254. Are you prepared to state that all these people whom j'ou have seen dip their sheep have kept the sheep in the dipping tank from at least one to two minutes ? — It depends on circumstances ; when they dip clean sheep theymay go through sooner, but when there is scab, they are kept in longer than a minute. 7255. Then in your opinion, every farmer in the district of Cradock who dips bis sheep, if they have scab, keeps them in the tank at least a minute ? — I won't say that. Mr. Jacobus Ludovicus Botha examined. 7256. Cliairman.] How long have you farmed here ? — I was born here. I have about 1,500 small stock. 7257. Do you agree with Sir. van Heerden ? — Not in all particulars. 7258. In what do you differ ? — There are four months in the year when dipping is unsuitable in grass veldt, June, July, August aud September. I don't agree that every stockowner should have tho right to voto for insiiectors. In other points I agree. 7259. Is there anything you would like to ask ? — In case scabby sheep have to trek over a clean place, I think the case might be met by allowing the owner of the property to point out the route the sheep must take. I consider that would protect the owner of clean stock, and that this should be applied to all districts, whether there is a scab act or not. 7260. Then you would permit the scabby sheep to bo taken across a mau's farm, and compel the owner to point out tho road ? — Yes. tiu 2 301 Mr, Samuel Cron Cron- Wright examined. 7261. CAaiVwon."] You are one of the delegates appointed by the Cradock Farmers' Association to give evidence before the Commission with the other two gentlemen who are hero ? — Yes. 7262. How long have you been farming here ? — Between seven and eight years, with about 2,000 small stock, chiefly goats. 7263. Have you found any difficulty in moving clean stock from an unproclaimed area .•' — I have had no occasion to move tliem. 7264. From your knowledge of the working of the act, do you think it desirable to extend its provisions to the whole Colony ? — Most decidedly. At the same time I think the act is capable of improvement. 7265. Supposing it was found impossible to carry out the act in the north-western districts of the Colony, have you ever thought where would be the best place to draw a line ? — I brought this (juestion forward at the last Congress, and I think the line of demarcation I indicated then and which was agreed to, is about the best. The Orange River should be the boundary on one side, and I would exclude those districts which have occasion to trek to the mountain veldt in the winter. Their names have escaped me at the moment, but I think they are Pricska, Carnarvon, Fraserburg and Beaufort West, but I don't know how it runs down to the coast. Of course, the main object was to get a certain line inside of which stock should not be allowed to come except under very stringent pro- visions, which were mentioned then, ami we were not so particular as to any one special district where there miglit be insuperable difficulties. The great point was to draw a line and to exclude all stock from coming into the proclaimed area. 7266. If this line were draifn, I take it you would exclude all stock from crossing the boundary line ? — Yes. 7267. Under any conditions whatever ? — Yes, except that there might be recognised por;-8 of entry, and in order for any stock to be allowed to come in, it would have to be dipped twioe under proper sujjervision, and quarantined. 7268. If this were carried out, you think the proclaimed area would be comparatively safe from infection on this side ? — Yes. 7269. In connection with this new line, or the extension of the scab act, do you think it would be advisable to have a simultaneous dipping act ? — I think something of that sort should be included in the scab act. It is very necessary that there should be some simultaneous dipping. 7270. Do you think that farmers holding clean bills, or clean stock, for two or three years would object to their sheep being dipped in order to try and fac'litate the carrying out of the act? — I am sure they would not. 7271. From your experience of farmiag, do you think that dipping is generally carried out properly ? — I am sure it is not. 7272. Should it be done under supervision ? — Yes. 7273. And inspectors shoul 1 bo appointed to supervise it .' — That would bo a good plan. 7274. From your experience, do farmers holding large flocks generally dip properly, and is bad and imperfect dipping chiefly confined to small stock owners and natives } — That is the case to a considerable extent. The larger flocks are generally in the hands of the bettor class of farmer, who is better educated and informed, but the smaller holders are very careless. But in my parts the larger farmers are not altogether froe from blame in dipping. 7275. If a farmer does not cure his sheep from .scab in a reasonable time, say two months, do you consider that it is generally speaking the fault of the dipping ? — Yes, or not taking precautions after the dipping. 7276. Has it ever come to your knowledge that farmers have prevented bijwoners and natives on their farms from using their dipping tanks .'' — No. 7277. You generally find the farmers are only too willing to assist their people with the dipping tank ? — I think that is so, but I cannot express a definite opinion, as I have not had sufficient experience in that matter. 7278. If it is proved that there are cases where owners of farms have not allowed bij- woners and natives to use their tanks, do you think it would be advisable to amend the law, and compel them to give the use of their tanks for all stock running on their farms ? — Certainly. 7279. In cases where farmers have held clean bills for six months, should they be allowed to move stock on their own permit, subject to a heavy penalty for any wilful breach of the law ? — I would allow them. 7280. But you would not apply that to farms outside the area ? — I would exclude any stock from coming into the proclaimed area except under the conditious I stated. 7281. In case a line were drawn as 3'ou propose, would it be advisable, in order to pro- tect the farmer whose sheep were clean, to give him power to prevent any scabby stock crossing on the roads over his farm, in the unproclaimed area ? — I think it should be so. 7282. Would it be advisable for Q-ovornment to erect dipping tanks at outspans and other places for the use of travelling stock ? — Yes. 7283. Do you thiok the prosont plan of appointing inspectors is the best ? — I think they should be appointed solely by Government. 7284. But supposing it is decided to give the people a voice in the election, do you 302 think that a man owning 5,000 sheep should have more voice in the matter than the man who owns 500 ? — Yes, to a certain extent. I don't think thej' should have any final voice in the way of recommending him, but a good farmer's opinion should weigh with the autho- rities, and a man who has more stock should have a greater say in the matter than the man with only a few. 7285. Would you give a cumulative vote ? — Yes, if that system is adopted. 7286. In case a line should be drawn as proposed by you, would you allow a field- cornetcy or a single farm to come into the proclaimed area on application from the owner of the farm, or the inhabitants of the ward ? — That is a matter I brought forward myself, and the resolution was passed by the Farmers' Association and sent to the Government. I think it is decidedly necessary. 7287. Do you consider the Colony loses a very large amount of money every year from the effects of scab ? — I have no doubt about it. 7288. That being the case, do you think it would be advisable for Government to spend a large sum for two or three years in order to try and stamp out the disease altogether? — I think it is imperative upon the Government. 7289. Mr. du Toit.'] "What would you do with wool and skins coming from the unpro- claimed area on the railway, or by wagon ? — I don't think they should be allowed to go through a proclaimed area by wagon, but they might be permitted to go by rail, under conditions ; and I would either have special trucks set apart for the purpose, or have them disinfected for every journey. 7290. Would you allow small stock to be sent down under the same provisions? — Small stock coming direct to the butcher for the purpose of slaughter should be allowed to go through without being dipped on the border, provided they had a certificate, or some guarantee that they were not scabby. I wish to be understood that I would have no stock admitted into the proclaimed area on any terras whatever unless dipped and quarantined, but I woidd make an exception in favour of slaughter stock going direct to the butcher on the railway. The slaughter stock would not come into the proclaimed area except by rail, but I would not admit scabby stock on any terms whatever ; and it is not likely that stock going to a butcher would be scabby. 7291. Would you hold somebody responsible in case it happened that some visible spots appeared while the sheep ara on the train ? — I don't think the acarun could breed qiiickly enough to show a spot on the sheep in a day or two. 7292. Might it not have become infected a couple of days before ? — If stock were clean and fit to all appearance when trucked, from as far as De Aar to the Bay, I don't think they would show any appearance of scab except under the microscope until they arrived at the end of their journey. 7293. I cannot see why you should make a difference between small stock and wool and skins. There is no one answerable for sending scabby skins? — Th.it is true, but you have to take into consideration that it is not advisable to prohibit the introduction of small stock or skins. There is a difference between live stock and skins, because the acarus won't live so long on the skins as on the live stock, and the probability is that even though skins may be slightly scabby when dispatched, they may have become clean to a certain extent on the journey. When slaughter stock is once trucked for the butcher you are sure thnt they will go right through, and that is also my idea, but I say there should be some public authority to certify to their being clean. Under the present act I don't consider the certificates granted by two landowners an equally sufficient guarantee to that provided by the ccitificate of nn inspector, and if they had that I would allow them to go through under any circ\imstances. 7294. Would you always manage to have an inspector present where the trucks have to pass? — That is a question for consideration when you come to frame a new act. If j'ou are going to allow any sheep to be trucked, how will you guard against them being trucked in a state of scab ? 7295. Would it not entail a tremendous cost to have dipping tanks on all the public roads and outspans ? — I don't think the C(jst incurred would be comparable to the amount we lose on the product by scab. 7296. Would it not be better to have a moveable dipping tank in each ward for the use of scabby sheep travelling ? — No, I think these tanks shoidd be on certain specified spots which are recognised roads for trekking, as far as practicable. 7297. You are aware that scab is caused only by an insect ? — Yes. 7298. Are you aware of any kind of skin disease very much like scab, which is not caused by an insect, but by fever and impurity of the blood ? — No. 7299. Have you found that scab can be cured at any time of the year, and in any con- dition of the flock ? — Yes. 7300. How long would you allow for the first licence for sheep to be killed ? — Not more than a month. It could be easily done in a month in the winter, or at anj' time. I have dipped all my goats myself without loss. 7301. How often would it be necessary to dip a flock in order to thoroughly cleanse them ? — If it is done twice, and the second dipping twelve or fourteen days after the first, it will cure them, but it must be done thoroughly. 7302. Axe you sure that a farmer would find, everywhere, even in the cold places in the Sneeuwberg, two days in a month when it was warm enough to have his flock dipped, and although they might be in poor condition at the time ? — Sucli a man must take care his stock don't get poor and scabby at the same timq. 303 7303. But if there were an unexpected ouibieak in the hegbning of winter, when the flocks had long wool, would you not make any allowance, and poimit hand-dressing for a time ? — No, if a ican cannot keep his stock clean up lo that stage, then I think he ought to be made to suffer. 7304. Would it not be advisable to haye as lenient an act as possible, so as to meet one object and have a general act ? Are you more in favour of a lenient general act than a partial stringent one } — Speaking as a farmer and an individual, I should like the act to be made as stringent as possible, and I would willingly submit to any restrictions the Govern- ment liked to impose ; but I do think with you that there are certain considerations which render impracticable at the present time such a stringent act as I should like to see. 7305. You would not be in favour of forcing an act upon a portion of the community where, for good reasons, they are strongly oiiposed to it ? — It depends upon where that portion of the country is. 7306. Would you rather not have a lenient act over the whole Colony, so as to get all the people educated up to the advantages of the act, rather than to put it upon a portion of the community ? — No, I would not. 7307. You would rather adhere to your line ? — Yes. I have already said there are circumstances which render it inadvisable to have such an act as I should like to see, but I don't think any portion of the country within the area wo are now diecussing should be allowed to remain outside the act, even though they wished to, because it would be material to the welfare of the Colony. 7308. But you would not force it upon the rest ? — No, I am not discussing that now. 7309. I suppose you know all the reasons advanced by those people, such as droughts and so on, from having the scab act ,' — Yes, I think so. 7310. Why compel that portion only, and not the rest of the Colony ? — As I understand the reasons given at the last Congress for the exclusion of those parts if they wish to be excluded, thoy were that their farms are so situated that in certain seasons of the year they got scab, and are obliged to move to other parts. 7311. Are you sure you do exclude those by your line ? — I am not sufRciently well up in the geography of that part of the country to draw a hard and fast line, but that is more or less the line I would like to indicate. My idea is to get a certain large block proclaimed, and it will become clean in time. 7312. I believe you have no steekgras where you are living ? — We had until the locusts appeared. 7313. Do you know that steekgras also gets into the skin, and irritates it, and the wool falls off ? — Yes, I have seen that. 7314. May not inspectors be sometimes mistaken, and think it is scab? — I don't know that they have done so, but if an inspector does he is unfit for his position. 7315. For safety's sake, don't you think it would be best for inspectors to have a magnifying glass, so as to satisfy both themselves and the farmers ?• — Yes, I think that should be done, acd the_y should be instructed to use it on every occasion. 7316. Will scabby sheep infect clean sheep if they don't get mixed with them, but simply go on the same grouud } — I think it is extremely likely, because, puttiug aside the perfectly reliable evidence from other men bearing on the same point, my own experience is that 1 had my goats jierfectly clean, and the farm was clean too, and while in that state some goats from a neighbour of mine came on to my homestead, hard with scab, with blood running down the leg, and immediately after they had appeared where my goats wore, scab broke out among my flocks, and I dipped the whole 2,000 atoncp, and stopped it. The scabby goats did not get mixed with mine. 7317. Did they get into your kraals .'' — No. 7318. How long were they there .'' — About five minutes ; not more than ten. 7319. Were they not longer outside in the veldt ? — No, because my boy brought them from a portion of the veldt where my stock never run. 7320. Have you any idea how long the acarus can live on bare ground or kraals and so on .'' — No, not from indepondont investigation, but Mr. Hutcheon's report showed that j)rotty well. 7321. Would yoTi be willing to remove the hardship suffered by those people who have not a clean bill, and who are under quarantine, so that if a speculator came to buy small stock they could call in two landowners, in whose presence the sheep should be thoroughly dipped — the flock which was to be sold — and the landowners should give a certificate that they have seen the flock thoroughly and properly dipped ? — I would point out that in removing what you call a hardship from the man who has scabbj' stock, you put it on to the man who has clean stock, and that I hardly think fair. It would come something under the same class as the stock removed by train ; they would have to be certified by some properly constituted authority to be clean, and there should be certain people appointed throughout the district to act in emergencies, but I don't think any man should be allowed to call in anyone else, indiscriminately, to certify to the cleanness of his stock. 7322. I)r. SmarU.'\ What provision would you make for allowing adjoining districts to come under the act? Should there be a two-thirds majority, a simple majority, or a cumulative vote according to the number of sheep held .' — A cumulative vote. 7323. If stock are still infected at the expiration of the one month's licence, would you consider it was due to tlie carelessness or want of knowledge of the owner in regard to dipping properly ? — Probably both, but certainly one or the other. I need not point out 3(i4 the extreme difficulty of cleaning stock on an infected farm at first, ou account of the kraals and veldt being infected ; I had the experience myself, but afterwards it is the simjilest matter possible. 7324. Under such circumstances, would you be in favour of a licence being granted at a certain price, or an inspector being authoiized to dip the sheep under his own supervision ? — That is an extremely difficult question, because I believe there are some portious of the Colony where the farmers, from want of knowledge, would not bo able to do it well, and there the sheep should be dippel by the in3p3ct)r ; but where farmers aro better iaforujel and are capable of doing it, there is not the slightest doubt in my ward that the other alternative is the projjer one. 7325. Would you leave it to the disoretiou of the inspector ? — I would. That would bo the head inspector. 7326. If it wore concluii/ly proved taat a groat injustice would be done to a large section of the population of thi-j Colony, if your snggostion were carried out to absolutely prohibit skins and wool pasiiiig through tdo proclaimed area by any mode of conveyance except the railway, would you still insist ujioq it, with reference esjiecially to Prieska, Kenhardt, Upington and Carnarvon, who only do liusiness with railway stations within the proclaimed area according to your line of demarcation? — If a great injustice were done, the main object of the law would be defeated ; but I take it there would have to be some special arrangements for districts situated like that. 7327. If the area suggested by you is included under a compulsory scab act, would you be iu favour of enforcing the act simultaneously over the whole area, or would you have the portions which are not at preseac uader the op3ratioa of the scab act mjre leniently dealt with for a couple of years, wi.h a view of giving them a chance of eradicatiug scab, and coping with the difficulties connected with clearing and removing sheep in time of drought ? — Yes, if that could be done I think it would be advisable. 7328. Do you think that would do away with a g.)oi deal of the opposition which now exists to the act ? — It ought to ; I don't feel competent to say whether it would or not, but it would be an education. 7329. Mr. Botha.^ I suppose you are well acquainted with the constitution of the divi- sional council of Cradock, and by what party influence in the district it is more directly swayed at present ? — Yes, the Bond holds the power right through the district. 7330. Has that perhaps something to do with your objection to the recommendation of inspectors by divisional councils ? — Not the slightest. 7331. Mr. Francis.^ Is the reason because of the danger of the members being intimately connected with some of the applicants .'' — That is not the main reason, but it would have a certain amount of weight. 7332. If a new act were passed, would it be advisable to put it in force in the summer months ? — Yes. 7333. Are the fines which have generally been imposjd for broaches of the present act been inadequate to prevent breaches of the law V — Certainly not. 7334. A man would often rather break the law and be fiaed than carry out the provi- sions of the act } — Yes ; risk it, at any rate. 7335. Do you approve of scabby sheep being sent to the pound iu a proclaimed area without any precautions being taken ? — No, it should not be done. 7336. What would you suggest ia the case of scabby sheep trespassing oq a man's farm when he is obliged to send them to the pound ? — If they were not very valuable stock, or there were not many of them, I would cut their throats ; but if there were a number of them, or they were valuable, they should be dipped by an inspector or the owner of the farm, and the owner of the sheep charged to the full extent for all exjienses incurred. 7337. Would it be advisable for Government to supply dips at cost price, free of rail- way carriage, at certain centres '? — Yes. 7338. Are you acquainted with the working of the act in the proclaimed areas? — Yes, I have taken some pains to be so. 7339. Are the number of inspectors in the area you are acquainted with sufficient to carry out the act ? — Certainly not. 7840. Then in starting a new act, should a large number of inspectors be appointed to superintend the dipping ? — -Yes, that is a point of great importance, and an equally im ■ portant point is to get better men, even if more has to be paid for thorn. 7341. Do you consider that one cause of infection at present is the shearers going from ? scabby flock ? — I have had it happen to myself. 7342. Could you give the Commission any suggestions for a remedy ? — I would have the shearer wash his clothes, his shears and himself. That is done by some farmers. I make any strange shearer whom I may take on take off his clothes and shear in a sack which I give him. 7343. Are the present inspectors all equally competent and energetic iu carrying out the act ?— No. 7344. Then, would you classify them in threo classes? — If yoii do that you will have to arrange for some certificate of competence, but the principle is quite sound. 7345. Which would do tho best in an area, a perfect stranger or a man connected with many of the inhabitants there ? — A stranger. 7346. Is one man sufficient to supervise the work of all the inspectors there are at present ? — Certainly not. 30S 7347. If there were more supervisors, do you think the act would be better carried out? — Yos. 7348. Po you know of any farm in the district whore thoro would bo such a scarcity of water while stock wore on the farm as to prevent a man dipping his sheop properly? — If I were to say no, my reply would not be conclusive, because I don't know enough to be able to speak with absolute certainty. 7349. Are you of opinion that by spending money liberally, and by the farmers combining to carry out the act, wo could eradicate scab from the Colony ? — Yes. 7350. Chairmayi.'] Do you wish to add anything? —In roference to the granting of per- mits, I think the system of permits by two landowners is highly objectionable, and is one of the great flaws in th > act. A farmer should not be allowed to call in other mon, indiscrimi- nately, to examine his flocks ; it leaves too many loopholes, and if any arrangement of that sort is to be adopted, I think certain men of good standing and repute should be appointed, who I have no doubt would gladly undertake the duty of helping people in cases of emergency. It should be au instruction to inspectors to do their best to impress upon the farmers the importance of mixing their dips at a proper strength, and administering it in a proper way, because a great deal of ignorance and carelessness exists on those points. 7351. Dr. Smartt.l Would you be in favour of an inspector in each field-coruetcy to be selected from farmers holding a clean bill, only to have the power of signing permits.? — Yes. 7352. Do you think the superintending inspector should have more power, coupled with greater responsibility ? — Certainly. 7353. Under such circumstances, do you think it would be fair to that man to allow anybody to have the definite appointment of inspectors without reference to him? — No, he should have a say in the matter, and if he did not carry out the act he should give way to somebody else who would. 7354. Mr. dii Toit.'] Are you in favour of allowing holders of clean bills the right to move stock under their own permit ? — Then they should be perfectly free to do what they like, subject to a heavy penalty for wilfully moving scabby stock. 7355. Mr. Francii.l Do you think all the farmers in the Cradock district know the exact uieasuremoiit of their tanks? — Some do not know, and besides is not carried out properly, and although it would not apply to all, I think it would be advi.sable to have many persons' stock dipped under inspection. The bad dipping is not, according to my experience, done by small fanners only, and if a man failed to clean his sheep in a month, I think the}' should be dipped under inspection. 7374. Would you allow sheep to come from the unproclaimed area into the proclaimed area, if a general act is found to be impossible ? — I don't see why clean sheep should not be allowed, but many people call them clean when I would not, and in every case they should be dipped and quarantined. I would protect the man with clean stock, living in an unpro- claimed area, and allow him to prevent any scabby stock crossing his farm ; and I would allow any farm or ward to come under the act if they adjoined the area. 737.5. Do you know anything about the appointment of inspectors ? — I don't live in a proclaimed area. 7376. Is there anything you would like to add ? —I am in favour of a general compulsory scab act, but it should not be too stringent at first, and all the country should be treated alike. The present act is mild enough, jwrhaps rather too mild. The great difficulty now is the impossibility of keeping stock clean on the borders of the ])roclaimed area, and the same difficulty would apply to anj' partial act. Mr. Lmm Henry Trollip examined. 7377. Chairman.] Are you a sheep farmer in this division? — No, I am in the Bedford district. I have been there about 18 years ; but I am one of the delegates of the Cradock Farmers' Association. My brother and I farm together, and he has charge of the sheep in the Middelburg district, while I have the goats, about 3,000 or 4,000 in Bedford. 7378. Do you agree with Mr. Cron-Wright's evidence '? — A great deal, but not alto- gether. I don't agree with his mode of treating with skins, and allowing small stock to enter the proclaimed area. I would keep them out altogether. 7379. How would you propose to deal with your sheep for market, in the Middelburg district ? — If they are not in the proclaimed area, they would have to go to some other market, in spite of my being a partner. 7380. Would it not interfere too much with the sale of stock? — It would to a certain extent, but I don't think the loss would be so great as it is now by allowing stock to come in from the unproclaimed area. I am living on the borders of the proclaimed area, and it is only there that you can get any idea of the wa}' stock is sent in by road and rail. 7381. Is the generality of the stock scabby ? — Yes. 7382. Then how do they get in ? — We have au inspector on the railway at Witmos, and he does not allow them to get in by tlie railway, but they get in by the road. There is no inspection there. 7383. Under what certificate do they come in ? — I don't know if they com.j in under any certificate at all. Natives just trek in with small C|uantities of stock, and although they maj' be found out and puni.shod, the mischief is done. The miijorit}- escape altogether, or at least a large proportion, and it is impossible to expect Government to find inspectors to protect every ward all along the proclaimed area. 7384. You get no chance of preventing this kind of thing occurring unless you have a general act ? — No, or else by extending the present area. 738.3. If the area were extended, the people on the border woidd be in the same position as you are now ? — It is their own fault that they are out now. 7386. By extending the border, would you almost expect them to come in in self- defence ? — Yes. I think tlie system of two landowners' certificates is very defective. If sheep must be allowed to come in, the Government have the right to seize them should they [G. i.— '9^.1 RR .•507 he scabV)y, and confiacate them. That is the only way to prevent scabby stock being brought into the aroa. T.'JST. Would yoi) allow a man having a clean bill to move sheep from a proclaimed area under his own permit, taking all the responsibility? — Yes. 7388. Is there anything elso to add ? — I would not allow the divisional council to recommend the inspectors. I think tho best way would be for Government to recommend them, and tlie matter could be referred to the head inspector for his advice. 7389. Suppose you give the head inspector more powers than he has now, in order to carry out the act, would you put these appointments entirely in his hands ? — I would not give him as much power as that. If there wore four applicants for the appointment, I think the Government might refer them to liim, and if he moationed one or two out of those in preference to the others, tlie Government would be j ustified in taking one of the two he advised. His advice should always be taken into consideration. 7390. Are you in favour of more inspectors being appointed ? — Yes, but not one in each ward. We should not get the right style of men then. It must be a very large district to want more than two. 7391. If it should be the case, as we have had it given in evidence, that it is impossible for two inspectors to visit each farm in the district of Somerset once in three months, do you think it would be advisable to appoint at an}' rate one more ? — Perhaps one, if two could not do it, but I (m\ inclined to think that after the first year two could manage it. 7392. In regard to other matters, do you agree with Mr. Cron- Wright ? — Yes. Mr. Stlton Barler examined. 7393. Chairman.'] Are you farming here ? — Yes. I have farmed here for 17 years, and have between 2,000 and 3,000 small stock, principally goats. 7394. You have heard the evidence which has been given ? — Yes, and to save time I will say that I agree more with Mr Vermaak's opinions than any other I have heard. In fact, I endorse all ho said, and would only add that he did not touch to any extent on the question of the removal of stock. One witness suggested this morning that when sheep or goats are once trucked for slaughter, they should go right through to their destination, and I agree with that, the certificate to be signed as at present by two landowners, but the owner of the stock to be responsible. If scab is found in that stock on the way down, the inspector should ascertain all the particulars, and who they belong to, and should immediately come down upon the seller. I think it is iniquitious to stop stock at Witmos because it has a small spot of scab, while skins and goats go down rotten every day. It is this questi' n of the removal of stock which makes the scab act unpopular in our district and in neighbouring districts, and I think it would be found that nine-tenths of the inhabitants are in favour of a scab act, if it were carried out differently to the present one. It is not a stringent act, and yet in certain points, in regard to the removal of stock either for trekking or slaughter, it is too stringent for the people we have to work with. It has been too sudden for them, and they should first be brought up to a' certain standard. It was said that sheep were never returned from Witmos without being scabby, but it so happened that three trucks of my own sheep were returned from there perfectly free of scab, certified so by the inspector, but my certificate was slightly out of order. These are the things which irritate farmers, for if these had been skins they would have sent them down to Port Elizabeth. I heard from the inspector that they were the finest sheep that had been sent down, and were perfectly free, and the consequence of their being sent back was that one died, and the others looked very bad when they were taken out of the truck the following afternoon. 7395. You don't think the inspector was in error in sending them back ? — No, he was quite according to law. The error was mine in the certificate. 7396. Provided the whole Colony was not under the scab act, and your suggestions were carried out, would it be absolutely necessp.ry to have an inspector stationed at some point to examine the sheep ?— Certainly ; sheep should not be sent down indiscriminately to Port Elizabeth or anywliere else, and I think the farmers would gradually enter into it, and we should get rid of the scab much better than by trying to force them. We must not be too sudden with a stringent act. I agree with most that was said to-day, and entirely with Mr. Vermaak. 7397. Mr. I)u loif.] Don't you think any farmer would be afraid to seU stock, knowing that if scab was found on the sheep some days later he would run the risk of a heavy fine .'' — Since they are not afraid now of using a number of trucks infected with scab, why should thej' be afraid in the future .-' 7398. Might it not happen that sheep might be sent away clean, but begin to scratch at Witmos .'' — It is quite jiossible, but the farmer has risked it in the past, and he wiU risk it again. I would not make the fine very heavy, but say a matter of £5. 7399. Is not that rather inconsistent, because you would allow skins and wool to go freely, without reference to the man who sends them, but you would handicap slaughter stock very severely .' — I sujiposo the idea of stopping sheep at Witmos is not to spread the disease on the way down. 7400. Dr. Smartt.'] Your idea in suggesting a £5 fine is to prevent the indiscriminate sending of scabby sheep over the line, and you would impose that penalty on sheep and not 308 on wool and skins because scabby sheep may have to be moved over a certain portion of the country, and there is a danger of infecting other stock before getting on the trucks ? — I think there is far more danger of scab being spread throughout the country by rail through the carriage of wool and skins than by slaughter stock. 7-401. Yet you say you would put a fine on sheep, and not on wool and skins? — We must go to the fountain head ; if we clean the sheep the skins will be clean to. 7402. You think there is much more danger of infection from a sheep travelling six or seven hours from a farm to the railway station than from wool and skins on a wagon, and that a fine of £o would prevent landowners from conniving at it ? — It would help to cure the scab in the country. The people would risk the fine as they do now, but it would tend to cleanse the flocks. There is no doubt that a stringent general scab act will not be carried in this coimtry, because I am sorry to say so much grievance exists in regard to this matter, therefore we must take the next best thing, and gradually become more stringent as we go along. 7403. Then if little matters of this sort were arranged, do j-ou think a great deal of the opposition which exists to the present act would disappear ? — I am sure of it. The scab act has been rammed down their throats to such an extent that the very name has become ob- noxious ; but when 3-ou leave out the word "scab" and use "dipping" it makes all the difference. Everybody was for a dipping act. 7404. Would you introduce a new measure under a new name ? — Decidedly. 7405. You consider a great deal of the opposition to the scab act is sentiment ? — Three- fourths of it is simply sentiment, in our district at any rate. 7406. Mr. Botha.'] You live in the field-cometcy adjoining Witmos station, and the line runs over your farm ? — Yes. 7407. Consequent!}-, when your sheep were retui-ned, you had not the same grievance as those who live hundreds of miles away from the station ? — The damage was not so g^eat. 7408. So it would not irritate you as much as it would people situated as I have des- cribed ? — Certainly not. 7409. So you agree that if it could be provided that sufficient check could be exercised wherever stock is to be trucked, it would be a very good thing, and afterwards they might go to any destination ■? — I think it would entail too much unnecessary expense. The fact that this man was liable to be fined if his sheep were scabby would ensure his taking very good care that they should be clean. 7410. But if it were not for the expense, do you admit that the principle is good of having nothing to do after the stock is once trucked? — I don't think it would work ; it woidd require too much machinery. 7411. Chairman.'] By a £5 fine, do you mean £5 for a truck load, or for whatever number of trucks there may be ? — £5 for that lot. 7412. If a man sent ten truck loads, containing 500 sheep, a £5 fine would be of very little consequence to him ? — I was not thinking of that. Perhaps it would be better to apply it to each truck load. Cradock, Tuesday, \S/A December, 1892. PKESENT : Me. Feost (Chairman.) Me. Botha. I De. Smaett. „ Du Ton. I Me. Feancis. Mr. Peter Jacobus Cloete examined. 7413. Chairman.] You are a delogate from the Maraisburg branch of the Afrikander Bond ?— Yes. 7414. How long have you been fa:ming in this division ? — Over 30 years. I have about 2,000 sheep. 7415. On what points do you wish to give evidence ?— The branch of the Bond I repre- sent are opposed to the scab act. Firstly, they are convinced that where the law is already in existence, it gives no satisfaction, partly because of the way the law is carried out by the inspectors. A grievance we do feel is with regard to the removal of stock by rail. Although Cradock is not in the proclaimed area, it adjoins districts through which tlie stock has to pass, and although the stock does not come into contact with stock in the proclaimed area, beause it is sent straight to the butcher, nevertheless it is interfered with. The inspectors interfere with the stock in the trucks, and my personal opinion is it is mostly done to make it as dilficult as possible for people outside the proclaimed area. Another difiiculty is with reference to dipping. My own district adjoins the district of Albert, in which the climatic conditions are very different, we being so much colder than the other that to carry out dipping at the same time would be impossible. Dui-ing the winter months, up to September, there are very few days suitable for dipping purposes. I have farms in the low country, belonging to the Cradock district, and also in the highlands, belonging to the Molteno district, and the cold weather sometimes begins in RR 2 309 Molteno in March, and sometimes snow falls in December, and it might oven happen in warm places, though not to tho same extent. We Afrikanders, in my part of the country, think it a humiliating disgrace that the Government of tho country should interfere with our business, and just as little as we allow the Government to tell us how to work our lands, gardens and other things, so we think it isunnece sary that tho Government should interfere in the management of our flocks. It should be left to every owner of property to do as he thinks best in his own interests. 74 1 6. From what you saj' I take it you are a very particular farmer and keep your flocks clean ? — Yes, I have that reputation. 7417. And you keej) your sheep clean without a scab act being in force in your district? — I do to the best of my ability, but not to perfection, because I have to deal with circum- stances .over which I have very often no control. For instance, in the vei-y month I have to dip, I may have a continuation of bad rainj' weather, and perhaps it so happens that just after the dip has been prepared you have to keep it so long tliat it gets spoiled ; and there are other difhculties^, with r( ferenco to servants. There are not always enough hands to carry out the work as a man would like it done. And perhaps just when the sheep have to leave home the ewes begin Limbing. 7418. Still, you do the best you can to keep your sheep properly clean? — Yes. I am speaking now of my personal experience, and taking all this into consideration it might h.appen that the sheep have to leave, and although I might consider them clean, yet, by the letter of the law as it now stands, the inspector might find a few spots on the body of some sheep, and declare them to be scabby, and the result would be that they could not be moved, causing me great loss, because it would be the time for them to lamb, and for that it would be necessary for them to be moved. 7419. When your sheep are clean, don't you sometimes get them infected from jour neighbours who are not so particular as you aie ? — I cannot denj' that. 7420. If yuur sheep are clean, don't you thiuk it is absolutely necessary that some action should be taken bj' tho Government to compel their neighbours to keep their sheep clean who will not take the trouble that you do in dipping and so on ? — I thiuk in that we are sufficiently protected by means of the old pound law. 7421. Have you everknovvn of a single farmer sending sheep to the pound on account of scab ? — Yes, I have done it with my neighbour's sheep 7422. Do you still send all scabby sheep that come on your farm to the pound ? — It has not happened again since then. 7423. Are that neighbour's sheep also clean, and the neighbourhood in which you live ? — That ni ighbour's sheep, and also those in the neighbourhood, are twenty per cent, better. 7424. Do you think any farther improvement could take place provided all tho farmers in that neighbourhood were compelled to do their best to prevent the spread of the disease? — Of Course it would be the natural outcome of the case. 742-5. Could you carry on your farming operations better if the nhole neighbourhood were cou)pelled to dip their sheep .'' — I don't think so ; I cannot complain very much of my neighbours. 7426. You think all the people do the best they can ? — That is my opinion. 7427. In the district of Albert, on high ground, you say it is impossible to dip the sheep sometimes for a mnuth, owing to bad weather? — There are five months in the year when you have til watch an opportunity to get a suitable day for that work. I have experienced great losses by dipping on an unfavourable day. On one day I dipped 1,100 sheep; it was fine in the morning, but just the reverse in the afternoon, and though they were clean when I dij)ued them, two mouths afterwards they were hard with scab, and out of the 1,100 I onl saved 400. A week after the dipping j'ou could plainly see thej' had begun to die. 7428. Why did you dip thorn if they wero perfectly clean ? — I wanted to make them etiU better. 7429. But how could they be better thau clean ? — It is my practice to dip in March or April, clean or not, as a preventive for the winter. 7430. Supposing the act were abolished, and a general dipping act were passed in its stead, do you think it would be very much better ? — I am not opposed to dipping. 7431. Would it bo au imjirovement on the j^resent system ? — In my own district ev 'ry- ouo dijis. I would not accept any act, because it would put me under the obligati-ju of having to dip my she^ p at a certain time, which is sometimes impossible, and a man should never be forced to illuso his own auimals. 7432. However bad the weather might be, you could find suitable days for dipping in the Albert district ? — Yos ; you may often have fine days even in July and August. 7403. Tlieu if the farmer.s wero comjielled to dip their sheep in December and January in thn high vehit, and at such other mouths as aie suitable in other portions of the Colony, (li> you thiuk it would niac(»rially assist in stamping out scab? — Although I have no objec- tion t" dipping. I oliject to being obliged to do it. 7434. You dip in March or Aiuil. Would it not be better if everyone were to dip at some fixed time ? — I don't see any harm in that. 743.5. You would not object to that ? —My objection is not to the dipjung, but to making it compulsory. 7i3C. Mr. (fit Toit.^ Do you believe that scab is contagious? — Yes. 7437. And that clean sheep may become infected by going on the same ground where scabby sheep have been but without mixing with them? — No, I don't believe that. 310 7438. Do all the people in your district make use of that clause in the pound act? — Some are vory conservative, like their ancestors, and will not impound Jinythinjr. 7439. In that case, is there any protection from the pound act.' — I don't see it. I have my protection, because my farm is enclosed, and nobody can go on to it, and there is sufficient protection under existing laws if anybody should come there. 7440. Although you are safe, personally, would you not guard others for the general good of the country ? — I should not like to oppose what is in the interests of the people. 7441. Then is it not advisable to have an act to make people protect themselves? — No. 7442. Are we not in duty bound to try and educate our more ignorant neighbours, and to help them '^ —It is enough for me to have a good example, and I found that, and I think mj" neighbours do the same. 7443. Do all your neighbours follow that good example .' — Not all. 7444. Would you try to remedy that as far as possible 'i — Certainly. 7445. "Wo 'Id not a compulsory s-imultaneous dipping act effect that object ? — I thiuk it is better to try and lead the people on voluntarily tlian to drive them. In>-tead of having such a law it would be better if the Government provided the dip, and invited the public, and gave the dip on the most favourable terms to anyone who would n.ake use of it, and that would be better than driving and forcing people by law to do what they should do. 7446. Can you make any further suggestions to lead the farmers to do their best .'' — Yes, I have thought of a great many. Farmers might be encouraged by rewards. I have tried to be very particular, have sorted my wool on the mo.st perfect system, and classified it in three different qualities, but after I had sold my wool I found that I got less for it than the man who put everything in the same bales, and not only scraped together all he could get, but even sheared iu the kraal and gathered up the stuff. At one time there was a kind of scab called the pit scab, and as I bad no men who could deal with it I passed every sheep through my own hands, until even my hands got so infected that at night I could not sleep for the pain, and notwithstanding that I tried everything in my power, I was not as much rewarded as the man who took no trouble at all, as on the average I got less for my wool. 7447. Is that kind of skin disease easy to distinguish from scab? — Yes, they are quite different. 7448. Might inspect jri mistake one for the other ?— Of course, b3ciU)eI kaow many inspectors who never had a sheep iu their owu name. 7449. Do you think scab is caused by an insect ? — Not always. I have seen myself most distinct scab on a sheep, but no insect could be found, even with a magnifying glass, aud yet you will find the insect on a small spot. 7450. Can you cure aU the other kinds of scab by dipping .^ —There is so much difficulty in the matter that I have come to the conclusion it is caused by the blood. 7451. Do you believe that all kinds of scab caused by an insect can be cured by dipping ? — Yes. 7452. Had the sheep you have mentioned as being so bad, the scab which is caused by an insect ? — No, they had a scurvy hard covering. 7453. Was that' why they got so bad and died .' — No, they died because of the bad weather which followed the dipping. 7454. If the weather had not been so b^ad, do you think you could have cured them by dijtping '■: — Yes. 7455. Did you find that they had that peculiar form of disease after or before dipping them ?— After. " 7456. Then do you think even that pit scab can be cured by dipping in good weather .' — No, but by hand dressing. 7457. Did you dip that flock a second time in good weather ? — I dijjped them five times, but I had to scratch the ?cab off with my hand before I could get them clean. 7458. Z)r. Smarttr] Do you think that the reason why your neighbour's sheep, which you had impounded, improved twenty per cent., was because he was obliged in self-defence to clean them for fear you would impound them again for mixing with yours ? — Yes ; it did the master and the herd good loo. 7459. Consequently you acknowledge that in that case compulsion may have been of value } — Sometimes it is. 7460. Are you well acquainted with the condition of the farmers in your district? — Yes. 7461. .\re the individual farmers better off now than they were five or six years ago, or worse ? — Thej- are poorer. 7462. Has a man who keep> his flocks clean a better chance ot getting on in the world than the man who i-i careless, and, as a rule, keeps scabby sheep ? — Yes, partly. 7463. If the Commission, who are all farmers, considered it was necessary to suggest some measure to deal with the spread of scab amongst sheep and goats in ttie country, and the Government came to the assistance of the farmers by supplying them with dip at first cost price, carriage free on the railways, thus proving that they were prepared to do every- thing possible to help the farmers, would j'ou person:iUy, or do you think the majority of the farmers in 3'our district, would approve of such a measure ? — My opinion is that it will have the best effect to lead the farmers instead of driving them. 7464% But would you object to an act on the lines I have suggested } — I think I may 311 answer for all the farmers that such a measure would receive their hearty support, that is, measure which might attain its object without compulsion. 7465. With regard to the wool you rofeired to, what is the general way in which the farmers in your district dispose of their clips .•" — I sent mine to the Port Elizabeth market, and the other man sent his to a storekeeper, who paid 6d. for the wool all rouud, and not- withstanding that I got 7d., 3d. and 2d. I got less on the average. 7466. Did you get the market price at Port Elizabeth ? — Yes. 7467. Consequently, since your neighbour got more than the market price from the storekeeper, the latter must have charged hiui more than the ordinary percentage of profit on the goods sold in order to cover the margin of loss ? — Of course. 7468. Do you know Mr. H. Vermaak, who gavo evidence yesterday ? — Verj' well. 7469. Is not his farm .situated in much the same position as yours? — Yes, exactly the same. 7470. How do you account for the fact that, living under the same circumstaaces, he states there would be no difficulty in cleaning any flock of sheep in the district within a month at any time of the year ? — I cannot believe it, because I know by my own exptrienco that I could not do it. 7471. He further stated that many farmers in his district do not dip properly, that this was often the case with many large farmers, and that to thoroughly dip the flocks it would be requisite to have them dipped under inspection. Do you believe that statement is true ? — Mr. Vermaak has sometimes been in the same position as myself, and was obliged to shear before it was time because his sheep got scabby ; but I would not dispute his state- ment. 7472. Consequently, as you acknowledge that many of these people do not keep their sheep as clean as they might, a dipping act would be most beneficial in their own interests ? — As long as it is compulsory, it is driving them. 7473. Mr Botha.'\ Do you know the difference between scab in sheep and in goats ? — I never farmed with goats. 7474. Do you know anything of the present inspectors ?— Not much. I only know a few of them. 7475. Are they suitable for their position ? — Not in my opinion. They are not the right class of men. 7476. Can you suggest how inspectors should be appointed ? — By the flock masters, and not by servants. 7477. Mr. Francis.'] How long is it since you sent those sheep of your neighbour's to the pound ? — About fifteen years. 7478. Have they ever trespassed since then ? — Yes. 7479. Did you again send them to the po ind ? — No. 7480. When you sent them to the pound, did you only charge trespass money as if they had been clean stock ? — No, I charged the damages, but the demand was not enforced. The lawyer said the plaintiff might have demanded damages to the extent of £800. 7481. Under common law, or the pound ordinance .'' — The pound ordinance. 7482. Don't j-ou think it would be advisable for the law to be so amended that when you found scabby sheep on your farm you could send them to the pound and obtain your damages there without bringing an action at law ? — In that respect the old law was better than the now. 7483. Would it not be a great advantage if we could eradicate scab from the country ? — Ever)' farmer would be very glad if it could be done. 7484. If they have eradicated scab from other countries, and even from some districts here, would it not be advisable to try and eradicate it from other districts in this Colony ? — We are opposed to a compulsory act, because there is such a difference between one part of the country and another. Mr. John Samuel Frederic): Botha examined. 7485. Chairman.'] You are farming in the district of Cradock ? — Yes, and I am a delegate from Maraisburg. I have farmed here for thirty-five years, and I have about 2,000 sheep. 7486. Do you agree with Mr. Cloete's evidence ? — Entirely. 7487. Have j'ou anything you would like to add 'f — Sometimes irritation is caused by grass to such an extent that by scratching and biting it becomes sore, and although it is very much like scab, no dipping will cure it, because it is not scab. But every farmer knows it is not scab. ITie Her. George Andries Martin examined. 7488. Chairman.] You were formerly farming in this district ? — Yes, for twoney-five years; first with sheep, about 3,000 or 4,000, and afterwards with 2,000 or 3,000 goats. 7489. You wish to give some evidence in connection with tliis inquiry 'i — I believe there is one point on which the Commission has not obtained full information. The objection the people have is not really against a scab act, but more against the way in which it has been 812 carried out, and their greatest objection is against the inspectors, because they are fully convinced, by experience, that a great many of the so-called inspectors are totally unfit for their position. You will perhaps find a young man who has been appointed inspector go out to an old, well-to-do farmer, and behave in a verj- improper manner, ordering the man about on his own farm ; and that has been a great cause of bringing about a feeling against the act. 7490. Gould you suggest any better method of appointing the inspectors .'' — That is the difficulty : the man 3^ou would like to have, you cannot get ; but I would rather see the inspector chosen in the field-cornetcy where he resides. He .should be a man who has clean stock, because if you appoint a man with sheej), and he is indifferent about them, it is a baid example to others. 7491. If that were done, do you think a great deal of this irritation would be removed ? — To a very great extent 7492. Dr. Smartt.^ Do you consider that a measure of some sort is absolutely essential in the interests of the people themselves if the present holders of ground, the Afrikanders here, are to remain holders of ground, and their children after them ? — I full}' go with you that something ought to be done. Wo ought to have a scab act, and if possible not only for certain jjarts of the country, but as far as it is possible to do BO. At the same time I must saj' the present act is not a suitable one to be extended over the whole country. There are some places where they only have dam water, and in dry weather the water gets so bad that it causes other diseases, and the sheep cannot st&y there. Que farmer wanted the inspector to allow him to go to his father's place with his sheep, but as he could not get leave he went without it, and the sheep gradually improved there. I believe that scab, pure and simple, can be cured in 20 days, but when the steekgras gets into the skin it makes the sheep very poor, and tliat causes heavy loss. 7493. Mr. Botha.'] Will you teU us what you have read as having happened in the old, Dutch times, when they tried wool-breeding in this country, when there was a fine, even then, for people who had scabby sheep : that the disease was known so long ago, and there was a law to punish it .'' — In reading the Cape history of former times I was quite surprised to come across the statement that in the old Dutch days jjeople were fined for keeping scabby sheep, nearly £2. I believe my father was the first to have mei'ino sheep in this district ; he got some rams fi-om Mr. Gumming, near Graham's Town, and they were infected wiih scab, and infected the flocks in this district. I think scab can and ought to be stamped out. 7494. Mr. du Toit.~\ Do you think it advisable that all inspectors should cari'y a magni- fying glass to convince the farmers of scab t — Yes, to convince them of the existence of scab in sheep, but I should not at all like it to be used when slaughter stock is sent down, and are put in trucks infected by these insects, which have very likely come from scabbj" skins, and might infect the clean sheep. Mr. Jacohui Zudovicus Botha examined. 7495. Chairman.] Are you farming in this district '? — Yes, and have been all my life. I have about 5,000 or 6,000 sheep and goats. 7496. WiU you make a statement in regard to the inquiry ? — I have never farmed under the act, but common sense teaches me that we cannot do without it. It is no good to dip without a scab act, because however you may clean your flocks, your neighbour is sure to infect you again. It is all nonsense to say that you cannot cure scab ; I could cure any sheep or goat. It is absolutely necessary to have a scab act, and farming cannot be carried on witliout it. As for the law itself, I will say nothing, because I don't know anything about it by experience. 7497. Do the farmers in your neighbourhood dip their sheep properly ? — No, not one except m) self. I have never had a scabby sheep I could not clean, and my neighbours often say they kill their sheep with dipping, but cannet clean them. 7498. AVould you have sheep dipped under inspection ? — Yes. 7499. Would a compulsory simidtaneous dipping act assist in stamping out scab ? — Yes, it \YOuld be a good thing, and would prevent re-infection. 7500. Your sheep all beiug clean, would you have no objection to dip them for a year or two in order to stamp out scab 'i — None at sill ; and not only that, but to keep them clean as they are now. 7501. You know the Cradock district thoroughlj' ? — Yes. 7502. Is the position of the farmers here now as good as it was ten years ago ? — No, they are growing poorer. 7503. To what do you attribute this ? — It is difficult to sa}'. I don't know whether I am justified in speaking of it, but I think in some cases the fanners are negligent. 7504. Do you think scab in sheep has a great deal to do with it y — Yes. 7505. Dr. Smartt.] Do you know Mr. J. L. Botha, who gave evidence here yesterday? — He is my nephew, and cur faiins adjoin. 7506. Are his sheep clean 'i — Not one. 7507. Are you in danger of re-infection from him every day ? — Yes. 318 7508. Do you consider that to be altogether due to his carelessness as a sheep farmer ? — Certainly. 7509. With about how many sheep does he farm } — About 600. 7.510. We have it on evidence from him that he has 1,500. Is that a fact } — Perhaps he made a mistake. Mr. James Proberi, Assiitant Seal Inspector, examined. 7511. Chairmanr\ You are the assistant scab inspector at Witmos .' — Yes, area No. 11, for nearly two years. 7512. We want to obtain from you some information about some sheep which were sent to Witmos station to be forwBrded to Port Eliz ibetli, but were stopped at the station .'' — It was on the 21st .January, 1891, a few daj'.s after I was appointed. Ten trucks of sheep arrived at the station from De Aar, consigned from Mr. du Toit to Mr. du Toit at Port Elizabeth. I found them infected with scab, and showed the infected ones to Mr. du Toit, who offered to cut their throats or hand-dress thom. T wired to the agricultural department about hand-dressing, but they said the sheep could not he allowed to pass unless they were properly dipped ; so Mr. du Toit sold them afterwards to Mr. Edward Probert, who lives about six miles from the station. I had the infected sheep hand-dressed myself, and I wanted to have them dipped, but there was no tank at the station, so they were taken to Mr. Edward Probert's farm, and dipped there the next da^' in my presence. They arrived at the station, were kejjt a day over, and the next day they were dressed and sent on to Mr. Edward Probert's and dipped there. 7513. Were those sheep taken out of the trucks by you for the purpose of being sent t) the pound .'' — No. Mr. du Toit arrived there before the sheep, and brought me the certificate for them. I said if the sheep were clean it would be all right, but when I stopped them he wired from Port Elizabeth asking the station-master where the sheep were, and he was told they were stopped at the station in consequence of scab. Ho then wired to me t(j ask me to detain the sheep until his arrival. 7514. How many scabby sheep were there } — Five or six. 7515. Mr. Botha.'\ Was Mr. Edward Probert, who bought the sheep, living in the pro- claimed area? — Yes. 7516. So he moved them into the proclaimed area without dipping them? — No, they were in the iiroclaimed area when they were stopped. 7517. But you could allow them to be moved to Mr. Edward Probert's place in the proclaimed area, although you could not allow them to be moved from the proclaimed area in a truck to Port Elizabeth ? — No, I was not allowed to do that. 7518. Did you ask permission to move them to Mr. Edward Probert's, in the proclaimed area .-* — No. 7519. But we have it in evidence that the owner of the sheep offered to take them back to Cradock, the boundary of which is only about a mile from Witmos station, and that you refused to allow it? — I could not book the sheep to Cradock, because under the eighth section of the act I muse send them back to the place from which they came. 7520. But the owner offered to take upon himself to take the sheep back to the district without your sending them by trucks, and 3'ou ref uso.l to allow it f — I don't remem- ber that. 7021. I)r. Smartt.^ Then did Mr. du Toit soil the sheep of his otu free will, or was he so conquered by circumstances that he was obliged to sell them ? — He offei'od to sell them to Mr. Probert. 7522. Mr. BofJia.'\ But if you would not allow them to be moved anywhere except to Mr. Probert's, then of course he could not sell them to anj'body else .'' — He could have sold them to Mr. Drennan, the storekeeper, but ho wanted too much. Mr. Drennan offered to buy them. 7523. Did not Mr. Probert soil some of th(i sheep on the spot to a butcher? — No. 7524. Br. Smarli.] And they ran there for a month without being dipped or hand- dressed ? — No. 7525. Mr. Botha.'] It has been given in evidence that Mr. Edward Probert is your uncle 7 — No, he is my cousiu. 7526. Do you remember a Mr. John Vosloo at the station the same day, who said you refused to allow the owner to take the sheep back to the Cradock district — a mile from the station? — I don't remember that. 7527. Mr. Francis.] Were the sheep sold before they went out of the trucks? — No. 7528. I)r. Smiirtt.] Could you tell us in what respects Mr. Hilton Barber's certificate was not in order .' — He simply referred to the sheep in the trucks, and he .signed the certifi- cate himself. 7529. But they were dean? — I found no scab on them. 7530. Mr. Botha.'] By whom were you appointed or recommended ? — I could not say. My cousin was assistant scab inspector at the station, and he resigned, and suggested my name for the appointment. I had already applitd to the agricultural department. 7531. Your application was supported by his recommendation? — I did not apply for that appointment ; I applied for Mr. Pietersou's at Somerset. 314 7532. They could not have appointed you unless they knew something about you ?— I did not make an application for this, but for the other place. 7.533. Chairman.'] Have you anything to say with reference to the administration of the act at Witmos ? — The people don't .seem to understand that a good many of the certificates sent with the sheep are informal. Tliey simi>ly refer to the sheep in the trucks : that a certain number of truck-loads of sheep are free of scab, but I want a certificate to show that the flocks from which they are taken are free before I can pass them. 7534. Dr. Smartt.~\ Then you are prepared to state that you don't stop some lots, and allow others to go by out of animosity 'to farmers in adjoining areas who will not come under the act ? — No. 75.35. Mr. Francis.'] Do you think it would be better, instead of having to send sheep back to the place they came from, that they should bo sent to tho nearest point in an unpro- claimed area ?— Certainly. If I take them out of the truck and feed and water them in the station, I get no compensation, and have to pay it out of my own pocket. Middelburg, Wednesday, \A(h Decemher, 1892. PRESENT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mh. Botha. ,, DTJ TOIT. Dr. Smartt. Mr. Francis. I Mr. Douylas van der Walt examined. 7536. Chairman.] Are you farming in the district of Middelburg? — Yes, and have been aU my life. I have about 1,200 small stock, principally sheep. 7537. I suppose you have seen a good deal of scab amongst sheep and goats ? — Yes. 7538. Do you find as much now as you did ten years ago ? — Not just at present, this year, but I often do. During the last ten years I have seen more scab than I have ever seen before, especially during the recent drought in 1888 or 1889. 7539. Did the farmers in this district, generally speaking, dip their sheep? — Yes. 7540. Do they continue to do so now ? — Yes. 7541. Do you see any improvement during the last three years? — Yes, the veldt is better. 7542. You don't attribute the improvement to the dipping and cleansing of the sheep, but to the condition of the veldt ? — To both. 7543. I take it that you are one of the most progressive farmers in the district, and that your sheep are generally clean ? — My sheep are generallj'^ clean. 7544. When they become infected, is it generally by tho sheep of some careless neigh- bour, or in what way ? — I cannot say it is through my neighbours' sheen, because they dip as well as I do. They generally get infected through scarcity of water and food. 7545. Am I to understand that you consider scab is spontaneous ? — It comes from poverty ; food becomes scarce, the sheep become poor, and hence scab increases. 7546. When the sheep get into that scabby state, do you dip and cleanse them whether they are poor or not ? — There is a certain time when it is not advisable to dip a sheep in bad condition, but except at those times I dip them. If they are very poor iu June, July, and August, and I dip them then, tbey die. 7547. But when you do dip tliem at those times, you cure them ? — -During tho^e months I hand dress them, and then they get better, and the moment my veldt improves they get all right. 7548. Although by using the dip in that wa)', and curing the sheep, you still think scab is spontaneous .■' — Ye.s, and I must try and counteract it as much as possible. 7549. Is it impossible to stamp it out? — It can never be done. 7550. Do you consider that j'our neighliours, and most of the farmers in this district, dip their sheep properlj' ? — I think most of them do. They try to find out amongst them- selves which is the best way. 7551. Do you find more scab amongst the stock of small .'iheep farmers, such as bijwoners or natives, or amongst the large flock-owners' sheep .f*— There are no lo(^ations here, but the sheep of the servants run with those of the farmer, and thyj- are both dressed .and dipped together. The owuer of tlie farm attends (o the dipping, and from what I have seen the bijwoners' sheep are mostly dipp.sd with the owners', and tho owner sees it done. 7552. Wo have it on evidence that some farmers who have dipping tanks refuse to allow the bijwoners or natives on their farms to dip their stot'k in them. Does that apply to this division .'' — It is possible, but I do not know of any such case. 7553. Do you consider scab is very injurious to wool and stock ? — Yes. 7554. Do you think some measure should be taken to try and stamp it out aU over the [G. 1.— '94.] ss .315 Colony ? — If the seasons rould be changed, so that we could get rain whenever it was necessary, I think wo could eradicate seal). If it could be eradicated, it would be a good thing, but I don't believe it can be done. 7555. Siiould the Government assist the farnicrs in any way to endeavoui- to stamp it out? — I bilieve that the expense would ruin the country. 7556. 3[r. Franciii.~\ Do you believe that scab is caused by an insect ? — Yes. 7557. Then, if the insect is killed, do you believe there will be no more scab ? — No, the moment the sheep gets ill the insect appears. 7558. Then do you think that the sickness causes the insect, or the insect causes the sickness ? — The insect comes upon the sheep in the same way as it comes upon a person a couple of months after a bad attack of fever. 7559. So you believe that if the sheep gets scab, it breeds the insect, although there were no other insects there before ? — Yes. 7560. But if I tell you that in most of the Australian colonies they have completely eradicated scab, would you believe it could be eradicated from this country ?. — No. I don't know how thirgs are in Australia, but I don't think it can Tie done here. 7561. The Commission has it in evidence that the country is losing at present about half a million a 3'ear, owing to our flocks being infected with scab. Don't you think it would be better for the Government to spend a large amount of money to save that loss ? — If everybody would clean his sheep properly, I think the Government need not interfere, and the money would be saved. 7562. Do you think that aU farmers do their best? — No, I don't think so. 7563. Then if you clean your sheep, and have lazy neighbours who won't clean theirs, don't you think it is an injustice to you if their dirty sheep reinfect j-our flocks? — Their flocks must remain on their veldt, and mine on mine. 7564. Mr. Botha^ Which are more liable to take the infection, goats or sheep ? — Sheep. 7565. You believe that scab can be cured ?— Yes. 7566. Then don't you think it would be well if the Government assisted the farmers by supplying dip at cost price, free of railway carriage ? — I believe it would assist the people. 7567. Have j-ou seen insects upon people, caused by sickness? — Yes. 7568. You are quite fimi in 3-our opinion when you say that these insects appear upon the sheep in consequence of sickness ?— Yes, and I shall remnin of that opinion unless I am convinced to the ontrary. I believe they are first bred by unhealthy sheep, and then come on to Iho healthy ones. 7569. Y'ou are not under the scab act. Do you know anything about the ability and conduct of the present scab inspector ? — I know nothing about him. 75' 0. Have you any idea about the suitability of persons for those posts ?— They should be farmers who have been used to be among sheep, and I would select them out of that class. 7571. Who would be the proper person to select them r — The magistrate could appoint a committee of ten farmers, and they would be best able to select them. 7572. Dr. Smmtt.'] Would you object to an act which made it compulsory upon all farmers to dip their sheep ? — No. 7573. Do you think such an act would do a great deal of good ? — Yes. 7574. Would you personally object to any measure being framed in the interests of the farmer with a view to eradicate scab or diminish the amount of scab in the country ? — I am not opposed to a law for that purpose, provided it is a law which is to the advantage of the farmer, and does not interfere with the farmer in his operations, buying or selling, or bind him to dip with certain prescribed dips, and at unsuitable times. In this district most of the people dip, in fact nearly all, and in my opinion it is unnecessar}' for the Government to spend money here, because the people clean their sheep of their own accord. 7575. Mr. du ToU.~\ Have you any suggestions how suc^h an act should be made ? — It should be an act which should cost no money to the jieople of the country — a law very much like that which provides punishment for theft, so that every farmer should be obliged to dip his sheep twice a year, with two dippings only in cii.se it should be reqiiired, but I would not make two dippings obligator}'. 7576. Chairman.'] Do 3'ou think the farmers in this district are as prosperous now as they were ten years ago and have as much small stock ? — No, a gi'eat deal less. 7577. Don't j-ou think the scab amongst this stock may have assisted in this decrease nn the number of the stock ? — No ; the reason there is less stock now is because the farms are being cut up, and there are more people on them than there were formerly, and therefore they cannot keep .so many stock on them. 7578. Have you any experience of tanning skins ? — Yes. 7579. Are you aware that a scabby skin makes very bad leather ? — Yes. 7580. I suppose j'ou never tan scabby skins? — No. 7581. Do you think the farmers lose very heavily by having these scabby skins } — Yes. 7582. Are you aware that a scabby skin is not worth one half a good skin, although both may be of the same size ? — Yes. 7583. Don't you thiuk it would be very much to the advantage of the farmers if there were no scab at all amongst their stock ? — Yes. 7584. AVhen you see skins like this [producing specimen of tanned scabby skin from Algoa Tanning Co.] coming from different parts of the Colony, don't you think it is time that something is done to assist the farmers to stamp out the disease which hinders them so 316 severely ? — I believe it would be a very good tiling if scab could be eradicated, and for that purpose we are all dipping our shoep. We are not sitting still. 7585. Still, you say you are going back? — Yes, but I did not mean that we are going back tbrough the scab. 7.586. There is one district in the Colony, Komgha, which is free of scab, and another district where there is only one flock infected, a native's. The Commission examined 25,000 sheep in Komgha, and we don't believe there is a single spot of scab in the whole, place, and all this has been done by the operation of the scab act ? — I fully believe you, but I still wish to find out for myself whether in case of drought it will not return. 7587. It has been eradicated fi-om that district for more than three j'ears, and there are flocks there which have not been dipped for sis years, and during that time some have died of drought. Scabby sheep from outside have come in, but the inspector has been very care- ful to get them cured without infecting the others .-' — [No replj-.] 7588. 2fr. BothaT^ Do j-ou kubw of any farmer in this district who does not dip ? — My neighbour does not dip, but he dresses by hand. I know there are some farmers in this district who don't dress their sheep. 7589. Although there may be onlj' a few farmers who do not dip, will you not admit that if those few could be induced to do so, even if there should only be one, it would be a good thing ? — Yes, I believe a person might be compelled to dip his sheep, the same as we have a law for punishing theft. 7590. Mr. du Toit.j "Who is to take action in the matter ? — I think the neighbours ia their own interests would complain about each other, and every farmer should send a certificate, signed by two witnesses, stating that his sheep have been dipped during certain months. This he should send to the field-cornet, by whom it shoidd be submitted to the magistrate. 7591. Do you think everybody would inform you of their neighbours ? — If two birds of the same feather were living next to each other they probably would not complain of each other. 7592. What would you do in such a case ? — I think it could be detected by the com- pulsory certificate I refer to. 7593. Might not these two birds of a feather send certificates without dipping? — It is possible. 7594. Then would it not be necessary to have someone to look after these people in the field-cornetcies ? — Possibly my suggestion on this subject would not answer, and would have to be improved upon. 7595. If anybody were obliged to look after these matters, would he not have to be paid ? — Yes, I think so. 7596. I)r. SmaHt.^ Though j-ou don't think that scab can be eradicated, would you personally object to complying with the pro^dsions of an act framed with a view to eradicate scab ? — I have been a sheep farmer for thirty years, and it would take a long time before I could find out whether the law would act, and before I became responsible as a father, I should first like to look at the child. 7597. You would not object to some measure? — I should stUlIike to see whether or not I could accept it, and whether it was a desirable measure. Mr. Michael Daniel BelporU, examined. 7598. Chairman.'] You are farming in this district ? — Yes, for six years, with about 1,800 sheep and angora goats, but mostly sheep. 7599. Do you agree with Mr. van der Walt, and if not, wiU you state on what points you dis agree ? — I don't believe the insect is caused by the illness of the sheep. I don't know where it comes from, but I fijmly believe there is one, and that this insect causes scab. I will not say that a general scab act would be useful if forced upon thi people, but I believe scab can be eradicated. In for.a r times, in my farming operations in the Cradock district, I had my sheep very much infected by scab, and lost both the sheep and the wool, and it was just the same with goats ; but since I have commenced dipping, I have lost sheep by sicknsss, but not by scab. With reference to dipping, I believe the farmers iu this district do dip, but not properly, and they don't dip enough iu the course of a j'ear. When a sheep is in a bad way with scab, you must continue to dip him imtil he is quite healthy, and when he is very scabb}' it is ditficult to say how many times he must be dipped, because you have to continue dipping until he is clean. It is just the same with goats. If a scab act has to be put in force, it would be better that the inspectors should be appointed through the public, and tliey should bo able sheep farmers. The act should be introduced through the divisional council, in very much the same manner as the burr-weed is eradicated at present. 7600. Does the divisional council in this district eradicate tlie burr-weed .' — They don't eradicate it altogether, but they are working towards it. 7601. Do you think they could eradicate it if they did their duty properly? — I believe the biu-r-weed can be eradicated, similarly to the scab, provided it is properly attended to. ss2 317 7602. From your experience of the working of the divisional council with regard to burr- weed, do you think it would bo advisable to put the scab act nuilor thoir administration? — The divisional council do thoir best, but the burr-weed is not a living thing, and I think the divisional council would take even more stringent measures with regard to a scab act, because it is of more consecjuence ; and I would leave it to them, because in that case I think there would be more chance of a general act being passed. 7603. You .say farmers don't dip their sheep properly. Do you think it would be ad- visable tliat their sheep should be dipped under inspection, in case there is an act of some kind ? — Yes, they are sure to work better ; people should be shown how to dip. 6604. If the sheep were dipped properly twice, for two or three years, don't you think there is a chance of st>imp'ng out the scab in a reasonable time ? — Y(\s. 7605. J//-. Franns.'\ Tlion do you think the Government should spend a large amount of money to slamp it out ? — Naturally. 7606. Br. Smart!.'] Do you consider it is utterly impossible to carry on sheep farming successfully unless some measure is introduced to try and eradicate scab ? — Without a law it can never be done. 7607. Frum }oiir kiiowlc'lge of the farmers in this district, do j'ou tliiuk, if they wei'e convinced that this measure was introduced in thoir own interests, that they would object to it and put ovi'ry hindrance iu the \ray of carrying it out? — I don't think they would object. 7608 Would you apply th-^ act to tbe whole Colony, or a portion of it .'■ — I think it would be better for the whole Colony, but an improved act, not the present one. 7609. Do you beliovo that every farmer who has enough water on his farm to water his sheep has enough wat -r to dip them .'' — Yes. 76in. J/r. du Toil.] Would you force a lenient act upon the people, and how would you know if they were in favour of it or not ? — That I cannot say. Provided the act were im- proved. I would be iu favour of its being made general, althougli there might be some people against it. 7611. Can j'ou suggest how the act should be amended.'' — -I am not sufficiently well acquainted with the present act to say, but I have heard of certain hardships under it, and I think they ought to be removed, and then the law will work properly. 76 ; 2. I)r. Smriftf.] Would you bo iu favour of a compulsory simultaneous dipping act, in conjunction with the scab act .'' — A good scab would niake a diii()iug act unnecessary. 7613. Chairman.'] Do you wish to add anything ? — No, in other matters I agree with Mr, van der Walt. Mr. Michael Jacohm Pretorius examined. 7614. Chairman.] How long have you lived in the Middelburg district? — Twenty-six years. With my children I have 4,000 small stock, mostly sheep. 7615. Do jou agree with the previous witnesses? — Not entirely. I don't think they dip properly in this di.strict, and they don't quite understand how to dip. And I disagree about drought ; I have seen sheep cjntract scab when the veldt is fine. The drought has much to do with scab, but it is not always the cause of it. If a sheep is clean he can stand the drought better than one that is not. I think this district has been set back a good deal by scab. During the last two years there has been sickness among the stock, but that was different from scab. I consider scab to be excessively contagious, and I know it from ex- perience. In this distiict I think i; is necessary that the Government should assist the people by providing dips. Those are all the points upon which I diSer. I think we should concern ourselves more about the means to eradicate scab, but I don't believe a law will work well unless the people agree to it. They are afraid of it, and I think an act of this nature should be put before the general public before it is made Jaw so tliat they may li ive an opportunity of exjiressing an 02Mni(yn upon it. 7616. Dr. Smart/.] After you have gone to a great deal of trouble and expense in cleaning your sheep, as you say they can be cleaned, do you think it is fair that all your trouble should be sicrificcd thi'ough your neighbour's carelessness? — No, it is not right. My stock has been infected, and I have lost heavily in consequence. 7617 Under such circumstanc'S, do you co-sider that the law should protect the cai'e- ful farmer against the negligence of his neighbour ? — Yes. 7618. Althougli you say it is not right that the careful farmer -should be damaged by a careless neighbour, yet ynu aiv afraid that if theio should be a general act some parts of it might press unduly on the other side ?— Yes. 7619. And that makes you hesitate to declare youi'self in favour of a general act? — There are very great difficulties in the exi-ting scab act, aud we are very much frightened of it ; as, for instance, when a master is punished because his shepherd has caused a neigh- bour's stock to become infected. I don't believe there is anyone iu this district v. ho is not in favour of ha\'ing his sheep clean. Everyone tries in his own way, but I don't think it is being done iu the right manner 7620. Then you would gladly receive any measiue which would teach the farmer how to dip ? — I think a great many people will require to be shown how to dip. 318 Mr. Johannes Jacob Duienage examined. 7621. Chairman.'] How long have you farmed here? — 30 years. With my children. I have about 6,000 sheep and goats, principally sheep. 7622. Do you agree with the evidence alr.-ady given ? — I agree with it in some respects. 76213. Will you axy where you differ ? — In the first j)laco, I don't believe there are any insects unless there is scab ; the insect is caused by the scab. The scab comes first and then the insect ; the scab breeds our, the insect. When I examine a scabby sheep, I find no insect ou the sound parts, but I do on the dise ised parts. I liave never seen the insects on the healthy parts but always in the bai places. The one comes first, and the insect comes out of it. Bad treatment causes scab to .spread, and the servants we have to deal with at present are often the cause of this. The farmer may be as strict as possible, but the sheep are badly treated by the herds. They shoul 1 be treated justly, and if that is done there is very little scab. And the lefs they are kraaled, the less scab there will be, and if they are not kraaled at all, there will bo none. The kraals should be cleaned yearly. A scab act without a fencing act will never succeed, and unless we can get so far in this country that sheep can run night and day, a scab act will never be a success, and scab will never be entirely eradicated. I liave not sufficient experience to speak positively, but I think with a fencing act scab could bo eradioatod. The difficulty lies in fencing every man's farm. I should be in favour of a moderate act, which left a farmer free to move with his sheep and dip them from tlie 1st September to the 1st April, and from the 1st April to the let Septem- ber that dipping should not be compulsory, but from September to April they should be made to keep their stock clean. 7624. Do the farmers in your neighbourhood dip properly .?— No. 7625. Would it be advisable to have their stock dipped under inspectiouof somekind? — If they are told how to dij) properly, I don't tbink there is any necessity to place them under in'-pection. They are sufficiently intelligent to do it themselves. 7626. Have they not been told for the last ten years how to mix and use the dips, and is it not written on every packet of diji 'i — I use them according to the directions, but I don't think all of them do. If there were an inspector, he could see that the instructions were properly carried o. it ; or they could be published by the Government and distributed in pamphlet form, and that would be sufficient. When I said just now that people should dip between September and .^pril. I did not meau that any scab found during that time should be punishable, but that a man .should be punished if he did not do his best, and did not dip properly. 7627. Mr, Francis.'] Why do you say it is necessary to clean the kraals y — The kraal fuel causes a certain amount of heat, and that causes scab. 7628. Is it to get rid of the insect that j-ou would clean the kraal ? — No ; I don't think the insect itself does so much harm to the .sheep as the .scab. Middelbtirg, Thursday, I5th December, 1892. Pbesent : Mr. FsosT (Chairman). Botha. DU ToiT. Dk. Mb. Smartt. Fraijcis Mb. JUr. Walter Hveritt Mnrray examined. 7629. Chairman.] You are farming iu the district of Graaff-Reinet .'' — Yes, for over 40 years. At present I have only 4,000 sheep and guats. 7630. You were at one time insjwctor for area Ni.i. 17 a 'i — Yes, for fuur y^.-ars until last September, when the act " as repealed in that area. 7631. When you took over the inspectorsliip in GraaU-Iieiuet, was tliat division very much infected with scab ? — It was in a frightful state of scab ; there was onlj' one exception in the whole district where there was no scab iu my area. 7632. After your four years' experience there, did you find the people work with you, and that the scab was stamped out to a great extent ? — I found that everybody saw they were gaining by having the scab act there, and everyone built tanks and dipped their .sheep. Of cour.se, they wifo not all clean, but you luight liave goue through thousands of sheep with- out seeing a sp ck of sc.ib by lookiiig casually over them, although there was no scab amongst some of the fiocks. They found they got more and better quality wool bj- keeping their sheep clean. 7633. Then how do you account for thesi> people, after the four years' experience, ask- ing for the repeal of the act } — I can ouly speak for my own area, and that was always in favour of the act, and in fact, wlien the di.strict petitioned for the repeal of the act, there was a majority of over fifty iu my area, the southern area, iu favour of the act, but they were overruled by the majority in the whole district, and consequently the act was suspended. 319 7634. How do you account for their being so opposed to the act in the northern area, No. 17 ? — You must ask them. 763.5. In carrying on the duties of inspector have any suggestions occurred to you for the amendment of the act 'i — I can only say what I did, and it worked splendidly, without a fault. Whenever I went to the farmer.s, I gave tlivm all the information I had how and in what way to rinse the sheep, ho.v to dip, the longth of time to Iccop them in, and so on. The general fault was that they used just to swim iLe sheep tliroiigh tho water like ducks, and did not keep them in long enough. TLe great secret in dipping sheep is to keep them in the tank not less than two minutes. If the farmers will mix their dip according to the directions which will be fat deal of incnnvenienee. 764.5. You tiink it would be bettor to leave tlvu man to use his utmost endeavours to gnt the act put in force in his district 'i — Yes. 7646. In the cise of a farmer livit.g in an un;" claimed area, on the liorder of a pro- claimed area, would you allow him to come under ii:j act by petition, either a single farm or a field-cornetcy ? — Then he would have to make a fence similar to the one I have sug- gested should be constructed on the border of the area bj- the Government, under the super- vision of the Government in-spoctu-, so as to make it safe for the others. 7647. Can you sug'/u.st any improvement in the method of appointing inspectors? — I think myself that thi* divisi )jial council members are the representatives of the district, and are supposed to be the best men. AVe hope wo have fair men in it, and I cannot object to the ])ri'sent method. 7648. Do you think there are enough inspectors ? Ai-e two sufficient tor Graaif- Eeinet .'' — I think so. 7649. Y(m don't think it wciuld be better to appoint an inspector in each field-cornetcy, and have one supervising inspeclor in the district y — No, but I should propose that in Graaff- Eeinot we should have one \o ku inspector, for the forwarding of stock, because a great deal of inconvenience has been causad in the fornarding of stock. And in every other town where there is a railway station there should be an inspector stationed permanently for that purpose. 320 7650. Provided he had a clean bill for six months, do you think it would be better to allow him to move his sheep on his own permit, subject to a heavy penalty for wilfuUy moving scabby sheep ? — Tliat is the present law. When I found a fanner free of scab for an}- length of time, I gave him a standing permit to remove his stock wherever he liked, to any part of the Colony. Those were my instructions. 7651. But if you brought a case into court, would you lose it or gain it ? — There was no penalty for clean stock, and the instructions say if a man's flocks continue clean he may be allowed to move them to any part of the Colonj-. Those were my iustnictions, and it the Government gives me instructions outside the law I am not responsible. 7652. Do you think that would meet the case, as I suggested just now ? — Certainly ; he could just make a statement so that effect and issue the permit upon it. 7653. Do you think that would do away with a great deal of the existing irritation in consequence of the frequent inability of farmers to obtain permits ? — I think in a great many cases the privilege would be abused, but if you put a heavy penalty ou, and provide the necessary machinery, it could be seen to. But I know of people, unfortunately, who would abuse it. They told me they would. These men, however, are generally known, and can be looked after, and I think the system would stop a great deal of inconvenience. 7654. J/;-, du Toit.'\ Would j-ou also allow skins and wool to be sent from an unpro- claimed into a proclaimed area ? — Decidedly not; I would not allow anything, because these .skins are infected with scab, and if the insects can live in the manure in the kraals, as has been proved to my satisfaction, they can certainly live in the warm wool, and \>y that means not only the trucks will be infected, but the outspans, and possibly the whole country. 7655. Is the present time given for quarantine sufficient ?■- It is simply imlimited, because you give a man three months the first time, and if at the end of that time he can prove he has dipped the sheep, you are bound to give him an extension if there is still scab, and that may go on. 1 found it very troublesome in the fii'st instance, and that the people left the dipping until a few days before I was expected, and consequently when I came I could not judge whether the sheep were clean or not, and I was obliged to grant a renewal, and so the inspector was frustrated. 7656. Would you then have that altered ? — Yes, I would suggest that after six months the inspector should be obliged to superintend the dipping ; not to prosecute the man, but to make him pay for the dip required to cure the sheep, and to show him that they can be cured. I proposed another thing to the Government, that the cheapest way of eradic :ting scab would be feu- the Government to find the dip for one year for every farmer in the country, and appoint inspectors to see that it is projierly used aud the sheep j>roperly cured, and after that year to put a heavj- penalty on every sheep that is scabby. 7657. That is in case there is a general scab act '? — Yes. When I went to the Graaff- Reinet district, one-third of the people really wished me to treat their sheep for scab, and therefore they want educating up to it. That is whj- 1 say it should be a general, lenient, workable act, by which the fanners should be instructed, and not the present act. It is very easy to show farmers how to cure sheep without making the act oppressive. 7658. In case scab broke out on sheep wlien Xhey had ten months' wool on, would you allow hand dressing uutU after the first shearing ? — Certainl}' ; we cannot dip sheep with long wool. Then give the neighbours notice by the inspect' r that these sheep are infected, and the neighbours must keep their sheep away fr^ m the boundaries of the farm until they have been sheared and dipped. 7659. Are you asvare of any hardships suffered by people under quarantine through not being able to sell their sheep for want of a permit? — I certainly never would, and I never did give a permit for the rt moval of scabby sheep, but if thej- wished to sell them they had either to dip them, or to shear and dip them. I never allowed the sheep to bo moved until they were cured, because that woidd not be fair to the neighbours ovei whose fai-ms the sheep would pass, men nho have kept their sheep clean at a large cost, all for the sake of the few shillings the farmer would make Vjy selling his sheep. 7660. Then would you allow slaughter stock to be dipped jn-operly once, and then sent away .-' — If the di.'^tanee they have to travel is not U o great, and they are dipped under inspection, ami are onl}' for sLsughter. 7661. If the inspector would not be reae'hed in time, would you allow a landowner to supervise the dipping and give the permit, and to make a declaration that the flock had been thorough!}- dipped in his presence, and was supposed to be intended for slaughter purposes } — That might do in case of moving sheep for want of water or fvr change of pasturage, but it sjioils sh' ej5 to dip them fur slaughter, and I don't think you will get any butcher to buy sheep which have just been dipped, so I don't think it will answer to give them that privilege fi>r slaughter stock. 7662. But if butcheis and sjieculators were not opposed to it, would you allow it? — Certainly. 766;3. Do you know that kind of skin disease which is so much like scab, and which may sometimes be taken for scab by inexperienced inspectors ? — Not in sheep, but in goats. 7664. Do you think insjiectors might sometimes make a mistake ?— It is only in the steekgras districts that such a mistake could bo made, and there it is very apt to be made. 7665. Would you then be in favour of compelling inspectors to use their magnifying 321 «. glasses to satisfy themselves and the farmers tliat it is scab ? — I am afraid that won't work, because it is very difficult iu new cases of scab to find the microbe. You mux pprhaps find a few, but you will find a small white blister, which is the only sign that the animal has just been infected. At tliat stage I should not like to guarantee to show them the microbe, but any man who knows scab can toll at once whether it is scab or anything else ; therefore I don't like people to judge stock by simply looking at them without rxamining them, because they may bite on account of ticks and lice, besides for scab. 7660. Are you not awnre that the ariirus comes on a sheep in its full-grown state ? — Certainly, but it gets under the cuticle of the skin ; as a rule it buries itself there, and con- sequently is very difficult to see. 7667. Then do you think it is only the young ones that como to the surface ? — Yes, they deposit their eggs. When they get very numerous you can see the insects themselves, but fortunately in our district these cases of hard ciustations are not to be found; it is stopped before it gets so bad. That is caused bj' neglected scab. 7668. But you say it maj- happen that inspectors may make a mistake with steekgras. Don't you think, then, it would be advisable for an inspector not to put a man under quarantine unless he is satisfied that it is scab ? — I generally had the one or two cases I found properly hand dressed in my presence, and then 1 came in ten days' time to see if there was any reinfection, and then if I found it was actually scab the sheep had to be either dipped, or shorn and dipped, according to the length of the wool. 7669. Do you consider scab to be very contagious ?— It is as contagious as rust in com. 7670. Will trekking flocks infect clean flocks by simply passing over the pasturage without mixing with them ?- — Not excej^t they rub against posts or stones, or sleep on the ground, and in that case it is quite certain. 7671. Have you any idea how long the acarux can live in kraals and on the bare ground? — On this subject I differ from the opinion expressed by the veterinary surgeon. The veterinary surgeon tells you that if your kraals are kept empty for six weeks at the outside, and there are heavy rains, they will be clean of any infection. My experience is quite to the contrary, and is, that if you have damp weather, when the sheep can trample the dung down into the ground, scabby sheep standing in the kraal tramp the dung into small flakes, and when it is tramped down tight the air is excluded, and a certain amount of moisture is retained, and this, with the heat, causes the eggs of these insects to live for an indefinite time, and as soon as that dung is dug up and exposed to the atmosphere the eggs wiU hatch, and infect any sheep which are jnit into the kraal. In regard to the question of having inspectors in each ward, I am afraid you will not find men to do the work on such a small salarj'. I had only two and a half wards in my area, and it took me all my time to do the work properly. 7672. Dr. Smartt.~] Do you consider any Government would be justified in passingsuch a measure as suggested by you, prohibiting all skins and wool from any unproclaimed area passing through a proclaimed area if it was proved that by so doing they would shut off almost all the produce from the Free State which now passes over our rail-vays, and thus materially diminish the revenue of the country ? — We cannot influence the Free State or the Transvaal, but if we passed such a measure it would be only the first loss. The Free State and the Transvaal would then see that they would be obliged to eradicate scab so as to enable them to trade with the seaports of iht; Colony. 7673. Considering the geographical position of those states, don't you think it is more probable that they would transfer their Vmsinoss to ports which would be more lenient than ours ? — It is possible, unless they have a scab a<:t iu Natal. 7674. AVould it not answer your requironieuts if the produce from unproclaimed areas which you have referred to were simply passe 1 iu transit through the proclaimed areas direct to the seaports, and if requisite tie skin-i packed in bales, and all trucks carefully disinfected? — I would not object to close trucks, and disinfecting; the only thing which could be infected then would be the trucks in which stock is taken to agricultural shows, and by that means scab would be spread. 767/j. What you really object to is produce coming from an unproclaimed area into a proclaimed area and being deposited there, and wool aad skins being opened at a store and being sold on the public markets on wagons?— Yes. 7676. Is it a fact that the repeal of the scab act in the Graaff-Reinet district was due to tlie fact that many of the farmers signed the petition believing that a general scab act would be the result, and that they are sorry uow that the act has been repealed ? — That was the excuse, but in my area there were only eight men against a general scab act. 7677. Holding the view you do in regard to infection from kraals, and considering that the majority of the farmers in this country are so situated that they must frequently i se their old kraals, would it not be better to place sheep from the dipping tank in the old kra ils, with a view to disinfecting them, instead of turning them away to new pasturage and per- haps using the kraals two or three months later, as is generally the case 7 — My opinion is that if you want your manure fvr fuel or other purposes, you should dig it out of tlie kraal to the very foundation, and ride it away and stack it. It will then be exposed to the atmos- phere and get dry, and anything which is in it will lie killed, and what is left in the kiaal can be burnt, and that will disinfect it. 7678. Would you be in favour of erecting public dipping tanks on the main stock thoroughfares of the Colony? — I don't think it is necessary, if we have a general scab act, because then every farmer would have a tank, and you can always borrow the dip. 322 7679. If a general scab act were introduced, would you be in favour of ajipljing a milder measure to the districts which are not at present under the act than to those districts which have had the hpnefit of the act for the last five or six years ? — Certainly, because the last time I wont round in m}' area my ])eoj)le all said I was not wanted, but onh- eauio to visit them, as they knew then how to clean their sheep ; but in the new parts of the country 80 many people don't know how to set about cleaning the stock, and Government should be very careful how they deal with such men. 76bO. Consequently the milder measure you referred to would be only for those districts not at present under the act ?— Certainlj-. 7681. Do you c nsider that all inspectors have done their utmost to show and explain to farmers how to cleanse their sheep, as you have ? — I cannot tell what others do. 7682. If that had been general!}' done, do j-ou think there would have been such opposi- tion shown to the act as there lins been in some districts ? — It is not for me to blow my own trumpet. 768.3. Have you found as a general rule a difficulty in treating with a farmer when he saw you were prepared to render him every assittaneo in your power, and do aU you could to clean his stock ? — None whatever. 7684. Consequently, if other inspectors have found that difficulty, would not your opinion be that they did not treat these people properly ? — It may be so. 7685. ChainnaH.~\ The last two or three months you have been travelling round the country in connection with some recognised dip ? — Yes. 7686. During your travels you have come into contact with farmers of very different views in regard to this matter ? — All classes and descriptions. 7687. Will you give us your views upon the question whether the farmers themselves are opposed to the act generallj' '; — As a rule I have tried to find out the opinions of the people, and a large majority are in favour of a general workable act. There are of course some who won't hear of any act at all, and say they like to be masters on their own farms, and don't see why another man should come and order them to dip their sheep ; but upon the whole I think the feeling of the country in the whole of the eastern province is in favour of a general scab act. 7688. Br. Smartt.~\ As an inspector, you even think the farmers taken as a class are perfectly willing to be led, but not to be driven ? — Certainly, that is what I found, and you have OEdy to lead them for a jear or so and they will soon find out the advantage of being under a scab act. I can give an instance of how it worked in my area in Grraaff-Eeinet. In Camdeboo East there are from 80,000 to 100,000 sheep and goats, and when I first went round, barring one farm, there was scab ou every farm. Six months afterwards, when I went round again, I did not find amongst all that number of stock one single sheep or goat with a solitary spot of scab. That shows the scab act did some good, at all events there was never one case from there brought into court. 7689. It is stated b}' the produce buyers in Port Elizabeth that Graafi-Eeinet produce has made tremendous strides within the last few years, both as regards the get up and the freedom from scab. Is that in your opinion entirely attributable to the working of the scab act in the division? — Certainly, because with the scab act it is more or less a guarantee that the wool from there is clean. Mr. William Robert Southey examined. 7690. Chairman.'\ How long have }'ou farmed in the Middelburg district ? — Over 20 years, generally with 4,000 sheep. 7691. Do you agree with Mr. Murray that it is adivsable to have a general scab act ? Certainly, throughout the whole Colony. 7692. Have you ever thought whether it may not be absolutely necessary to draw a line separating one portion of the Colony from the other? — Yes. It is better to bo without a line, if possible, and where it should be drawn is a matter which had better be left for after consideration. 7693. If it should be drawn, do you think any stock might be allowed to enter at ports of entry after being dipped and quarantined ? — Yes. 7694. Do you agree that there should be a general simultaneous dipping act ? — Yes. 769.5. Should farmers who have hdd a clean bill for six months be allowed to remove tlioir sheep anywhere under their own permit ? — ^Yes, as long as they are clean, and they must be responsible, under a heavy fine, in case thi'y wilfully move scabby sheep. 7696. Do j'ou think that would do away with the irritation now felt by many farmers from having to obtain permits for the removal of their stock ? — A good deal. 7697. And that a very substantial fence should be built ou the boundary line ? — Yes, so that nothing could get through ; at the same time, I don't think you would alto- gether prevent scab from spreading. 7698. Would j'ou allow a farmer living on the boundary line to come into the proclaimed area, provided he put up a fence similar to the one on th"fe boundarj' ? — Certainly. 7699. Do you agree in the main with Mr. Murray ?— I do. [G. 1.— '94,] TT 323 7700. In case there ii a penpral act, or an extension of th" present net, do yon agree that the new di8trict8 included should he under a more lenient act for two or three years ? — If we cannot get them in any other way, as a coinproiiiiso. I would ratlier have them under a lenient act than under none at all. 7701. Br. Smart/.] Are you in favour of a Government dip depot, where dip could be supplied to farmers at first cost price, free of railway carriage ? — Yes, anything to facilitate dipping, and the curing of scali. 7702. Do you think the Government would be justified in devoting a large sum of money from the general revenue towards stamping out the disease? — Yes. With regard to produce passing through from the Free State, I would have no objection if it is taken along the main lines of railway, properly baled, especially skins, and the trucks disinfected under inspection The produce should be taken right down to the seaports and sent off, but I would not allow them to be taken by wagons which must outspan along the road. I would not recognise hand dressing at all. Mr. Charles Henry Hittton examined. 7703. Chairman.'] Are you farming in Middelburg ?— Yes, for four years. I have about 5,000 sheep and goats, principally sheep. 7704. Do you agree with Mr. Murray?— Yes, in everything, except that I don't think the new districts should hive a more lenient act than the others. I think when the act was first proclaimed, these districts had a year's notice given them, in which to clean their stock before inspectors were appointed at all, and I woidd do the same here. 7705. Before you lived here, were you ni)t living in a proclaimed area? — Yes, in the Somerset district. 7706. Do you find more difficulty in keeping your sheep clean here than there ? — Yes, I cannot keep them clean now, and it was very easy to do it then. 7707. We have it on evidence that there is as much scab in the district of Somerset as in Cradock, where the act is not inforce, and that iiiore scabby- skins come from Somersetthan from Cradock and some of these northern districts. Do j'ou agree with that ? — I have not been living there for four years, but a goo I deal has to do with the inspector. When I was living in Zwager's Hoek there was a vast improvement in the sheep. 7708. If scab exists there now to the extent which it is alleged it does, do you think it is the fault of the inspectors ? — Yes. 7709. Was the working of the inspectors satisfactory ? — Not at all as far as «e wore concerned. I shoTiId think they might be appointed by the farmers' associations iu the different districts, who would select men who arc known to be good. 7710. Would it not cause a good deal of dissatisfaction if you allow all public bodies to elect the inspectors when you have another body of farmers in the ward who do not belong to it ? — All farmers ought to belong to the farmers' associations. 7711. Would it not be better for the farmers themselves to recommend a man who had a clean bill for, say, six months ? — Yes, if he could be got. 7712. Mr. Botha.'] By whom was the inspector appointed of whom you are complaining ? — I believe it was done by the divisional council of Somerset. 7713. But if I tell you that that was not the case but that he was recommended by the magistrate, would you believe me ? — Yes. 7714. Are you a member of a farmers' association? — There is none here, or I ■would be. 7715. What is your objection to have divisional council's recommend inspectors? — Because there are some members who live in the town, and don't know the farmers at all. The town sends one or two members to the council, but the farmers would know all the farmei'S in the district. 7716. Are all the members of farmers' associations farmers? — No. 7717. Consequently they are in the same position as divisional councils, all the members of which are not farmers ? — Yes, but then you get two or three people in a town who belong to the farmers' association, and in the divisional council there are only half a dozen members altogether. 7718. Is that from your own knowledge? — Yes. 7719. If I tell j-ou that the Zwart Euggens farmers' association, in the Graaif-Eeinet district, is largelj' supported by gentlemen living in the town, who have no idea whatever of farming, whereas the divisional council of Graaff-Eeiuet consists only of eight farmers, whether townsmen or not, what would you say ? — That is only one district. 7720. Are you a member of the divisional council .' — No. 7721. Has that perhaps anything to do with your prejudice with regard to divisional councils ?• — None at aU. 7722. Dr. Smarlt.] If your suggestion were carried out, that farmers' associations should appoint scab inspectors in their districts, what provision would you make for appoint- ing inspectors in this district, where there is no association? — I would have a meeting of farmers called, and get them to recommend their own inspector. 7723. Would it not be fair to grant the same privilege to farmers in the Afrikander Bond, which is also an asoociatioa of farmers ? — That is a political association. 324 Mr. Isaiah S/aples examined. 7724. Chairman.'' You are a farmer in the lliddelburg district? — ^Yes, about seven years. Up till now I have had about 3,000 or 4,000 small stock. 7725. Do you wish to add anything to the evidence which has been given ? — I agree generally with all that Mr. IMurray said, and I think the act should be made more stringent in the older districts thau it is now. In regard to the recommendation of the inspectors, perhaps the matter could be compromised by the Farmers' Associations and the Afrikander Bond holding a meeting to elect delegates who should vote with the divisional council. 7726. Would you exclude the independent farmer who belonged to neither one nor the other ? — All the farmers in the district should hold a meeting. All the members of the divi- sional council may not be competent to judge of matters affecting farmers, and there are not many members of divisional councils. Mr. Frederick Smit examined. 7727. Chairman.^ How long have you been farming in this district ? — Twenty years. I have 2,000 sheep and goats. 7728. Do you agree with Mi-. Murray's evidence ?— Yes, but I agi'ee with Mr. Hutton that there should not be a milder law iu the new distric:s, if they are given time, as was done with the others ; also that the recommendation of inspectors should be by the farmers in the area, and that no inspector should have the light to force a farmer to dip for only a single scabbj- spot or two when thej- have ten or eleven months' wool. The sheep should be marked and isolated for the inspector to see. I also think that the law should be general. 7729. Br Smarit.'j If sheep fanning is to be successfully carried on in this district, do you consider it is absolutely essential in the interests of the farmers themselves that a measure of some sort should be introduced ? — Yes, there is no protection now. Mr. Andries Joshua Watermeyer examined. 7730. Chairman.^ How long have you been farming here .' — Twelve years, with 1,700 sheep. 7731. Do you agree with the evidence already given? — I agree with Mr. Murray, but I think the inspectors shoidd >ie selected by a committee appointed at a public meeting of farmers in the area. I don't think in this district, and especially in the Sneeuwberg, it should be compulsory to dip sheep between May and October on account of the cold. I have myself experienced loss by doing so. If scab breaks out in the meantime, hand dressing should be resorted to. 7732. Supposing scab broke out in your sheep in May, do you think it would be to your advantage to hand dress them during the winter, or dip them on the first warm daj- ? — I think there would be more loss by dipping, and I jiruved it last year. Scab broke out in May, by an accident, and owing to tim cold weather I could not do anything in the shajie of dipping, and the consequence was I had to hand dress during May, June, July and August, but I managed to keep down the scab more or less, though I always had one case. 7733. If you had had a few warm days in .Tune, would it not have been better to have dipped them then ? — I don't think so, because thej' had eight months' wool on them. 7734. If you had dipped, would you not have stamped out scab ? — Yes, if I could have done it. Afr. Owen Grey examined. 7735. Chairman. \ Are you farming here ':* — Yes, for nearly six years. My brother and I have nearly 2,000 sheep. 7736. Do you agree with Mr. Murray ? — In most points, but I think it is sometimes unnecessary to dip sheep twice. If the water is not very cold, and the sheep are kept in two full minutes, all the scab will be killed. It depends on the sheep themselves ; if they are very scabbj', with hard places, they don't get properly soaked with the first dipping ; but if they are soft, a good dipping will destroj' the eggs and everything. That has been my experience, and if one or two places should break out again you can hand dress them and cure the sheep completely. 7737. Br. Smarit.'] If you want to ciu'e scab, don't you think it is a very dangerous principle to go on to make it obligatory to dip only once ? — I should think the inspector could see for h'imself if the sheep are breaking out again. 7738. Chairman.~j Would it not be very much better foi the farmer to thoroughly dip twice, knowing that sometimes some of the infection maj' not be cleaned ? — It costs twice as much money, and I thiuk that is one of the greatest objections among manj- farmers to the act being proclaimed. But if a tlock is badlj- infected, two dippings are necessarj-. 7739. I >uppo&e you mean this lo apply to sheep with long wool ? — Yes, after they are ri-2 325 shorn it does not matter very much ; when they are just shorn I would diji them twice iu every case. If people had more fencing, I do not thiuk thoy would havo to ueo so much dip, because when sheep run loose they don't take so much scab, as there is no place to pick it up. 7740. We have it on evidence that fencing has not assisted on account of the thieves and wild animals? — The wild animals must be killed ; they arc mostly jackals here, and if they were killed the sheep could run. 1 do not think all people ^hould have equal voting power for the appointment of in^^pectors, but that there should be a cumulative vote. Divisional councils are not elected to deal with this matter, and don't understand it as well as they ought to. Mr. Johnnnes Sendiik van der Walt examined. 7741. Chairman.'] You are a farmer here? — Yes, for forty years. I have lost about 3,500 sheep, and havo now 3,000, of which about half belong to people on my place. 7742. Have you had losses lately ? — Yes, through very bad weather and wire worm. 7743. During the last two or three years, have your slieep been infected with scab ? — Yes, a good deal worse than many years ago. 7744. Do you attribute any of your losses to this ? — I don't think so. 7745. You don't (hink that scab infects the sheep so much that they become poor and weak ? — Y'es, it does. 7746. In order to prevent the disease from spreading, do you think there should be some law which would assist the farmer to keep his sheep clean ? — My present experience has taught me not to consent to it. Last j'ear we had the wire worm. I have a small lot of thoroughbred sheejD, and iu 1889 I tried my utm )st to cure then by dressing, washing, and I even jihysijkeil theui for wire worm. They had scab too, so I dipped thorn for that, and it did n) good until I got a remedy by giving then one sijoonful of a patent dip to 25 of water, and gave threa spoonfuls to e.ich tdxeep, and that helped to cure the wire worm. They wore so poor that I could uuly leave them alono iu the camp, but a month later I had trouble with jackals, and brought them back to the kraal, which had been empty for about a month. Then the scab lessened, the sheep got better without dipping, and in about three months' time thoy were as well as sheep could be. I applied hand-dressing. Throe months' after, I shore them, and there was no scab on them at all. I am not opposed to dipping, but I am opposed to a law. I wish to state that, according to my experience, after a kraal has been unused for a month or six weeks it it no longer infectious. I would prefer a fencing act ti a scab act, and that would give prosperity to the sheep farmer. 7747. When you dressed this small flock, I suppose you did it very carefully? — Not very carefully ; they were not cured of scab so much by hand-dressing as by recovering their general health. 7748. If 30U had had 1,000 sheep in that condiiion, would you have been able to dress them and let them run, and get cured in the same way? — No, because they could not have had the same advantages. 7749. Then you di.)n't thiuk that dipping is an actual cure for scab ? — It would bo a good thing provided it is voluntary : I mean if it was done imder an optional law. As it was last year, no sheep would have survived, and of the little flock I tried to cure by dipping, the loss was greater than those I did not dip. 7750. Mr. Botha.] You acknowledge some people would not dip if they were not com- pelled to do it ? — Yes, but very few. 7751. How would you deal with those few ? — I luive seen by the example of a few good farmers who came inhere that there is a great improvement, and I think wo can safely leave tliis to the future if people will see what is in their interests and will follow suit. 7752. I)r. Smartt.] Do you think scab is very coitagious ? — Yes. 7753. Would it be just to the careful farmer, who dipped, to allow a few farmers who don't dip the opportunitj- of reinfecting his flocks ? — I cannot call it just. 7754. Then would it not be better in the interests of the majority to make the minori'y dip their sheep ? — I am afraid you would damage the interests of the country if you forced the small minority. 7755. How long after you had dipped the sheep did you g^ve them this patent dip internally ? — About three months. 775f) Mr. Botha.] In ease you are forced to have a scab act, whom do you consider would make the most suitable insijeetors ? — I think the farmers of experience. 7757. How should they be aiipuinted? — Either by the divisional councils or the jiublic. 7758. Dr. Smnrtt.] If the majority of the faruurs of the Colony were iu favour of such an iu-t, and c(msidered it absrdutely I'ssential for their own interests, world you object to its having a trial for two or three years ?— Personally I am not very much opposed to it, but I know the majority of the people are. > Mr. Andries Stephanus Jacobus van der Walt examined. 7759. Chairman.] How long have you been farming here? — About thirty years. I have about 4,000 or 5,000 sheep. 7760. Do you agree with Mr. J. H. van der Walt f — With some exceptions. I think 326 we sliould have a general simultaneous dipping, provided the poorer people are helped by Government. It should bo at a suitable season, iu order to prevent the risk of loss. 7761 . Would suc-h an act do a great deal of good ?^ Yes, and to enable the farmer to carry it out, there should be a better masters' and servants' act, so that the farmer can have his theep better cared for. I believe that the insect has something to do with scab, and that scab is infectious. 7762. Mr. Botha.'] Do j'ou believe it is spontaneous ? — I cannot say ; I have seen sheep get scab when they get poor, but I could not say whether they have been infected. I think it is necessary that something should be done, and that someone should be appointed to see it carried out. 7763. Chairman.] Do you think the sheep farmers in this district are as well off and prosperous now as they were ten years ago ? — Take them man for man they are poorer, but as a body they possess more stock. Mr. Schalk Carl Willem Vorster examined. 7764. Chairman.'] How long have you been farming here ? — About 34 years, and I have about 7,0C0 small stock, mostly sheep. 7765. Do you agree with the previous witness ? — Not on all points. I have been dipping the last 28 years, and I admit that di[ipiDg should be kept up continually, but nlthough in favour of dipping, I don't want to be compelled to do it. I think the district lias gone back a little during the last ten years ; and as far as my own people are concerned, we bave lo^t a good deal of stock lately through disease. 7766. Dr. Smartt.] Knowing as you do that dipping is of such benefit, would it not be only fair in the interests of other farmers who don't believe in it to make them diji, so that they could see ihe benefit of it themselves ? — It would be a good thing if every sheep weze dipped, but there are some people who are not in a position to do it. They may hire a place for a time where there is no dipping tank. In such cases I have known people come to my place and ask to be allowed to dip their sheep there, and that coavinoed me that people do see the necessity of it. 7767. If Government were to come to the assistance of these people, and supply them witL dip at cost price, or oven free, and the owner of the ground were obliged to build a dipping tank on his property, would j^ou still object to the act ? — No, certainly not. 7768. Chairman.] Is there anything ehe you wish to say ? — In order to carry out this good measure of dipping, I think every field-cornetcy should be divided into three or four sections, and suitable men should be appointed to look alter them and see that everybody dips their sheep three or four times a year. There must be a law, and when people do not voluntarily answer to the call, the law should be applied. It is necessary that something should be done to cope with scab. 7769. I)r. Smartt.] If .^ our .ohcep are free of scab, and you have spent a great deal of money in dipping them, is it right that a neighbour's sheep can come among them and infect them with scab without his paying all the damage sustained by 3-ou ? — No, he should be responsible for the damage he caused. I think about one-fourth of the inhabitants of Middelburg are in favour of an act, and the rest are opposed to it. 7770. From your knowledge of the district, do you consider that the majority of the large and careful farmers would be in favour of an act of some sort to protect them from their careless neighbours ?— Yes, I think so. Something must be done ; we cannot farm as we are now. Mr, Andries Johannes Hendrik Kruger examined. 7771. Chairman.] How long have you farmed here? — Fifteen years. I have 2,000 small stock. 7772. Do you agree with Mr. Vorster? — I am opposed to a general scab act, because scab was frura the beginning, and it will be to the end. I have seen all the districts where they have had experience of the law, Graaff-Eeinet, Somerset, Bedford, Queen's Town and others, and thej- are trying their best to get rid of it, and one has already repealed it. I am afraid it may cause great expense and trouble, and I am totally opposed to leaving the working of the act to the divisional councils. I am opposed to the scab act as long as the majniity are not in favour of it, but when the majority decides in favour of it I will submit, only it must be worked under the Government. Inspectors should be nominated at a public meeting of farmers. In my own neighbourhood I have not observed that loss has been caused by scab, but the falling off in sheep farming is the result of disease, not scab. 7773. Br. Smartt.] You acknowledge there is a good deal of scab in this district? — Yes. 7774. And that it could be very much reduced by careful dijjping ? — Yes. 7775. Consequently you are opposing the interests of your own countrymen when you fay nothing is to be d ue iu help them? — I cannot soe that. 327 Mr. Gaspard Jan Ilenirik van der Walt examined. 7776. Chairman.'] How long have you been farming in Middelburg ? — Twenty-six years; I have 1,000 goats. 7777. What is your opinion on the subject of tliis inquiry ? — I differ from all those -who spoke thi.s morning : I am altogether opposed to a scab ant ; I cnnnot see the necessity of it. For a long time I doctored my shoep, without curing thorn, and I kopt on dipping until I discovered an internal remedy, and since then I have administere 1 it and cured the sheep, and although I kept the sheep in the same kraals, thc-y never got reinfected. That medicine applies to all diseases. 1 give thenv a jiatent dip and anti-friction grease, half-and-half, a teaspoonful each, and that cures thorn of all diseases as well as scab. Since tlien I bought twenty sheep from an English farmer; he had dipped them ever so many times, and could not cure them, but I applied the same remedy to them and they got well and are in good condition now. That Englishman farmed out. I don't think dipping .helps, but my remedy does. 7778. How was it you disposed of yoxvc sheep after you had found this remedy? — Because I lost so many, and I could buy goats for loss money, so I sold the sheep and bought goats, but when I can get them I buy poor and sickly sheep and cure them. I bought a sheep on this market for 1 (i, and I can invite anyone to come and see it now. 7779. Are yoii connected Avith other sheep fai-mors, and do you take an interest in their welfare ? — Yes, that is why I give advice to all of them, and whoever has made use of it has succeeded. I advised Mr. .John Krugor, who has 1,800 sheep, and he tried it and succeeded very well, and his sheep are now clean. I told more of it, but only one has made use of it. I discovered it about nine months ago. 7780. Dr. Smarft.] Having discovered a perfect cure for scab, don't you think it would be advisable to have an act, so that other people should have an opportunit}' of being made to cure their sheep, if it is so easily done as you suggest ? — It might be advertised in the newspapers, but I don't see why it should be made law. 7781. But according to your own showing, your own friends don't use it, even when you show them how ? — Because their sheep are not sick. My other friends have not got scab. 7782. Can you name any farmers in this district who have not got scab ?• — I have only one relative whose sheep are all clean, Mr. Johannes van dor Walt. 7783. So that when you eay so many farmers have no scab, you only think so? — No, I have seen it mj-self . 7784. But you have distinctly stated, in answer to my previous question, that you don't know of any case but one. Which statement do j-ou wish taken down ? — I have only heard in conversation that many flocks have no scab. 7785. But you said just now, the only man who used this remedy was Mr. Kriiger ? — Yes. 7786. Then how are Mr. van der Walt's sheep clean ? — Sometimes the disease makes its appearance, and disappears by itself. 7787. Then you aeknowledgn that Mr. van der Walt, whose flocks j-ou particular)}' referred to as being free of scab, has cleaned them by dipping ? — I said that some diseases came by themselves nnd disappear without being cured. 7788. I take it that in j-our opinion Mr. van dor Walt's sheep got cured of their own accord ? — I cannot say, but I think it is because they are always running loose and he has good servants. I saw it lust year with my neighbour wlio nearly killed his sheep by doctor- ing them, and could not cure them, and tliis yonr they are nil I'ight without doctoring. 7789. When did you see Mr. Kruger's shoop last? — About six motths ago. 7790. Do you wish the Commission to understand that there is not the slightest trace of scab on any sheep on Mr. Kruger's farm when you saw them last ? — I did not inspect them so closely as I would like to do before taking an oath on it, but as far as I could see they were greatly improved. 7790. So that, on reconsideration, would you not rather have it written down that Mr. Kruger had greath- improved his sheep, instead • f that he had completely cured them? — I think that if he had followed my directions they would have been cured. If I said that they were perfectly clean I did not mean it ; I meant that they ought to have been clean if my remedy had been used. 7792. Chairman.'] In any case you are against a scab act ?— Yes. 7793. And a general dipping act ? — I don't believe at all in dipping. Mr. Ockert Belport examined. 7794 Chairman.] Are you farming here? — Y'es, for six years. I have about 1,000 small stock. 7790. Have you ever cured your sheep of scab by dipping? — Yes. 779.5. Do you agree witli the previous witness .•' — No, 1 believe in dipjiing, but at the same time I believe you must apjdy internal remedies as well, or you may kill them by dipping without curing them. I am in favour of dijjping, but I believe that internal remedies should be applied as well. 77'}7. Wliat dip did you use, aud how did you use it ? — I used a patent dip, but by 528 keeping on with it for a long time the aUeet> ahvaj'S managed to swallow some of it, and in course of time it made them sickly. I don't know whothnr T am correct. 'lUt 1 hive been under the impression that it has caused disease. At times I have found that, notwithstind- ing I applied internal medicine, I could not manage to cure them, although I tried ever so many remedies, and at last they took it into their heads to recover themselves. 77 8. Don't 3'ou think it would be a very good thing if all the farmers dipped at one time ? — The shearing would interfere ; some shear at six mouths and some at twelve months. ?799. But would it not be a good thing if they all sheared and dipped at the same time '? — It would be inconvenient to regulate it. 7800. Do the farmers in your neighbourhood shear once a year or twice } — Mostly twice. 7801. Then those who shear twice a year must shear at the same time .-■ — There is a difficulty in that, but I am of opinion that everyone should dip his sheep within fifteen days after they are shorn. 7802. If the fanners woidd dip in that way, do you think the sheep would be verj' much improved ? — That is what I am doing, and if I did not think it was good I would not do it. What helps one helps another. 780.3. Would it be well to pass a measure to compel the farmers to dip simultaneously for a couple of years'? — At our bond's meeting wo came to an understanding to dip all at the same time, and I kept ray word, but my sheep all died from disease. 7804. Mr. du 7'oif.j What causes scab .•' — The causes are innumerable. 7805. Do you think scab is contagious ? — Yes, but not so very contagious as most have said to day. If scabby sheep run with healthy ones, they will infect them. 7806. If your sheep are clean, are you satisfied that your neighbour's sheep should re main unclean, and perhaps mix with yours V — No, he should look after them, and if he does not I would send them to the pound. 7807. Don't you think it would be advisable to liave a mild measure to protect men from their careless neighbours ':■ — I see you want to get round me, ami to get me to declare in favour of a law ; but I am opposed to any such law. I am afraid of it, but I must bow to the will of the majority. 7808. Do you think the pound law is sufficient '? — I should like it to be so that if a careless neighbour did not keep his sheep clean, I c(juld complain to the magistrate or field- cornet, who would compel him to clean them by law. 7809. I/r. Smartt.~\ Then you consider that we must not have a scab act, but we must have some act, if a man is verj- careless, and won't do anything to clean his sheep, to compel him to clean them V — Yes, and th^-re should be some judge who will have sufficient right according to law to see that he does clean his sheep, but it must not be called a scab act. 7810. You don't believe with your friend that, if j-ou give sheep a mixture of equal parts of a certain patent dip and auti-friction grease, thej' will get well without dipping .-• — Dipping is also necessary. 7811. Mr. Botha. J Was it your brother who gave evidence yesterdaj^? — Yes. 7812. Was he not appointed by the farmers, of whom you were one? — No, I did not appoint him, because I knew he was in favour of a scab act. 7813. Can you explain how it is that, notwithstanding he is farming under the same circumstances as you, he is in favour of an act and you are not ? — Because he might get some appointment. 7814. Do you think your brother was dishonest when he said he was in favour of a scab act? — He thinks it is necessary, but I don't. I acknowledge he is a good farmer, and I consider there is no farmer in the district who farms better. 7815. How many small stock do you tliink he has ? — With his children, about 4,000. He has more stock than I have. 7816. Dr. Smartt. \ If every farmer in this district dipped and doctored his sheep as carefully as you do, do you tliink there would be less scab here to-day than there is ? Certainly. 7fcl7. That is why you think some measure should be introduced to compel people who do not clean their sheep to do their best to do so '? — If I go out and steal a horse, the magistrate has power to punish me, consequently there should be some person who would have jiower to puuish the careless farmer who will not try to clean his sheep ; but it is not necessary to have commissions and inspectors. It a farmer did not keep his sh^p clean and they came on to my farm, I consider I should have a fu'l right to go to the magistrate and tell him that the man did not keep his sheep clean, and that it is a danger to me, and the magistrate should be obUged to punish him. Mr. Frederick Hennj Every examined. 7818. Cftairman.] You are a wool-washer ? — Yes, living in Middelburg. 7819. Do you chiefly wash short wools ?— Latterly, but twelve years ago, in the transport days, we used to wash long wool too. 7820. Are the wools you wash now of equal value, and as free of scab as they were 329 formerly ? — Daring the last three years, T consider the wools in this district have improved as regards scab. 7821. .\re mist o? the wools dipped ? — Nearly all. 7822. Djes that afleut the quality of the wool, and interfere with the washing .' — As far as I am concerned, dipping goes against mo, and interferes with the washing, but it certainly improves the wool, and there is less loss in wool which is free from scab than in scabby wool. I reckon the difference in loss is between one and five per cent., according to the scab. If sheep have scab, the loss in the wool would be from 60 to 62 per cent., and if not, the loss would be from 57 to 59 per cent. I am not a sheep farmer, but I have been washing wool here for twelve years, and during the first seven years wool used to lose on an average about 61 per ceut., but durinar t'le last three years they only lost about 58, and I have only noticed this difference since the farmers have taken to dipping. 7823. Do you find it easier to wash dipped wool than scabby wool ? — No, I have to wash the dip out. With dipped wool we have to use extra hot water, extra soap and extra tanks. 7824. If the sheep throughout the district were in some way dipped simultaneously, and scab stamped out, don't j'oii think the wool would be much more improved ? — Certainly. 7825. Mr. du Toit.'\ Does scab make wool heavier ? — No, but if the wool is very scabby, some of it melts clean away through the tank when it is scoured. 7826. Is the difficulty and trouble connected with washing it, the only fault in dipped wools ? — Yes, but of course there are some dips which make it impossible to get the wool as white and bright as others. Tar stains fearfully, and tobacco doe.s not stain at all. 7827. Even when the wool is long ? — Yes. One farmer whose wool I wash has gone in for a nicotine dip for a couple of years, and I have noticed that there is no actual stain. 7828. How does lime and sulphur affect long wool ? — The lime makes the wool very brittle, and I should think it would be very detiimental for manufacturing pui-poses. 7829. Dr. Smarlt.] We have it on evidence that lime and sidphur used properly as a golden liquid, without any precipitated lime, has no injurious effect on wool from a wool- washer's point of view ? — The wool I speak of has visible lime in it. 7833. Do j'ou find that scabby wool breaks a good deal in washing ? — Yes. 7831. Consequently, if the quality of the wool was the same, scabby wool could never turn out the same products as sound wool ? — No. 7832. And in the district of Middelburg, this is a great source of loss to the farmers themselves ? — I should think so. 7833. ChairmaH.] Do you wish to add anything ? — I don't give this evidence on my own account, but for the sake of the farmers, but if they could cure scab, it would do a great deal of good in the end. 7834. Dr. Smartt.^ In fact, a scab act which would eradicate scab from this district would be detrimental to your business ? — Yes, because they would only shear once a year, and the wools would be shipped in the grease. Mr, Pieter Viaer examined. 7835. Chairman.^ Are you a sheep farmer ? — Yes, I have been here about three years, and have lately had 2,000 or 3,000 sheep. 7836. Will you make a statement of what you wish to bring before the Commission ? — I am in favour of a general act or none at all, and it should be combined with a com- pulsory dipping act, but I don't believe anybody can say exactly how the law is to be made. If there is no act here, but there is in other parts, we could not send any sheep away. Yesterday, a lot of sheep were trucked at Middelburg Eoad from one of the best farmers here, Mr. Eekerdt, from a flock of 800, and though he could not find a speck of scab on Ihein he dipped them to make sure, and yet they were sent back from the station. 7837. Do you know whether these sheep were scabby? — No, but I know Mr. Eekerdt well, and he is a good farmer. 7838. But you don't think they would be sent back unless there was scab ? — I believe the certificate was not in order. If we had a scab act out here we could get a certificate here instead of going to Witmos. 7839. If a fanner had a clean bill for six months, do you think he should be allowed to remove his sheep under his owu permit, subject to a heavy penalty for wilfully evading the law ? — I don't see why he should not. 330 Cohsherg, Saturdcy, nth Lecemler, 1892. Peesext : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. ,, Dr ToiT. Dr. Smabtt. Mr. Fran-CIS. Mr. John Jame» Mnrrny examined. 7840. Chairman?^ You are a sheep farmer in the district of Colesberg? — Yes, for thirty years. I have about 2,400 sheep, and was appointed, with others, at a meeting of farmers held here this morning to give evidence in favour of a scab act. 7841. During th» last ten years, have j'ou found that the shepp here, generally, have been infected with scab ? — Yes, all through the district, as far as I have been. 7842. Have you found any impjovement during the last two or three years ? — Judging from my own farm, I should say thero is a slight improvement. 7843. To what do you attribute this? — Mainly to the improved manner of dipping, and to tho fact that the farmers are getting more enorgetic about it. 7844. Do you generally find tliat when scab breaks out among sheep which have been clean for some time, the infection is caused by trekker.-i, careless neighbours, or how ?^A8 far as I am concerned, by infection from adjoining neighbours, or in many cases from em- ploying men who have shorn at scabby runs. You will undersfaud I am speaking simply from my own experionce, on vay farm, which is the only evidence I can give. 7845. You are satisfied that sheep do get the contagion from the shearers as well as from mixing with other flocks ? — Yes, I can prove it. Knowing that the Commission was coming here I collected evidence on the subject, and I now beg to make a statement con- clusively showing that this has occurred, and the loss sustained through scab, and I am prepared to make an affidavit to that effect, if necessary. From the year 1874 to the year 1885 I kept my sheep fairly fi-ee fi-om sc^b by hand dressing alone, at a cost of 30s. per 1,000 per annum, the sheep averaging in 1886 7 lbs. 4 oz. of wool each, including 7 months' lambs. From 1886 to 1889 I had to dip annually and hand dress the .^heexi heavily, the disease having become more virulent. I clipped, in October, 1889, 2,134 sheep, employing of necessity a gang of shearers who had previously shorn at two scabby runs. The sheep were shorn quite free from scab, averaging, inclusive of 7 months' lambs, 7 lbs. 2 oz. of wool each, and the wool sold for 7d. per lb. all round. Within two months after clipping, every sheep was badly infected with scab, and in spite of all my efforts to keep it down. 1 clipped, in October, 1890, 2,177 sheep, inchidiug 7 months' lambs, averaging only 5 lbs. of ^ool each, which sold for 5d. per lb., thus leaving a clear loss of Is. per sheep, or a total loss of £108 17s. in wool alone. I further lost during that year over 100 sheep fi'om the effects of scab, and the cost of dipping, &c., was doubled, amounting to £16 lis. 5d. in dip alone, leaving the total loss for 1890 as follows : — Loss of Wool at 6d. per lb. .. .. .. .. £108 17 lOO Sheep at lOs. each .. .. ... .. 50 Extra Cost of Dip . . . . . . . . . . 8 5 8^ Total L^ss for the Year 1890.. .. .. .. £167 2 8i I dipped and hand dressed my sheep heavily during 1891, and by October of that year had them again f^iirh' free from scab, the sheep cutting, inclusive of seven months' lambs, C lbs. 1 cz. of wool each : and this year, with very little trouble, I kept them fairly clean, the sheep clipping in Oct(;ber, almost free from scab, and cutting, inclusive of seven months' lambs. 5 lbs. 14 oz. of clean, light wool, each which sold in November last, according to my broker's report, at fully Id. per lb. higher than the general run of the Karoo wool; realising 6^d. per lb. for fleeces, and 4 Jd. per lb. for skirtings and bellies, all round : and I am of opinion that had I had the protection of a stringent scab act, I would have had my sheep perfectly free from scab by October, 1892, and that they would have cut fully J lb. of wool more per sheep. 7846. Do I understand that you think it is absolutely necessary something should be done with regard to the scab act ? — That is what I am trying, to convey. 7847. Do you think the act should be extended all over the Colony, or over certain portions of it only ? — Throughout the Colony, by all means, otherwise the border farmers have no protecti n at all. 7848. Supposing there are reasons why it is impossible to extend the act to the north- western districts, where do you think the dividing lino should be drawn ? — By all means let us get it as far westward as we can. 7849. Have you some knowledge of that part of the country? — No. I have no idea where such a lino should bo drawn. I have been as far as Hope Town and Kimberlej . 7850. But if a line should be drawn, including as much of the Colony as possible, would you allow stock from an improclaimed area to come into the jiroclaimed aii-a ? — Undoubtedly not. [G. 1— '94.J uu 331 7851. How would you deal with tho stock farmers in the unproclaimed area, if you cut them off from their market ? — I am perhaps speak' ng too strongly; it would be hard for those farmers. 7852. If ports of entry were established along that line, where sheep could be allowed to enter after being properly dipped twice in a recognised dip, and quarantined, do you think there would bo any danger of infection ? — I don't think there would, if they were dipped properly in that way. From my own experience I know that with sheep properly dipped twice within fourteen days, with a proper dip, there is no danger of infection. 7853. You know from your own knowledge that you can clean sheep of scab within, saj', a month V — Yes. 7854. No matter how bad they may be? — Yes. I understand the sheep should be entered at once into the proclaimed area, and not allowed to remain in the scabby district, or they would still be dangerous. Then there would be no danger. 7855. "With regard to skins and wool from an unproclaimed area, would you allow them to come in indiscriminately, not only on the railway lines, but on wagons and other- wise ? — Certainly not ; there is just as much danger from skins and wool as from sheep. 7856. Would the danger apply to wool and skins travelling on railway trucks in the same way as it would if they were on wagons, when thoy might be off-loaded at any place ? — There would not be so much danger on the railway, only at the places where they are loaded and off-loaded, and there some measures should be taken to disinfect them. 7857. Can j'ou say how ? — No, I could not suggest any means. 7858. Do you think the farmers generally throughout this district dip their sheep properly? — I really coidd not say ; I don't go about much. 7859. From your knowledge of the way in which scab is spread, at certain times, even after dipping, do you think the dip is made strong enough, and that the sheep are kept in it the proper time ? — I don't think so ; even very few of those who have built tanks have a proper gau,y haud dressing. 7905. Are your sheep free of scab now ? — Not altogether. There has been no decrease in the yield of wool from my slieop all those years. 7906. Are there any wagon roads ruuuiug through your farm ? — Yes, large ones. 7907. Are sheep constantly moving along these roads ? — They do cross the farm, but I take care that they don't remain there. 7908. Have you ever fouud that your sheep have become reinfected by sheep passing over your farm ? — Yes, I have had experience of it. 7909. Then from your experience, you consider scab to be very contagious? — Yes, I am convinced of that. 7910. J/r. Botha.'] Do you think you can keep your sheep cleao without the help of a scab act? — No. 7911. Or without dipping } — Yes. 7912. You have no scab act now ? — No. 7913. And yet you are clean? — Not altogether ; fairly so. 79H. But then, according to your own statement, you cannot keep your sheep clean without dipping ? — It would not help to clean theju by dipping, because thej' would be reinfected by my neigbbour.j. 7915. Who ought to recommend or to appoint inspectors? — I think the people who have got the sheep, and who have to deal with the inspectors. 7916. Dr. Sm/irtt.] If any farmer in this district, under ordinary circumstances, is troubled with a great deal of scab in his sheep, to what would you attribute that fact ? — ^To his not doing his duty to his sheep. 7917. Is not that as often due to want of knowledge of how properly to treat them, as to carelessness ? — They understand, but some of ihem are lizy and don't do it. 7918. Although you consider that you would be able to keep your flocks perfectly clean by hand dressing, if you had a general scab act, still you would b"; quite willing, in the interests of the general public, to dip your sheep, notwithstanding that you have never done so before? — Yes, I am prepired to do thiit. 7919 Mr. (Ill 7oit.~\ If sheep onl3' trek over your farm, you don't find that your flocks become infected by it ? — Yes, at one tiu\e it is worse than anothe". When scabby sheep pass over my farm, I can see that mine become more troublesome. 7920. Do you consider scab to be very contagious ? — Yes. Mr. Thomas John Plewman examined. 7921. Chnrman.] You are a sheep farmer and merchant here? — Yes, but I am more interested in farming. I^have farmed hero for about six years, and have from 10,000 to 12,000 sheep, but I have farmed on a small sciilo for many years. 7922. You were also appiiiiartt.~\ Will you acknowledge that a man may hold a clean bill for his flocks, and they may still have the germs of infection without his knowing it, and without the inspector knowing it? — Yes. 7933. Consequently, that man not coming under the provisions of a simultaneous dipping act might be the means of infecting other people's sheep who had cleaned their flocks under the act, if the disease broke out after the time appointed for dipping ? — Of course. 7934. Taking these things into consideration, would it not be advisable to make it imperative upon everybody to dip, whether he had a clean bill or not ? — In that case of course it might be necessary. Taking that view of it, 1 think it would be advisable for everybody to ilip. 7935. I presume your reference to the districts of Prieska and KenharJt is due to the fact that you consider the people there farm uu ler peculiar circumstances which would make it absolutely imperative upon them to move their atock to save their lives ? — Exact]J^ 7936. And accordingly you would have provision made to suspend the act in such cases ? — Yes. 7937. So that they might move without absolutely cleaning their sheep ? —Yes. I would let them move north, towards the Orange Eiver. The inspector must use his dis- cretion. 7938. Mr. dii Toit.~\ You would not lay it down as a rule that they should only trek northwards ?— I would allow them to move all about the northern districts. If a man had 5,000 or 6,000 sheep, and the dams were dry, and he could get no water, you could not allow all the sheep to die ; the inspector should have the power to give liim permission to go where he can get water for them. 7939. Chairinan.~\ Is there anything you wish to add? — Simply that I consider, through this district not being a proclaimed area, we are losing two shillings on every sheep we sell. I can speak from experience. In consequence of our being shut out from the Port Elizabeth market, I am selling sheep now at 12s. fur which I could get 14s. or 15s. if I could get them there, and I am convinced that it also affects the price of wool and skins to a large extent. Mr. Daniel Oosthuizen, Sen., examined. 7940. Chairman.'] How long have you farmed here ?— 26 years, and I have about 8,000 or 9,000 sheep on my farm. 7941. Do you agree with Mr. Murray ? — Yes, entirely. I am also one of the repre- sentatives elected this morning. 7942. Is there anything you would like to add ? — ^I think there sliimld bo m in5pe3t)r in each ward, chosen by the farmers there, who should, if possible, be a respectable farmer. 7943. If a farmer had a clean bill of health, would you jirefer him to any other? — Yes, he would understand the class of people, and lie able to get on with them. 7944. Mr. Francis.'] Would there not be sotne danger in ajipointing a resident in the ward to be inspector there, where he would have a number of friends and relatives ? — It would not influence me, but there may be a danger. 7945. Should not the superintending inspector have some say in the appointment of those men for whom he is to a certain extent responsible ? — It may bo. 7946. Mr. Botha.] If you elected a scab inspector in your ward, and the superintending inspector refused to have him, woidd yuu bo satisfied ? — Certainly not. I think if we recom- mend an inspector he should be ajipuinted. 7947. Br. Smartt.] Are you well aquaiuted with the circumstances of the majority' of farmers in this district ? — Yes, I have travelled a great deal amongst them. 7948. Then do you consider tliat it is absolutely essential in the interests of the farmers of Colesberg that some meastu'e should be passed to deal with the spread of the scab amongst sheep ? — Certainly. 7969. Mr. du Toit.] Do you think scabby sheep should be dipjjed in the winter, when they are poor ? — Yes, I have often done it. I look out for a fine day. 7950. Have you had any losses through doing so? — No, nothing serious. I have not loit five. 7951. If a farmer had had his flock clean for some time, and the sheep had nine or ten months' wool on them, would you not make an exception if ho had au outbreak, and allow him to hand dress the sheep until alter sheaiing? — Yes, lie might in that case, but he would have great difficulty in cleansing them. If the sheep could be cured by hand dressing it would be far better for them, but it is very diificult to do it. 7962. Would you rather damage wool of that length and dip the sheep ? — I don't believe 335 good dip will damage the wool. I have soid a good deal of wool which has been dipped in the winter, with long wool, and as soon as luiu comes the wool gets into good condition again. 7953. We have it in evidence that it does deteriorate the wool very much to dip it when long ? — I have always sorted my wool well. Mr. Hendrik tan der Walt examined. 7954. Chairman.'\ How lor.g have you been farming in Colesberg? — About 20 3'ears. I have Hbout 3,000 sheep. 7955. You are one of the representatives elected this morning ? — Yes. 7956. Do you agree with Mr. Murray ? — In the main I do, but I dififer from him oa one or two points. I don't think you can clean a sheep in a month : sometimea you can, but not always. This year I had some sheep I could not get clean. 7957. Are j'ou quite sure that they were dipped properly ? — Quite. They were properly dipped and washed, but I could not cure them. At some periods the scab has a stronger hold over the sheep than at others 7958. What time would you allow ?-=-0n that point I agree with the oxistiug act. 7959. Is there anything else ou which you disagree with Mr. Murray? — I don't believe in his remarks about shearers bringing scab. 7960. But j-ou believe scab is from contagion ? — Yes, but not that shearers can bring it. 7961. If a flock of scabby sheep slept on your farm, and your own clean sheep slept afterwards on the same place, do you believe that yours would become infected ? — I acknow- ledge that they can be infected, but not always to the same extent, sometimes they might escape. If inspectors are appointed, I think it should be done by the farmers, as suggested by Mr. Oosthuizen. 7962. Mr. Francit.'] Do you believe that scab is caused by an insect? — I have never seen it, but I believe it. 7963. Then could not the insect be carried about on the clothes of the shearers ? — It is difficult for one to say. Possiblj' it may be so ; I know shearers have come from shearing scabby sheep, and my sheep have not been infected. 7964. Don't you think there would be a great danger, if a man were allowed six months to clean his sheep, that by the time they were clean ho might have infected all his neighbours } — As long as a man does his best, he ought to be allowed an extension of time. Mr. Adum Hobkirh examined. 7965. Chmrman.'\ You were also elected as a representative this morning? — Yes. 7966. How long have you farmed in Colesberg ? — The last 28 3^ears. I have now about 3,500 small stock, principally sheep. 7967. Do 3-ou agree with Mr. Murray ? — Yes, I quite agree with him. There is just one thing I should like to remark, and that i's, ho saj's a flock can be cleaned in a month, and I quite agree with him, but cun you clean your place in a month ? I think that by changing the slerping place and the grazing ground j-ou o>r .'' — Yes, if that were enforced after tl.e 1st December. I think the slieep should all be clean at the very latest within three or four months. 7971. But if he got the licence in the summer, would you insist upon his dip- ping within twenty days .' — At that season you would certainly find good days during that period, and I would insist upon it. 7972. Mr. du Toit.^ Would you not make any allowance for flocks with long wool, and permit hand dressing for a month or two until after the first shearing ? — If the infection came fi-om stock trekking over the farm it would be hard for him to have to dip, and damage his wool ; but if he could prove that it was from a neighbour's sheep, or trekkers, I should say he ought to be allowed to hand dress. If it was his own fault he should have to dip. 7973. Br. Smartt.^ How would you prove that they had become infected ? — ^ et the owner prove that the neighbour's sheep intermixed with his, or that sheep passed over his farm and reinfected them. 336 Mr. Nicholai van Renh Hollis Barnes, Scab Inspector, examined. 8447. You are scab inspector for area No. 3 ? — Yes, for 5i j'ears, even since the act was put in force. 8448. When you took over the area, was that the whole distn'ct of Queen's Town ? — Yes, since then it has been subdivided into four. XX 2 867 8449. At that timo, what was the "-tfito of the district in regard to scab ? — T don't tliink there were half-a-dozen flocks in the whole district but they were scabby, but it has gradu- ally improved right through until now. 8450. What is the condition of your area now ?— I don't think there is one per cent, of scab now in my area. 8451. Was there an outbreak of scab in the district last winter? — Tea, a very serious one. 8452. So when you statp that scab has gone on improving, you don't include last winter? — It was for aliout three months, and was quickly checked. 8453. To what do you attiibuto that outbreak? — I can scarcely say. Flocks became infected somehow or otlier, and neither the owners nor I could account for it. Flocks which had been clean for two or three years broke out, and it was on almost every farm. 8451, Had there boon any influx of sheep from outside ? — Yes, they wore continually travelling along the roads. We have ten public roads leading two and from Kafirland into the Colon)' on which slioep are travelling every day. 8455. Do the shtop come from Kafirland, or from the Colony ? — Both ways. 8456. Are many of them infocted with scab \ — Very often. They are principally small lots owned by natives. 8457. Do you know how they came into the possession of the natives ? — As a rule, for wages. 8458. Do you think the system of paying servants by stock is a very bad one ? — I do. 8459. And tonds very much to keep scab in this district ? — Yep. 8460. Ilave you ever considered the question of the erection of public dipping tanks? — Yes ; I have siiggosted it to Government more than once. We should have a public dipping tank on all main roads, and somebody to supervise the dip, and see all stock passing properly dipped. 8461. Should the dips be at the entrance of the district, or where ? — At eacli entrance. 8462. It has come to the knowledge of the Commission that flocks of sheep have been brought into this district from outside areas without permission ? — Yes, that is a fact. 8463. Have you ever come across any of these ? — Yes. 8464. What was done? — They were always prosecuted under sections 5 of Act No. 33 of 1888. 8465. Are the fines inflicted upon persons breaking the law sufficient? — No, I would suggest a heavier penalty, say at least £5 for a minimum. 8466. Would a £5 fine deter a man who was bringing in 1,000 or 1,500 sheep? — iNo, the maximum fine sboidd be £20 at the vei-y least. £20 is never infl^icted. 8467. What is tho highe.st fine intlicted ?— 6d. 8468. What case was that ? — A case I had of removal from St. Mark's to Queen's Town of a flock of sheeji belonging to a Mr. f^uook, which wore infected with scab. The case was tried in Queen's Town. A flock of over 100 sheep were moved from St. Mark's, an unproclaimed area, into this district by Mr. Snook. I stopped the flo(!k, and prosecuted the man in charge, who was a native, and ho was fined 6d. I then dipped the sheep and allowed them to go on, the owner paying for the dipping. I prosecuted for the removal of scabby sheep without a permit. 8469. Who tried the case ? — The assistant magistrate, Mr. Scholtz. It was about four years ago. No reason was given. 8470. Wore there any other cases of small fines? — Many of half a crown or five shillings in the early days, but not lately. Now, the general fine is a pound, rising to two or three pounds. 8471. Have you had manj' convictions .? — Yes, principally under sections 6 and 7 of the act of 1886, for not reporting scab, and not cleansing. 8472. Do you consider that the farmers generally mix their dips properly and dip properly ? — As a rule I think the dip is mixed properly, but they make a great mistake in letting the shcojj out too .soon. They always dip in too great a hurry. 8473. Can you suggest any remedy for this ? — The only remedy is to hare supervisors. 8474. As scab inspector, have you ever assisted in mixing the dips, or attended dipping to show farmers ho iV to do it .^— Eejjeatedly. 8475. Had you a time-piece .-' — As a rule I have one, and check the time from 2^ to 3 minutes, to show farmers how to carry it out. 8476. Do you find those farmers more successful than the others ? — We have never failed. 8477. When they add dip, is it equally good ? — As a rule it always gets stronger as it goes on. I have seen the quantity of water inulequato to the quantity of dip put in. 8478. Is it added by measurement ? — Not as a rule. 8479. Then it may have been weaker'? — As a rule it is stronger. 8480. But we have it in evidence that it is frequently very much weaker, a packet of dip being used to a largo supplj' of water ''.- — That has not been my experience. 8481. Generally speaking, you find that when the farmers do dip the sheep are cleansed 'i — Yes. 8482. How do you generally account for the reinfection ?— Principally from the number ol stock passing through the district from other areas. S68 8483. Not from one fanner not dippiug at the same time as the others ? — That is also one of the causes, but not the primary cause. It is more difficult to keep farms clean on the main roads than the farms on one side. 8484. Are the farmers on the main rociil.s as particular as the others ? — Yes. 8485. Would you have a general simultaneous dipping act in connection with a scab act ? — If it were practicable, but it is not. 8486. Why ? — Because farmers don't shear at the sume time. 8487. But it has nothing to do with shearing '? — If it could be done it would be a grand thing. It is the one thing we need, to get all the farmers to combine and dip at the same time. 8488. Do you tliialc the farmers in the Queeu'sTown division would throw any obstacles in the way ? — Yes, because they are not all prepared to dip at the same time. 8489. If I toll you that in the division of Komgha, which has boon free of scab for the last three years, tlie farmers unauim jusly say that in order to try and stamp out the disease they are c^uite willing to join in a general simultaueous dipping, although they never shear at any special time, do you tbink, in the face of that, that the farmers hero would object ? — Yes, they will, because they will say it is not convenient, and does not suit their pocket. 8490. Are you in favour of a general act ? — Yes. 8491. If that is impracticable, have you ever thought how the Colony could bo divided? —I would say, take the whole of the eastern province, but I have not thought much of it. It would require a more eit nsive knowledge of the whole of the Colony than I possess. 8492. Shoidd the act be extended as far westward as possible? — Yes, including aU the railway systems of the Colony. 8493. Would you allow stock fi-om the unproclaimed area t© come in ? — No, not under any condition whatever. 8494. Supposing ports of entry were established, and dipping places erected, and the stock dipped under supervision and C[uarantined, would there be any particular danger ? — Not if there were two dijipings, and the stock were quarantined for a month. They should be kept a month after the second dipping. 849.5. Would it not be very much safer to bring sheep in the day after the second dipping rather than leave them in the proclaimed area for a month ? — No, because you may kill the living acari, but not destroy the egg, which may fall out on t!ie way. Some might possibly not be hatched out. Supposing: a sheej) has a hard spot, you may dip him three or four times, and if that is not rubbed and broken up jou^wiU find the acari will breed again, as the dip will not penetrate through the hard place. 8496. Then when sheeji are so badly infected, you don't think two dippings are suffi- cient ? — I am sure it is not. 8497. Not if the liquid is warm .' — No, not if the scab is hard. It may, but the danger is too great. 8498. How many dippings do you think are necessary ? — I say dip them twice, then quarantine them for a month, and if they show signs of scab, go through the same process again. 8499. Would there not be a great danger in the proclaimed area? — There is always a danger. 8500. Then would it not be better to bring them through immediately after the second dipping? — Much would depend on the amount of scab they had on them. 8501. Dr. Smmit.'\ Would you have them dipped twice, quarantined for a month, and then dipped again and allowed to come through if thoy apjiear to be clean ? — Yes. 8502. C'/tainium.] Do you moan this to apply to all slivep that might require to be brought in, or only infected sheep ? — To all sheep. 8503. Dr. Smartt.^ How would you deal with slaughter stock from the unproclaimed area ? — I would treat them in exactly the same way. 8504. Do you think slaughter stock would come in under those conditions? — Not much of it. 8505. Then how would you provide for the great centres of population now supplied from there ? — Let the men who are breeding the stock to sell come under the act, and make such provisions as will enable them to dispose of their stock. 8506. You suggest this plan with the idea of bringing them in under the scab act ? — Yes. 8507. More than with a view of protecting the proclaimed area ? — Not more, but I say it is necessary for our protection as a scab area that sheep should not be brought in. I have the doul)le object in view. 8508. How would you deal with wool and skins ? — Prohibit them in the same way. 8509. Would you not allow them in transit on the railways .' — Not unless they wore disinfected in some w.iy or other. 8510. Would it be possible to disinfect all the skins that come down fr)m the unpro- claimed areas to the ports of the Colony ? — It would be a very difficult and c.^cpensiva matter, and thoy would have to sell thoir produce at a very much lower rate after paying all the expenses. 8511. Would it be practicable to carry out the proposal? — As an inspector. I know that these things are carrying the germs of the disease about with thorn, and T know these skins and wool are going to sproatl the infection wherever they go, consequently it is not for mo to study it from a commercial point of view ; I sinqily look upon it from the point of view of an inspector. 869 8512. As an inspector you think it is necessary, in order to protect the people in the proclaimod areas, to jjrevont these tliiugs coining over? — Decidedly. 8.513. If a line is drawn, do you think that a farmer living in an unproclaimed area, who keejis his sheep clean, should Lo ]ivotected to the extent of being allowed to prohibit scabby sheep crossing over his farm V — Oertfiinlv. 8514. Would you allow a farmer on ihe border of a scab area to come in if he wished? — Yes, and I would afford him all the protection possible. 8515. Mr. VraniuP\ Would you allow a farmer, ou whoso farm there are scabby sheep, to bring skins in from tliat farm to sell ? — No. 8516. Don't you think there would bo even moro dai:^er in that than in taking skins through the proclaimed ai-ea bj' train ? — There is always a danger of carrying the disease in some way or other. 8517. With regard to Queen's Town, what is generally the length of the wool on the sheep in the beginning of December ? — There are a good many Hocks with long wool. A good many farmers are shearing now. In January you get a good many flocks with twelve months' clip. 8518. Then the farmers here shear all the year round i^ — Yes, with the exception of just the winter months. 8519. And there is no month in the year wlieu there are not fiocks here with twelve months,' wool on.-' — I would hardly say that. You would not find it so just in the winter, but from October to February you will find flocks with twelve months' wool on. 8520. Did you ever find any difficulty in deciding whether a sheep was infected by scab or not ? — No. 8521. There is no other disease you know of that could be mistaken for fscab by an experienced man ? — No. 8522. Have you ever come across cases where sheep have been moved with a pass under the cattle removal act without a permit ? — No. 8523. In the case j'ou mentioned where a man was fined 6d., had ho a pass under the cattle removal act .^ — No, simply from his master to drive the sheep to Queen's Town. 8524. Then the master was equally lial)le under the act ? — Yes. 8525. Do you receive any help from the police in carrying out the act? — No. 8526. Have you ever made any application for their assistance with regard to sheep coming into the district without jjennits ? — In the early days I did, but I abandoned it. 8527. Is the fii'st licence too long? — Yes. 8528. I pre.sume that is one of the great reasons why scab cannot bo eradicated from your area ? — One of the greatest evils is that after I have been to a farm and, finding all the sheep clean, have granted a clean bill, I get a report a month, sis weeks, or six months later, that scab has broken out there, and that man then has a full thi'oe months in which to cleanse the sheep, and can breed scab the whole of the time, and dip them the last day of the term. 8529. And all that time, the neighbours with clean flocks are liable to be infected ? — Yes. I would suggest that at no time should he be allowed more than foui'tecn days before the first dipping, and after that another ten or fourteen days for the second dipping. He should have a licence for a month, and should dip twice within that time, the first dipping to be within fourteen days of the granting of the licence. 8530. Do you think that would entail more loss and injury to the farmer than by allow- ing the scab to go on ? — No, Certainly not. 8531. You consider it would be better to dip at any time of the year, under any circum- stances, rather than to allow sheep to go on with scab ? — I do, even in the depth of winter. 8532. At the end of the first licence, would you renew it upon payment, or dip the sheep under inspection ? — I am in favour of a paid licence. 8533. What woidd you do at the end of the second licence, if the sheep were still infec- ted? — Double the amount. 8534. Do you consider the permit to remove sheep granted by two landowners is a weakness in the act ? — Yes. 8535. Would you give a farmer with a clean bill the right to remove sheep on his own responsibility ? — Within the limits of the area. 8536. And to move them out of the area, the act should remain as at present ? — Yes, there must be an inspection, because if a farmer in my district has a clean bill, and wishes to remove his stock into another area, it may possibly be a month or six weeks since I have seen that stock, and I think it would be more satisfactory to the inspector and the district to which the sheep are going, to know that the stock has been inspected and approved of. 8537. Could not that be carried out by a man moving the sheep on his own responsi- bility, subject to a heavy fiue, and giving notice ? — That would be very unsatisfactory to me as an inspector, if a flock went out of my district into another in that way. He might be fined, but I am made responsible. 8538. Is it not a hardship to wait for the permit ? — No, because there is every facility ; there are inspectors and deputies all over the district. 8539. You tliink there are sufficiont iuspeutors in the district to carry out tlie act properly ? — I think so. 8540. Can you do your work according to the letter of the law 'i — I cannot give short 360 licences ; I lose time if I do, hut if I give tlirae months' liceacos I can always be up to time within a week. If I gave a fortaight or three weeks I should lose tiuio. 8541. Then you cannot really carry out the act at present as you desire to do ? — 1 can- not give short licences. 8542. If you had not to give permits to remove sheep out of the area yon would have more time ? — Considerably. 8543. And could consequently carry out the act more to your own s itisfactii^ii than you can at present ? — I could give short licences, and that would be a great help towards the eradication of scab. 8544. Do you think infection may be caused by sending sheep to the pound without first taking precautionary measures ? — Yes, they should be dipped on the farm they tres- passed on, and at the expense of the owner of the sheep. 8545. Do shearers of to a infect clean sheep? — It has never come under ray personal notice, but I believe it is dangerous. 8546. Would you start a new act in the summer? — It would be more advantageous to the farmer. 8547. Do you think that, with a proper measure, scab could really be eradicated from the country ? — Yes, I have proved it already on a good many farms in this district. 8548. Mr. Bothi.'\ In case there is a simultaneous dipping, do you think that farmers win try to comply with the act and put themselves in a position to do so by shearing more or less at the same time ? — I don't think so, in this district. 8549. Of course, all farmers shear in either the spring or the autumn, and it is not impossible to change the period at which they shear ? — We have really three shearing seasons here, spring, midsummer, and autumn. 8550. But if they -c^ould agree amongst themselves to .shear more or less at a certain time, then it would be more practicable ?• — Yes. 8551. And would help to stamp out scab ?— Decidedly. 8552. What remedy or protection have farmers now on the boundary against scabby sheep coming into their district ? — .According to the act the farmer maj- impound the .-ftock and sue for damages. 8553. Then hovr is it that farmers pretend thoy cannot ? — As a rule thoy are very frightened of each o^her, and the farin-^r does not like to run against his neighbour : they grumble a good'deal, but don't run each other in. They like the inspector to do it. 8554. A man cannot drive 800 or 1,000 sheep iu a public road? — No, they must tres- pass, and if the farm is fenced the farmer can impound them. 8555. Is it not a fact that as a rule farmers are always more anxious to find fault with an act than to try to carry out the provisions of the act which his been made for their pro- tection ? — They don't take advantage of all the protection which the law affords. 8556. And that applies a great deal to the scab act ? — Yes. 8557. Can you remember any instance during the last six mouths where a farmer has reported to you any breach of the scab act ? — No. 8558. Mr. du 7hit.~\ Was the outbreak last winter only along the main roads ? —No, it started on the main roads, and spread right round. 8559. Are skins coming from farms under quar.antine allowed a? a rule to go away without hindrance ? — Yes. 8560. In the winter, when there is an unexpected outbreak of scab, and the flocks have long wool, would you not allow hand dressing imtil they are shorn ? — No, my e.Koerieaca has been that if you allow scab to grow on sheep with long wool, the sheej) die. 8561. Chairman.] Are there anv suggestions you would like to make ? — I should like to be able to have a little more supervision over dipping, and instead of giving three months to be able to go to a man and insist upon his dipping the sheep. 8562. Would it in many cases be in the interests of the country if the slieep were dip- pe 1 under inspection ? — Yes. 8563. In all easos where a farmer has failed to clean his sheep by two onlinary dip- pings ?■ — -Yes, and at all times hold the farmer responsible. 3fr. George Barnes, scab inspector, examined. 8564. Chairman.'] You are inspector of native location area No. 1 ? — Yes, for two and a half years. 8565. Do you agree with the evidence just given ? — Not in every particular. I don't agree with compulsory dipping at all times, and at all seasons of the year My opinion is the matter should be left to the discretion of the inspector a good d^al, because there are many cases in which it would be impossible for a man to dip his sheep in the depth of winter ; it would be death to them. Daring last winter I had many flocks under my super- vision which it would have been impossible to dip. The locusts cleared off all the grass; many flocks were slightly infected with wire worm, so that there was nothing to eat, the flocks were very poor, and it would have been impossible to dip them. Many were so poor that the owners could not get them home to the kraals. The only suggestion I can make is, that when sheep are in good condition and can stand it the owners should be compelled to dip them, but in other cases they should be allowed to go on with hand dressing ; and I would g^ve everyone an appeal to the magistrate. 801 8566. Supposing you had a flock of sheep in bad condition, and scahby, do you think your loss would be greater by dipping and cleansing them than by allowing them to run on with scab ? — In such cases as I have just mentioned I believe it would, and I have seen two or three cases tried when the owners dipped the sheep of their own free will and lost more than half. 8567. How did they dip them ? — In the forenoon of the warmest day they could find, but the sheep died from the effects of it. The night was very cold, and heaps of them died. They used a lime and sidphur dip. 8568. Have you found any improvement in regard to scab in sheep ? — Certainly. 8569. Was there any extraordinary outbreak last winter .'■ — Yes. 8570. How do you account for that .' Were sheep brought in.'' — I don't think so ; I don't think the flocks were properly cleaned before the winter, and during the winter months thoy became so poor for want of food, that when they got so scabby they were too poor to dip, and so the disease spread. 8571. Do you find many sheep brought into the Kamastone location from the outside, in small quantities, from unproclaimed areas ? — Yes, and from proclaimed areas. 8572. How do they bring them in } — Some under a permit, and I have met with a case in whi .'h they came in under a permit from the master. 8573. You know for certain that a great many do come in ? — Yes, I am sure of it. 8574. Do not the natives go into the back districts with grain, and exchange it for sheep which they bring in ?— Certainly. 8575. As long as that continues, do you think you will be able to have a clean bill for the Kamastone location ? — I am sure I shall not. 8576. Do you think the spread of the disease is caused more by that than anything else ? — I do. 8577. What would you suggest '? — It is very difficult always to keep the exact number of these peoples' stock, owing to the way they change them about. It is very seldom you find that a man has the same number of sheep on your second visit as he bad on your first. The only means to prevent sheep coming in in that way is to make the hendman responsible to report such cases by impounding them. 8578. Would that put the location in a vory much better position ? — I think so. 8579. How is the location now ? — Fairly free. 8580. Have you many dipping tanks there ? — Eighteen altogether. 8581. Have yon miTod the dips, and shown the people how to dip the sheep } — I am always doing it, I maku a point of it. 8582. Do the nat'ves as a body fall in -vrith that ? — They don't object to it ; they are in favour of it, and like you to do it. 8583. If that system is carried out, do you think you will be able to show a great improvement in your area, providing you can prevent sheep being brought in ? — I am sure of it. 8584. Mr. Franc is. '\ Are the natives now generally in favour of the act ? — Yes, more 80 than at first. 8585. Dr. Smartt.l Would you be in favour of constructing Government dipping tanks in the native areas ? — I have already recommended that to the Grovornment, and that I should have supervision over theso tanks. 3586. And charge the natives a fair and reasonable tariff ? — Yes. Of course, many of these now are private, and the owners object to their being used by outsiders unless paid for. 8587. Do you think that such tanks would not only be a protection to the native, but also to the European farmers bordering on the location ? — Yes. I have been asked for an estimate of the cost of building those tanks, and also about what it would- cost to dip the sheep per hundred if Government did it, including the ingredients, supervision and labour, and I have already repUed that I think it could be done for about 6s. 3d., not including the cost of building the tanks. They all go in for six months' shearing. 8588. Chairman.'] Have you any further suggestions to make '?— I don't think paid licences would suit the native areas. The sheep should be dipped under inspection, at a charge. Mr. Thomas Campbell Stubis, seal inspector, examined. 8589. Chairman.'] You are inspector of area No. I ? — Yes, for 14 months. 8590. Do j'ou agree with the evidence given by Mr. Joseph Barnes ? — Yes, in every particular. 8591. Do you find yon have enough time to get through your district? — It is very hai'd work, and I cannot grant short licences, as I should like to do. 8592. Is there anything you wish to add ? — I should like it to be compulsory to have a dipping tank on every farm, fanned as one place. Tlie Honourable Thomas Bailey, Af.L. C, examined. 8593. Chairman.] 1 understand you have been deputed by the Chamber of Comnierce to give evidence before this Commission ? — STes. 362 8594. Is there any particular point on whi( h tlio Chambpr desires evidence to be g^ven? — Not that I am aware of. 8595. You have heard the evidence which has been givon to-day .' — Only a very small portion of it. 8596. You are not a slieop farmer } — No. 8597. And you don't know very much about scab as far as sheep are concerned .'' — Not as far as sheep farming goes. I have had a little to do with it as a purchaser, and as a manufacturer at home. 8598. Then you know the effect of scab upon skins and wool? — Yes, it has a very deleterious efiect. 8599. Can you give us any evidence in regard fo the difference in value between good and scabby skins, either of sheep or goats ? — A scabby skin is not worth 25 per cent, of the value of a sound one. 8600. Will you give us some idea of your experience as a manufacturer at home ? — When sheep are in low condition, and the sheep are infected with scab, you will find that in putting the wool through the different processes of manufacture it will lose 10 to 15 per cent, more than healthy wool. There are so many processes for the wool to go through ; there are altogether six processes before the wool becomes cloth, and the three last are more severe than the first three. The wool becomes tender, and as you work it down going through the different stages it becomes a smaller thread, and as the scabby wool is much more liable to bioak than sound wool, it is much more difficult to work, and therefore there is a loss. 8601. Have you had anything to do with tanning skins or anything of that kind } — No, further than seeing skins which have been tanned, affected with scab. 8602. Is the loss to the Colony very great from scabby skins .? — Yes, it is a loss to the curer, and consequently it must be a loss to the Colony. 8603. Do you think the farmers throughout the Colony lose a considerable amount oi money by having scabby skins as well as scabby wool .^^Yes. 8604. Taking this into consideration, do you think the Government would be justified in spending a large amount of money to assist the farmers in every way to stamp out the scab? — -For mj- own part, I should look upon it in the way they do at home, and that is to place it more or less in the bands of the police. In England, if a policeman sees a sheep affected with scab, he simply brings the man up, in the same way as he would bring up a drunkard or a thief, and the man is brought before the magistrate and fined. 8605. Do jou think that would work in this country ? — That is the only way to cure it. 8606. You don't think a general simultaneous dipping act would be a great benefit ? — No, it is a man's property, but it is the duty of the Government to see that the laws are carried out, and to appoint police or inspsectors to bring up before the magistrate any persons who neglect to do so, and have them fined. 8607. Do you think it winild be sufficient to compel people to keep their sheep clean under some police act, or that the farmers might be assisted in trying to stamp out the disease ?— I think the police ought more or less to have the control of this matter, together with the scab inspectors. 8608. Mr. Francis. ] Would you help the farmers with dip, and so on ? — I don't think people should fall back too much on the Government. 8609. It woidd not cost the Government anything to sell the dip at cost price? — People farm with sheep for a profit, and therefore must go to the trouble and expense of working for a profit. 8610. I believe you own a good deal of wool } — Yes. 8611. If there were two parcels of wool offered to you, one infected and the other, to your own knowledge, clean, what difference would you make per pound in the price ? — It all depends. The clean wool is stronger and better in staple, but some of the stuff sold for wool in this country, if it were not for the washing they would wonder in England where it came from. I should think the difference would be about |d. to Id. a pound. 8612. Consequently this country is losing a large amount of money annually from the fact that the flocks are infected with scab ? — Certainly. Driver's Drift, Friday, \Mh January, 1893. P»BSENT : Mr. Frost (Chairman) Mr. Botha. ,, Dir ToiT. Dr. Smartt. Mr. Francis. Klaa% Makasi examined. 8613. Chairman.'\ You, together with five other men, have been chosen at a meeting this morning to represent the views of the whole of the location ? — Yes. 8614. You are the senior headman of this location, aud live here under the act ? — Yes ■ [G. 1— '94.] TT 363 8615. Since the act lias been in force, has it done any good in this district, and are the sheep cleaner than they were before? — How do I know ? I am told, but I know nothing. 8616. Were your sheep amongst those which were here this morning; ? — No. 8617. Did you see the sheep which were here this morning ? — Yes. 8618. Before the act was in force, were the sheep here as clean as those ? — I cannot say, because there are sheep which have never seen a dip as clean as any sheep can be. 8619. But were the sheep about here as clean before the act was put in force as they are now ? — I am not their herd. 8620. If you cannot answer questions about things which you have seen with your own eyes, it is no use asking you anything more ? — I don't know who the sheep belong to. 8621. That does not matter ?— I had nothing to do with these sheep before the act was in force. 8622. Have yoii since ? — T had something to do with them coming here to-day. I simply said they were to bring them. 8623. Did you tell everybody, or only those who had clean sheep ? — They were under me, and I simply sent word they were to bring their sheep here to-day. 8624. Did you get a notice from the field-cornet that the Commission was coming here? —Yes. 8625. What did that notice say? — I got notice from the field-cornet that the Com- mission was to sit to-day, and that I was to do as I have done. 8626. Did not the notice say that the Commission would take evidence, and tell you to warn the men in .favour of and against the scab act to come here and give evidence ? — [Notice to that effect read.] — Do you perceive that any are absent ? 8627. Did you give notice in accordance with that instruction? — They are present. 8628. Have those men of yours appointed you to give evidence ? — Yes. 8629. Has the act done any good in this district ? — Whether the act has benefited us or otherwise, we do our best to dip our sheep. 8630. But has it benefited you ? — I could not say. We dip as much as we can, but still we get fined. 8631. Then you object to the act ? — Who would be satisfied to have his children's bread taken from him, and still obey ? 8632. Do you think the sheep here are better now than before the act came in force ? — If I were to say they are better, it would not favour me or the law. The sheep on the farm where I am headman are clean. 8633. Were they clean before the act was in force ? — They were always clean because the scab is only a thing of yesterday. They never used to have scab. 8634. Do you tell me your sheeji never had scab here ? — I never knew what scab was. 8635. Were you or any of your people never fined for having scab amongst your sheep ? — Yes, I have been eaten up. 8636. What were you fined for ?— I was fined for scab. 8637. Then how can you say you did not know what scab was? — I did not go to the magistrate and report that my sheep had scab, and the day I was fined I saw no scab amongst my sheep. 8638. Dr. Smartt.'] Are any of the sheep here to-day from your farm ? — Yes. 8639. Then you did not toll the truth when you said you did not know the sheep which were here to-day ? — I knew the owners, but not the sheep. 8640. Jfr. Fra)ieis.~\T>kl anj'one tell you this morning that the scab act was a bad thing for the natives ?— The Tembus we represent are satisfied to be made to dip, but they are not satisfied to be fined. 8641. Mr. Botha.'] If the scab act is withdrawn, will the natives still dip their sheep ? — I don't know what the feelings of the others are, but I think they would continue. 8642. But as a representative man, what do you think? Would they do so? — I don't know, but I would. 8643. Even if there is no scab act, and they are told and made to dip their sheep, would it bo in their own interests ? — I don't know what the tribe will do. 8644. Does the dipping do the sheep good or harm ? — It is all very well to dip in summer, but not when it is cold. 8645. If you dip in summer, does it help to cure tlie sheep of scab .'' — Sometimes it is beneficial, and sometimes not. Ever since I started dipping it has been disadvan- tageous to me. 8646. How? — It is so. It is all very well to dip in the summer, but I disapprove of dipping in winter; it is injurious to the sheep. 8647. Why did you say just now that even if the scab act is withdrawn you will still dip your sheep ? — What will be the use of my dip if I don't use it. 8648. 3fr. dtt Toil.'] Have you found that dipping cures scab ? — I think so, and I have a dip. 8649. Is scab contagious ? — I have never had scab, and I don't know whether it is con- tagious or not. The law comjiels me to dip, and that is why I do it. 8650. How do you know that dipping wiU clean sheep } — I am not likely to be the first oae to oppose Government measures. 364 Sam Maset examined. 8651. Chairman.'] Have you any sheep ? — -I always had and shall liavo sheep. 5652. Have you anything to say about this matter ? — The scab act is amongst us, and what is the meaning of it ? 8653. It was put in force here to try and stamp out scab, and to help the good man who wants to keep his sheep clean, and to protect him from the lazy man ? — Before this law, nothing troubled us, and we used to do what we liked with our sheep ; and it would have been far better to have remained as we were, because we alwaj's had clean sheep, but since we have started dipping they are always dirty. T don't liolieve it is necessary to dictate to a man to do this or that with his own property, but every man should do what he likes with his own property. Now we have no choice, but must jixit the sheep in the water whether it is cold or warm weather, and we are not satisfied with the scab act. 8654. You say the sheep are more scabby now than thej' were before the act? — Even before the act we used to see a scabby sheep now and then. 8655. But you say they are more seabby now than they were before .''— Yes, they are. 8656. Are the sheep you saw this morning a fair sample of the sheep in Glen Grey ? — I did not see tlie sheep which were here this morniug ; they were gone when I got here. 8657. Have you seen any sheep here ? — Every day. 8658. And have they scab .'' — [No reply could be obtained.] Booi Mhengo examined. 8659. Chairman.'] You are a headman ? — Yes. 8660. Mr, Botha.] Has the inspector ever interpreted the law to you ? — Yes. 8661. Then you know that if your sheep got scab, the inspector must give you three months' time to clean them ? — Yes. 8662. And that if dimng those three months you have done your best to clean tho sheep, but at the end of that time they are not clean, the inspector must give you more time? —Yes. 8663. And that during all that time there is no fine as long as you try to clean them ? —Yes. 8664. How can anyone say you must dip when the inspector teUs you, whether it is good or bad weather, hot or cold ? — What frightens us most is the fines ; we don't say much about the act. 8665. But do you know that the magistrate cannot fine you as long as you are trying to do your best to clean the sheep ? — When the law was passed we were thankful for it, but we did not want any fines. 8666. Then what must the Government do with the man who won't dip his sheep ? — I don't know. I am now only speaking for myself, not for the people. 8667. How often have you received more time to clean your sheep ? — I always get a renewal, and have never been fined. 8668. Br. Smartt.] When you got a clean bill of health, who dipped your sheep for you ? — The inspector. 8669. Does not that show that the Government are trying to help you and your tribe as much as possible ? — It does. 8670. Would you like to have the inspector removed and have no luspector ? — Yes, because I shoidd like to dip without being compelled. We have learnt from him how to walk alone. 8671. Mr. Francis.] If your sheep get scab, can you cure them by dipping? — Yes, tho inspector taught me. 8672. If your sheep are clean, and some scabby sheep get mixed with them, do you believe your sheep will become scabby ? — I do. 8673. Are there not some people who don't clean their sheep ? — They work with their sheep. 8674. All .?— I don't know. 8375. If there is a man who lets liis sheep remain scabby, and lets them mix with yours, should not that man be made to dip his sheep ? — I would make such a man dip his sheep. Mali Nkaka examined. 8676. Chairman.] What do you wish to state ? — The tribe says it docs not approve of the scab act. Ever since we started dipping our sheep have died, and we get no more lambs. The Tembus say even if we dip we arc fined. 8677. Mr. Botha.] Have you stock of your own } — Yes. 8678. Has the law been explained to you? — Yes. 8679. Then you know that the law provides the inspector must give you three months in which to clean your sheep, and as long as you diligently do your best to euro them, there is no fine i^ — I have been fined. 8680. How could you be fined if you have done your duty ? — In using the dip, I must have made it too strong ; I burnt the sheep, and I was upbraided for doing so, and was fined. Some died, and with the few that remained I had to pav tlie fine. xy2 365 8681. I am sorry to hoar tho act has done yoii liarm, and I would adviso you to ask the inspector to toach you liow to mix the dip 'i — That was my arguiueut ia court, that I had mixed the dip not knowing the proper strength, and notwithstanding I was fined £2, although it was the first offence. I used to try and work witli my sheep one at a time, and found it improved them, but I was told to take three to a dip. 8682. Chairman?^ Do you think the Government should make more dips.' — We don't ■want anything at all. Mr. James Temlett, scab inspector, examined. 8683. Chairman.'] You are scab inspector for area No. .'5a .' — Yes, for two and a half years. 8684. How has tho scab ac^t worked in your district ?— I conimoncod my duties by going through my area, and I inspected between 76,000 and 80,000 sheep, of which something like 10,000 wore infected with vi.si})le scab. At my last inspection tlioro were something over 100,000 sheei^ in the district, and of that number a little loss than one per cent. were scabby. 8685. When these men state that they have had no lambs since dipping has taken place in the district, it is false ? — Y&s. 8686. Are you in favour of a general act ?— Yes. 8687. Do you think compulsory general dipping would be advisable ? — Most decidedly, under good sujiorvision. I .should like to mention an instance with reference to what was said just now about dipping sheep and being fined. There was a case of a man who was brought up who really did dip his slieep twice, and Mr. Jenner objected, but I told him I would sliow that the dijapiug had not been done according to instructions. One man had 230 sheep, and I ascertained on evidence that he only used six small packets of a patent dip, and Mr. Jenner said it was not ouough. The man also stated that he used a 64-gallou cask and that he filled it twice ^^•ith water. The case was decided in my favour. I have hoard Mr. Jenner tell them that I would dip their sheep whenever they liked, and I once came a long distance from the Bolotwa to dip sheep. 8688. Br. Smartt.'] Should there bo more Government tanks in the native locations? — We have sufficient at present, except in four or five localities. 8689. Are the natives in those places able to build tanks for themselves? — Most decidedly, as soon as they can get some artisan to do it, and they have requested me to look for one. I find great difficulty from trooj)8 of slieep coming into the district from the Transkei, with scabby sheep among them, aud without a permit. St. Mark's is an unpro- claimed area and they trek in freely from there without a permit, and as a rule I don't know about it, and they mix with the sheep here and infect them. It is a difficult thing to suggest any remedy here, with natives on both sides of the river, because they are always exchanging them, and 3'ou can only prosecute them when they are found out. The frontier should be protected with ports of entry, where there should bo Government dipping tanks, and all sheep coming in shoidd be dipped under supervision aud quarantined. Without that it will be impossible to eradicate scab. 8690. Do you find any difficulty in working with the natives ? — Between the 28th July and the 4tli August, I had an official inspection })y Mr. Davison, when we ij^uarantined ten flocks of sheep, and within ten days every one of those flocks had been dipped. 8691. Mr. 7'rflMCi.s.] Do you think undue influence has been used to induce the natives to oppose tho act? — I do. 8692. Has their evidence to-day surprised you ? — It has. 8693. What reason have you for that ? — Being constantly amongst them, and hearing their views. They are altogether in favour of an act; they have been frightened as regards fines. 8694. Do you know of any previous occasions when undue influence has been used to get the natives to oppose the act .'' — I know that some time back there were throe petitions going round, to try and induce them to get the act repealed. 8695. Wlio were the originators of the petitions? — As far as my knowledge goes they were some Europeans in the district, and I may state tlioy only gdt two signatures. 8696. If tho natives were left alone, you think they would bo in favour of tho act, and would carry it out to tlie best of their ability } — I do. 8697. Dr. Smartt.'] Would it be advisable to appoint some superintendents of dipping, and have all the natives' stock dipped under supervision ? — It would. 8698. Do you think j'ou can eradicate scab without that? — No. 8699. C/iairman .~\ How is it j'ou have got the sheep in your area so comparatively clean ? — There are some traders in the district who linvo had dips erected, and thoy supervise tho dijjping of the sheep themselves, so that it has been done very successfully. 8700. Is not that sufficient for the working of the act ? — In some localities there are some traders who dip the natives' sheep, not to get them clean but to make a profit out of it, and that is why I think they should lie dipj)ed under supervision. 8701. Is there anything;' you would recommend in regard to tlie working of the act .'' — I think the licences are too long; they should be a month, and there should be discretionary power given to the inspector as to tho time to be allowed in winter. I think a man might move his sheep on Ins own jiermit to adjoining districts, when ho has a clean bUl, but on his 86« Own responsibility. The natives would rntliiir build their own tanks than have Government tanks, because in the latter case there woiilii lie a charge of so much a flock for the use of the Government tanks. 8702. Mr. Botha.~\ Can you always detect when fresh stock is brought into the location? — Not in every case. Mr. William John Hughes, field-cornet, examined. 8703. ChairniaH.~\ You are field-cornet of Ward No. 2, Tambookieland, in the division of Queen's Town, and district of Glen Grey? — Yes, for ten years. 8704. And you assist in carrying out the provisions of the scab act ? — Certainly. 870.5. Have you any remarks to make on the way in which the act is carried out, or in any other respect ? — I found that, especially amongst the natives, the la-^h of the law was most severely used, and I came to their assistance by advising the headmen and many of the traders to erect dips, which they did, and dipped the sheep continually. When the act was put in force in this district it was very beneficial to the natives' flocks, but on account of so many of them being summoned, a feeling grew up against it for a time ; latterly, however, they have taken to the act, and voluntarily bring their sheep to the difierent tanks to be dipped. j\Iauy of them have expressed their satis- faction with the act, and I think it is sufficient proof of their satisfaction to observe how proud of their little flocks the men were who brought theii- sheep to-day for you to see. Our magistrate has been most lenient and kind to them in every way, and we have a most effi- cient scab inspector, who, although at times ho has been severe, considered it was his duty to be so. I think, however, there are times when he should use his discretion more freely, and mix more mercy with justice. Several complaints have been made against him tor this, and perha[is because he has been so efiicient in endeavouring to stamp out scab, he has been too zealous in his work. I have had to remonstiate with him many times, in a friendly way, but I have always assisted him t > the utmost of my power, to which he can bear testimony. I am very grieved to find such a number of natives to-day wlio are opposed to the act, because headmen and all agreed with me that it was most beneficial to themselves. I beg to put in a copj- of a letter I received last May from Messrs. Charles Brown & Co., of Queen's Town, as follows : — Queen's Town, 17th May, 1892. Mr. W. J. Hughes, Exonxa. Dear Sir, You will be pleased to hear that we are well satisfied with your recent season's wool. In the grease we have found your wools longer, stronger and in better condition than for- merly ; in fact, they proved to be the best wools we have ever had from you, and in washing they have turned out bright and bulky. These satisfactory residts are no doubt due to the introduction and successful working of the scab act in your district Yours truly, (Signed) Chas. Brown & Co. This, I think, is sufiicient proof of the beneficial effect of the scab act upon the wool here. I also beg to put in a number of documents in sujiport of complaints made by natives, and it is no wonder that farmers cannot get servants ^^-heu the circumstances disclosed by many of these papers occur, and the scab act, which was intended to benefit the people, is turned into an oppressive curse to the native, many of whom are p.^id their wages with a scabby sheep at the rate of a sheep a month. At other times, when they get clean sheep, they are often stopped on the Queen's high road, rushed off to the pound, and the pick of the sheep taken at the rate of 5s. each, for which the unfortunate native had to work hard for a month. 8706. Can you account in any way for the people in a body going against the soab act to-day? — I am really surprised, and I am not in a position to-day to account for it. 8707. You don't think it is the real feeling of the people ? — I am positive it ia not. I should say I regret that I omitted to write for a statement with reference to the last season's wool. I beg to exhibit to the Commission the counterfoils of the dippings referred to in my evidence [book produced]. The natives purchase dipping powder at 1/3 a packet, and that is aU they have to pay. I mix the powder for them, and help them, and I think the Government ought now to place a man there for the purjioso, because in order to do this I have to neglect my business. 8708. Dr. Smartt.^ Do you consider it would be advisable to dip all natives' flocks under properly qualified inspectors ? — Yes ; a native would do if properly instructed, but there .should be somebody. They are in a position to build their own tanks. 8709. Mr. Botha.~] As a rule, would the headman be the proper man to be appointed to supervise those things? — No, there should bo a man appointed on purpose for it ; the head- men have too much to do. By getting good, responsible men, and giving tiioni more pay it woidd be a benefit to the country at large. 8710. You don't keep any small stock yourself ? — Only a few slaughter shoep. Solomon Teha examined. 8711. ChairmanP\ Are you a headman ? — Yos, at Agnos, close to the mission station. 8712. Were you here to-day when the natives gave evidence .' — Yos. 867 8713. Do you agree with what thoy said ? — No ; I am satisfied with the scab act. 8714. Dr. Sniarft.] Do you think it is a good thing for the natives in general ? — Yes, I do. It is a good thing for them if they will obey the act. 871.5. Chnirman.'] Do you consider that the sheep were very much better and cleaner before the act was put in force than they are now? — Yes, much better. 8716. Would you like to see the act done away with? — No. 8717. If it were, do you think the people would neglect dipping, and that there would b3 more scab again ? — Yes, I think so. S718. Can you explain how it was to-day that the people who were so interested in the matter, and brought their sheep here, and seemed so proud of having them clean, when they gave evidence, all went against the act ? — For myself I am satisfied ; I have nothing to say about the other people. If one man chooses to die in his own headstrong way I cannot help it. 8719. What about the people on your own farm ? — I told them according to the notice I received, to come here and speak for themselves. Mali is on my farm. 8720. Is it a fact that he ruined his sheep by dipping them, and was fined ? — It is true his sheep were bui-ut with tho dip, and had scab, and he was summoned. I am witness of that. The skin all gathered up as in a ball shortly afterwards. He was first fined £2 for not reporting scab, and then he received a three months' licence. It was on account of the short notice that mauy of them were opposed to tlie act. Now they receive one or two months' notice. 8721. Is one month too short a notice ? — When scab breaks out amongst a flock that has been clean, three months is not too long notice, and there should be a further renewal. Mali was opposed to the act because he was fined twice, and liis brother is going to be fined at the next court day for the same reason. Those two men are always pitched upon. Now they are told that they hide away the sheep with scab, and therefore must be fined again. When Mr. Temlott came there were a certain number of sheep at Mali's house, and when ho came again he asked why there were none the second time, and it was e.xplained to him that there are two brothers with two flocks, Mali has one of his own, and Booi liis brother has another, both Hocks running together. Sometimes when Mr. Temlett goes there Booi's flock is out herding by themsehes, and he only sees the one lot belonging to Mali, but when Booi comes away here to see his wife, who is sick, he puts his sheep with Mali's. 8722. Was not one of the flocks scabby ? — Yes, they were fined because the sheep were hidden away, and notice was not g^ven. Matwa Nwagi examined. 8723. Chairman.'] You are a paid Tambookie chief, and senior headman ? — Yes. 8724. Can you explain why these people took the course they did to-day?— All the flocks I saw bro-.ight here to-day were clean, and I was well pleased to see them so nice. Those people outside, not on my farm, are dissatisfied with the act, and some people on my farm are of the same opinion. This continually summoning, without due notice and without time, is a hardship to them, and in the winter to be compelled to dip the sheep. The sheep won't stand it, and yet we have to be continually fined. We always dip when we see that our sheep are in a condition to do so, but we object when the water is so very cold, because it injures them. I have not so many sheep, but I am satisfied with the act myself, and I consider it would be bad if the act were repealed. The majority on my farm are in favoxir of it. Tliomaa Ralant eTamined. 8725. Chairman.'] You are a farmer in this location ? — Yes, a Basuto. 8726. Were you here this morning ? — I came late. 8727. Can you explain what influenced the people at the meeting? — No, I really don't know anything about it. 8728. Has the act done good here ?— Yes, and it is a good act. Lady Frere, Saturday, 14vo his sheep on his own permit, oven under a heavy fine. 8872. Is not getting iu.spectois to inspect sheep and giving permits for remov-al one of the greatest ditfi;iiltios in carrying out t!in act.-' — Ye-i, with the present large areas. I am waiting now for the inspector, and he cannot visit me before next Friday. I have not a clean bill. 8873. If you had had a clean bill for three months, would it not be much better if you coull move the sheep on your own responsibility ? — No, I am in favour of having a fresh permit of removal from the scab inspector. I don't trust the class of farmers we have here. a 8874. Although you liave not a clean bill, you don't think the scab causes any inconvenii'nce ? — Having such largo areas it is inconvenient now to get the inspectors, but if we bad smaller areas or more inspectors I don't see thut it would be at all inconvenient, because a farmer always knows a week or ten days previously that he wants to movo his sheep 8875. Mr. du Toit.'\ If a speculator came on your farm, and wanted to buy sheep, would vou not suffer inconvenience ? — If a farmer has scab, let him suffer. David Matsolo examined. 8876. f^ajn/wn.] What are yuu ? — A farm"r. I have 150 sheep and 40 goats. I have lived in Glen Grey ever since the immigration, about 20 years ago. 8876. Is the scab act in force in j'our area ? — Yes. 8878. Have you found any ilifficulty with the act in any waj' ? — Yos, for several years I hnve been dipping my shi-ep. and even now they are nut clean. I think it is because we are too crowded here, beciuse if I dip my shoep to-day tiioy will mix with another flock which has not been dipped. 8879. When you dip your she !poction. I think that would meet the case to a great extent. 9010. Hav < you fouad that the sheei^ in the Xalanga district have improved as regards scab during the last twelve ni'jiith^^, since the act has been iu force ? — Yes, wonderfully. 9011. Have you any knowledge of the percentage of scab amongst the sheep then and now ? — No. 9012. And you attribute this improvement to the working of the scab act ? — Yes. 90 L3. 3Ir. Francis.~\ Do you think there is a great danger of farmers iu the proclaimed area who have scabby sheep being allowed to carrj' or send the skins from those sheep wherever the}' think proper ? — If the skins are trailed over the ground it would be dangerous, and if ou a wagon it would depend upon how they are pi'otected. 90H. What would you suggest to pi event the danger of contagion.^ — They should be properly disinfected. 9015. Do you find any difficulty in cleaning )'our sheep when infected ? — No. 90 IG. If your sheep became infected during the winter, would you prefer allowing it to go on until spring, or would you dip at once ? — Under certain circumstances I should probably dip them, but if a ewe were heavy iu laiub I should not dip lier, but if the sheep were in fair health and condition I should. 9017. With proper measures, do you think scab could be eradicated from the district? — Certainly. 9018. Do 3-ou think it would be advisable to classify the inspectors? — If a man were not doing his duty, or were not capable of doing it, he should be dismissed. 9019. You think there should be an inspector iu each ward. Would it not bo advisable in that case to have some stiporvision over these inspectors ? — The superintendents would only increase the cost, but I think it would work if the farmers looked after them. 9020. Would the fanners look after them ? — I am certain we should in this district. 9021. As a general rule, if the inspector did not do his duty, do you think the farmers would report him ? — I cannot say. 9022. Do you think the term of the first licence given is too long ? — No, I would not be too strict the first time. 9023. If your sheep became infected with scab in the summer, how long would it take you to clean them ? — About two weeks. 9024. Then do 3-ou think it is right to aUow a man three months, and allow them to go on with scab, wlien ho could clean the.n in three weeks ? — I should not think it right for mj'self, but I am allowing for the ignorance of farmers. 9025. Ought not ignorant people to be instructed ? — I would, and I would compel them to learn. 9026. Would it not be a way of compelling them to shorten the licence in summer when there is no difficulty iu dipping ? — Yes, but I would give them a three months' chance first, and after that I would certainly make it shorter or tine them. 9027. If your flocks were clean, would j'ou not think it an injustice to j'ou if your careless neighbour were allowed three months to clean his sheep when he could do it in three weeks 'i — I sboidd not object, as long as ho kept his shocji to himself. 9028. But y- u know there would be a dang<^r of jour sheep being mixed, with us ? — Then I should expect him to bo heavily fined. 380 9029. Should the GovenimPTit supply dips at cost price ?— It would be so much better for the farmers. 9030. Would it encourage the poorer class of farmers to dip ? — I think it would, but it would be bad for the shopkeepers. 9031. Are the fines generally imposed for breaches of the act sufficient.^ — I don't know much about them ; we have only been under the act a short time. I don't think anyone in this district has been fined. 9032. Should there be public dipping tanks on the roads in the proclaimed areas? — It would be a very good thing, the only matter is the expense. 9033. Should the inspector hare discretionary power in regard to granting licences ? — If he gives a three months' notice, I think it should coyer the winter, and there would be days during that time when he could dip. 9034. Should scabby sheep trespassing on a farm be sent to a pound without precau- tionary measures being taken, or should they be first dipped at the owner's expense ? — I think the farmer should certainly take some precautioiiary measure, but I would not compel him to keep them on his farm if they were scabby. 9035. Should any new act commence in the summer with a simultaneous dipping ? — I think so. 9036. Would it be better to have strangers as scab inspectors or people residing in the field-cometcy ? — I should say it would be preferable to have a man in the district, if he is to be obtained. 9037. Mr. Botha.'] Do you not think that ignorance is to a great extent responsible for the opposition to the act in certain quarters ? — Certainly. 9038. Then do you think it advisable that we should have a lenient act at first, so that the people will become more acquainted with it, and see the good of it, and afterwards if necessary make it more stringent ? — -I think it should be lenient for the first three months, during which the inspectors could help the people to dip, aud teach the ignorant as far as they can. 9039. Are aU the inspectors supplied with instructions from the veterinary surgeons how to deal with scab, so that they can instruct the people ? — Yes. 9040. When people are convinced that scab can be cured, will they not also be convinced that it is in their own interests to have their sheep clean, and in that way we shall be able to get on better in our endeavours to stamp out scab from the country ? — Yes. 9041. Mr. dii Toit.~] Will scabby sheep infect clean sheep if they don't get mixed together ? — They might get infected through the veldt, or by rubbing against stones. 9042. Would you be in favour of one intelligent farmer being appointed as a scab in- spector in each ward, if he held a clean bill ? — Yes. 9043. What salary would you give them ? — I have not thought over that sufficiently to be able to give an opinion, but I would not give the same salary as the inspectors receive now. 9044. If a certain portion of the Colony were entirely opposed to a scab act, would you force a general act upon the whole Colony 1 — I am in favour of a general act, and would force it. 9045. Would it work, if the farmers were not willing to co-operate with the inspectors.' — It is for their own good. 9046. Are you acquainted with the north-western parts of the Colony .^ — No. 9047. Are you aware that they very often iuffer there from prolonged droughts ? — I can only speak for this district. 9048. But if that is the case, would you force the same act on those parts ? — I should have to hear all the points for and against it before deciding. 9049. When a slight outbreak of scab has occurred amongst youi- flocks, say on a couple of sheep, and you have hand dressed them, have you ever found that the disease has been stopped, and does not go any further ? — I don't believe in hand dressing, I have hand dressed, but I cannot say it has stopped it. It always went further. 9050. If an unexpected outbreak should take place towards the winter, when your flocks have long wool, would you dip them and sacrifice the value of the wool ? — If the flocks were properly dipped before winter I consider they would not get an outbreak, and if we had a general act there would be no outbreak. The insect would be utterly killed with a simultaneous dipping. 9051. If there should be such a thing, would you allow hand dressing until the season chtmged ? — I consider the three months I allow would be sufficient Time. 9052. Might not I farmer have a dean bill, and consider himself quite safe, and yet have an outbreak ? — I should consider it a hardship, but I should still stick to the three months. 9053. Chairman^ Is there anything you would like to add.' — With regard to the ignorance existing on this subject, I may state that I have heard farmers who know some- thing about it say that thej- have carefulh' dipped their sheep once a month for three months, and still have not cured scab. I call that a case of ignorance, and I think there is a great deal ef that about, and to that I aseribf) it that many well informed farmers fail to keep their flocks clean ; but if they were taught by the inspector, aud instructed by him, they would certainly destroy the scab insect by dipping the sheep twice witnin fourteen days. AAA 2 381 Mr. Max Hehidrik Wilhelm examined. 9054. Chairman.'\ You aro also a delegate from the Xalanga Farmers' Association ? — Y o.i ; I have farmed there for ahout ten years, and have 500 goats. 9055. Oo you agree with I>fr. Beadon's ovideuee ? — Yes, in every particular. I think the more stringent the act is, the easier it would be for the people. 9056. Then do you ap:reo with giving three months for a licence ?— Yes, that should be the lonf-i^est time, and after that it should bo very stringent. I think the reason why some peoplo don't succeed in keeping their flocks clean is because tliey don't guard against reiijfection from stones, bushes and so on, changing the veldt. The eggs last a long time under stones and such places, and what is most neglected is cleaning the kraals af.er dipping. A farmer who has not had a clean bill for at least three or four months has no right to pay his servants in sheep or goats. 9057. Then you think the spread of the disease is due a good deal to the natives moving about with their small flocks ? — A great deal. I have issued passes to the natives for the last eight or nine years, and I can assure you that is the greatest trouble I have. I am an issuer of passes, and a justice of the peace, aiul I have authority to issue passes. I cannot make these Kafirs believe that they must not travel about with scabby sheep. On my own farm I have given them dip and afforded them every opportunity to clean them only to get them away, and be rid of them. 9068. Mr. Botha.'] Do you know that goats are not so liable to get scab as sheep? — Yes, and it i^ quite a different disease in goats. iJ059. Then as a goat farmer, you can speak more easily about the scab act than if you were a sheep former ? — Formeily I farmed with sheep. Goats are just as liaT)Ie to get scab, but the scab kills a goat, and therefore it does not sjiread, and if a man who has goats gets scab among them he cures it at once. 9060. And naturally they are not so liable to be scabby as sheep ? — They catch it just as (juickly. 9061. Would not a stringent scab act press more heavily on the sheep than on the goat farmers ? — Yes, beeauHo it kills the goats. 9062. Are you not going too far when you tell farmers how they should pay their Bervaiita ? — I have lived on the frontier for the last 25 years, and my experience is that no farmer ought to jjay his servants in stock. It is detrimental to the servants, and leads to con.»taiit disputes. Formerly I was a field-coniet, and nearly all the disputes which arose between masters and servants were about stock. 9063. Then you think farmers should not enjoy the same liberty as other citizens of the country ? — I don't object to allowing farmers the same liberty as other citizens. 9064. Therefore they should make their own private contracts as they think fit, with servants as with others? — But the contract ought to be clear. 9005. Chairman.'] AVlmt you object to in the stock is that they carry the scab ? — Not that only ; it also causes disputes. Mr. Jamen McGregor examined. 'JOOn. Chairman.] You aro a delegate from the Xalanga Farmers' Association ? — Yes, I have farmed there since 1881, and have 1,800 sheep. 9067. Do yon agree with Mr. Beadou's evidence ? — In the iiiuin I do, but I think in a freshly proclaimed area the people should have the off-chance for three mouths, because it takes time before a large circle of people got educated up to the conditions of the act ; but in a proclaimed urea, after the exjiiriition of the first licence, more stringent measures ought to be introduced, and only fourteen days should be allowed. 9068. Can you give us any idea. of the extent of scab here before the act was in force, and now ? — Boforo tbo act was put in force there wure very few clean flocks throughout the eastern section (jf the district, but now there are many. Whether they hold clean bills or not I don't know, but the flocks are clean. 9069. Do you attribute that to the effect of the act ? — Yes, that is one reason, and the other is that it has been an exceptionally good season. The certificate by two landowners is a great drawback to the proper carrying out of the act. 0070. Your great point is that there should be a general scab act } — Yes, and if not that it should bo extended as far westward as possible. 9071. Are 5-ou much^oubled by smaU flocks of sheep belonging to natives being moved past you ? — Yes, my farms are bounded by public roads. 9072. Are these flocks occasionally affected by scab ? — I cannot say I have found them actually infected. 9073. Is it a groat danger to your flocks ? — Most decidedly. I have a case before the court this morning, in which some sheep from an unproclaimed area were passed through a proclaimed area, in opposition to the act. This is the kind of thing we suffer from very much, and I have found many cases like that. 9074. Have any cases come under your notice where sheep and goats are driven with a pass but without a jieimit? — Yes. ^875. Have you ever taken any steps in such matters ? — Not individually, but others have. 382 9076. Have the parties who grantfd the pass ever been punished? — Not to my knowledge. 9077. Do you think those parties, who naturally have more knowledge of the law than the natives, should be punished for giving those passes '■! — Yes, if they are given within the area. Thrse outside the *ea may not have an intimate knowl'sdge of the act, but a man inside the proclairned area who wilfully gives such a pass shtjiild be severely dealt with. 9078. Mr. du loit.'] In what way has the good season helped in the reduction of scab ? When there is a good season sheep are not so liable to bo visibly affected with scab. Tou cannot see it without the assistance of a glass. They are in better health and condition, and the}' are safer to handle. 9079. Would you dip in winter ? — I did last winter, with fire months' wool on. Mr. Richard Evelyn Gaylard examined. 9080. Chairman.~\ You are also a delegate from the Xalanga Farmers' Association .' — Yes. I have farmed here for two j< ars with 500 sheep. 9081. Do 5'ou agree with Mr. Boadon's evidence? — Yes, mostly. I .should like to jioint out that it is an every-day occurrence for people to move about with small flocks arriving from districts outside the proclaimed area, without permits, but with passes from magistrates and other Government officials, and I think the act should provide for the punishment of any- one issuing such a pass. There are a great many cases where the magistrate writes on the back of the pass that the man has been informed of the requirements of the act, but a great many do not. 9082. Do you attribute a great deal of the scab to these small flocks ? — They give us more trouble than anji;hing else. 9083. Mr. Botha.l Do magistrates give pnsses for small lits of saeep to go into the pro- claimed area from an unprocLiiraed are:i without beiag examined by an inspector? — They give them passes to go into Kaffirland knowing that they must pass through a proclaimed area. 9084. Chairman.'] Wuuld not a port of entry meet the case ? — Yes, supposing they came to that port. I think all inspectors shotild be practical men, farmers or veterinary surgeons, men who know scab when the}' see it. I don't think vcn.A and skins .should be allowed to be carried exposed, but they should always be carried in babs, evea when they are on trucks. 9085. You are in favour of a general act which would moot all these little difficulties? —Yes. Mr. Oliver Auxtin Brown examined. 9086. Chairman.'] You are a delegate from the Xalanga Farmers' Association? — Yes, I have been there four j-ears, and I have 1,300 sheep. 9087. Do you agree with INIr. Beadon? — Yes. in a gi-eat part. I think in an area where the act has been proclaimed some time, a month is quite long enough for a first Ucence. and after that the sheep shoidd bo dijjped under inspection if they are not clean. A great many farmers don't understand how to dip tlie sheep, and a great many are too stingy. Otherwise I agree with Mr. Beadon. 9088. Mr. Francis.] If a man recives a licence for three months and fails to clean his sheep, the only punishment you think he should have woidd be to have his sheep dipped under inspection ? — He must be ignoiaut, and wants teaching ; but if he had not attempted to clean them he should have smie other pimisluuent. 9089. Mr. Botha.] Under the pre.sent act, the owner of sheep is obliged to prove at the expiration of three months that he has been using diligent efforts to clean them, and I understand you to mean that if he has endeavoured to comply with the law, you would be satisfied to have the sheep dipp.?d under inspection. Yuu don't want so much to punish the man as to make sure that llio sheep are cleaned ? — If he has tried all he can to clean them, then I tlunk the sheep should be dipped under inspection without a fine. Solomon Kalipa examined. 9090. Chairman.] What are you ? — I am a delegate from the native farmers of Xalanga, together with these other four. I have been farming there for about 20 years. I have 500 sheep and 100 goats. 9091. During the time yoti h:"!ve farmed here, have your sheep generally been free of scab, or have they been scabby ? — In some years thoj' are scabby, and some years clean. Now they are poor in condition and scratch themselves. 9092. Do you live in the proclaimed area ? — Yes. 9093. Have you a licence from the inspector? — Yes, I have had it since May. After I got the licence I dipped my sheep twice, in the same month of May. I put in three gallons of tobacco extract, but I did not measure the water. I always fill my tank, which is 5 fe^t deep and 10 feet long and 2 feet wide on top. 9094. When you bought the tobacco extract, did not the storekeeper tell you how much 388 water to put with it ? — He did explain to me, and I believe I did accordingly. This cleaned tliem, btit thej- were poor, and I dipped again within 14 days. When the winter came on they died of poverty, hut not of scab. 9095. Have you examined your sheep now ? — Yos, but the skin is not hard yet. 9006. Has the inspector ever inspected your sheep since May ? — No. 9097. Have you told him that your sheep are scabby again ? — No, I never told liim anything. 9098. Were most of the sheep where you live put in quarantine last May .' — Most of them. 9099. Has not the inspector been into that part of the country since May, and examined the sheep .' — No. 9100. Did most of the native farmers there dip their .sheep when they were ordered to do so by the inspector at that time ? — They all dipped. 9101. Were any of the sheep clean after the two dippings in May? — Some may have been clean, but since then a g^eat many have died of poverty, and most are scabby now. 9102. Do you think _you can cure the scab by dipping the sheep properly ? — No. 9103. You think that dipping is no good ? — It does not improve the sheep at all ; they remain just as they were. 9104. What would you like te be done? — I should wish to be left alone to do as I liked. 9105. Have you been lately on the other side of Driver's Drift, in the Glen Grey district? — Yes, just before Christmas. 9106. Did you see the sheep there ? — Yes. 9107. Were they scabby or not ? — Some were not, but some were. 9108. Were there many scabby ones? — Half were scabby, and half clean. 9109. We examined 25 lots of sheep a few days ago, all of which were clean, and they were all clean before they -vere dipped, and showed no signs of having had scab except one lot ? — I don't deny it ; it is quite possible. 9110. Then if those men can clean their sheep, don't j-ou think you can clean yours here, if you dip yours in the sam"^ way as they dip theirs ? — No. I have been farming with sheep more than eighteen years, and sometimes they get scabby, and sometimes they are clean. I have been dipping them coutinually. If the seasons are good they get well of their own accord. The scab act was in force in the Colony some time before it was put in force here, and notwithstanding the shoop there are still scabby. 9111. 3f>: Franeis.l Do you think it is a good thing to have scab amongst your sheep ? -No. 9112. Would it be a good thing if you could got rid of .soab out of your sheep for ever? — A very good thing. It would be a very good thing too if I did not die. 9113. If other people have cleaned their sheep of scab, and they have remained clean for five or six years, why should not you do it ? — We do our best, but the diseas-? cannot be stopped. 9114. 3fr. Botha.] Are you and your people in favour of a scab act, or opposed to it ? — Opposed to it. 9115. Have you ever tried to work with the act, and to carry out the instructions of the inspector ? — We did our best. 9116. But other men who did as they were told by the inspoctors cleaned their sheep, so how is it you did not clean yours ? — The people in the Colony have scabby sheep too. 9117. Would it be a good thing if Government built tanks, and dipped your sheep under inspection, for a charge ? — Yos, I think it would be a very good thing. 9118. Then woidd it not be better if Government dipped your sheep, and made you pay for dipping them ? — No. 9119. But if yon own sheep, and are sheep farmers, you are certainly able to pay for dipping them, and according to your own showing, dipping is a good thing ? — If the Government would do that it would ba a very good thing, because they might succeed in cleaning the sheep where I have failed. [The other delegates concurred with this witness.] Jitr. Charles Iheodor Hagelthorn, scab inspector, examined. 9120. Chairman.'] You are scab inspector for area No. 7, Xalanga? — Yes, fifteen months. 9121. You are not appointed in the same way as ordinary inspectors in the Colony ? — I was appointed entirely by the Government ; there is no divisional council here. 9122. When you took over the appointment, did you find very much scab throughout the district ? — It was generally infected with scab all through, both Europeans and natives. After I had made my first inspection there were six flocks free of scab throughout the district, and now there are 112 in aU, chiefly Europeans, but including 15 native flocks. Among the English population there are thirty-five flocks, the Dutch sixty-two, and the natives fifteen, all clean. 9123. What is the proportion of flocks still infected ? — The total number of European flocks in the district is 260, and native 750 ; that is, up to the time of my last inspection. 384 The number of sheep and goats in the Eiu-opo.-Mi docks is 85,700, and natives 45,250. Since the lambing season there will perhaps be 20,0i:0 wore. 9124. Do you find that the European.s gen.'ral.j are dipping their flocks fairly well ? — Yes, as far as I have observed. 9125. Have you ever been present whe.i tlioy tiave been mixing their dips, and seen them dip the sheep 't — No, I dou't knoTr ho.v thpy do it. 9126. Or the natives either ? — N-). Th'j u itiv-s have not had so much convenience for dipping. They dip in tubs, and hand dro^y of Katirland. Coming from Barkly, Dordrecht, Queen's Town and even St. Mark's they must go through Xalanga to get to Kafirland. 385 9143. What remedy would you suggest ?—Uules8 the farmers themselves will take notice of these traTelloi-f, I don't know. There are only a few who do ; they say it is too much trouble to attend at the magistrato's court, so they lot them go ; but the act provides for stopping these people and putting their shoep in the pound. 914-1. Do you think it would be better that thim; .should b:< only ono or two entrances into this district, whore there should be dipping places for dipping the sheep under inspection ? — That wonld be ono way 'f iireventiiig the spread of scab tlirough the district. 914.'). Would it ni-eet this case V — I think s^j ; if !iothi:ig better could be done, and if the sheep were properly dipped. 9146. Should tlioy be (piarantinod "?— That wonld delay them a couple of weeks, and I am afraid the accumulation of sheep ou such a spot would bo too great. 9147. Would it be iinijracticable to carry oiit the quarantining ? — I fear so. There would be only ono or two passages for all the elioop from Barkly, Dordrecht, Queen's Town, &c. 9148. What would you suggest ?— I don't see that anything can bo done while these other districts are outside the area. Tho natives will go tlirough in spite of all we can do. 9149. You thiuktho only remedy is a gfincr:il scab act? — Th.t is the only thing which will atssist in stopping it to some extent. T:ie sheep would be more likely to be cleaH then. 9150. Mr- Pranoit.^ How many tanks have tho natives got? — Fifteen. 9151. Is it possible for aU of them to dip properly in that number ? — No. 9152. Do you consider they are in a position to build 8u8S.cient tanks without assist- ance? — Tliey ought to, if each headman ma'le each of his men pay a small amount towards it, and I think they ought to be able to go to that expense, because if each headman had a dip in the most convenient place in his area it would be sufficient for all the people under him. The Hocks only average .59 sheep. 9163. In getting natives' sheep clean, would it be an advantage to get dips at cost price ? — I think so, and at the same time to have proper supervision over the dipping until they were educated up to the mark. , 9154. Have you generally found when Europeans have dipped tlieir sheep that they have cleansed them from scab '?- — As a rule, l)ut tliero have been cases whore the sheep have been done rapidly, and wore not cleansed. 9155. Is that owing to igLiorauce how to use the dip .'' — Yes, and a good many of them don't seem to take to dipping ; thoy don't seem to believe in it. 91 5G. Then would you bo in favour oi having sucli peoples' sheep dipped under inspection, us well as tho natives' ? — Yes, but I wotild not suggest that it should bo made compulsory with the European population. I think they would take to it naturally, but I would leave it tm- theui to make a rcquisitioa f. r a superintendent to come and show them how to dijx They are not many who woidd require superintendance. 9157. Do you consider the present licence is too long.'' — It all depends on what time of the year it is. In tho winter it is not too much, but in the summer it is decidedly quite eufhcient. Th^y' could poihaps clean them in two months. 9158 Could a farmer clean his slioop in two proper dippings ? — I think so. 9159. With an interval of 14 day.-. V— Just so. 9160. Then don't you think that in the summ.n- a month would be sufficient? — They might have other work to attend to, such as harvesting and so on, and not be able to attend immediately to the shtop, so that it might occasionally canto them inconvenience to bind them down to too sliort a time. 9161. But would it not cnu>-o inconvenience if scab were increasing all the time, and were liable to infect other flocks in the neighbourhood ? —My object has always been so to work tho act as not to make it irritating to tho farmers, especially to those who object to it. I have tried to work it so that they should gradually get used to it, and in place of being entirely against it to see its advantages and later on to benome in favour of it, and this I know to a certainty has been the case with several of our farmers. 9162. But if leniency is shown to people who are opposed to the aci, is there not a danger of dnicg injustice to those wlio are in favour of it, and who carry it out? — Yes, but there is a limit to everything ; you could not keep on that leniency very long. In this district, I thiuk, it wculJ have been very mistaken policy the other day to enforce tho act in its severest form ; it would have boon very irritating, and we have contending elements to deal with. 9163. Have you had aiauy caso.s at the magistrate's cciu't for breaches of tho act? — Only three Euiope^an casc.'^. 9164. According to the num' cr of sheep owners in j'our area, wotdd you be obliged, in order to visit all Ihoso flocks once in six m:jnths, to visit about five or six every daj' ? — At least. 9165. Is it not inipossiblo for any man to do so properly? — Yes, with two horses. Government does net pay for more than two. 9166. But in your own time, is it possible for any man to do it ? — No, not properly. 9167. Do you receive any assistance from the police in carrying out tho act? — I have on a few occasions. 9168. Is it undei stood that thoy shoidd assist you V—I believe so. They have instruc- tions from their commanding officer to do so. - 386 9169. If proper measures were put in force, do you think it would be possible to eradi- cate scab from tbe country ? — Quite, 9170. Mr. Botha.'] In speaking of the scab act, you more or less confine yourself to your own area? — Entirely. 9171. Don't you think if you have a sub-inspector in every field-cornetcy you would be able to carry out the act eificientlj', aud have someone to attend to the dipping of the flocks ? — Certainly'. 9172. Could suitable men be found for that purpose here? — Yes. 9173. Would it be advisable to trust to the recommendation of the inhabitants of every ward for such a man } — I think so. 9174. Would you get white men to superintend in the native districts'? — You could not get competent white men among the natives. 9175. And this arrangement would be sufficient assistance to stamp out scab } — Yes, my firm opinion is it would be stamped out in a very few years. 9176. Dr. Smartt.] Are there European stock owners ui your division whose dipping it would be requisite to supervise ? — I would not recommend compulsory supervision for them. 9177. If there are many such Europeans in your district, do you not think it will be impossible to stamp out scab without supervision of dipping ? — If the act as it now stands is enlorced, it could be done, but with the extra supervision I believe it could be done in less than half the time. 9178. In cases where natives' flocks graze on commonage, would it be advisable to have aU such flocks dipped together ? — I believe it would bo the most expeditious way of doing it. The headmen would receive instructions. 9179. Are the natives who are flock owners in a position to pay for the dipping them- selves ? — Some are ; others may not be, but if they club together a very few sliiUings from each would do it. Of course there are hundreds with less thau the average number of sheep, but there are hundreds with more. On the whole, I think thoy ought to be able to pay, but naturally they would take to it very much more if the Government paiil all expenses. 9180. Mr. dii Toit.~\ Do they require more dipping tanks? — Yes; I recommended that there should be one tank for each headman, and we have 25 headmen. We should want ten more tanks. 9181. Would it not be better to advise them to build their tanks themselves ? — I have done so ever since I came here, and impressed it upon them, and told the headmen to call meetings for that purpose. 9182. Do they believe that a broken fleece is caused by scab ? — I don't think a good many of them have a thought on the subject ; they simply dip because they are told to, but I have had no obstacles jjut in my way by any of tliem. 9183. Is there sometimes a kind of fever amongst the tlocks ? — Yes, but it is so easily distinguished from scab that they most of them know the difference. 9184. You never found it necessary to have a magnifyiag glass to convince them ? — It would be very serviceable, and I think every inspector ought to have one, but there is nothing of the kind to be got heie. 9185. Chairman.'] Is there anything you would like to add? — The only suggestion I can make, if Government caunot increase the staff of scab inspectors, is for each inspector to be supplied with a small wagon and six oxen, and then he could be always out among the farmers in this part of the country. Now he is a tax on the farmers, and is obliged to depend on their hos^jitality, and when the inspector has to do this fre'quently it places him in a false position. Supposing aa inspector has to summon a farmer for not attending to his sheep according to instructions, the inspector eannot impose himself upon the farmers' hospitality; and at the same time it is very awkward, and if he travels with an ojjen cart or on horseback he cannot sleep in the veldt, but if the inspector had a wagon he would be independent, and could go where he liked. I think this would give him a chance to do his work properly, but at present, especially among natives, if an inspector goes into a native location on horseback, or iu a cart, he is miles away fi-om any white man or hotel, and must either take lodgings in a Kafir hut or .sleep iu the veldt, and though that can be done in fine wf athcr it cannot be done in bad. Slang River, Wednesday, 18//i January, 1893. PllESBNT : Mr. Fbost (Chairman.) Mr. Botha. | Dr. Smartt. ,, Du ToiT. I Mr. Francis. Mr. Barend Moohnan examined. 9186. Chairman.'] How long have you been farming here? — Three years. I have 600 sheep, but I came in with 1,200. 9187. You, in conjunction with these three other gentlemen, have been elected as delegates to represent the views of tlioso who are opposed to tlio scab act ? — Yes, by three field- cornetcies. [G. 1.— '91.] BBP 8R7 9188. Are you opposed to the scab act in your private capacity, as well as in your capacity as delegate ? — Yes. We have been under the act more than twelve months, and during that lime I have had a good deal of experience. Wo live in a poor district, and are greatly dependent upon the Colonj'. Tlio niiijority of tlio people here are poor, and must got their livelihood bj' means of trading with Barkly and (jlher districts by exchanging wood for slaughter stock. When the spring comes wo have gioon grass which we can let to the people in the neiglibouring districts, and in that way we ure in a position to pay our quitrent, but in consequence of the scab act being put in fores this lias been stopped, and we have lost that source of income, which we consider a great hardship ;ind inconvenience to the district. The stock in these parts are so few in number that we don't think it is necessary to have a scab act here, as the losses caused bj' the act are greater than the benefits derived from it. These are our principal objections. Since people have to import their stock here for slaughter purposes, the absence of an inspector for fifteen or sixteen days has often caused the greatest incon- venience, and has been a serious grievance, so that even hungry peojile could not supply themselves with meat. This district is vorj' backward, and we have to depend more on trading than on farming. We must export wood and grain to the adjoining districts to barter for live stock. The scab act is responsible for the loss of thousands of stock which would have been sent down to our district if it had not been for the scab act, and would also liave provided us with the means of paying our c[uitrent. There wore 7,000 sheep which would have been sent down from fiold-cornetcy No. 5, Barkly, and for which veldt would have been hired here for their own benefit, and we should have received the rent^ if it had not been for the scab act ; but now people are afi-aid to come over the country because they don't know what may be the consequence, and the result of the law is that it deprives us of many a good chance which we sliould otherwise have had. 9189. Do you believe that the sheep in Xalanga, as well as in Barkly, can be kept free of scab if the people dip them prooerly ? — If sheep are well it is easy to keep them clean, but we live in a bad stock country, and scab generally breaks out again in August or September. 9190. Do you think scab can be cleaned by dipping? — Partly, and partly not. Scab caused by lice can be destroyed by dipping, but there is another kind of scab that no dipping will cure ; it is caused by fever, but I hoar that the (iueen's Town inspectors call it scab, and I am afraid it maj' be called scab here, though no inspector has been on my farm since last March. The people are afraid of laws that render them liable to be fined, because we are poor and cannot afford to pay fiuos. 9191. Do you consider that fever to be contagious ? — Yes. AU I can say is that the three field-cornetcies represented by me are of opinion that the several wards here are too poor for the scab act to bo applied to them, and that the appointment of inspectors and the application of the act would cost more than the good it would bring. 9192. Do you think that the inspectors cost you anything extra? — No, but we speak for the country in general. 9193. Supposing the Government come forward and assist the Xalanga farmers by supplying them ^ith dip at a cheaper rate, do you think it would be a good thing for the farmers here to dip their sheep and keep them clean ? — Of course. 9194. If that plan were adopted, do you think the farmers here would bo able to keep their sheep here free of scab ? — Not altogether. 9195. Why not? — Because in the spring sheep improve in condition and are liable to drop their wool. 9196. But is that scab ; do they get it spontaneously ? — The wool becomes broken, the sheep scratches, and that is scab. 9197. Do you call that scab ? — Yes, and it can be cured by dipping; but it is not always that you can dip sheej) ; for instance, they cannot be dipped in the winter, when they are not in a fit condition for it. 9198. But if you can dip them at that time you can cure them ? — Yes, I can say so from experience ; but I have seen winters when you might kill all the sheep with dipping, and yet not cure them. 9199. You are so opposed to the scab act that I suppose it is hardly any nte asking you if you can oSer any suggestions for improving it, but I should like to know whether you think the time now allowed for a first licence is too long or too short ? — I am not sufficiently weU acquainted with the law to say. In summer, I admit, it is easy to cure scab ; even without dipping, but simply by keeping them on good veldt, I have seen them recover in Bummer. 9200. What is the kind of scab cured by young veldt ? — It applies to any kind of scab. 9201. Do you suffer here from tho kind of scab caused by fever .' — Very seldom. 9202. Are you quite sure that tho kind of scab caused by an insect will get cured without dipping ? — Yes. 9203. Do you tliink it necessary here to have some kind of measure to make every farmer dip his sheep when possible ? — I don't believe in any measure. 9204. Not to dip after shearing ? Not to dip twice within 14 days after shearing? — That would be a good thing, but wo are doing it. 388. 2Ur. Biederuk Jovgens Kokemoer examined. 9205. Chairman.'] You are also a delegate ? — Yes. 9206. How long have you been farming here, and with how many sheep ? — About eleven years. I came in with 340 sh«ep, and now have 20 left, but I have 120 goats as well. 9207. Do you agree with Mr. Moolman's evidence ? — Mainlj' I do, but I should like to add that scab is caused here by rain. When the wool is washed out by rain, the sheep gets Bcurv^', and there is nothing to cure it. 9208. Mr. Fraiicii.'] Are you aware of the fact that according to the scab act no sheep is legally infected with scab unless scab insect is found on it '? — Yes, but my goats were put in cjuarantine and I can prove there was no scab. 9209. If scab is onlv caused by an insect, can the rain create the insect? — Certainly. Mr. Abraham Kruger examined. 9210. CTflfrwrtn.] How long have you been farming here .-• — A.bout ten yearg. I came in with 1,800 small stock, in October, and in 1883 they were all dead, but that was not from scab. Now I have 700. 9211. Do you keep them free of scab ? — Yes. 9212. How do you keep them clean? — By dipping. 9215. Do you think the fanners in the district of Xalanga can all keep them clean by dipping properly ? — Yes, according to my experience up to now, it can be done. 9214. Then you tliink the farmer who does not keep his sheexj clean should be made to do 80 by some measure or other ? — That is a question which it is difficult to answer. I may tell you mj' position. I am chosen by a branch of the Afrikander Bond in one field- Gprnetcy, and I am also elected by three other branchesof the Bond and by another field-conetcy. According to my experience, if you dip sheep you can clean them, and when I was elected I said I am partly opposed to the act and partly in favour of it ; but of course the men by whom I was chosen said that would not do, and I must decide. As a representative of so many districts who are opposed to the law, I have agreed to spposo it too, that is, the pre- sent act. I am ojoposed to it because it causes us inconvenience, as pointed out by Mr. Moobnan, and the public I am representing here hold the same opinion as Mr. Moolman. But if the law is improved, I am in favour of it in this way, that it must be loss costly, and I think the objections raised by Mr. Moolman about the removal of stock are facts. 'There should be an inspector in every field-cometcy, and he should have two assistants, so as to make it easier to find one or the other. Now you pay a high salary for an inspector, and he is not to be found when wanted. 921.5. If your amendments were carried out, do you think it would be a good t hin g to have such an "act in this district ? — Certainly. Tlie law is a good thing for rich people, and protects them against scab, but for the poor who are dependent upon the adjoiniQg districts, and who have to get their livelihood by trading, it is an oppressive act. 9216. Mr. (lu Toil.'] Do you say that as representing the public, or personally? — I speak for myself. When I speak against the act I speak as a delegate. In my own field- cornetcy, the large proportion are opposed to the act. 9217. Would the public by whom you are appointed be satisfied with an act if it is amended according to your suggestions ? — I think the majority would not be reconciled with it at once. It takes time to have unity, and to convince individuals of what is good. 9218. Mr. Francis.] How often has the inspector visited your sheep during the last year .' — I think once, about two months ago. 9219. If all the farmers were to dip their sheep properly, do you think we could eradi- cate scab from the country ? — I don't think so. 9220. Mr. Botha.] Do you think all the farmers know how to mi.x their dips and to dip their sheep ? — Yes, I think so. It is difficult to say whether scab can bo eradicated, but as far as my eight years' experience goes, a groat deal can be done to keep it down. 9221. Dr. Smartt.] Do you think the majority of farmers in this district do all they can to keej) the scab under ? — According to my own personal experience, I have found that all the farmers don't do their best. 9222. Do you consider that scab can bo kept under in the months of August and Sep- tember? — Yes, if you dip the sheep in March and AprU, and I make them th )roughly clean, they wiU remain clean in Augu.st and September. 9223. Do you consider the modified scab act referred to by you, though perhap.5 not acceptable to the majority of the farmers, would be a great benefit to them in the long run ? —Yes. Mr. Abraham ian Wickerdt examined. 9224. Are you also a delegate ? — Yo.s. 9225. How long have you been fanning here ? — Four years. I came in with 1, 100 emaU stock, and have now but only 800 and 900. 9226. Do you agree with Mr. Moolman or Mr. Eli-uger ?— I agree almost entirely with Mr. Moolman. SBB 2 389 9227. On what points do you disagree with him ? — If ecab should hrcalc out at the latter end of July or August, and you are forced to dip, it will cause loss, and it is very often the case that sheep get scab about that time, and under tli-e act they cannot bo mixed if tliey are Bcabby. Great injustice is caused by the law to the uafivos who come in with small lots of stock ; these are taken from tliom and sold for expenses and fines, so that the native has to go into his country without anything, and the consequence is that ho comes ia and steals from the farmer. People liere are so poor that tlioy have to go and beg small stock in the Colony, and when they want to bring it in they are prevented by the act. Ifr. John Hart examined. 9228. Vhairman.'] How long have you been farming here ?— Ten years. I brouglit in 1,100 sheeji, and have now 3,. 500. I am here now to represent the field-cornetcy of Xuca. 9229. Are the farmers in your ward mostly against the act or in favour of it .'' — Llost of them are for the act. 9230. Is there anything in the working of the act which is found to bo oppressive ? — Yes, the difficulty Mr. Krugor brought forward, that the inspector is too far off. I would recommend an inspector in each field-cornetcy. 9231. Would it be advisable to allow farmers holding a clean bill of health for six months to move their sheep on their own permits, subject to a fine in case they gave a permit lor sheep infected with scab ? — No, they must be inspected. 9232. Do you suffer any inconvenience from sheep coming in from outside areas ? — ^Yes, they come in, and numbers of people are inquiring for the inspector. Thoj' often come to my place when he is in Cala, a six hours' ride, and very often a man goes to Cala and does not find him there. 9233. Do you find any difficulty in keeping your sheep free of scab } — Before the act was in force I used to dip twice after every shearing, aud could not get them clean, but since the act was proclaimed, about four years ago, I have not dipped my sheep for thi-ee years. My field-cornetcy was tacked on to Maclear. 9234. Do 3'ou think the farmers here generally dip their sheep properly ? — In my ward they do, but I could not say abput the Xalanga district. 9235. If they did so, and other sheep were prevented from bringing scab in, don't you think their flocks would be free of scab like j'ours ?— Yes. 9236. You think, then, that it would be advisable to extend the provisions of the scab act throughout the whole Colony ? — Yes. 9237. If this were done, would it also be advisable to liave a general simultaneous dipping act ? — I don't think it would be advisable to dip sheep when they are clean. 9238. For the interests of the country generally, would you, as a farmer with clean sheep, and knowing that scab can be stamped out, have any objection to dip your sheep twice ? — I would if they were clean, because it costs a great deal of money to dip sheep, and I should not like to do it for the sake of a number of men who want to keep scab. 9239. Have you any suggestions to make for working the act more easily than it is done at present ? — The only thing I can suggest is to increase the number of inspectors, and that whenever scabbj' sheep are found, they should not be driven through clean farms to the pound, but be dipjied where they are. At present, if an iuspeotor finds a Kafir along the main road with scabby sheeji, he takes them through the farms to the nearest pound. 9240. Should Goverament have a dip here and there, at a jwund or field-comotcy on the main roads, to diji travelling scabby sheep ? — I think so, aud if there were a dip on the boundary, all the inconveniences with Kafirs could be stopped — the Kafirs coming from Barkl}'. But it would not be required if there were a general act. 9241. Mr. Francis.'] Is it necessary to give three months to clean sheep '? — No, I would suggest three weeks. 9242. Would that be long enough under all circumstances ? — Not under all circum- stances, but they could bo cleaned in three months in fine weather. 9243. Should the inspector have discretionary power to grant a licence for any time from one month to three, with an appeal to the magistrate ? — Yes, some men get three months, and don't dij^ until the time is nearly up, and in that time they Iiave infected all the neighbourhood. 9244. Mr. Botha.'] You think it would not always be safe to dip sheep in the winter.? — I have dipped mine in the winter. 9245. And do you always fare well ? — Yes. 9346. Would you dip your sheep if they got scab amongst them in the winter? — Yes, as long as they are strong. 9247. I)r. Smart/.] If the sheep were still scabby at the expiration of the licence, would you have them dipped under supervision ? — Yes, the inspector should do it, because if a man cannot clean them in three months, it shows he does not care about cleaning them. 9248. Do you think it necessary to have a clause in the act to deal with those jioor farmers who are said to occupy largely in this district ? — I think all sheep ought to be under the same act. 9249. Ai-e you in favour of the establishment of Government dip depots ? — ^Yes. 390 9250. Do you think there would be any difficulty, with the opposition in this district, in workinp: an act thoroughly if it was efficiently administered?--! don't think th'-re would Le opposition. 2Ir. Hubert Jleiiiy Harding examined. 9251. Chairman.] How long have you been here? — Four years. My partner and I camo in from Cathcart four yeirs ago with 800 sheep, and now wo liavc about 1,.500. 92.52. Do y.iu agree with Mr. Hart's evidence ? — Entirely, and I should like to state that we have al-io dipped in the -n-inter. The sheep came here in February, four years ago, rlean ; they were dipped at the end of March, bef>re the act wa? put in force; they were dipped again in July, aud on account of our neighbours neglecting their sheep, ours having been i-unning for twelve months, we did not get thi-ee ounces when we sheared instead of 4 lbs or 5 lbs. This was in consequence of scab. During July, some of our sheep were very poor, but we only lost five or six of the very weakest through dipping. 9253. If scab broke out in the middle of winter now, and the sheep were in low con- dition, do you think you would lose more by allowing the scab to go on and increase until spring, or by dipping them ?^Our loss would be greater by allowing them to run on with the scab, and in any case I would dip. 9254. ]Ur. Francis.'] Does not a good deal of the inconvenience people suffer under the act arise simply from their own negligence and carelessness ? — As far as my experience goes it is so, and I may state that during the sixteen months we have had the act some farmers haye dipped their sheep, and their losses have not been so great. When I hare spoken recently to some who were at first opposed to the scab act, they have said they are glad the act has been put in force in the district, because they get more wool from their sheep, they get a better price for the wool, and have dipped their sheep fewer times during that period than during the same period before. That is, men who do. look after their sheep, and they consider it a great saving in every respect. 9255. Do you consider that some of the opposition to the act in this district arises simply from ignorance ? — They have told me they oppose it because they don't understand it, and are led by a few others. 9256. Br. Smat tt.] Then as a practical farmer, do you consider it is absolutely impos- sible to carry on successful sheep farming in this district without a scab act ? — I do. Mr. Walter Charles Wiggill examined. 9257. Chairman.] How many years have you been fanning here ? — Four years. I have 1,500 sheep. 9258. Do j'ou agree with Mr. Hart's evidence? — Yes, with the exception of one point, the time for a licence. I think the first licence should be for three mouths, and the second should be at the discretion of the inspector, a fine being imposed for every licence after the second I would not have the sheep dipped under inspection. 9259. If sheep are not clean, can thej' have been dipped properly ? — The owner may not have dipped them at all, or he may dip them properly and they may become reinfected. Mr. Paul Venter, field-cornet, examined. 9260. Chairman.] How long have you been farming here ? — Eighteen years. I have 700 sheep. 9261. Do you agree with Mr. Hart's evidence ? — I differ on some points. 9262. Do you believe in a general scab act? — Yes, and the majority of my field- cornetcv ag^ee with me. I think three months is short enough for a first licence, and if a man does not do his duty he ought to be fined. 9263. If he dipped them properly, do you think he would cleanse them '; — According to my experience ho would. 9264. If he had not cleansed them in the three months, would it be better to licence him, or dip the sheep under inspection ? — To dip them under inspection. But unless there is a general act our field-cornetcy should be relieved from an.v act. 9265. Can you suggest any alterations in the act ? — When a native servant is paid in sheep, I think the farmer should be compelled to dip them before the native takes them off the place. 9266. Mr. Francis.] How is it that all these witnesses who have given evidence ag^ainst the scab act, state that they have fewer sheep now than when they came into the district, whilst those who are in favour of the act have more ? — I don't ascribe it to carelessness ; there has been a great deal of sickness at different times. 9207. Mr. Botha] Do you think the field-cornetcy should elect their own insjjectors ? — I think if they are reconimeuded by the farmers themselves it would be better than the present system of appointment. I would like to add that, in case a man has scabby sheep imder licence, when thej' have been properly dipped under inspection, the owner should be allowed to remove them. 391 Mr. Oeorge Dargie examined. 9268. Chairmanr\ How long have you been farnuug here } — Nine years. I have 200 ehoep. 9269. Do you agree with Mr. Hart ? — Yes, except in one thing. I would have an act to put a stop to boys being paid with sheep unless the farmer had a clean hill. At present the lioysaroput to a great disadvantage ; people hire them, and they can't get away with scabb}' sheep, and so are kept against their will. 9270. Mr. Botha.'] "What would you do if a innn has hired a boy ff>r stock, and at the expiration of the time, tie boy wants his sheep (r goat, and tliefainier'f; Hocks have scab ? — The wages ought to bo paid in money ; but if the shce]) are not clean tliey should be kept there until they are cleaned. I go further than Mr. Venter, because often when the boy's time is out they cannot get away, and the farmer keeps them simply because they cannot got a clean bill. 9271. You admit it would be a difficulty to interfere with a man's private contract, especially between master and servant ? — I want the sheep to be cleansed by the master before they leave the farm. ISarkly Eatt, Saturday, 21 st January, 1893. TKESEXT : Mr. Frost (Chairman), Mr. BoTiL\. I Dr. Smautt. ,, DU Toil'. I Mr. Fkancis. Mr.. Johannes Daniel Naude examined. 9271a. Chairman.'] I understand that you have been elerited at a pMblic mejting to represent the views of the people residing in ward No. 6, Clifford?— Yea, (o represent those who are opposed to the act. 9272. How many years have you been farmi Jg there '? — Sixteen years ; I have 3,000 to 4,000 sheep. 9273. Will you give us the reasons why they are opposed to the act? — Bacause they consider the district is toi cold for it. Secondly beovmo thoy hi^e to trek in the winter with their sheep ; and also in spring in the lambing season. These are the principal reasons. The law being proclaimed in the Xalanga district prevented farmers from trekking with their stock. I cinaot give the exact number, but great losses have been sustained through the veldt becoming in such a bad state on the mountains, and people being pre- vented from trekking, espocially as the flocks were accustomed to trek at that time to a lower country. The ewes and lambs suffer most. It is customary to trek down because the veldt there has an earlier spring than ours 9274. "Were the people prevented from trekking from here because their sheep were infected with scab ? — Yes. 9275. If the sheep had beon clean would there have been anydifficalty in moving them down there ? — Yes, they would have had to get a certificate, and tnore was no inspector to be had. 9276. Are you not aware that the law provides that two land owners can give a permit of removal ? — Yes, we know that, but after getting the certificate from the two land owners we had to get a farther certificate from the inspector. 9277. But if your sheep had been free of scab, you would have had no difficulty what- ever in getting that ? — AVe did not know that but in most cases the flocks are not clean. 9278. Do you think the flocks in the Barkly district are freer of scab now than they wore four or five years ago ? — No, I don't think so. 9279. Do you think they are freer in the Xalanga district since the act has been in force than before ? — No. 9280. You are speaking now from your own experience ? — Yes. 9281. Are there no flocks in the district of Barkly, on no single farm, which are clean? — I have not seen one ; if there are any it must be just when they come from the dip. 9282. Then, in your opinion, dipping injures the sheep as weU as cures the scab? — ^It hurts the sheep more than the scab. 9283. Do you dip your own sheep ? — No, never. I hand-dress. 9284. But still you have scab at aU times amongst your sheep ? — Generally. 9285. Don't you think it would be to your advantage if your shee}) were all clean? — Naturally. 92t<6. If by dipping them in the summer montks you could cure them of scab, would you not be a considerable gainer by it ? — If they would remain clean, but scab is very common in winter, and then the dipping is more injurious than tbe disease. 9287. If you dipped your sheep, and freed them of scab, keeping them afterwards on clean veldt, do you think you would keep them clean ? — I don't think so. 9288. In case there is any alteration in the law, would it be advisable to llav^• a general simultaneous dipping act instead of a scab act ? — If necessary, but I am opposed to all the 392 flocks beiag dipped on account, perhaps, of some others who may have only ten or twelve scabby sheep, because it costs money, and it is against the nature of a shoop to be made wet by dipping. 9289. Don't you thiak more sheep are killed by scab and these other complaints than are killed by dipping '? — Not according to my experience. 9290. Mr. du Toit.'] Have you found that yju could keep scab down by hand-dressing? — I have always done it. 9291. Have you .sometimes cured the whole flock in that way '? — It is never necessary to haad-dress the whole flock. 9292. But after having hand-dressed those which were found infected, have you found that the remainder kept cleau for some time afterwards, or were you obliged alwaj's to continue hand-dressing ? — It is not alway:j necessary, especially in summer, but it generally breaks out in winter on some sheep. 9293. Do you think the scab is sometimes so bad as to cause you a loss in the quantity of wool ? — I don't think that daring all the years I have been farming my losses through scab would amount to more than £ I per annum. 9294. AVould you be in favour of the act if it were only enforced in summer ? — Then it is not necessary. 9295. And when it is necess iry you think it does more harm than good? — Yes, because in our district it is too cold. 9296. Dr. Smartt.'] From your knowledge of the district, are you able to contradict the statement of the scab inspector that there are 112 clean European flocks in the Xalanga district ? — No, I would not say it is not so ; I have not seen all the flocks. 9297. Or that wuea he took over the district, almost every flock in it was infected? — I don't know. 9298. Consequently, when j'ou stated that there was as much scab in the Xalanga district now as there was before the scab act was put into operation there, you spoke with- out knowledge of the facts 'i — As far as I know ; I have not seen all the flocks, but from what I have seen on this side under the mountains where I have laud myself they have remained just the same. 9299. Do you consider that every farmer in the district of Barkly does his best to eradicate scab ? — I think they do their best. 9390. You know of no solitary instance to the contrary ? — All people are not equally particular, but I believe every farmer does his l»est. 9301. Mr. Botka.'\ You say j'ou don't dip, you only hand-dress? — Yes. 9302. Then when you said that dipping is contrary to the nature of the sheep, you said something of which you had no experience ? — It does the:n harm when you put them into clean water, and it is worse when you put them into these dip?. 9303. When you stated that dipping does sheep more harm than scab, 3'ou spoke of a matter of which you have no experience ? — I then spoke of what I have heard from my neighbours. 9301. Mr. Francif.'] Do you think scab causes great loss, not only to the individual farmer but also to the country at large ? — I am not speaking of the Colony : I have not had much experience of it ; I am speaking only for Barkly East. Scab is never so bad in this district as it is at Aliwal and other places. 9305. Do they die from cold rains in this district? — Yea. 9306. Would n )t shee;> iufoote I with sc.ih di>j muoii more readily than clean sheep ? — They are generally poorer than the others, and suffer more. 9307. Have you ever lost sheep by cold rains? — Yes. 9308. Were some of them scabby? — A few, but most of them were ewes and young lambs. 9309. Sometiiu'W in the winter, when your .sheep are infected with scab, does not a part of the wo^d fall off? — Yes, in patches. 9310. And are you aware that, according to the evidence of exper'enced wool buyers, the wool from sheep infected with scab fetches one penny per pound less than the wool from clean sheep ? — It may be, but thej' make no difference in the price here. 9311. Then will you still maintain that during the sixteen years you have been sheep farming you have not lost more than £1 per annxim through scab ? — Yes. 931:i. What sort of sheep are they that don't get scab ? — Healthy sheep very seldom get scab, and when a farmer keeps his sheep in a pretty good condition, he will have very little trouble with scab. 9313. Do you believe that scab is caused by an insect ? — It is said so, but I have not seen it yet. It may be. 9314. Then if that is so, and you kill the insect, there would be no more scab ? — If you could kill them all. 9315. Chairman.~\ Have you any experience in the tanning of skins ? — No. 9316. Do you never tan skins for your own private use ? — No, I let somebody else do it. 9317. Do you ever give scabby skins to be tanned ? — No, I generaU}' give good skins. 9318. If you had a skin badly infected with scab, would you g^ve it to be tanned? — If I have no other. 9319. Are you aware that a scabby skin, when tanned, is of very little value, and in fact is almost useless ? — No. 9320. Considering the loss sustained from scabby skins, would it not be a very good 393 thing to do something to stamp out scab ? — I think it would be easier to destroy the aheep than to destroy the scab. 9321. T ben your opinion is that scab should be allowed to run on as it is now, and that nothing should be done ? — No, I think reasonable precautions .should be taken to eradicate it, but the present dipping system is no good. 9.322. What would you suggest ? — I would simply recommend hand-dressing, and care to keep the sheep iu good coudition. I dou't think any law would do any good in this district except hand-dressing, and that would prevent scab if properly applied. 9323. Mr. FraHci».'\ If jieoplo will not hand-dress scabby sheep, do you think they should be made to do so ? — Yes. 9324. If they don't do so, wo'.ild you inflict fines upon them ? — They ought to get punished. Mr. Jan Stapelherg examined. 932.5. Chairman.'] How long have you been farming here ? — I was brought up hei-e, I have about 2000 sheep. I also represent the Clifford ward. 9326. Do you agree with Mr. Naude's evidence ? — Yes entirely. 9327. Is there anything you would like to add to it? — With regard to dipping, one winter I dipped the sheep, but not the ewes, aad when the winter was over the sheejj were clean, but so poor that they could not support themselves. 9328. Do you attribute that to the dipping ? — Yes, because it is too cold, and I think, the dip is poisonous. It kills the insect, but it also kills the sheep. That was a patent dip. My friends in'the district of Albert were so much in favour of a scab act that they said noth- ing could be better than dipping, but now they are bound to acknowledge that the nature of the sheep gets so accustomed to dipping that afterwards it lias no effect on the scab, and the sheep become so poor, and the scab so bad that they are obliged to stop all dipping. I also think with Mr. Naude that by killing all the insects you will kill all the sheep, and that you will then be rid of the scab but you will have no sheep. The Pound Act obliges people to impound scabby sheep, and the result is that scab is conveyed over long distances. 9328a. If you were farming in the Xalanga district, and had clean sheep, would you allow scabby sheep to come through your place ? — Yes, 9329. You don't think there would be any contagion from that? — I don't know, I have seen the acarus and I don'tthiuk it would drop to such an extent as to justify me in keeping my neighbour's sheep away from where they can live, and be the cause of them dying. 9330. But still ,you think your sheep would be liable to be infected by scab if those sheep came and stopped there ? — I would rather put up with the nuisance, and clean and reclean my flock, than be the cause of sucli loss to my neighbour. 9331. Br. Sinartl.'] Do you consider that the clause iu the Pound Act to which you refer shoidd be altered ? — I think so. I am not allowed to trek with my own sheep if they are scabby, but I am allowed to send scabby sheep to the pound. 9332. Consequently, according to your own sho'ving, it is necessary some measure must be introduced to deal with the spread of scab ? — The law is in opposition to itself, because it prevents my doing with my own sheep what it allows me to do with my neigh- bour's. 9333. Mr. Francis.'] If you had dipped your sheep in the summer, would you not have probably cured the scab without injuring the sheep ? — I am only speaking of what I know by experience. If I dip my sheep in the summer, it will be warm, but I don't know what effect it would have on the body of the animal. 9331. But if dipping cures scab in the winter, do you think it would also cure it in the summer ? — Naturally, if it does, but I have not seen it. 933.5. Dr. Smarlt.] Do you agree with Mr. Naude, that it is impossible to keep sheep thoroughly clean during the winter months ? — Yos. y836. Then these sheep you referred to as having dipped and cleaned were not cleaned after all ? — In that case it cured them, but it killed them. Mr. William Diederick Snyman examined. 9337. Chairman^ You are a delegate, with these six other gentlemen, from the Farmers' Association at New England, and I understand you are to be the spokesman ? — Yes. I am also a member of the divisional council. I have been farming here for nearly twelve months, and have about 1,600 sheep. 9338. Before you came into this district where were you farming? — In Cathcart. 9339. When you moved into this district , were the .sheep here much infected with scab ? — Verj' much, in the unproclaimed portion of the district. 9340. Is the ward in which you live proclaimed } — Yes, and there is very little scab there ; it is decreasing daily. 9341. How is it in the unproclaimed portion of the district? — Now in the summer months, and I daresay on account of good veldt, and so on, scab has decreased very much from what it was in the winter, although it i.s still very bad. 9342. Do you live in the higher or the lower portion of the district ? — In the higher. 394 9343. Do you and the farmers there dip the sheep ? — Yes. 9344. Do you find it is more difficult or more risky to dip here than in Cathcart ? — No, not in the least . 9345. Then if the act were proclaimed in the whole district of Baikly, do you think you could got a chance of stamping out scab in a reasonable time ? — Certainly. There is a better chance of dipping here, than in Cat)icart, because this district is more suitable for sheep in the winter months, so that they are in better condition then. 9346. Do you see any prospect of keeping sheep in the proclaimed ar^^a free of scab unless the borders are extended ? — At the present moment that is our difficulty; we have only one ward proclaimed in the district, and part of the other is not proclaimed. 9347. Would it be advisable to extend the provisions of the scab act throughout the Colony ?— Yes. 9348. If that were done, should there be a clause in the act compelling farmers to dip their sheep simultaneously throughout the whole Colony ? — That is exactly what our Farmers' Association passed at a meeting not so long ago, that all members of the Association should assist the inspector to make January a general dipping month, and this has been taken up by all the members in the ward. 9349. If it is found impossible to extend the act throughout the whole Colony, have you ever considered, or do you know sufficient of the Colony to advise where a dividing line should be drawn ? — I would take Beaufort West, in a straight line to the Orange River, and from there down, as I think that would include the principal pastoral districts of the Colony. 9350. Do you include Hope Town ? — Yes. 9351. What provision would you make to allow sheep to come from the unproclaimed area in the north-west into this proclaimed area, or would you not allow them to come in at all ? — I would make no provision, unless they were dipped on the boundary under supervision of a competent man. That is our danger. 9352. You mean properly dipped twice, and quarantined ? — If they are not badly infected, one or two proper dijipings is generally a sure cure. 9353. Would you allow them to come in if they are only dipped once ? — I say that, to make sure, I would have them dipped twice. 9354. If this were done, and proper ports of entry established, do you think the pro- claimed area would be comparatively free from infection from outside ? — Certainly ; and my reasons are that if you only hand-dress slightly scabby sheep it will clean them, and if you can kill one insect by hand-dressing I daresay you can kill them all by dipping. 9355. Do you think a farmer with clean stock in an unproclaimed area should be pro- tected by being allowed to prevent scabby sheep passing over his farm ? — Certainly. 9356. Would it be advisable for Government to assist farmers in the Colony by supply- ing them with dip at cost price, free of Railway carriage ? — Yes. We have already moved through our Farmers' Association, requesting merchants to try and let us have dip at a very reasonable price, because of our intention to try by a simultaneous action to clean our sheep and set an example to others, but we did not think we could approach the Government on the subject. 9357. Can you offer any suggestion with regard to any alteration or amendment in carrying out the act ? — There should be a sub-inspector in each field-cornetcy, elected by the people living there, and an inspector over the whole district. Dipping should be con- ducted, when necessary, by an officer, or under his supervision, because all farmers don't dip with the same material, and some use it stronger than others, and some don't dip properly. There should be compulsory dipping in one and the same month. The period of three months now given for a first licence should be shortened, and there should be some general regulations, because three months is too long, and it simply means that when an inspector finds scabby sheep on a farm, the farmer knows he must have three months, and his sheep not only keep the infection longer themselves, but the insect is scattered all over the veldt. 9358. If a farmer had had the usual time given him, and had not cleansed his sheep, would you then make him pay for a renewal of the licence ? — I would rather have the sheep dipped imder the supervision of a competent man. There should be a consolidated act, and consolidated regulations, in order that they may be better understood, because now magis- trates give different judgements and there are too many acts. Masters should be liable for the state of their servants' stock as regards scab, and should have authority to act in the matter, especially ^ hen the servants leave the farm, and that would make the farmer more careful to have the sheep properly dipped if they are to be moved. These are the sugges- tions agreed to by the Farmers' Association at New England. 9359. Would it be advisable for Government to have dipping tanks along the main roads, for the purpose of dipping sheep which may become infected with scab whilst travelling ? — It is a question I have never considered, but I think it would be a very good thing, because wool is the only product we can actually raise in this country, and the mure we try to bring up the staple and protect it from different diseases, the more we may expect the Government to assist us, and therefore such a proposal would have my entire support. 9360. Mr. du Toit.^ Do you consider three months is too long for a first licence, even in winter ? — The winter is only actually three months, so that is long enough. A month is ample time, winter or summer. 9361. Might not sheep bo in too poor condition in winter, and the weather too severe to bind a man down to cure his sheep in a month's time ? — In some instances I have known sheep to be very poor, but at the same time I have dipped them myself when they were in very low [G. 1.— '94.] ccc 395 condition, and under circumstances wliich obliged mo to do so, and I consider it was the saving of my sheep. I can call the inspector at Komgha who authorized me to do so. 9362. Are you not awaro that others havo not been as fortunate as you, and have sustained heavy losses by dipping in winter ? — Yes, but I say tlio danger is equal. If you leave scabby sheop to run at their own risk, you stand just as mucli danger of losing them by scab as of losing thorn bj' dipping. 9363. Can j'ou not koop it down by hand-dressing until the spring ? — On one occasion 1 cleaned a flock of sheep myse-lf by only hand-dressing, and I would not object if that were done, but you are not freed of scab by hand-dressing. You may keep it down, but you still have the insect among your flock. 9364. In the face of that, do you think it woxild be advisable not to be so stringent in winter? — According to the experience of Australia, and other countries with which we have to compete, they would never have been freed from scab there if stringent laws had not been enforced, and that is why to-day they can out-do us in the European market. 9365. Knowing that such a considerable portion of the Colony is opposed to a scab act, don't you think it would be advisable to commence with a lenient act ? — That is just where we suffer now. People in the unproclaimed area say what is the good of the scab act when the sheep in the proclaimed area have not been cleaned. 9366. Is not that to be mainly attributed to the fact that there is only a partial scab act, and that it is not over the whole Colony } — To a certain extent it is, because if the act -ve have to-day were in force over the whole Colony, it would work much better, and we should have much less scab. 9367. Would you force an act upon a portion of the community who are thoroughly opposed to it ? — Taking the question at issue to be the advantage of the Colony at large, I should certainly say, do your utmost to have the act enforced over the whole country, even if people are more or less opposed to it. 9368. Then would you be willing to follow a course which would make the people more or less accept the measure ? —Exactly, provided we can get an act over the whole Colony. For instance, there are many difficulties in the districts of Beaufort West and Victoria West, where there are droughts and so on, in consequence of which I think the officials should use their discretion in allowing the people to move from one place to another, on account of the want of dipping tanks. 9369. Should a farmer give a permit for the removal of his servant's stock ? — At present, if the sheep are free of scab, two land owners, can always give a certificate, and I would retain that, provided that the certificate, cannot be granted through an inspector. 9370. But supposing a seiTant wUl not wait until this can be done? — Then there is the scab act. If a servant of mine intended leaving, I would tell him that he must wait for the certificate, and fi-om what I know of the natives I should say they are perhaps far less ready to break the provisions of the act than we are ourselves. 9371. Do you know by experience that scabby sheep will infect clean sheep, even without getting mixed with them ? — Certainly. If a flock of scabby sheep were grazing on a certain piece of ground, and clean sheep go through, I am almost certain you will find scab break out amongst them within 14 days. 9372. Do you know by experience how long the acarus can live on the bare ground? — I have been told for a good many days, in fact it can exist a very long time. I am afraid myself to put sheep in a kraal within six months after infected sheep have been in there. 9373. Would it live longer in the veldt or in kraals ? — In ki-aals, certainly, because when you have dipped a flock and let them lie outside they generally keep free of scab, but it is very dangerous to put them in the kraals. 9374. Would you be in favour of allowing holders of clean biUs to move their sheep on their own permit, subject to a heavy penalty if a man cannot prove that when he gave the permit there was no visible sign of scab among the flock? — Certainly, if the farmers were liable to a very heavy penalty if he could not prove that there was no scab amongst the flock then. 9375. Dr. Smartt.^ As certain districts of the Colony are subject to periodical drougiits and dearth of water, it being absolutely essential to move stock for drinking purposes, would you be in favour for the first few years during which the act was in force of Government being empowered to suspend certain clauses regarding the removal of stock in such cases ? — In those particidar areas I would. 9376. Under a general act, what provision would you make in regard to the removal of slaughter stock ?— If they are prepared to bring sheep for slaughter stock, it must show that the veldt is in good condition, which cannot be unloss there is rain, and if there is rain I say there must be some water to dip the sheep in, so that they could be moved. 9377. During the first twelve months that the act was in force in those districts, would you allow slaughter stock to be removed to centres like Cape Town, Kimberley, and so on after being once dipped in a suitable dip ? — Yes, if they are clean, and properly dipped and provided they are forwarded by train from the nearest railwaj' station. 9378. Mr. Botha.'] To what cause do you assign it that some farmers are honestly of opinion that scab cannot be cured by dipping ; is it because they have failed to do so ? — That is according to every man's private opinion. There was an instance in Cathcart ; a man there dipped his sheep three times and still the inspector found them scabby, and then he ascertained that the farmer had dipped them in a mixture made from a bush called Kruit- jeroermyniet and that farmer was entirely convinced that he could not cure his sheep b}' dipping them three times. 396 9379. Then you mean to saj' that when people do not believe that scab can be cured by dipping, it is simply becaiiso they do not sufficiently understand the nature of scab and how to mix and apply the dip ? — Certainly, but there aro a good many people who are opposed to a scab act by nature. It is not that they cannot be convinced, but they are simply opposed to it, and nothing will convince them. 9380. How do you account for it whon people tell me in this place that they are able to say from personal observation that a man with a small clip of good clean wool gets a less price than a man with a larger clip of scabby wool ? — From what I have observed in this district, and especially here in Barkly, it is simply a matter of obtaining custom and not a matter of wool buying. 9381. Mr. Francis.^ Do you consider that the present act has been properly carried out ? — In some instances it has been disappointing, but more or less I think those who agitated for it have all tried to do their best. 9382. Has the act operated as well as it ought to have done? — No. When it was first introduced the areas were too large for the inspectors, and it being so rugged and mountainous here it is as mucli as the inspector can do to inspect one ward properly. 9383. Would you have more superintending inspectors ? — No, I think one superintendent is quite enough. 9384. Would one be sufficient to be over all? — There should be one in the Eastern and one in the Western province. 938.5. Are the fir-es generally imposed for breaches of the act altogether inadequate to prevent people breaking the law ? — Certainly. If I wanted to take a lot of sheep to the sale, I would not mind being fined £1 or £2. 9386' Should a man be allowed to move scabby sheep to a pound without dipping them, at the owner's expense ? — If I were impounding sheep myself I would rather have them dipped on my place at the owner's expense, provided it is done properly, because that would prevent the spread of scab. 9387. Would it be better to have a new act put in force in the summer or winter ? — To give the whole Colony a chance, I should say start the act in October. 9388. Should a man receiving a three months' licence in the summer be obliged to dye within fourteen days ? — Certainly ; I would even extend the time, but let the inspector have discretion to shorten it. 9389. Do not a great many of the difficulties people complain of in regard to the act arise from their own carelessness aid negligence ? — Certainly ; the greatest difficulty I suffered under the act was through my own carelessness. 9390. Notwitlistanding all that has been said, do you consider that there would be no real difficulty in eradicating scab from this district if there were a general scab act? — In this district in particular, because I really believe that Barkly East stands second to none in the whole Colony with regard to the facilities it affords for the eradication of scab. Mr. Reginald Orpen examined. 9391. Chairman.'] You are farming here, and come to-day as a representative of the New England farmers ? —Yes ; I have farmed here about ten j-ears, and have about 700 sheep, but I have had experience with larger flocks of 10,000. 9392. Do you agree with Mr. Snynian ? — In the main, but I disagree on a few matters. I think the superintending inspector has too miich work to do, and that there should be two in the place of one, making four for the whole Colony. The superintending inspector has great power to make the scab act more effectual, but he would lose that power if his work is made too heavy. He can check the licences given by the inspectors, and on finding them renewed lie can inquire the reason, and why the sheep are not clean ; and if the iuspoctor cannot explain he sliould be reprimanded. At present it would be impossible for the superintending inspector to check all these licences, and make inquiry. 9393. Could not a larger clerical staff check these cases and point them out ? — Yes. I think a great uld be better to have no scab act at aU, they tho\ight it vory difficult to say anything, but they were afraid that the little progress already made would be lust if the act were repeale 1, because those who had been dipping would Ibave off. The difficulty is that thoy don't know how to proceed to improve the act ; we don't know what to suggest ; but I think if tho inspectors could be appointed in such a way as to give greater satisfaciion in their districts, there would be more peace, and people would be more contented. Our present inspector has worked well, and with tact, and the scab is nearly stamped out ; but the work is too much for him, or he would have done stiU better. He cannot inspect sheep at the expiration of a three months' licence. I beUeve in harmony and co-operation between the inspector and farmers, and I am borne out in that by the action of our inspector, who has carried out the act without any prosecutions. I was formerly always opposed to the act, and when I spoke against it I pointed out the objectionable clauses, and did all that was possible in ward No. 1 to get rid of the scab. The sheep had got cleau but became re-infected. There is no scab act in ward No. 1, but since I have been under the act I have not half the trouble I had before, and my sheep are better throughout the year. I have lost many sheep from disease in the winter, but not one of them from scab. 9486. When it is stated here to-day that the farmers in that ward have killed their sheep by dipping, is that correct ? — No, not in my neighbourhood. I ascribe the low con- dition of the stock to the locusts, who destroyed all the veldt. If the Commission could visit those parts where the law is proclaimed, I think it would not be necessary to point it out to them, but they would detect at oace where the scab act is in operation and where it is not. With regard to the difficulty of moving sheep, it stands to reason that if the law is withdrawn from these parts, but remains in Maclear, where the sheep are to be moved to, the difficulty would be increased instead of being diminished. My own children had to move their sheep in the lambing season, but they never had any trouble : they knew the law, and prepared themselves for it beforehand. And the law provides that if the circum- stances are too unfavourable for dipping, hand-dressing may be resorted to. 9487. Dr. Bmarttr\ Do you consider that the supply of wool has been improved in your ward since the scab act has been introduced .-' — Certainly. 9488. Then you are in a position to authoritatively deny the statement made that it has deteriorated ? — Yes. 9489. Does dipping diminish the weight of the fleece? — No, I don't see that it does, unless you have to shear 14 days or a month after dipping. 9490. Is it generally in your ward the careful aad thrifty farmer who is in favour of the act? — Yes, the people who oppose the law feel so strongly about it that whatever happens is put down to the scab act. To illustrate my meaning I may mention the case of a man whose sheep were very scabby, but who would not dip them until at last he was ordered to do so by the inspector. He then selected a very unfavourable day, and when I asked him why he could not put it off he said " No, as I have to dip I shall dip, let come what will," but fortunately nothing serious happened. 9491. Mr. Franeit?^ Do you believe scab could be eradicated from this district? — Yes. Mr. Coenraad Johannes Visser examined. 9492. Chairman.'] Where do you live } — In ward No. 3, I have been there six years, and have 1,900 sheep. 9493. Do you agree with Mr. Venter ? — Yes, but I wish to add that I move my sheep to Maclear every year for lambing purposes, having one farm below as well as one on the mountain, and I have never experienced any trouble in moving them. For nearly three years I farmed in a district where there was no act, and though I dippoil my sheep twice a year I had more scab there then than I have now by dipping only once, because I am now living under the scab act. I think the public should select their inspectors, and that an inspector should only be responsible for the moving of sheep from the place they go from to the place where they have to go, and where the sheep arrive it is the business of the owner of that farm. That so many people in my ward are opposed to the scab act I attribute to the fact that they were not prepared for it, and I think the Qovernnient should have appointed experienced men to give people the necessary information with regard to the treatment of sheep in general. What is very unsatisfactory to the people is that those awho are under the scab act, and are doing their best, get no better price for their wool than those who are doing nothing. Mr. Jacobui Adrian Vurster examined. 9494. Chairman.] Are you from ward No. 3 ?— Yea, I have lived here for 22 years, and have 2,000 sheep. 402 9495. Do you ag^ee with Mr. Venter? — Yes. I am in favour of a scah act. I am living in ward No. 1, but my stock farm is in ward No. 3, and since the scab act has been proclaimed there, I have had less trouble with scab there, than I have here where there is none. It is impossible to keep sheep clean here. Mr. Abraham Botha examined. 9496. Chairman^] Where do you live? — In ward No. 3. I have farmed there for seven years, and have 1,400 sheep. 9497. Do you agree with Mr. Venter ? — Yes, entirely. The act works weU. Mr. Juliu* Schoenland examined. 9498. Chairman.'] You are chairman of the Chamber of Commerce of Barkly East ? — Yes, and I wish to give evidence upon the scab act. The Chamber are altogether in favour of having a general scab act, and I agree with Mr. Snymau. I know for a fact that the wool clipped by those people here who have dipped their sheep has neither deteriorated nor decreased in weight, because I am the principal wool-buyer in this district. When dipping has failed, it has almost always been because people did nut know how to use it properly, and did not go by the directions, but did what they thought best. With regard to that particular case quoted by Mr. Van Pletsen, that man is now dead, but he told me himself that his wool and sheep had improved, and also his son's sheep, who were dying by hundreds. He used one of the patent dips iu too strong doses, instead of accord- ing to the directions, and his son admitted to me that he used it about three times as strong as he should have done. The man himself told me that dipping had done him nothing but good. My own idea is that the price of wool would certainly increase if there were a general act. 9499. Do you find that the wool you forward to Port Elizabeth or East London which is clean and free of scab fetches a better price than scabby wool } — Certainly. 9500. Mr. du Toif.~\ Do you find that wool which is dipped at three months old and shorn at twelve months is worse than that which has not been dipped at aU? — No, I don't think dipping interferes with it, imless very injurious dips are used, but not those which are commonly used here. 9501. We have it on evidence from some wool-washers that it does? — It may be certain kinds of dip ; it depends on the kind of dip you use. The dips used here don't do haiin. 9502. Dr. Smartt.] Have you any idea of the weight of the clip of wool referred to by Mr. Van Pletsen ? — Yes, the w»ight g^ven by him was correct. 9503. How do you account for the diminution in weight ? — I cannot say, beeause I don't think the number of sheep stated as having been shorn was correct. 9504. Mr. Francis.'] What difference would you make in buying scabby sheep skins and clean ones ? — That is a different affair. I think I should make a difference ; the one is more valuable than the other. Mr. Henry Bensan examined. 9505. Chairman.] What are you ? — Chainnan of the Highlands Farmers' Association, ward No. 3. I have farmed there for 19 years, and have 2,500 sheep. 9506. Do you wish to make a statement? — I find the act a great benefit, by using the dips according to dii'ections, and picking out favourable weather, it is a great advantage to both sheep and wool. Last season I dipped very carefully, and in September, when mutton was very scarce, I sold sheep at 14s. 9d., the average price being at that time lOs. 9507. You are in favour of a general scab act ? — Yes. Mr. David HudoJf JVaude examined. 9508. Chairman.] Are you a delegate ? — Yes, from ward No. 5. I have farmed there for 1 7 years, and now have about 800 sheep, but formerly I had more. 9509. Are you in favour of a scab act ? — Yes. 9510. Do you agree with Mr. Snyman ? — Yes, except that I think servants should bo responsible for their own stock ; they might be wandering about for days and weeks, and it would be unfair to hold their last master responsible. Mr. Esais Engelbert Uartman, scab inspector, examined. 9511. Chairman.] You are scab-inspector of area No. 21 ? — Yes. 9512. When you took over the area, were the sheep very much infected with scab ? — Very much, a third at least were infected. There were nearly 300,000 sheep in tlie two wards, and one third wore very badly infected with scab. There were flocks of from 1,200 [G. 1.— '94.] DDD 403 to 3,000 every one of which was infected, and now it has so diminished that I doubt whether in those two wards there are 200 shesp infected. 9513. Is your area too large? — Yes, but now I have an assistant, and it will work much bettor. 9514. Can you offer any suggestions by which the act might be worked better .' — With regard to the three mouths' licence, I think it is out of the question, and altogether too long ; a month is quite sufficient. 9515. Do you consider that ohe farmers generally, not only in the area but also outside, dip their sheep properly ? — There are a great many in this area who are incompetent to dip their sheep. 9516. Should these sheep be dipped under inspection ? — Yes. I heard one farmer remark that he did not believe in dipping according to the instructions, and he was telling me of an instance where a man dipped his sheop in 800 gallons of water to one tin of tobacco extract. Another man will say he thinks the water is coloured enough now, but he does not know what he has been doing. Another man who should have used 42 packets of a patent dip used 75, and of course lost a great many shoep, and the consequence was it turned him and a great many of his family against the act. There are many such cases. Some even mix all sorts of dips together, and generally they are very ignorant how to use dip. 9517. The great complaint amongst farmers is the difficulty in finding an inspector to get a permit for the removal of sheep in case of sale. If a man held a clean bill for six months, do you think he might be allowed to remove his sheep on his own permit, subject to a heavy fine .? — As far as I am concerned, I have never interfered with people moving sheep in the area, while they are clean, i)ut outside the area, I don't think the other inspectors would object if the farmer had a clean bill, and I should have no objection to it. There would be less opposition to the act ir that were done. Dordrecht, Tuesday, 2Ath January, 1893. PRESENT : Mr. Fkost (Chairman). Mr. BoTUA. ,, DU ToiT. Dr. Smaktt. Mr. Francis. Mr. Joseph Sutherland examined. 9518. Chairman.'] Are you a delegate ? — Yes, from ward No. 3. I have been there twenty-seven years. I have 500 sheep now, as most of them have died from heart-water. Formerly I was overseer of the same farm, with much more numerous flocks, the owner, my father-in-law, being a very energetic man. 9519. You and these other gentlemen with you appear here as opposed to the scab act ? — Yes. 9520. Will you g^ve us your reasons ? — Ward No. 3 has eighty-one registered voters for the divisional council, and out of that number sixty-eight deputed us to come and speak against the scab act, and its advisability. The climate in the Stormberg differs from that of other places where they have the scab act ; it does not always rain in the proper season, and it sometimes gets so cold in the winter that if a man were obliged to dip then it would cause great loss. It does not follow that those who are opposed to the scab act are farming with scab, and I can positively say that you will find less scab in ward No. 3 than in ward No. 1, where they have the scab act. If dipping should be made compulsory in the winter, it would have a very injurious effect, and cause great loss amongst the flocks. The difficulties connected with the labour question is another great reason why farmers are opposed to the scab act. As regards the effect of dipping on wool, it would be much better if hand dressing would answer the purpose, especially in the winter, to prevent the deterioration of the wool in value. Notwithstanding that we are not under the scab act, the farmers in ward No. 3 regularly dip their sheep, as they come into contact with people under the act who afford them all the necessary knowledge how to do it, and the working of the act is bad. There is also much complaint about inspectors, because they are not responsible for their actions. 9521. Do you dip }'0ur sheep regularly } — Yes. 9522. And keep them clean ? — Yes. 9523. Are they clean now .-' — Yes. 9524. Are most of the farms and sheep in your neighbourhood clean ? — In ward No. 3. 9525. Are there any farmers in ward No. 3 who neglect to dip their sheep, and don't keep them clean ? — Not that I know of. Not in my neighbourhood. 9526. Supposing you had a farmer in your ward who refused to keep his sheep clean, don't you think something should be done to compel him to do so ? — There is the pound for that. 404 9527. But the pound Iciw does not allow you to go on to that man's farm and take his eheep because they are scabby ? — No, but I could impound them if they came on my land. 9528. Supposing your clean sheep get on his ground, and mix with his scabby sheep, what would you do then ? — Then it is my own negligence. 9529. Do you find, with the servants j'ou have, and which you say are bad, that j-ou can always keep your sheep under such control that they will not mix with your neigh- bours .'' — With a few exceptions. As a rule, every farmer looks well after his sheep. 9530. Then you must have really good servants ? — -In some cases, when a man engages a shepherd or Kaffir, he has to look after him as well as the sheep. 9531. But the servants must be pretty good if you can be sure of the sheep not mixing ? — I don't say they are good, but if my sheep mix with a neighbour's sheep it is only my own negligence, for which I am personally responsible. 9532. So you think there is no occasion whatever to protect the farmer who is very careful about his sheep from the farmer who is not careful ? — There are a few who are not particular. 9533. What do you propose to do with regard to them to meet that diificulty ? — I have not seen the new pound act, but there is a pound law for that. 9534. You say you can at all times clean j'our sheep by hand dressing ? — Not always, but it is customary with fanners to hand dress in winter. 9535. Do you think it would be advisable to have a general simultaneous dipping act in connection with a scab act ? — I have not considered it, but I think it would be impracti- cable. For instance, since last December we have had rain up till now, and if the time for dipping had fallen during that period, how would it have been possible to dip ? 9536. But if it were practicable, do you think it would tend very much to reduce, scab in this country ? — Certainly, as far as scab is concerned, but how could you expect a man to dip healthy, clean flocks .'' 9537. As a farmer, interested in keeping your sheep clean, would you not agree to a regulation of that kind, even supposing your sheep were clean, in order to try and stamp out the disease ? — No, because in summer, the only time in these parts when sheeji can be dijiped, tho farmers are obliged to kraal them for the sake of the fuel manure, and it is well known that to keeji your sheep clean they should not be kraaled. 9538. You say there is a difficulty with regard to inspectors, but as you are not under the act, how do you know that ? — I often go to Ciueen's Town, and hear farmers speaking about it, and also here in Dordrecht. 9539. What is the principal objection that they make ? — The public to whom the act is applied have no voice in the appointment of inspectors, and when owners of stock are brought up, and prove that they are innocent according to law, the insjiector has no re62)on- sibility or loss. 8540. But you are aware that the farmers recommend the inspectors to Government for appointment ? — The divisional council generally recommends. 9541. What would you suggest as an improvement ? — The number of the inspectors is too small to answer all the requirements. 9542. If there were an inspector in each field-cornetcy, do you think it would meet that difficulty ? — Yes, it would be a very great improvement, but the public who come under the law should have a voice in it. 9543. How would it answer if they were recommended by the residents in the field- cornetcy, from among the farmers there who kejit clean sheep, and the Government ap- pointed them } — I woiild suggest that the field-cornet holds a public meeting in the ward of all voters registered for divisional council purposes, and that they recommend. 9544. Is that one of the chief objections to the act? — Yes. 9545. In case a man has had a clean bill of health for six months, do you think he should be allowed to move his sheep on his own permit, subject to a heavy tine ? — Yes, I think that would be a good thing, and would remove the existing difficulties in that respect. 9546. Is the great objection to the act entertained by you and the peojile in 3'our ward because it is apjilied to one part of the country, and not to the other } — They think that the existing scab act makes all necessarj' provision for existing circumstances, as far as that goes, because those who have not got the law, and who want it, can applj' for it. 9547. Then do you think the provisions of the act should be extended to meet the case of bringing sheep from the unproclaimed into the proclaimed area ? — No, because the people don't want the scab act. 9548. Those are the people living in the unproclaimcd area .'' — Yes. 9549. Don't you think there is a difficulty in moving your sheep from the unproclaimed into the proclaimed area when you want to ? — I can give j'ou a case in point. A fortnight ago we sent sheep from this unproclaimed area into the district of Komgha, where the law is in force, and there was no trouble. 9550. Under what permit were they removed '?— The sheep had been properly dipped, and were clean, and had a certificate from two landowners. There is no trouble as long as the sheep are clean. 9551. Mr. Francis.'^ How long have your sheep been free of scab ? — For the last 8 or 9 months, and they have not been dipped. 9552. If they become infected by scab, do you find that you can clean them by dipping ? — Yes ; we generally dip in summer. DDD 2 405 9553. Tlien if j'ou can do it, cannot all other stockownera do it also ? — Of course, if they do it properly. 9554. Then if all tlie farmers were to dip their sheep properly' in summer they would get rid of scab throiigliout tho country .'' — Yes. 9555. Don't you tliink it would bo a very good thing if we can get rid of scab ? — It is usual to have clean ulieep in summer, and they are clean here ; but sometimes in winter, when there is a heavy fall of snow, they have to be confined to the same place for a whole week, and then scab may break out. 9556. Does the snow bring the scab ? — It is the weather to which the sheep are •xposed. 9557. Do you believe that scab h caused by an insect .'' — Yes. 9558. Then how can the snow make the insect ? — I am not a veterinary surgeon, but I know that an animal is more liable to be infected by scab when it is in an impoverished condition. 9559. But if tliose sheep were perfectly free of the insect, how could the snow make the insect? — By bringing down the condition of the animal. 9660. Then dn you believe that the snow really creates the insect ? — It does not always follow that because the sheep are clean the whole farm is clean. 9561. Could you not disinfect the kraals '? — It is generally done by means of the surplus dipping stuff. 9562. Then the reason you gave the Commission why scab could not be eradicated, because you had to put tho sheep in the kraals, was not altogether correct? — It is a cause of danger, because although you may put the dip into the kraals, tho dung itself cannot be altogetlier disinfected. 9563. Would it be advisable if the Government were to supply dip to the farmers at cost price, to help them to eradicate scab ?— I don't know. 9564. Mr. Botha.'] Have you a dip on your place ? — Yes, and all my neighbours. 9565. So that you can dip whenever 3'ou want to ? — We have everything nocesiary to eradicate scab, consociuently in our own ward we do eradicate it without the assistance of a scab act. 9566. Since j'our sheep have been clean for the last eight months, does it not prove that, by dipping them in the summer as you did eight months ago, it is perfectly possible to bring them clean through the winter ? — I had a neighbour whoie sheep remained clean without dipping for two j'ears, but seasons vary, and it has not always the same effect, and tho same party dipped his sheep twice this summer witliin a fortnight, and they are stiU scabby. 9567. Are sheep more liable to get scab in a bad winter .' — Yes. 9568. Consequently last winter being about the worst you have ever experienced in this district, you would expect the sheep to have suffered unusually from scab ? — We had no snow ; we had some rain. 6569. Did not the locusts eat up the veldt ? — The locusts were here, but not on every farm ; and they did not take away aU the pasturage, and even after they had left we had rain. 9570. Did you have any on your farm ? — A good many. Early in summer they destroyed the herbage, but we had rain which restored it. In some places they came late iu the summer, but on those partic\ilar places the scab was much worse during the winter. 9571. Was your veldt better last winter than in the majority of winters, or worse .^— Better. 9572. Chairman.'] Do you wish to add anything ? — The great grievance with regard to the inspectors appointed is that young, inexperienced men come on to the farm of an elderly man who has worked himself into that position and dictate to him. Mr. Frderick Jacobus van Zyl examined. 9573. Chairman.] Are you a delegate ? — Yes, from ward No. 3. I have lived here for over 30 years. I have 4,000 sheep, and many more let out and sold. 9574. Do you agree with Mr. Sutherland? — Yes. I should like to add that in 1872 I and my neiglibour built the first dips here, and since then I have dipped my sheep. At first I found I dipped in too great a hurry, but as I took an interest in the matter I found out my mistakes and did better, and now I generally keep my sheep clean ; but sometimes in the winter they get poor, and then, when they are in too weak a condition to dip, if I am taken unawares by scab I keep them more or less clean by hand dressing, and, although it gives me a groat deal of trouble, nevertheless I succeed. As soon as they are in a suitable condition I dip them. I believe in the insect, but I don't believe the slieep always get scab bj- picking it up. During shearing I always remain present, and watch ver}' closely, and I have noticed that it sometimes liappens that the shears cut through a pimjile, and by the use of a magnifying glass I can detect what I would caU eggs, and I can detect the presence of scab, or something similar to it, by the sensitiveness of the sheep if you scratch some- where near the spot where the pimple was cut through. I Jiave a number of thoroughbred sheep which have been running bj' themselves the last two }'oars in a place enclosed with a wire fence, and they have not a spot of seal) ; but tliis month, when shearing, I detected the same kind of thing upon one of them. I at once appUed something to it, and upon a later 406 inspection I found the whole place perfectly cured ; and, therefore, my opinion of scah is that it is sometimes produced by nature upon one sheep, and is spread amongst the others by contagion; but when sheep are in a suitable condition to be dipped, I think any farmer can keep them clean. With regard to inspectors, a neighbour of mine had some servants who were leaving him, and they made some muddy water and dipped their sheep in it. I particularly took notice and watched their proceedings. These men came through Dordrecht and got a permit from the inspector to leave. I d«n't know whether the farmer gave a certificate. 9.575. Do you consider that the .slieei) in '"'hich you noticed this pimple had scab? — I must believe it. 9576. Do you think it came spontauoously, or was it caused- by some other sheep ? — The nature of the sheep produced it spontaneously. 9577. Are you certain that no scabby sheep ever mixed with those sheep ? — The place is camped oS, and they only run where large stock come. 9578. Could not any scabby sheep have rubbed against the poles of the fence ? — They might have had access to one side of the camp, where I adjoin a neighbour ; but even befora the sheep scratch you can detect the natm-e of the thing, and that is what convinces me still more that it is spontaneous. 9579. Were there no scabby sheep in that neighbour's farm '? — No, he is particular. 9580. Are you sure that there were no scabby sheep there, or passing along the fence ? — I am certain my neighbour had no scab. 9581. Mr. Franciar\ Don't you think it is a very unjust thing to the energetic careful farmer that he always runs the rLsk of having his sheep reinfected by a careless neighbour ? — Yes, but I don't see where it comes in when your neighbours are all right. *• 9582. Then do you think that that man should also be caused to keep his sheep clean ? — Yes, that would be a good thing, but I wish to repeat that there are times in some seasons when dipping would be very risky. If I had had to dip last winter, it would have caused me great loss. 9583. Still, you would be in favour of some law that this man should dip his sheep in the summer '/ — I do it myself, and all my neighbours, and a good many come and dip on my place. 9584. Do you wish to say anything more ? — I am an old man now, and have been farm- ing for many years, and if a youngster were now to be appointed scab inspector and come and tell mo how to farm, I think I could sell off everything I possess rather than submit to it. Mr. Wendrik van der Merwe examined. 9585. Chairman.'] You are a delegate from ward No. 1 ? — Yes. I have been farming there seven years, and have 800 sheep. I am under the act. 9586. Do you agree with Mr. Sutherland ? — Yes, entirely, but he has left out some points. It is impossible for ward No. 1 to keep its own sheep clean, because it adjoins other wards which very often have scabby sheep and which are not under the act. 9587. What remedy would you suggest ? — I think it would be a good thing if these people could be made to attend to their sheep better, and clean thorn. 9588. Would it be advisable to extend the provisions of the scab act to those districts? — That is my opinion. 9589. Then are you in favour of extending the act throughout the Colony, or what ? — Over the whole Colony. 9590. Mr. Botha.'] Do those people in the unproclaimed area dip regularly ? — No. 9591. Have they all got dips? — Some have, and some have not. 6592. Is there a dipping tank on every place ? — No. 9593. Dr. Smartt.] Is there less scab in your ward now than there was before the law was proclaimed ? — I think it is about the same. 9594. Do you think there is less scab in ward No. 1 than in ward No. 3 .-■ — I think there is loss in No. 1. 9595. Consequently you don't agree entirely with Mr. Sutherland's evidence, because he said there was less scab in ward No. 3 than in ward No. 1 ? — I have not seen so much of the .sheep in ward No. 3, but the district adjoining waid No. 1 is more scabby. 9596. If there were no measure in force in your area compelling farmers to do their best to eradicate scab, do you consider that scab would be as prevalent in that ward as in the other wards ? — Yes, because that would affect the indifferent farmers. Mr. Jan CloeU examined. 9597. Chairman.] You are a delegate from ward No. 5 ? — Yes ; I have fanned here for eight years, and have 1,400 sheep. 9598. Do you agree with Mr. van der Merwe ? — Yes. There is a difforonce between myself and Mr. Sutherland on this point. He said they had no difficidty in moving the sheep, but we have great difficulties, and a great grievance with regard to that, because I 407 have to go to an inspector or two landowners to get their certificate, and if scab uliould break out amongst tliose sheep it may cause great trotible. It also causes great trouble to go a long distance to find an inspector, without whose approval they cannot be moved. 9599. What do you think of the proposal for a man to move his sheep on his own per- mit if he has had a clean liill for six montlis ? — The inconvenience would not be so great, and it would be a good plan. It is imjiossible to clean jour sheep in summer, and to keep them clean in winter on an infected place. 3Ir. Ockert Johannet van Heerd^n examined. 9600. Chairman.'] You are also a delegate from ward No. 5 ? — Yes. I have farmed two years in this place. Altogether, I and my children have 2,000 sheop. 9601. Do you agree with Mr. Cloete? — I agree with Mr. Sutlierland, and have nothing to add. 9602. Mr. Botha.'] Have you a dip on your place .'' — Yes. Mr. Fiet Aucamp examined. 9603. Chmrman.] You are a delegate from ward No. 2? — Yes, I have farmed there 20 years, and have 2,100 sheep. 9604. Do you agree with Mr. van der Merwe ? — I agree with Mr. Sutherland, with the exception of a few small points. I believe there is an insect in scab, but the insect is caused by the scab, and not the scab by the insect. I have noticed cases where it begins with a pimple, but by cutting it open and dressing it properly it gets cured, and when it first came there was nothing in it. It is onlj' when it is neglected that in course of time it gets larger, and hard, and tlien insects may appear in it, but I will admit that the feverish- ness of the spot may cause insects : the pimple itself is caused by impurity of the blood. I differ from Mr. Cloete in regard to the certificate for moving sho^p. I live on the boimdarj- of Queen's Town, where there is a scab act, and I have signed more than six certificates for people to go about with sheep, or dealing with rnms. I caused all such stock to be dipped before I gave the certificate, and then I gave it as far as Sterkstroom, where a permit can be obtained from the inspector. Where tcab is in existence in the proclaimed area, sheep are put in quarantine for three months, and notwithstanding that they are cured -within the first month the owner has no riglit to remove such stock. 9605. Mr. Francis.] Are you aware of the fact that the scab insect deposits its eggs in the skin of the sheep, and that the pimple you speak of very probably contains these eggs ? — I am convinced that scab is caused by impurity of the blood of the animal, because I have had it amongst my sheep in summer on some land of my neighbom-'s where there was nothing but cattle, and, notwithstanding I dipped them twice in summer and four times in winter, I could not clean them. 9606. Would you describe how you dipped the sheep on that occasion when you failed to cure them ? — I used lime and sulphur, 100 lbs. of each to every 1,000 animals. 9607. How did you prepare it? — I put 25 lbs. of each into the pots at a time, one pot containing 1.5 lbs. and another 20 lbs. 1 then boiled it until I saw it was properly mixed, after which I took off the water clean, and left the sediment. 9608. How much water did you put in the tank with that ? — 500 gallons; I then dipped the sheep and filled up in the same way. 9609. Are you aware that the dip you made on that occasion was only one-quarter as strong as it ought to have been ? — I always manage to keep my sheep clean in that class of dip. 9010. Dr. Smartt.] Agreeing with Mi-. Sutherland, and knowing dipping in the winter to be injurious, how was it that you dipped your sheep four times of yoiu- own free will i^ — I believe it does harm, but I did not like to see scab, and I wanted to cure it. 9611. Consequently, if you thought you could clean sheep in the winter, according to your own showing you would sooner dip them than let them run on with scab ? — Yes. 9612. Chairman.] Are you opposed to the scab act? — Yes, but I do what I can, and every neighbour of mine has a dip on his place. Mr. Flendrik van Retmhirg examined. 9613. Chairman.] You are also a delegate from ward No. 2 ? — Yes. I have farmed here for twent}--one j-ears, and have now only 500 sheep, because they have all died. 961-4. Do you agree with Mr. Aucamp ? — Yes, and Mr. Sutherland. I have nothing to add to what they said. 408 Mr. Nicoliuts Labuneagnie examined. 9615. Chain)um.'\ You are a delegate from ward No. 4? — Yes. I have farmed there for thirty years. I was brought up there. I have 1 ,800 sheep. 9616. With whom do you agree ? — With Mr. Sutherland and Mr. Aucamp, and the little in which I disagree is not worth mentiouiog. No. 4 ward adjoins No. I, and I don't think ward No. 1 has anything to complain of about ward No. 4. My ward is opposed to the act. 9617. Br. Smartt.^ Do j'ou agree with Mr. Aucamp that, if you were convinced you could clean sheep in the winter, you would dip them in preference to letting them run on with scab '? — If the sheep are in a favoui-able condition to be dipped, and the weather is good, I would rather dip them. 9618. Have you ever known a winter ia the district of Wodehouse in which you never had a few days which were favourable for dijjping sheep ? — There has never been a winter so bad but that there were a few days when sheep could be dipped, but then they might be too poor to be dipped. 9619. If the Government were to supply dip at first cost price, free of railway carriage, would you object to compulsory dipping after shearing, in the summer months, for two years } — If it could be proved that scab could be eradicated by that means I would not object ; but that will never be the case, so what is the good. 9620. Mr. Botha.'\ Do you think that you can always cure scab ? — No. 9621. Then as you think you cannot cure scab, you think it unnecessary to dip? — No, I won't say that, because although you cannot cure all kinds of scab, stUl you must dip. I am opposed to two years simultaneous dipping, because the origin of scab cannot be discovered. Mr. John Cloete, senior, examined. 9622. Chairman.'] You are a delegate of ward No. 6 ? — Yes. I have farmed here for ten years. I was for seven years in Lady Grey, where I also have 400 sheep. I have 700 here now, but I have sold and lost some. 9623. Axe you in favour of the act ? — Yes. 9624. Do you think: it is possible to dip sheep in the division of Wodehouse at any time of the year ? — Yes, if it is a fine day. There is a man present whose sheep were so bad one year in July that nobody thought he would be able to save them, but he dipped them in July, and in September he had the finest sheep in the whole distiict, so that in that case the dip- ping did them no harm, but I don't recemmend it as a general rule. I think that a careful farmer, who cleans his sheep in summer, will not require to dip them in winter. 9t25. If scab broke out amongst your sheep in May or June, would you dip them or let them run on ? — I should dip. Last year, however, I did not, because they were in an un- healthy sickly state, and poor ; but last year was the first for four years that I had scab, and then my sheep were infected by a neighbour's. From October, 1887, until 1891, I never used as much dip as you could put in a man's hand, and that was also the case with several other farmers. At that time the inspector visited my sheep frequently. 9626. Have most of the farmers in your neighbourhood dipping tanks ? — Yes, in my neighbourhood there is a small circle who always keep clean sheep, and have dijjs, but out- side they are not so attentive, and have not all dips. 9627. Do you think the farmers generally in this district dip their sheep properly? — No, not at all ; otherwise scab would have been a thing of the past. 9628. Would it be advisable iu the case of these farmers who don't dip their sheep to have them dipped under inspection ? — Yes. 9629. Would that be better than putting them under quarantine, with a licence ? — If a man has dipped his sheep twice within fourteen days, and has failed to clean them, it should be sufiBcient proof that he does not understand how to do it. 9630. In case any alteration is made in the law, do you think it would be advisable to have a general simultaneous dipping act .' — I am inclined to doubt it, unless the divisional council fix the time for dipping, because if one man dips in January, before the next mouth is over he is infected by his neighbour. 9631. You are in favour of a general scab act for the whole Colony ? — Only for the eastern province. 9632. Have you any idea where the line should be drawn between the unproclaimed and the proclaimed area ? — From Hope Town to Humansdorp, leaving out Victoria West and Beaufort West, but including Brit's Town and Hojje Town. I would leave out those two districts for no particular reason except that they are outside the straight line, and I consider they belong to the western province. 9633. Supposing this line were drawn, what provision would you make for slaughter stock coming in from the unproclaimed to the proclaimed area ? — As soon as the}' arrive at the boundary, let them be dipped under supervision. I consider that sheep very seldom come to the eastern province from those parts. 9634. Would you allow any other stock to come in .' — I would apply the same rule to all stock. 409 9635. If there were a farmer in tliis unproclaimed area who kept his own sheep thoroughly clean, do you think he should have protection to this extent, that he should be allowed to prevent any scabby sheep crossing his farm ?— I think he ought to have some exceptional protection to that effect. 9636. Mr. Francis.'] Do you believe that the oppositicn in this district to a scab act does not arise from the inconvenience or loss it may occasion, but is simply because people would like to be without any law 'i — To a great extent it does, but it is more from the ignorance which exists regarding the nature of scab, and how to cure it, and because people don't think it can be cured. 9637. Would it be a good thing if Government supplied dips at cost price, free of rail- way carriage } — That is very necessary. 9638. From your knowledge of this district, and of the nature of scab, do you believe that with a good act the disease could be completely eradicated out of the district ? — Yes ; I can say that from experience. 9639. Br. Smartt.'] Unless some measure is enforced to deal with the spread of scab, do you think it is possible to carry on sjieep farming here successfully, and to the best advantage ? — Certainly not ; it is impossible. I think the loss to the country through scab is a million of sheep per annum. 9640. If the sheep in this district were free of scab, do you think the losses in winter would be anything like so severe as they are now ? — No, becaiise when a sheep is clean in summer, he can get fit and stand the winter ; but if he is scabby in summer he does not fatten, and cannot stand the winter. Scabby sheep don't get fat. The result of my experience and observation is that when sheep die in winter from the effects of cold it is the scabby sheep who die, and those ewes which refuse to leave their lambs are scabby. 9641. Mr. dii Toit.'] Are you aware of any hard.ship3 under the present act which j'ou think should be removed ? — Yes. First as regards the removal of stock, it should not be necessai-y to go to an inspector, but a man who holds a clean bill should be at liberty to remove them, but if scab broke out on the road he should be responsible, and be punished for it. A man buys a ccuple of thousand sheej) to be trucked somewhere, but time is so short that by the time he gets the inspector the sheep ought to have been trucked ; and I consider that if they are clean they might be sent off at once, and if scabby they are safe for a time in the truck. 9642. Don't you think it would be advisable to provide that, in case there vas no visible sign of scab when the farmer sent them away, the farmer should not be responsible ? — Yes, if he could prove it. 9643. Should there be dipping tanks on the main roads in case of scab breaking out on travelling flocks ? — Yes. 9644. How often would you dip sheep going over the border ? — Twice within fourteen days. 9645. Don't you think slaughter stock would be put too far backward in that time ? — Yes. 9646. Then would you not allow only one dipping for slaughter stock .' — If the sheep can arrive at thoii- destination within a fortnight, then I would agree to one dipping. 9647. Would you apply the same rule to the importation of wool and skins from the unproclaimed area? — I should be in favour of a law to prevent all wool and skins from un- proclaimed areas passing through proclaimed areas without being disinfected, because I think the infection is carried in that way. There were two farmers, one a good farmer with enclosed farms, who within a few years of the proclamation of the scab act iu that district was always able to keep his sheep clean ; but another adjoining farmer, equally particular, could never succeed, because he was continually being reinfected through the transport of scabby wool and skins over his farm on the main road. 9648. Are you aware of more kinds of scab than one ? — No, there is only one, caused by an insect, but it might appear in different forms if not attended to. 9649. Are you aware of any further hardships under the present act ? — Yes, the number of inspectors at present is too few for them to be able to perform their duties properly. 9650. Should there be an inspector in each field-cornetcy ? — Yes, and they should be recommended by the ratepayers. 9651. Woiild you give the preference in the appointment to a careful farmer who keeps his sheep clean ? — Certainly. 9652. Do you not think some provision might be made for farmers who have been placed under quarantine, but have cleaned their flocks in two or three weeks, to get a per- mit for removal before the three months has expired ? — Of course, but after an inspection by the inspector. 9653. Is scab very contagious ? — Frightfully. 9654. Might scabby sheep infect clean sheep without getting mixed with them ?— Yes. 9655. Have you any idea how long the acanis can live on bare ground ? — No, I don't think that has been ascertained ; old kraals remain infected a long time. 9656. Is the present system of quarantining suitable ? — It is too long in the summer ; I think it should be »Lx weeks or two months at the outside, but I would rather have one month. Dipping shoidd not be enforced from the end of May to the beginning of November, but people should be obliged to hand dress very carefully, and in case they fail to do so tney shoidd be punished just as if they had not dijiped. A farmer who was put 410 under quarantine in February, came to the conclusion to do nothing to the sheep until he sheared them in April, nnd consequently, not only his sheep remained scabby, but the whole place was infected. Another party was uuder quarantine for three months, aud I met his son with the sheoji, anl remarked that tliej' were rather badly scabby, and that they wore under a scab act. He said " Yes, next week our time of quarantine will expire, and then we shall dip." This farmer did not thiuk it necessarj- to dip until the expiration of the period of quarantine, and by that means not only his shepp but his farm became infected. 9657. Br. SmarU.~\ Would you be iu favour of a clause making it compulsory upon every man to dip within 21 days after receiving his licence? — By suggesting that there should be more inspectc s it was my idea that they would then be able to inspect aU places under quarantine at intervals of not longer than a month. 96-58. Do you know the north-western districts ? — Up to Carnarvon. 9659. Would you be in favour of a clause being inserted in the aci which would empower the Government to suspend certain clauses of tho act in regard to the removal of stock in times of severe drought and dearth of water in certain districts? — Yes, upon the recommendation of the civil commissioner until such time as it gets better. 9660. Mr. Francis.'] Under a partial act for the eastern province, would you allow a single farm, field-cornetcy, or district, adjoining the area, to come under the act ? — Yes. 9661. If there are as many inspectors as you suggest, do you think it would be necessary to have more superintending inspectors over them .'' — If it were not for the expense, I should say yes ; but I think oue of the six in the district could be the head inspector. 9662. Mr. Botha.'] With regard to the removal of slaughter stock on a man's own responsibility, if scab should should break out after they have been trucked, would j-ou allow them to go on to their destination ? — Yes, I think it wcidd be better to allow such stock to proceed to their destination when they are going to a butcher. The evil would be less than by sending them back. 9663. Chairman.] Why are you in favour of a general act .^ — Because it is proved by the census how man}- sheep are annually lost by scab, and I think that would be to a great extent prevented by a general act. If we reckon oui' losses through scab at half-a-miUion sterling, the million of sheep lost by scab would have produced at least 3,000,000 lbs. of wool, which at 4d. a lb. would give £250,000. In addition to this, tho remaining flocks produce 3,000,000 lbs. of wool less than they would have done if healthy, and that at 4d. a lb. comes to another £250,000, which makes half-a-mQlion sterling, and these two items, together with half -a-million for the sheep lost, would make altogether a million sterling loss. It is a known fact that in those countries where there is no scab the wool is worth 25 per cent, more than here where we have scab. If under present circumstances we produce £2,000,000 worth of wool with scab, we could produce £3,000,000 without it, consequently we lose £1,000,000 a year. These are my own calculations. A general act for the eastern province wotild also restore our reputation as a wool-producing Colony, and have a good effect on the sale of our wool on the London market. I am informed that the production of wool is being overdone, and then comes the question whether the merchants wiU buy scabby wool at all. Mr. Peter Lang examined. 9664. Chairman.] You ara a delegate from the Wodehouse Farmers' Association? — Yes, with seven others. I commenced farming there ten years ago with 600 sheep, and have now 3,000. 9665. Do you appear here to give evidence in favour of a general scab act ? — Yes. 9666. From your experience during the last two or three years, do you find that scab has increased or decreased in this district ? — I think it has increased, but it has decreased on my own farm. 9667. Are you living in the proclaimed area ? — No, in the improclaimed area. 9668. Do you consider that the disease has increased in the proclaimed area as well as in the district ? — I am not acquainted with the proclaimed area, No. 1 ward. 9669. Then to what do you attribute the increase of scab where you live ? — To the neglect of the farmers themselves. 9670. In your neighbourhood do they generally dip their sheep regularly ?— I have known some to dip, but in such a manner that it does no good to the sheep and does not kill the scab. I have known men to dip 500 sheep in seven packets of a patent dip. 9671. Have most of them tanks? — Not all, but I believe most of the principal farmers in the division have. 9672. Do you find that scab is more amongst the smaller farmers and bijwoners, than amongst the larger farmers ? — Yes. 9673. Have you any idea whether the farmers generally allow these bijwoners and and small farmers on their places to dip in their tanks ? — They do, but these people only use a small quantity of dip, and think they are going to kiU the scab on the sheep that they have. 9674. Would it be advisable that the sheep generally in this district should be dipi)ed under inspection ? — I thiuk so. 9675. Are you aware of the provisions of the scab act ? — Yes. [G. 1.— '94.] EEE 411 3676. Can you suggest any alterations or amendments in it ? — I would suggest tliat every man who has a scabby slieep on his farm, instead of receiving a licence free, should have to pay for it, so much per head of shcop. 9677. Would that be a bettor sj'stem than dipping under inspection ? — If it was possible to do it under inspection I tliink tliat would bo better, because the inspectors would see that the dip was the proper strength, and nfter the second dipping tho scab would bo cured. I think that would be better than a licence. 9678. If tliore were a compulsory simultaneous dipping act, do you think the farmers here who have clean sheep would be willing to dip ? — I think they would. 9679. If a measure of that sort were passed, do you thinlc it would materially assist in stamping out the stab ?— Yes. 9680. As you don't live in the area, I suppose you have no knowledge of how inspectors are appointed ? — No. 9681. Do you think it would be advisable to have an inspector in each field-cornetcy ? — I do. 9682. Should there be also an inspector over the whole division, or what provision would you make to see that these ward insjiectors carried out their duties properly ? — If there were an insjiector for each ward, and one were made the principal inspector, it would be a good plan. 9683. It is said it will be impossible to carry out a scab act in certain districts of the colony to the north-west, such as Carnarvon, Prieska, and so on. If this is the case, have you ever thought where a line should be drawn between tho areas ? — No, I am not acquainted with that part of the colony. 9684. If such a line were drawn, what provision would you make for sheep coming in from the unproclaimr-d area ? — I would not allow them in at all. 9685. Ai-e you aware that those large districts in the north-west provide to a very large extent for the supply of the largo centres such as Johannesburg, Kimberley, Port Elizabeth, and Cape Town ? — I believe they do. 9686. If you prohibited small stock coming in, what provision would you make for occupying these places ? — I am not well enough acquainted with that part of the country to tell. 9687. Would you allow them to come in at certain ports of entry provided they were properly dipped and quarantined for 14 days ? — There would bo no objection to that if they were dipped under an inspector, but I would not allow them to come in on the certificate of two landowners. 9688. Would you apply the same provisions to wool and skins.? — I would; they would have to find some means of cleaning them, because I believe scab is carried about a great deal in that way. 9689. If wool and skin,s were confined to the railway trucks, do you think there would be very little fear of infection ? — If you put scabby skins on a truck, and the truck is not cleaned afterwards, on its return the infection will spread aU over the place, wherever the truck is off-loaded. 9690. Tou mean that the trucks should be disinfected and the wool and skins ? — If it were possible to keep these things out of tho area I would do so ; the trucks would have to be disinfected. 9691. Do you think a careful farmer in the unproclaimed area should be protected in the same way as in the proclaimed area ? — I certainly do. 9692. What protection would you give him ? — I see no other way to do it than by the pound act. 9693. Should such a farmer have the power to prevent scabby sheep passing along the main roads over his property ? — Certainly. 9694. Would you allow a single farm or field-cornetcy adjoining the area to come under the act ? — I would. 9695. Mr. Francis.'] With regard to the difficulty of dipping sheep in this district iuthe winter, do you think the evidence given this morning was exaggerated ? — Yes ; I have known sheep dipped on my farm as late as August. 9696. If your sheep become infected with scab in the winter, would you rather dip them then, or let the scab run on until spring ? — By all means dip them ; I have often dipped as late as the end of June myself. 9697. Don't you think there is a great danger of a farmer whose sheep are infected being allowed to move the skins of those sheep wherever he likes ? — I do. 9698. What provision would you suggest to prevent that danger? — That the store- keepers should not buy them at all ; make the farmer keep them on his farm. 9699. Would it be advisable to fine not only the farmer, but also the storekeeper who bought the skins ? — If it could be done. 9700. If your sheep became infected, how long do you think, under ordinary circum- stances, it would take you to clean them ? — If they were very bad, about two months, but ordinary scab can be cured in about 15 days. 9701. Don't you think three proper dippings would cure any sheep of scab ? — I do. 9702. Then do you still think it would take two months to clean them? — I said two months, but it was to give a man proper time to do it. 9703. Is three months too long for a first licence ? — I think so. 9704. Have you found any difficulty in moving sheep under the scab act ? — ^No, not 412 much. On one occasion I moved 500 sheep into the proclaimed area, and simply got the signatures of two of my neighbours. 9705. Did they thoroughly examine the sheep first? — They did, and afterwards the inspector saw them. 9706. Don': you think in many instances the law is not properly applied in regard to that .'—I do. 9707. If there were a general scab act of course there would be no diflBculty in this matter. Would you then be in favour of a man being allowed to remove his sheep if he had a clean bill ? — Certainly, but I would not recommend thoir being taken out of the district. If they are going into another district the inspector of that district should examine them. 9708. But if he moved them on his own risk ? — To any part of the district to ■which he belongs, but the sheep should not pass into another district without being re- examined. 9709. Would you have public dipping tanks on the road ? — I think it woxild be a. good thing. 9710. Would it be an advantage if Government supplied dip at cost price, free of rail- way carriage ? — I think so. 9711. If an inspector were appointed in each field- cornetcy, would there not be a danger of his having a great number of friends, and so being partial ? — I don't see how that is to be avoided. 9712. Would it be advisable to appoint a stranger .' — Yes, I think it would. 9713. Do you think a fine of £1 would be a sufficient to prevent a man from breaking the present scab act ? — No. 9714. Would you give inspectors discretionary power with reg.ird to the length of the first licence ? — No, I would make a fixed time, both summer and winter, with the exception of from June to August. The other nine months I would make it compulsory to dip. 9715. Should a new act be put in force in the summer time ? — I would put it in force just after shearing. We generally shear here in October and November. 9716. Do j'ou think there is a danger of clean sheep being infected by shearers? — I do, but I don't know what remedy could be applied for it. 9717. Would there be any difiiculty in eradicating scab from this district, one of the coldest in the colony ? — I think there would be no difiiculty whatever. 9718. Mr. Botha.'] Do you think that wool and skins infected with scab are as infectious as live animals ? — I do. If sheep were put into the trucks, they would pick up the infection there. 9719. Putting scabby wool and skins into trucks would have the same effect upon animals put there afterwards as if scabby sheep had been put in ? — Yes. 9720. Consequently scabby sheep should either have the same privileges as scabby wool and skins, or scabby wool and skins should undergo the same suporvision as scabby sheep ? — I think that scabby wool and skins should not be carried on the public railways. 9721. Would you put them in the same category as scabby sheep ? — Yes. 9722. Dr. Smartt.~\ Then what solution would you give for the payment of oui- railway debt, considering that a large portion of the produce carried passes through from the Free State ? — I don't know. I think the skins skuuld pay more ca; riage, if they must pass. 9723. Have such seasons ever occurred in this district, or do you think it at all likely they ever will occur, as to render it advisable in the interests of the farmers, if scab were prevalent at that time in a district, to suspend the act for a month or two ? — No ; from my experience since I have been here I don't think it would. It may possibly be higher up, because they get more snow than we do. 9724. If it is proved that certain districts in the north-western parts of the Colony are subject to periodical droughts, where it is absolutely essential, in order to save the stock, to move them about for pasturage and water, would you agi-ee to a clause empowering the Government to suspend the act in such districts at such times ? — Under those circumstances, and with the advice of the superintending inspector, I would ; it would be hard for those men to lose their sheep because they could not move them to the water. 9725. Mr, du Toit.] How much salary would you allow the inspector in each field- cornetcy y^Some are larger than others. Say not less than £200 in each ward. 9726. Would not that be too high ? — I don't think so, because a man would have to give all his time and attention to the work. 9727. Would you give the preference to intelligent farmers in the ward, espeoiaUy those who hold clean bills, who could do it for less salary than inspectors who had to depend entirely on their pay .' — No, I think not. I would have an independent man altogether. He should not be a farmer in that sense of the word. 9728. Should he be a well educated gentleman ? — I don't think that is necessary. 9729. At any rate, he should be a sensible man ? — Certainlj'. 9730. Don't you think that such a man would soon gain friends in a district ? — Very possibly he would, but if it is found that he has favourites in a district, he should be removed at once. 9731. If he were a farmer, would he not fear much more being removed ?•— No, because a farmer would have his farm to go back to. 9732. How often would you have flocks dipped before they were allowed to pass, when they come fi'om an unproclaimed into a proclaimed area? — Twice within 15 days. EEE 2 413 9733. Would you apply that also to slaughter stock ? — I would. 9734. Might not so long a delay put them too far back in condition ? — In the interests of the district, and for the eradication of scab, I should say it would be necessary to do so, and if it puts them hack it cannot bo helped. 9735. Would not one good dipping be enough to allow them to go through in loss than the fortnight ? — If they were clean when they came there it might be enough. 9736. Is not stock sometimes too poor in condition to be dipped in winter } — Sometimes. 9737. Is it not dangerous to compel a man to dip such flocks? — It depends on what time in the winter it is. If a nice fine day is chosen, I don't think it would do them any harm. 9738. Woidd it not be better to allow hand dressing in trifling cases until the spring ? — I would, if the fanner is going to dip afterwards, as soon as possible, but not all through the winter, because according to my experience that does no good. 9739. Dr. Smartt.'] There are about 70 districts in this Colony carrying wooUed sheep, and according to your suggestion it would bo necessary to have six inspectors in about fifty of these districts, and one in each of tlie remaining twenty. Would the Govemnient be justi- fied in spending a sum of say £64,000 in paying these inspectors when, by choosing a careful farmer in every ward thoy niiglit have an equal number for £20,000 or £25,000 ? — I don't think the Government should .stint money in the case of scab, but should do all that is possible to stamp the disease out of the Colony, and we shall never make progress as wool farmers unless it is done. Even if it was £100,000 I should say it was money well spent. 9740. Mr. du Toit.'\ Would you not be more in favour of a lenient act over the whole Colony than a stringent one over a j)art of the Colony ? — I think it would be best to have a stringent act for the whole Colony. 9741. But if you cannot have that would you be in favour of forcing an act upon a portion of the Colony wliere the inhabitants are thoroughly opposed to it? — I think it would be bettor to divide the Colony, and have a stringent scab act over the eastern portion. Mr. Alfred James Fleischsr examined. 9742. Chairman.'] Tou are also a delegate from the Farmers' Association ? — ^Yes. I have been farming nearly four years in this district. At present I have a couple of hundred sheep. 9743. Do you agree with Mr. Lang ? — Yes, I agree with the greater portion of what he said. When slauj^hter stock is brought in from farms adjacent to proclaimed areas, I should strongly advise their being properly dip^sed twice within 14 days, and quarantined for a week afterwards, and other stock as weU. 9744. What provision would you make for grazing these sheep on the boundary ? — I don't think a man would find any difficulty in getting grazing by paying for it, because people don't seem very particular when they are not under the act. 9745. But supposing you cannot? — Then they should proceed to where the public tank has been erected, and have ports of entry where grazing must be provided. If thsre is an inspector in each \^ ard, I think he should be recommended by the civil commissioner of the district, to the Government, and if he were aa impartial man he might be a farmer. I think you could got numbers of men at £100 to £150 a year. Under a general act, I think sheep might be allowod to pass for slaughter purposes for the first six months if thoy were not badly infected. I am strongly in favour of a compulsory scab act throughout the Colony. 9746. Is there anything you wish to add ? — When the act was first proclaimed in this district, I was the inspector, and I worked the act as leinently as I possibly could at first in order to try and bring the other wards under the act, but I found it was simply useless. Intelligent farmers take groat care of their stock, but the nfgligent ones take none, and I think a more stringent act would be advisable. 9747. If you had been more stringent, do you think you would have done very much better in regard to the scab ? — Certainly, undoubtedly. 9748. You think it is a mistake to try and make it easy for the people ? — I think so, because I tried it. I renewed licences for three, six and even nine months, and at the end of that time there was no difference ; whereas if I had had them fined at the end of the first three months, no doubt their sheep would have been clean a fortnight afterwards. 9749. Generally speaking, don't you find that the farmers dip their sheep badly? — Certainly ; they don't know how to do it. There are many farmers who don't know what their tnnk holds, or how to mix the dip. 9750. Do you think their sheep should be dipped under inspection .'' — Certainly. Mr. William Thomat Clark examined. 9751. Chairman.'] You are also a delegate from the Fanners' Association ? — Yes. I have farmed here for twenty-seven years, and have now 5,800 sheep. 414 9752. Do you agree with Mr. Lang ? — With most things, but not in regard to the re- moval of stock, and the inspectors. I agree that there should, be an inspector in each ward, but I think they should be chosen by the farmers in the ward, because I think in that way the most influential farmers would be elected, and for their own benefit they would take an interest in the stock in the district, but they should only receive a small nominal salary of £40 or £50 a year. They should be recommended by the farmers to the civil commissioner or divisional council, and appointed in the usual way. 9753. Br. Smartt^ Do you think that such inspectors, chosen from well-known, intelligent farmers in the ward, would cause less friction when dealing with illiterate and perhaps more prejudiced men than young men who might be sent from a distance ? — I think so. I know that the gi'eat majority of the illiterate class of farmers object to a young man coming there and having anj' authority over them at all, especially if they have any idea that he is not well acquainted with stock. My reason for mentioning that small salary is just that they may be public servants, and be under some control ; otherwise, I think the majority of the farmers would do it gratis, for the sake of the district. In larger field- cornetcies there would have to be two inspectors for the convenience of the farmers. Some- times a speculator turns up and inquires about sheep, but they may be under quarantine, and the inspector be six or seven hours away, and unable to come, and under those circum- stances there is great difficulty in selling sheep. People don't care about taking a certificate from landowners, because it causes great inconvenience. If a flook of sheep has been put under quarantine, and the owner has dipped them when a purchaser comes along, if the owner sends to the inspector to come and see them I think he should pay a certain tariff, because he I'auses the inspector to leave his work to come to him. But a man holding a clean biU should be allowed to move his sheep even outside his own district, subject to a heavy penalty if he moved them wilfully with scab. As regards dipping on the border, I think if sheep are dipped once they should be allowed to proceed immediately to their destination, even in the proclaimed area, for all stock. 9754. Do you deal in stock yourself ? — Yes, largely. My reasons for my last suggestion are that a man can travel to almost any part of the Colony where there is railway conveyance in eight or ten days, and if he were afraid that the sheep would break out at all he would dip them, in his own interest, directly he arrived at home. A too stringent act would prevent many speculators from coming into the country. Mr, George Moor croft examined. 9755. C'h ool-buyers say that prices are bad, and consequently they cannot give the same as before. 9809. But are you not aware yourself that there are other causes? — I don't know. 9810. Are you not aware that some farmers are very careless in sorting their wool, or in shearing the wool when too short } — I cannot say. 9811. Has not the wool market fallen ? — It never struck me that that might cause a reduction in the price of wool. 9812. Do you know by experience that you can cure your sheep of scab at any time by dipping ? — There may be times when it is more difficult, but scab can be easily cured in summer. 9813. Would you be in favour of dipping sheep in the winter? — I would prefer to hand dress them. 9814. Have you found it dangerous to dip sheep when they are in very poor condition ? — That is why I am opposed to dipping in the winter. When they are poor it affects them more. 9815. Would you be in favour of forcing an act upon a portion of the country where they very often suffer from prolonged droughts, and the sheep are in very low condition ? — From what I have seen here, I should say yes. 9816. Are you acquainted with those parts of the Colony? — No, I have never been there. 9817. Then don't you think the act might cause great hardship to the farmers in those parts ? — No ; it has had no bad effect here. We sometimes have droughts here, and as a rule, when it comes to the push people are not so vei-y particular, and will make allowances for their neighboui-s. 9818 Would you then be in favour of a suspension of the act in those districts during such droughts .^ — I am certainly in favour of protecting everybody, consequently I should have no objection to such a scheme. 9819. Dr. Smartt.'] How is it that certain farmers in the Tarka district have so often petitioned for the repeal of the act 1: — I cannot say ; I think it is a great mistake. Mr. L«uu Jacobus van Seerden examined. 9820. Chairman.'] You and Mr. Hattingh have been appointed delegates by the Tarka branches of the Afrikander Bond to represent them -* — Yes. I have alwajs fanned here, about 40 years, and there are about 5,000 sheep on my place. 9821. Are you here to give evidence in opposition to the present scab act ?— Yes. 9822. How were you appointed to represent the Bond ? — At a district meeting of the Bond. 9823. Mr. Francis.] Were all who were present at the meeting opposed to the existing act ?— Yes. 9824. Why.' — I was always in favouT of a -scab act, ani strongly supported the movement to get it proclaimed here. From what I had heard of it I thougrht it was a very good thing, and since we have come under the law we have done oiu- very best. I had a [G. 1.— '94.] FTF 419 dip before, and I think I have done as much an any farmer in the district. But after many years of experience, and all the money I have spent on the matter, I am convinced that it is impossible to stamp out scab. 9825. Is that the only reason ? — Yes. 9826. Do you find that you can clean your .sheep by dipping them twice ? — ^The insect is killed, but within six months it reappears. 9827. Where do j-ou think it comes from ? — I thiuk it is caused by the condition of the animal itself. The sickly condition of the animal produces fever, the fever causes an insect to come, and the insect brings the scab. 9828. How is it that people have completely eradicated scab from their flocks in other districts ? — That is easy to answer, because there is wire- worm in some districts and not in others. 9829. If the wire-worms were killed from the district would they also be created by sickness ? — I don't know, but there are other diseases in sheep. 9830. Will you describe how aou dip your sheep ?— I put -100 gallons' of water to 100 lbs. of sulphur and 100 lbs. of lime; i boil it for about an hour, in pots, and draw it off into the tank, and then I put the sheep through, keeping thom in about two minwkid, but guessing the time. i ■■''' 9831. After dipping the dieep in that way, are they cleaned of scab ? — Yes, they don't scratch any more. 9832. Do your sheep sleep in a kraal, or do they run .'' — They i-un day and night. " ' 9833. Do they graze on the same part of the farm as before they wore dipped ?-■— Not always. They aa-o genei'ally on anotlier veldt. 9834. Do any roads pass through your farm? — Yes. 9805 . If your sheep are clean, is it not j)dssible that they may become reinfected by sheep passing along the roads, especially if they mix with j-ours ? — I cannot say that, but I can say that I never detected the aeari on thb veldt or road. ' 9836. But you do believe that scabby sheep will infect clean sheep? — Yes, of course a living insect.can travel from one animal to another. ■ . h; 9837. Are all the farmers in your neighbourhood equsilly careful in dipping and tryiig to clean their sheep ? — As far a.s I know. 9838. Mr. Botha.'\ Can you explain why the farmers here have asked for the repeal of the act .'' — Because the inspector had power to compel a man to dip, whether the sheep were infected or not, and several farmers have had beary losses in consequence. 9839. Have the large farmers signed the petition as well as the small ones ?— ^Yes, Mr. de Wet, who gave his evidence just now, luis also signed it. , , i 9840. Was his son-in-law inspector at that tiri;e ? — Yes, he had justbeen appoiikted. 9841. Mr. (Ill Toit.'\ If yo\i were not compelled by the -act to dip in bad seasons, would' you then be in favour of the att? — Yes, be.ause I believe it injures them, unless you cure' them of some internal disease. • It has cost md £^2h for dipping stuff in one year, aod it did no good. '■ 9842. Br. Smarit.'] If the act were repealed in this district, would you still continue dipping? — Yes, when it was convenient. , -• 9843. But, according to j-our own showing, dipping is ineffectual, so why would you continue it?. — It kUls i\w aitiri, but as long as shei^ji are imhealthy it does not help. I would dip when it was convenient to ure, and when I thought it might have a good effect. 9844. Chairman.^ Have you any knowledge of the tanning of skins ?— 'Yes, X under- stand it well. ,.. ; ..-.■■■'■.i aif ■■' '■ I.- I '■' ■• 9845. If you had scabby and good skins, woidd you tan both ? — No, the scabby skuis-' are no good. ,.-.:•■:. ' '■ 9846. Do you sell the scabby skins ? — Yes. ■ . •: • 9847. WiU you look at this sample of a scabb}', tanned skin, and say whether yon think its appearance is the result of scab?— [Producing sample supplied by the Algoa Tanning Co] — Yes, I think it is. 9848. Don't you think it would be gi'eatly to the advantage of the farmers if the scah were stamped OTit, and they could get a better price for their skins ?^Yes, if it could be' done, biit with my present experience I say it is impossible. 9849. Do you wish to add anything ? — I have given my e-vidence against the scab act because I consider it to be an oppressive one, and I should not therefore like to see it over the whole Colony. 9850. Mr. Bittha.~\ Do you think it would be good to have an inspector in every field- cornetcy, recommended by the divisional council, or through the farmers in the field- cometcy ? — I thiuk it would be better to appoint the field-cornets inspectors, as they draw as much pay as the inspactors. • Mr. Dick Jacohus Ilattingh examined. 9851. C7jrt their best to clean their sheep? — In my neighbourhood there are only my own relatives living-; and they do their beet. ■''■ •-■ •■' ' ■ ■' - ■ ■ .- - . ,.-,-r 9858. Mr. Botha.'] Have an}' of your relatives signed the petition against the act? — Sonne did, and Some did not : I signed the last myself, for the reasons Ihav6 just mentioned. ' 9859. Do you think the inspectors shoidd be recommended by the farmers? — It is a difficvdt question, but I think there should be an inspector in every field-cornetey. 9860. Dr. Smartf.'] Is there less scab in the district now than there was when the act was put in force ? — I don't know. 9861. Do you think every farmer in the district does his best to Cdpe with the spread of scab.' — No, I don't think so. .• 9863 Woidd it be advisable to have the sheep of these men dipped under inspection ? — Certainly, it would be a good thing. ^' '9868. Would it be impos.sible to eradicate scab unless that is done ?— Some farmers say they have dipped, but they dip so badly that it is useless. They only dip to .satisfy the law. ^ - 9b64. Are you in faVour of the establishment of a (rovemment dip depot for the supply of dip to farmers at first cost price, free of railway carriage ? — Yes. 9865. As a practical farmer, do you consider it possible to carry on sheep farpiing advantageously without the protection of an act ? — No. ' ■ '9866. Mr. du Toit.'] Were you and Mr. van Heerden appointed to giver evidence according to a resolution passed at a district meeting of ih 3 Bond ? — No, we werei .sent to represent the Bond in the district of Tarka. We were sent- to oppose the ptesent act, bnt each according to his own judgment. ... .i. 9867. Are you awire of many Bondsmen, farmers in your disti'ictj'whb are in favour of some scab act ? — Yes, my brothers, and also the de Wet family : • ' ■ ■• 8968 Dr. Smartf.^ If a partial act were proclaimed, would you allb^ Sflieep frbm the uh- proclainied area to enter the proclaimed area under any circumstances ?-^If it were pos-siblo it would be much better not to allow them to enter at all. ' 9879. Would you allow them to come in if they were dipped t'svice within 14 days, under inspection, dnd put under cj[uarantine for a month, and then dipped again on the border ? —Yes. - ^ ■ -■•■' -1 ■■ ■ '-•' ' ; _:;■■■■ ^"*8t0.- Would' it be advisable to establish ports of entty, and pttt dij>ping tdntg tliere ? — Yes, T think that would bo sufficient protectiom. - '. ' --■; '•" ' •• - ' ■ ' 9671 . Woiild you protect a farmer having clean flocks in atn' unprotiaimed area"by allowing him to prevent travelling scabby flocks passing over his farm, if he put up notice board&'iri f?heniaih roads .^— Yes. 9872. If certain parts of the Colony are subject -to severe droughts,' and it is absolutely essentiial to remove stock for watering purposes, would you agree to a suspensory clause in the act empowering the Government to suspend the act at such times and in such districts ? — Ttten''where does the protection come in for the farmer who.se stock is clean? 9873. Mr. Francis.] At the meeting where you and Mr. van Heerden were appointed, were there any present in favour of the act ? — I think so. . i ■ 9874; Then Mr. vah Heerden made a mistake when he said thej' were all opposed to the aet.^It Was his own idea. Mr. George Mao: Kimr examined. 9875. ClMirman.'] You and these three other gentlemen have been appointed by the Tarka Farmers' ^Association to give evidence in favour of the scab act ? — Yes. I have farmed here about eight years, and have about 2,000 sheep. i 9876. Will you make a statement of j-our views? — I don't think there is any necessity for me to say that we farmers of the Tarka Association are quite convinced that scab is caused by an insect. We thought the idea that scab is spontaneous, or is oaused by some- thing working inside the sheep, was quite exploded. We believe that the act as it stands at present is a very good one, were it only general, and we are quite prepared to have it made more stringent, but, with the exception of one or two slight modifications -we certainly object to its being made less .stringent than it is now. We are also preijared to accept a general compulsory simidtaneons dipping act, in conjunction with the scab act, but not to take the place of it. This dipping should take place within certain areas, within a stated period, and the period should not extend, approximately, over a month. With regard to the present act, we think that one of the reaS'^ns why it has not worked so well as it should have done is that dipping is not properly carried out. In the first place, it is not made to the proper strength, the shoep are not allowed to remain in long enough, and in most cases they only get one dipping instead of two. We think that where an i ispector has good reason to doubt the iuteiligem e or trustworthiness of any farmer whose .sheep are quarantined, ke should personally suporvi.'c the dipjiing of those sheep ; and also that, FFF 2 421 wliere they need it,he should instruct the farmers that whenever possible the sheep should not be allowed to graze over the same pasturage as tliey used before they were dipped, or ocoupy the same kraals. We are satisfied with the way the inspectors are appointed, and decidedly object to the proposal to apjioint (iold-coinets to be inspectors. They may be very good men, taking the average throughout tlie counti'y, but we don't consider thoy have tlio requisite ability for that purpose. Where a farmer liolds a (dean bill, wo think he should be allowed to remove his stock, or a portion of it, as long as his sheep remain clean, on a standing permit, and we think sheep should not be allowed to come from unproclaimed areas through a proclaimed area under any circumstances whatever. With regard to licences, except under exce^)tional circumstances, it should be understood that the time allowed to euro scab should not be longer than one mouth, at the inspector's discretion. We tliink that section two of the act of 1891, which provides that upon the request of two-thirds of the registered voters for the divisional council in any district the aut should bo repealed, should he done away with, because it creates a feeling of unrest amongst the farmers of the district, or wherever the act is in operation. There are certain parties who are continually agitating to try and get the act repealed, and when they see they have any chance of gaining their ends it makes them very careless, and it disheartens those farmers who are doing their best to cure the scab. Even if it is allowed to remain, we don't altogether see the fairness of it, because a registered voter who is possessed of about fifty slieep has the same voting power as the man who has 3,000 or 4,000 sheep. I have said we are in favour of the act as it now stands, and wo are willing to submit to it for two or three years longer in the hope that tlxe other farmers who are opposed to it will gradually come over 10 our views ; and we are firmly convinced that, if we all give a good pull and a strong pull together, we shall cure scab in South Africa. 9877. Mr. Francis.'] Do you think there are sufficient inspectors in this district to carry out the act properly ? — I think so, with the powers allowed to field-cornets and landowners to grant permits. 9878. Would it be advisable to classify inspectors ? — It would be a good move. 9879. Would you have more superintendence over the work of the inspectors ? — ^I think we could well do with two superintendents. It is very hard work. 9880. If at the expiration of a first licence a man's sheep are still infected, woidd it be advisable to make him pay for his second licence, or to have his sheep dipjjed under proper inspection ? — Dipped under inspection. 9881. Is infection caused by sheep coming from unproclaimed areas with a certificate from two landowners ? — Certainly, and that provision should be repealed. 9882. Would you not allow them to come in if they were properly di^jped under inspection ? — We would rather prohibit it altogether. 9883. If i^ublic dipping tanks were erected on the main roads, would it be a good thing for travelling sheep ? — A very good plan. 9884. Would it help the farmers if Government were to supply dip at first cost price, carriage free ? — Very much. 9885. Are the fines generally imposed for breaches of the act generally sirfficient to deter people from breaking the law ? — I don't think so. 9886. Do many cases occur when it pays a man better to break the law and be fined than to carry out the provisions of the act ? — A fair number. 9887. What regulations would you make with regard to the removal of sheep and skins, by railway, through the proclaimed area? — I would not allow sheep or skins to pass over the railway through a proclaimed area. 9888. Would it bo advisable to prohibit the transit of wool and skins over our lines from the Free State aud other districts ? — If we do it for our self-protection, they would follow suit to protect themselves. 9889. Would it not have a disadvantageous effect upon our railway returns ? — I don't think it would last long. They would soon find somw means of curing the scab. 9890. Would it not divert the trade ? — If the scab act is enfoiced in the Free State I would not prohibit them, because they would then be in a proclaimed area. 9891. AVould it not be possible to carry these things if the trucks were disinfected, and precautions taken ? — I think it miglit be done in that way. 9892. Is it advisable to send scabby sheep to a pound without dipping them first ? — They ought to be dipped first at the owner's expense. 9893. If a new act is put in force, should it take e£Eect first in the summer months ? — Either late in the spring, or early in the summer. 9894. Is there any great difficulty in this district, tmder ordinary circumstances, in dipping sheep in the winter ? — We, none of us, Uke to do it, because although the sheep may be in good condition it tells upon them ou account of the cold, and as the days are so short the sheep don't get dry before night comes on. 9895. If your sheep became infected in the winter, would you allow the scab to gpo on, or dip them .^ — It would dejiend a great deal upon the condition of the sheep and the extent of the scab. If it were possible to keep it down by hand di'essing I would prefer to do so until they are shorn. 9896. Are not maay of the complaints about the incuuvenience of the act really the result of a man's own negligence or ignorance? — Possibly so. I believe negligence is the cause of 8«ab in winter. 9897. Mr. Botha.'] Did you sign the petition for the repeal of the act? — No. 422 9898. Are you aware of any one belonging to the Farmers' Association, or any English farmer, signing the petition ? — I don't think so ; I cannot call any one to mind just now in our Association. 9899. Then when I am told here that English farmers have signed for the repeal of the act, but when they came forward to give evidence thoy do sligod to do this; but after the soi'oiid dipping we had a heavy storm olhail aud rain, so that I lost llO sheep ; but if th^ iuspectorhad allowed me to move them'in September tlioy w^re. tijl £o' go, and I should Have sull'erod no loss. My shearing time is in November, so they had nearly twelve months' wool on. I think the act should be repealed. Refore~tho act was put in force, I had dipping tanks on four of my farms, so I am not opposed to dijiping. We must dip, but we want to dip when we think it advisable, dnd I'dori't think we arc- a bit better 9S to-day tli,an^e were before the act was proclaimed. Another difficulty I have found is with reference to th6pl},e^i which I have for sale. The butcher is quite willing to l)uy tliein, but when he finds I am under quarantine he of course leaves them. I also find that the farmers in the unproclaimed area get the same price for their wpol (iji ,we,do.i A gi'eat deal has been said about the care- less farmer, but I don't think there are so many. A farmer always takes care o^ his.ptock. The scab act has n6w been in force for five years, but 1 don't see any im])i'ovemQn,t ; wool is, lower now than it was before, but you must clearly understand thai T aih not oppo^ie^ to dipping. ' ■■ - - ■ '"-' 9918. 3fr. Francis.'] Then do you think that those careless farmers who won't dip their sheep ought to be made to dip them ? — If scabby sheep belonging to negligent farmers come on my ground, I will send them to the pound, and the ownerf will be more heavily punished under that act than they would' be iltider the bc'EiK act. 9919. Then if a farmer is too^la;?jSf,tO|djp hj^ sjieep, youthink he8houl4,be piini;ih,ed in someway? — Certainly. '' ; n . ' •. '■' .1 <.v 1, 9,920. Ifr. Botha.] Do you think there should be a simultaneous dipping act in.liw of a scab act? — Yes, provided that every district; a,ppoints its- own tinie, aijd if neQ^8,i?ftry-it. should be done under proper supervision, III i, ,. ....,,.-• ,•; ,• , . ,.,■. v. ,r\.ll ..'V I,';' '' •" '■ X' ' r I., ,-r «#-><'l' »' niT Mr.' ■ WtWatft OJidrle^ FV'osi examined. '"'"'' 9921. Chairman.'] Do you represent any association? — No, I have farmed here for fifteen years, and have 2,600 sheep. . - 9922. Do you wish to give evidence ? — Tos, in favour of the act, I should like to state that I am a field-cornet on the ]tjordci;' pftho Queen's Town district, wh^ro natives are often pnssingr and during the last two years it is seldom, if ever, that a shfeep has passed that way with scab,' although before that time nearly eveiy flock that passed was seabliy ; and I am in a position to speak authoritatively on the subject because they tnust come to me to endorse til eir 'permits. I attribute this diminution of scab entirely to the scab act, (Vnd I hav&be«n f, field,-'cornet there ever since the act has been in force. Another point is that some people/ > say feoab^ca'nnot be ciired, but I maj' state that one of my neighbours never had a clean sheep during the fifteen years I have been there until this last season, when he , was 8iuft-> momed 'under the act and fined £4, and since then his sheep have been clean, and he is now able to move them about wh,enever he likes. That is the result of the scab act ; without the act he would never do it^ and he.dj/}, n9t 4o it before the act was in force. : . . i ; ■ , . 9923. Mr. Francis.] Do you ever find that small lots of sheep are brought in with a pass, but without any permit ? — Yes, spflietimes. Not long ago a neighbour of mine came f romjColesberg through the Tarka district without a jiermit, and never saw any field-cornet. He came from a good farm up there, and his sheep were perfectly clean, in splendid condition, and without any old marks of scab. His, pass was issued in the first instance by a farmer, and was countersigned by the magistrate's clerk at Maraisburg or Steynsburg. 9924. Has any case come under your nptyse. of sheep being moved with a pass from an .. official, but without a permit } — ^I am not sure, but I think there have been such cases. Mr. Petrus Johannes Erasnms examined. 9925. Chairman.] Are you a delegate ? — No. I have farmed here for eighteen years, and have 1,900 sheep. 9926. Do you wish to give evidence } — Yes, in favour of the act. In my neighbour- hood there has been scarce!}' any scab since the scab act has been in operation, and I put it down to the effect of the act. The sheep have also been much healthier. 9927. Mr. Botha.] How long have you been under the act? — About five years, and I have no complaint to make with anything concerning it. 9928. Br. Smartl.] Do you consider that it would be a great loss to the farmers of Tarka if the act were to be repealed ? — Yes, but I would prefer to have a general act over 424 the whole Colony, together with a general simultaneous compulsory dipping act, the selec- tion of the time to be left to the divisional council. 9929. Mr. du Ihit.'] Are you acquainted with the north-western parts of the Colony ? — No. I don't go about much. 9930. Do you know that they suffer from prolonged droughts there ? — No, but I think that might be met by regulatin'T the law accordingly, so as to meet the peculiar circumstances of that part of the Colony. If anj- alteration is necessary, I would leave it to the divisional council, but I liave no suggestions to make. The act has done us a great deal of good. 9931. Were you always in favour of the act ? — I was always opposed to the scab act, because I was afraid of it, but I have learnt by experience that there is nothing to fear. Mr^. Laurence Htnry Walker., iScah inspectoKfQ-smava^.' ' 9932. ChoLrmoin.'] Yo\ii are soaL inspector of area jNo. 2.?jTj^Xej ;;, ,1 , W|as ;appointed in July, 1889. /"■;.. , ,...,:,. . - .. ^_^ ■■,-_^;;,. ,. _..,,.. 9933. Were you first appointed for the whole dfvisipp o%^ Tarka?rrY6'S> since then it has been divided, and Mr. Eales has been appointed sub-inspector. 9934. When j'ou were ai>pointed, was scab very preya],ent in the .^^arka division ?-— Yes, but I can,.|iai'dly say how much without referriijg to thp^s^atjjstipa. ,. IJhere was much more than there is, now. ' ' .,],,',.,,.,, , -, ; -.; r.'.! ,■> ; •' ' ".' 9^35. You consider thjiit the working of the present' sfalbr Act ^a?.^^ in reducing scab in this, division ? — Yes. ' ^ ''^ _ ' , ,^., ., ,. , . i,ii ,■ ,. . .■• . ■. gohe. Can yon offer any suggestions for the amendment of the act with a view of making "it more acceptable to the people? — In the first place I think it wo\tl,dbe a very good thing if the Government could supply the farmers with dip at, a, cheaper rate than they can procure, it now, and let thorn have it at cost price. It would be a, great inducemont to them to diji. And the present act would have a very much b.ett^-,9fiept if a.,.gene.ral dipping system were, incorporated in it. ', _ . ^, ^ ,, , - , j _. ..i ■ ■ .• ■ 99i37. Do you think that the farmers in this division generally dip their sheep properly ? — No, there are a great many who do not. . ^ ,, ,.^, .._,.,., ;.;•.- •■ . ■ ■ 9938. Dp you, .as a scab inspector, instruct them, , and poiij,t put to.them that they are not doiiig it properly V — I always do that. ,, ,. ■,, ,•,■•. •■ '■ 9939<.Wh,at.is the result? — Sometimes they take my ifdvice, but ?ipt always; in fact, I always recbmnlend sulphur and lime and some of the chemjcal , dips , to . be used stronger than the instructions direct, so as to get them as near as pcjssibo^to the , right strengthi.. 9940. Do you think that a farmer who has scabby si^p^pi^apd f ^ils to clean thom by dipping, should be obliged to pay a licence for keeping them, or thaj; .they should be dipped under inspection? — I think they should be dipped uufler inspection. 9941. Would that be very muoJi better than malcing a man pay an increased licence in case he did no^ sij^mp out scab ? — Yesj because it might bp an education to him, and if he saw "that the shpep. were dipped, and cured, he would do the same himself next time. " . . • 9943,., .po you find any: difficulty as regards sheep passing from, the , unproclaimed area into your area ?^Yes, they very often come in, more especially natives. Except the natives, they generally bring permits from two landowners, but the natives come straight away with the ordinary pass, generally fnnu the magistrate's office in Cradock. , ,: 9943. 'Are these natives' sheep infected with scab ? — ;Freqiient]j, but no^ always j out of three sucli' little lots, one would be infected, and we stop tln^m and impound thorn, or have them dipped. As a rule, I impound them, and the poundmastor has them dipped. 9944. Can you give us any idea what the charge is for dipping those sheep ? — The ordinary charge. It came to my knowledge that they were being charged exorbitantly, and afterwards I always impounded tbem, and they were then charged accondiug to the provisions of the pound act, about 3d. a head. . ' 9945. 'Have you any idea of the direction taken by tho natives who come with scabby sheep ? — They nearly all take the Queen's Town directipn from liere, going into Kaffirland. - , , . . ,,,m -. ■■.' , .i ■ ■• 9946. Are the sheep of the farmers, which pass here with a permit from two land- owners, generally clean ? — Not in all cases. If I find any not clean, and I am close to the border, I send them back ; but if they are some distance in, I impound the sheep and prosecute. , ,, , 9947. Have you man}' cases of that kind ? — A good many ; not a great many. 9948. , Can you suggest any remedy or amendment upon that system ? — ^I would suggest that along the line where they come we should have tanks, and sompbody to .dip the sheep before they enter the proclaimed area. . . i,-. 9949. i?hould there be one port of entry for the border, and all sheep coming through there should come thrpugh that one place ? — Speaking for our . area, I should saj'' there ought to b,e tluree ports of entry, as we have a long line. , ,,, , ■,■,-,..,;.• ■ / 9950. Have you taken into consi(h>ration the expense of cariyiug, out a prDvision- of thatkiud? — .No. ,^ .... •• , . i ! - ' 9951. Do you think that sheep brought over the, border, shoujl.d ,l^e jjipped once, and allowed to come in, or should they be dipped twice and quarantined ? — If sheep came in 4S6 with a certificate from two landowners, auu ■,■.■, :• i clean, I think they need only be dipped once ; but if there were any signs of scab they should be dipped twice, and kept on the border until after the second dipping, anA untU they were thoroughly clean. 9952. Hare you ever considered wliat provision would be necessary for the grazing of these sheep while they were waiting ? — That is a point I have not thought about. It is a very difficult question, and unless the Government made some provision for grazing the sheop there would be no chance of having th'-m grazed at all. Very few farmers would allow them to stay on their farms. 9953. But you say there should bo three ports of entry on your line from Oradock to Burghersdorp, so that you increase the difficulty threefold ? — That would be the case, but if you had three ports it would follow that whoever was stationed at a port to diji tho sheep when found scabby would also be able to stop the natives who would try to slip past with scabby sheep ; and that would be a great saving, because there are many natives' sheep going past. 9954. Have you any knowledge of troops of sheep having come from the unproclaimed area into the proclaimed area, very scabby, and which have passed through the division of Tarka and also through a large portion of the division of Queen's Town ? — No. 9955. Have you never heard of any ? — No. I once went after a flock which had passed right through, and went over to Fort Beaufort. I followed them up there, and I reported the inspector. 9956. Do you think a speculator could carry on business, and go into the unproclaimed area of Middelburg, Cradock, and so on, and purchase sheep, and bring them through the Tarka division into Queen's Town without being found out '? — It would be quite possible for him to get past, but if he did it frequently we should most likely catch him. 9957. Then you think this area is too large for two inspectors ? — It is not too large for us to inspect the sheep, but if you take into consideration that we are on the border of the unproclaimed area, and that a good many sheep do go through without our being able to catch them, I think it it is too large. 9958. What would you suggest .' — I don't consider my area is too large for me to get through my work as the present act stands, but it would be if I were to be called away every now and then to attend to sheep which might bo coming in from the unproclaimed area. 9959. Would you suggest that there should be some means of assisting the inspector without having another ? — Sheep farmers might have the right to stop the sheep, and give notice at once to the inspector. 9960. But farmers wlU not do that ? — I know of my certain knowledge that they won't. The most practical thing I can think of is to have dipping tanks along the line, and some- body there who could watch the sheep coming in. 9961. Do you think you will be able to stamp out scab in your area as long as you have this unproclaimed area on your border ? — Never quite, under the present act. I would most certainly suggest the extension of the present act throughout the Colony ; that is the beat remedy of all. 9662. If it is found impracticable to have an act in certain districts of the Colony, do you think a good line could be drawn through the country which would answer all the pur- poses, and that sheep should only be allowed to enter the proclaimed area after being pro- perly dipped, and should only be carried on the railway ?^Yes, if such a lino were drawn, and the sheep only came on the railway, I think it would be almost a sure means of stopping them, because I don't think they could get past on the trucks without inspection. 9963. Is there much danger to be feared from the carriage of wool and skins on the railways of the Colony from the Free State and beyond ? — It all depends. Fresh skins might infect the trucks. 9964. Suppose the tiiicks were disinfected ? — I think that could be done. The disease is not so likely to be spread from wool and skins as from travelling sheep. 9965. Since you have been inspector, two petitions have been got up for the repeal of the act. Has this tended in any way to make good farmers more careless or indifferent as regards the cleansing of their sheep ? — Yes, it has had a very bad effect. About two or three months ago I think everybody made sure that the act would be susjiended, and they were very backward in cleansing tlieir sheep. I found a number of sheep which I expected would have been cleaned were still waiting, and had not been dipped ; in fact I was a good deal joked about it in some places when I came there. 9966. Do you think that clause in the act of 1 891 has a very dangerous effect as regards scab ? — Very, and it should be repealed if we want to get rid of scab. 9967. It has been stated in evidence that, whether under the scab act or not, farmers would dip their sheep regularly ; but from what you say aboiit these petitions we can come to no other conclusion but that they would not do so ? — A few would dip, but the majority would go back to the old style. 9968. Thenif the scab act were repealed in this district, you think there wouldbe a great increase of scab in a very short time ? — I feel certain of that. 9969. llr. Francis.'] When you found sheep brought in from an unproclaimed area on the certificate of two landowners, and having scab, whom did you prosecute ? — The owner or the man I found with the sheep. 9970. You have never prosecuted the landowners who gave the certificate ? — No. 9971. When j'ou have found cases where a native has brought in sheep from an 426 unproclaimed area, with a pass from the office of the resident magistrate of Cradock, has there been anything on the pass to show the native that he required a permit ? — It has simply been a pass under the cattle removal act. ^>nly verj' lately we have been agitating about it, and our magistrate has written on the subject. Last week 1 found one man coining in who had been warned, and we have had three cases of warning. - 9972. Ai-e the field-cornets or other parties in your area authorised to grant permits of removal ? — Yes. 9973. Do you receive any help from the police in the district? — No, not lately. At first I did, but I did not encourage the help of the police, as in cases where the flocks were travelling, the police did not seem to know whether the sheep had scab or not ; they simply went by the possession or absence of a permit, but a great many farmers hold clean bills and forget to take them with them, and perhaps the police stop them. 9974. Do you think it would be advisable that, wherever a farmer sends sheep away for which he holds a clean bill, he should be bound to give a copy of it to the driver ? — I think so. 9975. If the police endeavoured to report all breaches of the scab act, do you think that such cases would be more readily detected of sheep being driven through the area ? — They would certainly detect some. 9976. Do j'ou consider the fines generally imposed for breaches of the act are sufficient to prevent people breaking the law ? — Not as a rule ; they are very light. 9977. Are they so light that in many cases a man would rather break the law than obey it ? — Yes, in many cases it woidd pay him better. 9978. Do you consider the length of the first licence is too long ? — In winter I should give three months, and in summer, after shearing, not longer than a month. 9979. Mr. Botha.^ Do you reside in Tarkastad ?— Yes. 9980. Would you allow clean sheep to move from the Queen's Town district into the Tarka district without being dijiped first ? — Yes. 9981. But you know that there are scabby flocks in the Queen's Town district as well as clean } — I believe there are. 9982. And j'ou believe there are also clean flocks in the Cradock district as well as scabby flocks ? — Yes. 9983. Then why should clean flocks from Cradock, or any other district in the unpro- claimed area, be handicapped more than clean flocks from a district where the act is in force ? — I naturally take it for granted that there is more scab in the unproclaimed area. 9984. But that is not always the ease, and even if it were so, you might find clean flocks in an unproclaimed area as well as in a proclaimed area ? — Yes, but I think in unproclaimed areas the clean flocks are only isolated cases, and coming along they might get reinfected. I have a case in point now of a flock stopped yesterday from Graaff-Eeinet, and judging from the sheep, they seem to have been dipped and cleaned, but the scab is now about ten days old. 9985. Would that not apply to Queen's Town flocks, where there is always so much scab in existence, and even to Tarka, where we hear from the farmers there is so much scab ? — We have no means of judging whether the animal is clean or not ; there is nobody to certify it. An inspector cannot tell with a small lot of sheep, because they may have come from an infected flock. 9986. But they may not '' — If we were certain they were clean, but there is a great difficulty about it. If an inspector could go over to Cradock and look at the sheep and farms, then I should say allow them to come. 9987. You say the fines are not heavy enough, and that in many instances people would rather break the law and be fined. Dc you mean that the law is too expensive for the farming community to have their sheep clean and obey the conditions of the act ? — There is not so much expense, but a great deal of trouble. I was speaking principally of sjieculators. 9988. We must take it as applying to speculators':* — Not so much to farmers. 9989. You think the farmers would rather obey the law than break it and run the risk of having to pay fines ? — Yes, I think so. 9990. Mr. dn Toit.~\ Would you make any difference in the dipping of stock coming from an unproclaimed into a proclaimed area which is intended for breeding as dis- tinguished from stock for slaughtering purposes ? — Yes, I would give one good dipping to slaughter stock on the railway. 9991. Would you not say provided they aiTive at their destinati-on within a fortnight, so as to allow trekking sheep intended for slaughter stock to be dipped at once ? — Yes. 9992. Dr. Smartt.~\ Do you know a certain Mr. Johannes Jordan in this district who issues passes ? — Yes. 9993. Do you know whether or not it is a fact that he dipped on one occasion 100 sheep and 80 goats, and took one ox, one heifer, and 10 - in cash fi-om the Kaffir for dipping them ? — No, he is not in my part of the area. 9994. Mr. Francis.] If it is found impracticable to have a general act, would you allow a single farm, field-cornetcv, or district to come under the act if thej- bordered on the area ? — Yes. 9995. Then if people living in the unproclaimed area found they suffered inconvenience and loss through having their sheep dipped on the border, would they not avoid it by coming under the act ? — Certainly. 9996. Mr. Bofhn.] Can you always be certain, by close inspection, whether animals are free of scab or not ? — Yes, if it is visible. [G. 1.— '94.] GGG 427 9997. Consequently it would not be necessary to rely upon the certificate of another man ; you could judge for yourself? — I could judge on any particular day, of any particular flock, whether the sheep in front of me had scab or not. 9998. Chairman.^ If a farmer selected 200 sheep out of a scabby flock, do you think you could be certain that none of those 200 had scab amongst them ? — I could only be certain that thej' had no visible scab ; I could not be certain that they had no insect on them. 9999. So, being taken out of a scabby flock, they might have scab without showing any visible sig^s of it ? — It is possible. 10000. Is it not very probable ? — If they were taken out of a scabby flock it is more than possible, it is probable. 10001. Then as long as sheep are taken out of a scabby flock, although, to all appear- ance, they may be perfectly clean, still they may have scab amongst them, and be liable to affect others ? — Yes, certainlj'. 10002. Do you wish to add anything ? — Instead of having to inspect so many sheep, and having to travel so many miles every month, I think the inspectors should be allowed a little discretionary power to go amongst the farmers, and in some instances help them to dip their sheep and give a hand to those who do not believe they can cure their sheep by dipping. Mr. John Edward Hales, scab inipector, examined. 10003. Chairman.'] You are inspector of area No. 2 ? — Yes, since the let October, 1891" 10004. Do you agree with what Mr. Walker said? — Yes, with the exception of his remarks about sheep being lirought over the border. I think there should be dipping depots appointed, and I don't see why the person iu charge of the sheep should not dip them 12 days before arriving at the border, and give them a second dipping just on passing the dip on the boundary, instead of being quarantined there. 10005. What provisions would you make to see that they are properly dipped in the area where there are no inspectors ? Would you take the word of the owner 1 — No, I would suggest that there should be a certificate similar to the present certificate for removal, sigfnedby two landowners, and the sheep should be dipped in the presence of one or two landowners who coxild certify to the quantity of dip and the number of gallons used. Or I would make the owner of the sheep and the landowner grant the certificate, because it is often difficult to get two neighbours. 10006. But should they be really dipped under inspection ? — Yes. 10007. Is there anything else ?•— That is the only point. 10008. Mr. Francu.'] But Mr. Walker said that the certificate of two landowners in the unproclaimed area is not always to be depended upon ? — Not always. 10009. Then do you think you could depend on the certificate of the owner of the sheep and one landowner that the sheep had been properly dipped f — I think so, because the proprietor would be subject to be prosecuted after coming into the proclaimed area, if his sheep became scabby. 10010. Is not the owner now liable if his sheep are scabby? — Yes. 10011. Mr. Botha.] Have you heard of any landowners having been fined for giving certificates for sheep which turned out to be scabby after they were in a railway carriage ? — Yes, I read of a case the other day. 10012. Would not that have a good effect ? — Yes. 10013. So it is quite possible that lando\vners might become as careful as scab inspec- tors ? — Quite. 10014. Of course, scab inspectors are also responsible for any certificates they may sign } — Yes. 10015. Does the law provide that if scab breaks out in sheep holding a clean bill from an inspector that that inspector shall be liable to a fine ? — No, but I am liable to be I'eported bj' another inspector, and hauled over the coals for not being careful enough. 10016. So that more latitude is allowed to inspectors than to landowners? — In that respect. 10017. So that if a man's honesty depends on his chance of being punished it is quite possible that inspectors might be even less reliable than landowners? — I don't know. I think every official likes to do his duty efficiently. 10018. Dr. Smartt.] What is the number of flocks and of small stock in your area ? — There are about 90,000 small stock, and I inspect about 78 farms. 10019. How many of those farms hold clean b.Us? — About five per cent, at the present time. 10020. If a farmer holds a dean bill, and his flocks are not reported to be infected again, do you generally insjiect them ? — I can leave them for six months, unless I have a suspicion that the farmer is careless, and not to be relied upon to report an outbreak, as it is his duty to do. 10021. At the expiration of the six months, if you visited that man's flocks, and knew him to be a careful farmer, would you take his word or inspect the sheep ? — Inspect them. The farmers are very good in assisting us to get them to certain convenient spots, where they can be got at, and in case the sheep are ver}' wild we get them into the kraal. 10022. Do you know Mr. Johannes Jordan? — Yes. 10023. Have you heard anything about the case which I stated just now? — Yes, I 428 heard an account of tlie circumstances, and went to see Mr. Jordan. The statement about the ox is a fabrication; it was a very old ox, there was no heifer, and 10- was charged. Still, I told him he was considerably beyond the Government tariff, and for that reason Mr. Jordan has since been suspended from giving permits, and another gentleman appointed. 10024. Chairman.'] Have you anything to add ? — Only one suggestion about farmers holding clean bills. We are told the stiindlng permits are no good, but I find that a farmer holding a clean bill in the district of Queen's Town is supposed to get a permit of removal intotheTarka district, and in all my experience as a scab inspector, I have neverbeen able to see the necessity of this. I don't see why he f;hoidd not move his sheep on his own responsibility, under that clean bill, from the district of Queen's Town into 'Tarka, simply by giving the inspector of this district notice through the post office that he is coming in, and that he holds a clean bill. The clean bill states that he shall be allowed to move the sheep inside an area while clean, and I would extend that to neighbouring areas. 10025. Would this remove one of tae great grievances that farmers complain of? — It would remove a very great grievance, and it would be an encouragement to the good farmer to keep bis sheep clean and have clean bills, and thus he would be his own inspector for the time being. 10026. Supposing he moves sheep which are afterwards found to be infected? — I should strictly examine into the circumstances, and if I found that there was suspicion of of his having dealt falsely, I should prosecute him, and be should be liable to a very heavy penalty. MolUno, Tuesday, Zlst Jmtuary, 1893. PRESENT : Mr. Frost (Chairman), Mr. Botha. I Dr. Smabtt. „ DTJ Toit. I Mr. Fkakcib. Mr. Peter Rolenheivur examined. 10027. Chairman.'] Where do you live? — In this district. I have been farming here for about 20 years, and have about 1,500 small stock. 10028. Are you in favour of, or against a scab act ? — I am partly in favour of it, be- cause without it there is no protection. The good farmer and the man who keeps his sheep clean always runs the risk of re-inf ection by careless farmers, and that causes labour and expense. Sometimes, also, people are living on farms over which roads run, and which are very often used as trekpaths, and xmder such circumstances it is scarcely possible to keep your own flocks clean. Those who are not living on public roads, and are out of the way on enclosed farms, are in a better position, and need not care about the scab act. I know this by experience. One day a number of my sheep were missing, and after 15 days they were found to have been mixed with my neighbour's scabby flocks, and they all returned scabby, while the remainder of my flock which stayed on my farm continued clean. I am opposed to the act, however, because of the expense of carrying it out, and it is very questionable whether the best men are appointed as inspectors. It also causes inconvenience in the removal of stock, when people have often to send long distances of 5 or 6 hours' ride to get a permit. Again, to be without a scab act is also a grievance, because you may spend a great deal of labour and money in keeping your sheep clean, yet always run the risk of being re-infected. In my neighbourhood the farmers have already considerably improved in the method of dipping sheep, but stiU they don't do it as it ought to be done. Sometimes they may dip once, and then neglect it again. 10029. You complain that there is a difficulty in getting inspectors to inspect sheep, but what experience have you had of that ? — I have had no personal experience ; it is only what I have read. 10030. Can you suggest any remedy or amendment, either in the appointment of the inspectors or in the way the work is carried out } — I would suggest that there should be an inspector in every field-cornetcy, who should be chosen by the holders of stock. 10031. Do the farmers in this district dip the sheep properly according to instructions ? — Yes, but I don't know whether they make the dip properly. I think after they have dipped the sheep many of them neglect them again, and do not pay sufficiently close attention. 10032. How do you dip your sheep? — I upe a patent dip according to the directions, but for some days previous to dipping I hand-dress, and after dipping if I find it necessary I hand-dress again, or dip them again. 10033. Do you find that you cure your sheep by that process? — Entirely, but they get re-infected by my neighbours'. 10034. You are in favour of a genc-al scab act ? — ^Yes, but on different lines. 10035. If there should be a new ac:, would it be advisable to provide in it that all the farmers in a district should be compeUec. to dip their sheep during a certain limited time ? — Yes, whether the sheep are clean or not. 10036. Would it materially assist in stamping out the scab, and do you think the farmers here would dip the sheep twice iroperly within 14 days? — It is very seldom they do. 10037. li not that the reason why they fail to stamp out the scab ? — I think so. I think Gaa 3 429 some people allow the sheep to go through the water too q>iiekly, and they don't get properly Boaked. 10038. Have you ever found any diflficulty in moving your sheep into the proclaimed area from this unproclaiiued area, for the Imtchor, or any other purpose ? — No ; I have sold sheep to be sent to Queen's Town, and they have been ])assed through under a permit from two land owners. They went to the inspector in Queen's Town, who examined them, found them clean and passed them on. 10039. When the land-owners inspected these sheep, did they inspect all your flocks, or only the particular flock from which these sheep were taken out ? — Only the flock from which the sheep were taken out. 10040. Have you ever heard of any sheep being sold, and a certificate granted by two landowners who have only examined the sheep taken, and not the whole flock ? — No. 1 004 1 . If it is found impracticable to have a general act for the whole Colony, do you think it would be right to give a farmer the power to prevent any. scabby sheep crossing over his farm, outside the area ? — Yes. 10042. Mr. Francis. 1 Tour great difficulty in keeping your sheep clean is that thoy be- come re-infected by other peojsle's sheep ? — Yes, by sheep belonging to careless neighbours, and trekkers. 10043. Then if other people had been oblie^ed to clean their sheep you would had found no difficulty in keeping yours clean ? — I should think so. 10044. Then you think scab could bo eradicated from the country ? — Yes. 10045. Would it be advisible if Government were to supply tlip at cost price, free of railway carriage, to assist farmers in eradicating scab ? — I should think it would be a benefit. 10046. Would it prevent the danger of re-infection through sheep being removed if there were public dipping tanks on the roads ? — There are places in this district where there are dipping tanks, but there are no sheep, and therefore it would be unadvisable for Govern- ment to spend money for that purpose. 10047. If it is the case, as has been stated in evidence, that the country is annually los- ing some £500,000 in consequence of scab, do you think it would be advisible to spend monej' freely to try and eradicate it ? — Of course. 10048. Mr. Botha.'] Are there any other members of the Africander Bond in this dis- trict who are in favour of a scab act ? — There are only a few in this district who are in fav- our of it. 10049. Do j'ou think every farmer Hhould have a dipping tank on his place ? — Yes. 10050. Have all the farmers in this district dipping tanks ? — Yes, more or less. 10051. Has tliere been a great deal of talk about the advisability of having a scab act? — Yes. 10062. Since there has been all this talk about the iu-X, liave the fanners dipped their sheep, and what effect has it had on this district in general ? — -Dipping has become twice as common. 10053. Mr. du Toit.'j If there is an inspection in each ward, would it not be more ex- pensive than the present system ? — I said I was opposed to the enormous expense of the act but though I cannot speak from experiAice, I think it is going on in other districts. 10034. Then do you mean that inspectors in each ward, consisting of intelligent farmers should not receive as much salary as the inspectors do at present ? — Yes. 10055. Do you also think that the difficulty about the permits would be removed if there were an inspector in each ward ? — I think so. 10056. Do you think throe months is long enough to clean sheep ? — Quite enough. 10057. Is it long enough in winter ? — I think there are times in winter when you can- not dip at all. 10058. Then do you think that dipping should not be compxilsory in winter, but that hand-dressing should be allowed until the spring ? — Yes. 10059. Are you aware of a kind of scab disease which cannot be cured by dipping? — Not in sheep ; I don't know anything about goats. 10060. Do you think scab will infect clean sheep if they don't get mixed with scabby sheep, but simply go on the same ground where scabby sheep have grazed ? — If they lie down in the same places, I think it certainly will. 10061. Have you any idea how JODg acarus can live in kraals or on the veldt ? — It is impossible to say. 10062. Would you be in favour of holders of clean bills under the act being at liberty to trek with their flocks on their own permits ? — Yes, but 1 know very little about the act. 10063. Should stock be dipped at the owner's expense before being sent to the pound? —Yes. ' 10064. Br. Smartt.'] If a general scab act were introduced, and the flocks were cleaned in the summer, would there be any dauger of their being re-infected in the winter if there were a compulsory dipping act ? — It is difficult to answer, because I am not under the scab act, and I am not acquainted with such a state of affairs. We should not get rid of the scab very soon, because the places where the sheep would lie down at night are not very clean yet. 10065. Are you well acquainted with the majority of the farmers in this district? — Perfectly. 10066. Do you think that in a majority of cases the objection to legislation on scab disease is due to sentiment, and that if a general scab act were introduced many of the 430 famierB who now object to the act would at once acquiesco i n it ? — If they see the hiw works well, I think it will change their opinion. 10067. Mr. Franch. \ Are you awarj that there is only one sort of scab, that caused by an insect, which is recogaised by the law ? — Yes, there is only one. Mr. Johannes Adrianus Jacobus Vermaak examined. 10068. Chairmati.'] You are a delegate appointed at a meeting of the Afrikander Bond to give evidence before the Commission ? — Yes, together with four other gentlemen. 10069. How long have you been farming here? — 1 have had nine years altogether and since 1886 I have been on my own account. I have 3,000 to 4,000 sheep, and we have always had a small flock of Cape ewes also. 10070. Do you come here to oppose the scab act? — No, I am in favour of the act. 10071. Will you give your reasons ? — My chief reason is that the gain a man has from keeping his sheep clean for the year is worth all the trouble and expense of a scab act. There are very few of us who ever keep accounts of what we do, but the loss in one scabby clip of wool is more than any farmer would imagine. I believe it is quite possible to keep sheep clean, because I have had the experience of keeping over 3,000 sheep clean for more than three years, but I must say they have never been mixed with any scabby sheep. We are obliged to trek with them a distance of 3A hours on horseback along a big road, but when we trekked we never allowed a si>eep to lie down on the road. We started at perhaps 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, and early in the afternoon we reached the next homestead without allowing the sheep to feed or lie down on the road, and we dipped them the day before starting, so as to keep them wet for the road. To show how scab may get amongst sheep, I may mention that, after having been clean for three years, giving very little trouble and aflfording a good profit, a bijwoner on nay uncle's farm got a hundred sheep which were infected with scab. Unfortunately it was in the winter ; some of the ewes were lamb- ing, some had shortly been shorn and it was bitterly cold. These diseased sheep were kept on a certain portion of the farm, but the man they belonged to did not do as he was told, and although they never mixed with any of our sheep yet just after they had been properly dipped our sheep were allowed to run over that portion of the veldt where this bijwoner's sheep had been, and the consequence was that our sheep got scabby and it has taken us nearly a year to get rid of it, because they kept getting re-infected. We used to clean them in three weeks, but they would get re-infected. 10072. Do you think a farmer in the unproclaimed area should be protected by being allowed to prevent any ecabby sheeji crossing his farm ? — Certainly, there is no reason why stock should be quarantined for lung- sickness and not for scab. 10073. Do you know the district of Albert inthnately ? — Yes on the Moltono side. 10074. Do you think the farmers generally dip their sheep properly ? — About i quarter of them dip well, and the rest dip more for the name of the thing. I will give an instance relating to a rather enterprising hard-working man, who brags that he dipped all his sheep about, 1,500, before 12 o'clock on one day. I have no doubt that he mixed the dip properly, but I am sure that more than half the sheep never got a drop of water on the skin. 10075. If a farmer tells you that he cannot cure his sheep by dipping, do you think it advisable that his sheej) should be dipped under inspection ? — Certainly. 10076. Have you ever heard of anyone dipping sheep in a very careless manner for the purpose of sending them into the proclaimed area after sale ? — I have never had any experience of that sort, because I don't live in a proclaimed area ; but a few weeks ago I was told of a farmer travelling with sheep who heard that the inspector was close by, and he di'ove them through a river of muddy water and told the inspector that they had been dipped, and consequently the inspector did not examine them. 10077. If it is found impossible to have a general scab act, do you think that sheep coming into a proclaimed from an unproclaimed area shoxild be dipped on the border, and quarantined, before being sent in ? — Yes, although it would be very hard in case of a drought if a man had to trek, and the sheep had to be dipped with six or eight months' wool on. Still, for the general good I Twuld have them dipped. 10078. Do you agree with Mr. Eo')enheimer that a general act would be a benefit? — Yes. 10079. Do you think a good deal ■ f the objection to this would be done away with, if Government supplied dip at a cheap rat 5 and free of railway carriage ? — Yes, that would be a great help, because there are really li any poor farmers. At the meeting of the Bond at which I was elected a delegate to give evidence here, I put it that the grain sown every year is not seen again, but comes up in the harvest perhaps 50 fold, and why cannot we act in the same way as regards the expense of dipping sheep. A child does not know what is good for it, and if the farmers cannot understand that the scab act is good, the Government should take the part of a parent and enJ orce it. 10080. If you had a poor flock of s leep, and the scab got amongst them in the middle of winter, would you dip them theu or allow them to run on until the spring } — I should dip them without a day's delay, if only the weather was warm enough to do it, because even in winter you get some days which are \.arm enough up to 12 or 1 o'clock. And if the sheep had any wool on them I should sheai them first. I should dip them in small lots before midday, so as to give them a chance to get dry before evening. I have done it over and 431 over again. Last winter I dipped over 2,000 sheep -whiob had been dhorn in February. I commenced on the 7th June. Most of them had laiubs, and I dipped lambs of 3 and 4 days old. I used tobacco dip, and it had no injurious effect on the wool. 10081. Mr. Francis.'] Do you believe that, under proper regulations, scab could be eradicated from the flocks of the country ? — Quite. The chief reason why scab has not been eradicated more is that people are satisfied if they just dip the sheep. But they put them back into the old kraals, and let them run on the same veldt, and leave them alone and the consequence is that in a fortnight or three weeks half of them are infected again. After dipping, we take the remainder of the dip, or else mix some more, and clean the kraals with it. 10082. Considering the benefit which the country would derive if it were freed from scab, do you think Government would be warranted in spending money freely to attain that object ? — Yes. 10083. Mr. du Toit.'] Should a compulsory dipping act be introduced with a scab act? — Yes. I don't believe in the act we have now. 10084. You don't think that sheep might be too poor to be dipped in the winter? — A sheep may be ever so fat, but if he gets infected with scab he will be poor in a month or two. . 10085. Are you not aware that sheep sometimes suffer from some other disease, such as wire-worm, which makes them too weak in condition to be put through the dip in winter ? — If you have wire- worm or some other disease amongst your sheep, and they get scab, why not try and eradicate the one which you are quite sure you can get rid of in a short time, BO as to give the sheep more strength to stand against the other ? 10086. But if you killed them by dipping, how would you cure them ? — I have never seen a sheep die of dipping. 10087. You were never compelled to dip your sheep, but you dipped them as you wished .' — No. It is our duty to dip our sheep, and not to keep them clean is cruelty to ani- mals in its very worst form. The very animal which gives you your food and clothing must not be allowed to run in such a state, aud that is why we dip, and at the same time our pockets feel the weight of it. 10088. Don't you think it is more cruel to be compelled to dip poor sheep in winter, and perhaps to kill them ?— If you can possibly do so, you should keep the sheep clean as far as possible through the cold weather by hand-dressing, as I have often done myself ; but we have found that you must be at it day after day, and have to keep the sheep in the kraal from early morning, sometimes throughout the day, and so do much harm to the sheep by continually having them round and round in the kraal. Besides, the dung in the kraal makes the wool dirty. I think wherever scab is found the sheep should be dipped, because when you see a speck of scab you may be sure there are 50 coming on which you cannot see. 10089. Br. Smartt.'] Are you convinced that a scab act properly administered would confer enormous financial benefits even u^on farmers who are now absolutely opposed to it ? — Yes ; as it has done in other countries, I am sure it must do so here. If a sheep farmer, surrounded by scabby sheep, tries his best to keep his own sheep clean, he may succeed for a month or two and then has to go over the same work again, and it is very unpleasant work to hand-dress and dip ; but if all the others are clean, his wiU remain clean and he can give his time to agriculture and other work, as well as improve his wool. Mr. Stephanut Abraham Cloeie examined. 10090. Chairman.'] You are also a delegate from the Bond in this district? — Yes, I have been farming here for 12 years, .and have 1,300 sheep. 10090a. Do you agree with Mr. Vermaak ? — No, not at all. I am quite opposed to any scab act, because I am so situated that I run no risk of having my flocks infected, as on one side my farm borders on a district which has the scab act, and on the other side I have Messrs. Vermaak as neighbours, consequently I am surrounded by clean flocks. But not- withstanding that there is no dangei of infection, there has never been a period of three consecutive months when I or any of my neighbours could declare that they had not a speck of scab. I think that any man who takes a real interest in his flocks can keep them clean without a scab act, in the same way as I am doing, so much so that he need not suffer any loss, or be the cause of infection to his neighbours, but I cannot say that I believe that scab can be stamped out altogether. If yoa make a law it must be carried out with justice. 10091. Do you think all the farmers in this district do try to keep their sheep as clean as you do? — I think there are many legligent farmers. 10092. What would you do with them ? — It is their own loss. 10093. Suppose instead of Mr. Vermaak you had for a neighbour a man who was very negligent ? — I think we had sufficient protection under the old pound ordinance, which pro- vided that if you could prove that your neighbour's sheep were scabby, and were the cause of loss to you, he could be punished. 10094. Then you do think it is absolutely necessary that there should be some law to compel yoiu' negligent neighbour to do something ? — I think what I said would be sufficient. 10095. You don't think it is possible to stamp scab out of the country? — No. 10096. Are you aware that in one district in the Colony there has been no scab for the last three or four years ? — I don't know. 10097. If one district can keep its sheep clean, cannot others ? — No, not here, because we are continually trekking from here to Vlekpoort. 4S2 10097a. Supposing Vlekpoort is also kept clean ? — The farmers there are not in the same position as we are here, consequently they are not caf able of doing it. They are liable to continual droughts, and their water supply sometimes gets reduced. There are farms in Vlekpoort which are six or eight hours distant from the mountains, and the people there will not trek in time because thoy are always expecting that it will rain, so they stay there too long. Then the sheep get scab, and are almost too poor to trek, and what must become of them ? 10098. Do you mean that it is more difficult to keep sheep clean in the Karoo than in the grass veldt? — I don't say that. Vlekpoort is a dryer climate, and is more liable to droughts than we are here, consequently it gives you more trouble to keep sheep clean there than it does here. 10099. Mr. Francis. \ Why do you say you are not subject to infection because you adjoin a proclaimed area and the Vermaaks ? — Because I don't dispute that scab is partly caused by an insect. 10100. Then are the sheep cleaner in a district where the act is in force than where you are ? — My neighbours who are under the scab act and have clean sheep now, also had clean sheep before there was a scab act. 10101. Can you explain how it is that we have had witnesses who are opposed to the act give as a reason that they live in the mountains and not in the Karoo, while you g^ve as a reason that sheep in the Karoo cannot be cleaned as well as those in the mountains ? — I don't agree with them, because I am living in the mountains, and I can declare that there is more regularity in the veldt and climate. 10102. And you think it would be a good thing if you could clean your sheep of scab, and keep them clean ? — I try my best, with pleasure. It is not only to my own advantage, but also in the interests of the country. 10103. Don't you think there may be farmers who are more negligent and have less intelligence than you have in regard to this ? — It stands to reason ; they are not all the same. 10103a. For example, you take one farmer who is very particular in cleaning his flocks and he has some careless farmers for neighbours, don't you think it is an injustice to the careful farmer to have his sheep re-infected by the others ? — I answered that when I spoke about the pound ordinance. 10104. Do you believe that all farmers know how to dip properly, and do dip properly ? — There are very few at present who don't know how to do it, and as far as I know they all do their best to stamp out the scab. 10105. But the man's best may be very bad, owing to his ignorance ? — I don't like to answer incorrectly, and therefore I cannot answer that. 10106. Don't you think it would be a great advantage, not only to the fanners but to the whole country, if we could clean our sheep of scab ? — I think it would be a good thing if it could be stamped out. 10107. Dr. Smartt.~\ If it is so difficult to keep sheep clean of scab in the Karoo districts, can you explain the fact that many leading farmers in the Karoo districts have given evidence before the Commission in favour of a general scab act ? — I think it is because they have not sufficient experience, and don't take sufficient interest in the welfare of the country. They are not public men. 10108. Mr. du Toit.'] Would you be in favour of a general dipping act, apart from a scab act ? — No ; I want no interference. 10109. But you admit some compulsion is necessary for protection, and you instance the pound ordinance. Don't you think that that measure is rather too severe, and that a more lenient measure would be made more use of ? Would not a dipping act be better than the pound act ? — No. 10110. Mr. Botha.'] Are you acquainted with the present scab act ?— Not thoroughly. 10111. Can you suggest any amendments or alterations? — No. Mr. Sendrik Chrutoffel Beurman examined. 10112. You are also a delegate from the Bond? — Yes. I have 1,000 sheep, and have been farming here for 10 years. 10113. Do you ag^ee with the evidence given by Mr. Vermaak or Mr. Cloete? — With Mr. Cloete, entirely. 10114. Is there anything you would like to add ? — I think the inspectors are too partial. 10115. Can you give a case in point? — I must admit that I myself have not seen any- thing. 10116. Dr. Smartt.l Would it be just to those districts where the large majority of the farmers are in favour of the act to have it repealed all over the country ? — Yes, with regard to the expenditure, even in those districts. Mr. Mathias Johannes Greyvestt/njexamined . 10117. Chairman.! Are you a delegate ? — Yes. I have farmed h or 24 years, and have 1 ,500 sheep. 433 10118. Do you agree with Mr. Vermaak or Mr. Cloete ? — With neither. 10119. Will you state your "iiinion ? — I am not in favour of the present act, but it might be possible to havo an act tiiat I could support. I wish to point out the peculiar circumBtances of the district in which I am liviag. I think dipping is good. When I commenced dipping my slioep they were decreasing, but dipping helped me on again, and it had the same good effect in my neighbourhood so that now nearly everybody dips in my neighbourhood and has a dipping tank. My greatest objection to the act is that I don't think we are living in such a favourable district as other parts of the Colony, and in this I totally disagree from the former speakers that our district is better. I consider that at some seasons of the year it is impossible to dip here. Our lambing season is September and October, and we have some winters so wet, that it is impossible to dip. The same thing applies to droughts, which are sometimes so prolonged that the stock is too weak to be dipped. Sheep sometimes get so weak in the Stormberg, that if you were forced to dip ewes just before lambing, you would lose half of them ; and if the inspector were to order such a man to dip it would create great opposition to the act, so far as I am concerned. With regard to the different kinds of scab, I believe there are at least ■ three different kinds of scab amongst sheep. One attacks sheep even when they are in good condition ; another kind generally attacks poor sheep, and that is usually the most difficult to cure. I know of cases where people were determined to clean sheep which were in a poor condition, but the result was that they were obliged to stop it, because they were convinced it was caused by the state of the blood. On the other hand, I am of opinion that if such sheep were allowed time, until the veldt was in a better state and the sheep got into better condition, they might be cured by one or two dippings. Consequently, I am opposed to a general dipping act. As sheep have to be kraaled at about the lambing season, they are liable to be infected with scab just at the time when it is most unsuitable to dip them, whereas instead of dipping you might cure them by hand-dressing for a little while, until there is a more favourable time for dipping; but f you are under the act you will be obliged to dip whether it is suitable or not. Tha: is one of the principal reasons why this part of the country is opposed to the scab act. Under a scab act, in case of a trespass, a man would be Kable to be punished ; but as for the present act it is so strict that nobody will apply it, and consequently there is no law. 10119a. Mr. Francu.~\ Would it injure ewes in lamb if they were dipped three months before lambing ? — No. 10120. Then according to the present law you are always allowed three months' licence on the outbreak of scab, so you could always dip tliem three months before lambing ? — I must acknowledge that we have not got the act working here yet, so I may have been wrong in what I have said. 10121. Mr. Botha.'] Don't you think it is very dishonourable to take advantage of a pound act which you know will not be used against you ? — I must admit it is not honest, but still we are doing very well without a scab act. 10122. Mr. dti Toi't.l Are you in favour of an improved act? — Yes, I should be in favour of a scab act which should provide that stock should be dipped, simultaneously, at suitable times. I am in favour of dipping sheep when necessary, and also of having the supervision of an inspector, of tanks on public roads, and of having an inspector at hand so that you could get hold of him when you wanted hiiu. I don't think it is necessary to have any restrictions on the trekking of sheep, even although scabby, in our district. Mr. William Morkel Steyv examined. 10123. Chairman.~] Are you a delegate ? — Yes, I have farmed here for 24 years, and have 500 sheep. 10124. With which of the previous witnesses dc' you agree? — With Messrs. Cloete and Beurman, entirely. I have nothing to add. 10125. Dr. Smartt.'] Do you agree with Mr. Be irman when ho said he would have the act repealed even in districts where the majority ot the farmers were opposed to its repeal, your reason being because it costs the treasury too much ? — No, not on that point. Mr. Johannes Adrianus Vermack, ten., examined. 10126. Chairman.'] How long have you been farming here? — 32 years; I have 2,000 or 3,000 sheep. 10127. Do you wish to give evidence in favour of or against a scab act? — In favour of it. 10128. Have you had any experience with regard to the working of the scab act ? — Not the slightest ; it is not in force in our district. 10129. Do you think the act has done any good in this district ? — Yes, because many people found that they could not sell their sheep, and could not pass them through the pro- claimed area, unless they kept them clean. 10130. Has there been any difficulty experienced by the farmers here in getting their stock through the proclaimed area ? — Yes. 10131. Can you offer any suggestions by which this might be remedied in any way? — 434 Yes, by a general scab act. All farmers should experience the same, whether industrious or not, and it would have the same effect upon all. 10132. Are you acquainted with the north-wcstera districts of the Colony? — No. 10133. From your experience as a sheep farmer, do you think there would be more difficulty in stamping out the scab there than hero ? — I don't think there can be. I think the difficulty is the same wherever you go, and if we have a scab act tliroughout the Colony, the scab would be stamped out. ' I only know one kind of scab, and that is the scab caused by an insect, which can be kUlod by dipping. 10134. When the farmers in those districts state that, on account of droughts and the scarcity of water, it is impossible for them to have a scab act, you don't agree with them ? — Ton don't require a river of water for dipping. I have a dry farm, where I have to roll the water to my dip in casks, because the rain water is soft. I have a well hard by, but that is hard water, and is no good for dipping. 1013.5. Do you think the farmers generally in this division dip their sheep properly ? — No. 10136. Can }ou suggest any plan by which proper dipping' coidd be carried out ? — The only waj' to eradicate scab is simply to dip your sheep to-day and again within 12 or 14 days; but you must not go on dipping, as many of our farmers do, and say I have dipped 1,200 sheep before 12 o'clock, because under such circumstances the dip will have no effect on scabby places. If there is a spot, *I dress it before the sheep is dipped, and when they are being dipped we count sixty seconds, and it must be a hot bath. 10137. When a farmer has dipped his sheep without cleansing them, you think he can- not have dipped them properly ? — Yes. 10138. Should they then be dipped under inspection ?— Yes, I think many of the -far- mers are possibly ignorant of how they ought to dip. 10139. Mr. Francis.'] Would it be a good thing if Government supplied dips at cost price, free of railway carriage ? — I don't see much advantage in that, because our farmers don't buy them now, when they are so cheap ; but still it might be an inducement to them to dip if they could get the stuff cheaper. But I have not found any dip expensive. 10140. Are you of opinion that the opposition to a scab act in this district arises more from prejudice than from a fear that it would cause loss ? — I am perfectly sure it is from prejudice. 10141. Do you think that even those who are opposed to a scab act would soon discover that it was greatly to their benefit, if we had a proper act properly carried out ? — I am sure of it, and they would hold up their ten fingers for it. 10142. Mr. Botha.'] Have you known any case where a man has dipped his sheep in weak dip, and tells everyone that his dip was thoroughly strong and good ? — Yes. I have known a case where a man has asked me how it is that my sheep are clean, to which I have replied that I dip them properlj'. He then asked me how it is he cannot do his, as he put a whole roll of tobacco in a tank holding 400 gallons of water, yet it had no effect on them. I am now using the stones fi'om his dipping kraal to build my own, he was so dis- gusted with it. He honestly believed that he had done all that was necessary, and that dipping was no use. The roll of tobacco would be about 8 or 10 lbs. 10143. Are there many men of the same opinion as this man with regard to dipping .' — Yes, they put down losses to different diseases which are caused by scab. 10144. Have you as many losses amongst your sheep as these peoi)le complain of? — No ; I have had wire-worm amongst my sheeji, but I give them salt and cure them, and I have told my neighbours of it, many of whom have also used it and cured their sheep. 1014.5. Are you always willing to expla'n to others how you farm ? — Yes, I often show them how I dip and dress my sheep. 10146. Mr. (hi Toit.] Do you attribute all the losses to wire-worm? — No; the wire- worm, fluke and scab together carry off thousands of sheep, but scab is the chief cause. 10147. Have you cured your sheep of wire- worm by simply dosing them with pure salt? — Yes, Professor Brandford's prescription. 10148. Do you also dip youi- sheep in winter ? — Yes, at any time. 10148a. Ai'e you in favour of having inspectors in each ward, who shoiild be intelligent farmers ? — Yes, but I should like to see an independent inspector ; I don't care about seeing a farmer an inspecior : he may have too many relations and connections. I have seen enough of the road inspectors to care to have farmers as inspectors. 10149. If you were an inspector would you allow your neighbours to keep scabby sheep, even for your own interest ? — No, but I don't believe in having farmers for inspectors. Of course, we are all human, but I say let us have a man for inspector for whom his appointment is his bread and butter, and who can be removed if he does not do his work properly. . 101.50. Chairman.] Is there anything you^ltish to add? — If our farmers only knew what they are losing every year by the scab they would certainly hold up all their fingers for a scab act, and that as soon as possible. I have a camp which is kept for rams, and no sheep is allowed to go into it without being kept for a month in another camp, and for 13 years I have had no scab in this camp. 101 ol. Mr. dti Toit.] — Does not this camp adjoin another farm? — No, it is inside my farm. I should like to show you some wool which was dipped in .January, and some dipped in Sopteuibci', in which the colour has been spoiled by dipping. I weighed a few bales of undipped wool, and found them 67 lbs. heavier than the dipped, so I reckon the loss on my clip this year is over £100. [G. 1.— '94.] HHH 435 10152. 3fr. Francis.l You mean that if we could eradicate scab there would be no necessity for dipping, and consequently the wool would be always good? — Yes, and the poor man would see what a clip of wool is. Now he can hardly sweep together half a bale of wool out of 100 sheep. Mr. Thomas Pierce examined. 10153. Chairman.'] What are you ?— A farmer ; my farm adjoins the Molteno common- age. I have been two years in this district; and have 2,000 sheep. 10154. What evidence do you wish to give ? — I am in favour of a scab act. I have lived under the scab act in the Queen's Town division on a farm near Whittlesea, and having now lived here for two years I find that the lowest figure at which I can estimate my loss is £40 a year through living in a district where there is no scab act. 10155. Do you consider there is more scab in Albert than in Queen's Town ? — Yes. 10156. Some farmers in Qneen's Town say there is as much scab in that district now as there was five years ago, before the act was put in force. Do you think that statement is correct ? — I think they are entirely mistaken. With regard to the witness who said we have sufficient protection under the pound law, I wish to say that I think he is altogether mis- taken, for two reasons. The first and the greatest is that under the pound law you cannot stop a man from going along a road that leads through your farm. I came here from the Queen's Town district with 2,000 clean sheep, and after ten days, or less, a man came along a path across my farm with 25 rams whose wool was trailing on the ground with scab, and I could not stop him, and before three weeks my sheep were aU infected. The second reason is that, in order to make use of the pound law, you have to proceed personally against your neighbour, on whose ground your own sheep maj' occasionally go, and to proceed against him would create unfriendliness between you, and it is almost impossible to farm under such circumstances. 10157. From your knowledge of the farmers in the Queen's Town district, and here, do you think they dip properly ? — As regards my experience in Queen's Town I can only say that after I started there I dipped twice, and'held my sheep clean for two years, and my flocks only became reinfected through my buying strange sheep. In this district I know that farmers will not make the dip as strong as the dii-ections provide on the various patent dips whi(^h are sold. 10158. Do you think that when farmers cannot cleanse the sheep their flocks should be dipped under inspection ? — Yes, because I am convinced that any man can clean his sheep as far as the scab is concerned, although they may become reinfected from the sleeping places and kraals. 10159. Wlien you were living in the Queen's Town district, did you find that the inspector inspected your sheep at regular times ? — He did his best, but he had too much work. There ought certainly to be more inspectors, not chosen from the farmers, but men who are dependent upon it for a livelihood. lOlGO. Would it be better to have an in.spector for every field-cornetcy, paying them a less salary than at present ? — No, I think the district for each man would be too small, and the inspector should have a suflicient salary to live upon, say £250 a year, at least. 10161. Mr. Francis.'] If there are more inspectors, would it be advisable to have more supervision over them ? — -Certainly. With regard to one farmer inspecting another farmer'a flock, as we all wish to live on friendly terms with one another, it would not act, and if my fellow-farmers will think over it they will see that such a plan would never do at all. I am in favour of a compulsory simultaneous dipping act combined with a scab act. Mr. John Wesley King examined. 10162. Chairman.] You are living now in the division of Albert ? — Yes, for 18 months I have about 3,000 or 4,000 sheep. . 10163. Before you came here, were you living in a proclaimed area? — Yes, in Bedford. 10164. Do you find it more difficult to keep your sheep clean here than there 7 — I find a very great difficulty in keeping my sheep clean here, because I have neighbours aU round who have scabby sheep, some very scabby indeed. I only shear once a year, and I had dipped them twice and had them clean, when in June some of my neighbours' sheep mixed with mine again, and I was compelled to dip all those 3,000 sheep in the winter, which caused me a great loss in the weight of the wool when 1 came to shear in November. I took every precaution to dip them carefully, and lost no sheep by dipping, but they fell off in condition, and in consequence of the ewes becoming poor I lost a good many lambs. 10165. If the scab act were not general, do you think it would be advisable to protect a farmer like yourself by allowing you to prevent any scabby sheep passing over your farm along any main or other road ? — Yes, I want protection. 10166. Would you rather have a general scab act ? — Yes. I am satisfied that scab can cured, for when I came on to this farm of mine they said it was full of scab ; but I took the greatest care not to put my sheep into the old kraals until I had cleaned them out. I turned them into the mountains on a different part of the farm, and some sheep which I 436 bought when I came there, and which had scab, I dipped twice thorouglily, and cured, and then I brought them to my homestead. 10167. Do you think the fanners generally in this npiglibourliond dip their sheep properly ? — I do not. Some don't dip at all, and those who dip don't do it properly. If we have a general scab act, and any farmer cannot clean his sheep, the in-pcctor should see that he does do it. I think a three montlij' licence is too long, and I would snggest six weeks. 10168. Do you think it would be bettor to put farmers under a licence to keep scabby sheep or that, provided the}- could not be cured, they should be dipped under inspection ? — I would rather see them dipped under inspection. 10169. Do you agiee with the present .system of appointing inspectors .?— I think so. We have some very good, and some very inferior inspectors. -* 10170. Supposing an inspector were appointed to every field-cornetcy, would you advise that he should be a farmer holding a clean bill of health, and who kept his sheep clean, or that he should be an independent man '? — An independent man. 10171. You are aware that the plan you propose would be much more expensive"? — I don't think an inspector is required for eveiy field-cornetcy, but there might be two or thi-ee in a district, according to its size, and I should prefer that to having one in every field- cometcy. 10172. Mr. Francis.] Do you consider that the opposition to the act in this district arises more from the fact that the people do not understand the disease, and from prejudice, than from any real fear of loss or inconvenience resulting from the act ? — Yes, a good deal of it is from prejudice. 10173. If the scab act has been in force in this district, do you think you would probably not have had to dip your 3,000 sheep, and woidd not have suffered the consequent loss ? — Yes. 10174. Are you then of opinion that, by eradicating scab, you would not only be avoiding the loss caused by the scab itself, but also the loss caused by dipping ? — Yes. 10175. And you think it could be eradicated ? — Yes. 10176. Mr. Botha.] Do you believe that the infection of scab can be carried by wool and skins ? — Yes. 10177. Is it as dangerous as on the animal ? — To a certain extent. If you put a clean sheep into a truck where scabby skins have been, some insects would probably have been left behind, and they would infect the sheep. 10178. Br. SmarU.I Are you in favour of a compulsory simultaneous dipping act combined with a scab act? — Yes. 10179. If a chief inspector were placed in the chief town of each division, and farmers were appointed to be sub-inspectors in each field-cometcy, would that answer all require- ments ? — That would answer very well. 10180. Mr. du Toit.'] Do you dip your sheep in winter? — If they have scab, by all means ; and I think I am living on one of the coldest farms in the country. 10181. Still you admit some loss is sustained by dipping in the winter? — Yes, but I would rather have that loss than let the sheep go on with scab. The loss caused by dipping would be less than that by scab. 10182. Then you don't believe in hand-dressing lor some time? — No, I would rather dip the lot. I have had to hand-dress, but if I cannot stop the disease at once I would rather put all the sheep into the dip. You have to be continually hand-dressing them, and meanwhile your farm becomes more and more infected. After I have finished dipping, I take the remains of the dip and throw it all about the kraals. 10183. Is that the way in which you cleaned your kraals ? — I think if there should be any scab or insect there it might kill them. Once I put some sheep into a scabby kraal in bad weather, and scab afterwards broke out among them. 10184. You don't think six weeks would be too short for a first licence in winter? — I think that could be left to the judgment of the inspector, who could see the circum- stances. 1018.5. Are you in favour of a Government dip depot ? — If it could be done I think it would assist a good many, and encourage the farmers, and if we had a general act I should be in favour of it. 10186. Should the Government erect dipping tanks along the main roads? — I think it would be a very good plan, but if wo had a general scab act we should not have any scabby sheep travelling along the roads, so I don't see why we should be put to that expense. 10187. Do you think stock should be driven to a pound without being fijst dipped at t he owner's expense ?- — No, thej' should be dipped fir.st. 10188. Mr. Frmicis.] Do you think it would be absolutely essential if a general act were put in force, that it should first come into operation in the summer ? — Yes, in the spring. Mr. Jan Willem Aucamp examined. 10189. Chairman.'] How long have you been farming here ? — For twenty years ; I havQ 800 sheep. 10190, What evidence do you wish to give? — lam opposed to the scab act. lam 437 living on the main road, but travelling flocks liavo never done me any harm. I dip, and try to eradieato scab, but I cannot, and that is without any act, so I see that it cannot be done. I have had slioep passing my place dippi^d there, but when they get into the proolaioied area they have had to be dipped again. I take 32 packets of a patent dip to 400 gallons of water, and within 14 days I put 28 packets into the same quantity of water and dip them a second time. During three months I dipped four times, twice with a patent dip, then in lime and sulphur, and then agiin in a patent dip, the last time being in July, and they were cured. AYhou summer came I sheared them, and dijiped again, in December, and they still had scab. 10191. Did you measure the water iu your tank ? — It is made to hold 400 gallons. It is 15 fuet long, 4 feet 6 inches deep, 14 inches wide at the bottom, and 20 inches at the top. I make the dip I refer to in a 400 gallon iron tank, throw it into the dipping hole, and add water as required. 10102. Are 3'ou aware that your dipping tank holds between 700 and 800 gallons of water ? — I reckon by the number of sheep I dip, not by the number of gallons of water. 10193. How long do you keep the sheep in the water.? — About half a minute, or a minute, sometimes loss. 10194. Are you aware that, to clean sheep, it is necessary they should be kept in the water for a full minute ? — No, I consider that half a minute is qiiite enough. 1019-5. Are you not aware that the instructions in the patent dip say that the sheep must be kept in the water for not less than one minute ? — I have not looked at it. 10196. Still, you say that you dip them ^jroperly according to the directions ? — I think I dip them properly. 10197. But you don't cure them? — Sometimes I do. 1C198. How long do they remain clean ? — About a month or two months after dipping there are little spots again. 10199. Then as a matter of fact, when you dip them you do cure them for a time of scab ? — Sometimes, but not always. 10200. If you dipped those sheep according to the directions on the packets of patent dip, don't you think you would cure them for a much longer time ? — Not if I kept them in half-an-hour. 10201. Then how is it that other men can clean their sheep ? — I have not seen it yet. 10202. We have it on evidence all over the Colony that the sheep are cured in that way ? — I cannot believe that. ] 0203. Then you don't believe that the district of Komgha is clean '?— No, I believe that scab is caused by poverty. I have not seen an insect. 10204. Mr. Francis.'] If poverty causes scab, it cannot be cured by dipping? — No, it cannot. 10205. Then how do you account for it that sometimes when you dip your sheep, you cure them ? — It cures them sometimes, when they are not very poor, but if they are very poor you kiU them. 10206. If you don't think that dipping will clean scab, why do you dip sheep at all ? — I dipped becaiise I wanted to try and get my wool good. 10207. Do you think the wool is improved by dipping the sheep? — No, it makes it worse. 10208. You say you dip your sheep to improve the wool, and yet you say that dipping the sheep injures the wool. How am I to imderstand you? — [No reply]. Mr. Jan Diederich Aucamp examined. 10209. Chairman.] How long have you farmed here ? — Thirty years. I have 2,500 sheep. 10210. Do you come forward to give evidence in regard to the scab act ? — Yes. I am opposed to the act because I do as much now to keep my sheep clean as I could do under the act. I dip, and have found that one dijiping in a year sometimes helps as much as three dippings in a month. 10211. Have you anj' idea how your sheep become reinfected ? — I believe it is spon- taneous. Scab broke out 14 days after I put them into the camp. 10212. Don't you know that is the time it generally takes to hatch out the egg? — No, because those tliat remained outside were clean, and those in the camp got scab. 10213. Dr. Smarit.] Do j-ou think every farmer in the district does his best to keep down scab ? — No ; everyone has not an opjiortunity of doing so. 10214. Are there farmers in this district who you know never dip their sheep ? — There is one man, but even lie dipped a month ago. 10215. Why did he dip ? — Because his sheep had scab, and his son had dipped previ- ously at my place and fuuud it cured the scab, so he came. 10216. Consequently, if dipping is so efficacious, and scab is contagious, would it not bo lidvisable to have some measure to oblige people of that class to dip their sheep.' — I should like a Law to make a careless man dip his sheep, but why should the careful man suffer with him? 10217. Then you wish the act for your neighboui', but not for yourself .'' — Yes, for the lazy man. 438 Mr. Paul Rorich examined. 10218. Chairman.'] Are you farming in this district? — I am both a farmer and a general merchant. I have been farming for twenty years, and have 2,000 or 3,000 sheep, but about eight months ago I gave it u^i, although I still have my farm and a few sheep. i. v 10219. I suppose you gave up your farm because you found that merchandise paid better?— No, but becanae I found that I could not farm fairly and squarely on account of the scab act not being in foiL>, and the labour question not Iseing as it should be. 10220. Do you think it would be advisable in the interests of the fanners to extend the provisions of the scab act throughout the Colony ?— Most decidedly. 10221. Do the farmers generally in this district dip properly ?— For my part, 1 must say yea ; but as I hold that scab is contagious, I think it always comes again through these trekkers coming from other parts with scabby sheep. I know for certain that a good many farmers in our district, some of whom I could name, who ara very good farmers, are continually obliged to dip out of season simply because of these trekkers coming from unproclaimed areas with scabby sheep. _ It is therefore, most desirable that the act should be proclaimed throughout the country, in order to protect these clean farmers. People may pooh-pooh it, but it is undoubtedly a known fact that although our camps are fenced with wii-e, yet scabby sheep belonging- to these trekkers pass along outside the camp, and rub against the fence, and clean sheep inside rub against them. This at once e.xplains how it is that the sheep in the camp get reinfected. Then again, speaking as a merchant, it is desirable that we should have the act. This season I have bought about as much wool and skins as any other merchant in Molteno, and I found there was a difference in price of fidly 30 to 40 per cent, in scabby wool. Only this morning I had my account sales of skins, and although I hardly care to mention what I got for them, I will do it. I got 4|d. for sound skins and oM. for scabby ones, thus making about 25 per cent, difference ; and that clearly shows that if all our sheep were clean the farmers would have the benefit of it. As a matter of fact, I cannot but make a vast difference between good and scabby skins. Mr. Eendrick Jacohus Greyvenstein examined. 10222. Chairman.'] How long have you been farming here ? — About 35 years. T had 3,000 sheep, but now have 1,400. I am opposed to the scab act because my 3,000 sheep died down to 200, but not from scab. That was 12 j'ears ago. 10223. Has there been much scab in j-oui- flocks during the last two or three years .■' — My sheep are divided into two Socks, one I dip and the other I don't, but during the last two or three years many jieople in the Molteno district have come to buy slaughter stock from me out of the flock that was not dipped. 10224. What was the flock you did not dip ? — Slaughter stock, as good as any in the district. 10225. And the others ? — They were ewes. 10226. Mr. Francis.] Were they not good because they were free of scab ? — If they had had scab, they would not have been in such good condition. 10227. Dr. Smartt.] I suppose you never dipped those sheep during the last two or three years ? — No. 10228. Consequently, if the undipped sheep always remained in better condition than the dipped sheep, why did you, against your better judgment, continue dipping ? — T wanted to be convinced whether dipping helped or not. It is the custom to dip sheep if they have scab, but it did not help me sufficiently to justify a scab act, because sometimes you cannot cure them. Mr. Da?iiel Ravienheimer examined. 10229. Chairman.] How long have you farmed here ? — Thirty-five years. I had 2,000 sheep, but they have all died from hard water and fluke, and now I am farming with a small flock on my son's farm. Altogether we have 2,000 sheep and goats. 10230. Do you wish to give evidence ? — Yes. I am against the act. Formerly we did not shear every six months, but yearly, and did not know about scab, and our wool was ex- cellent. Then came six-monthly shearing, and it appears to me that has been the cause of the spread of scab. I dipped some goats and entirely cured them, and I think stock can be cured by dipping. All the farmers dip in my part, and thoy would not do it if it did not help. The farms are becoming so overcrowded by the increased division that thej' are con- sequently more overstocked. This is as good a district for horses, cattle and sheep as there is in any part of the world, luit it is getting overstocked. 10231. If your son's sheep got scab, would he dip them or not ? — He would dip them at ouce. He even asks me wlij' I don't dip my goats when they get scab, but we old farmers don't thoroughly understand it. 10232. Dr. Smart/.] Do you consider it necessary to have some measure to compel care- 439 less fanners to do their best to keep their flocks clean, if they are a source of danger to their neighbours ? — Yes, it is necessary to do something, but I am afraid of a stringent act. We have always lived very peaceably together Iiere, and we are afraid of an act of this kind. Mr. Card Zachwrias Preiorius examined. 10233. Chairman.^ How long have you L' en living here? — Eight months in this dis- trict ; I have 1,200 sheep. 10234. Are you in favour of or against the act ? — Entirely against it, because of the difficulty of moving my sheep. I move them from one place to another, and thun scab breaks out, and I have to dip them before they can be moved. All the time I stayed in the district of Tarka I could not see tJiat there was any improvement in the sheep. 10235. Mr. Francis.] Then do you think the act makes the scab worse?— Sometimes it appears to be worse, but I cannot say it is due alone to the operation of the act. Burghersdorp, Ihursday, 2nd February, 1893. PRESENT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. i Dr. Smartt. ,, Du ToiT. I Mr. Francis. Mr. Johannes Pansegremv examined. 10236. Chairman.'] I understand you have been delegated to give evidence on behalf of the district meeting of the Afrikander Bond ? — Yes. I have farmed here for twenty years on my own account, and have about 1,300 sheep and goats. 10237. Have you come to give evidence for or against the act ? — Against it. My reasons are, first, the inconvenience whicli is caused on account of the difficulty with labour. I am only speaking of this district. Our great difficulty here is that the natives will not hire themselves for more than six months, so that by the time a servant becomes useful he leaves, and you must begin again and teach another. The health of a flock of sheep depends principally upon the herd, and bad herding is often the cause of scab. By bad herding I mean taking the sheep to the water at the wrong times ; this causes ill-health and brings on scab, I can always detect the cause to be ill-treatment whenever sheep get scabby, and if the master is particular, and tries to prevent these irregularities and bad herding, he gets no herds, since, by reason of the many locations, these people are quite iodependent. Then, under the present act, if a flock gets scabby the owner is allowed thi ee months in which to clean them, and although only one sheep has a small spot of scab tlie whole flock is quaran- tined ; and dtu-ing that three months no sheep are allowed to be removed, even in case of great scarcity of water, except on the certificate of an inspector. Another thing ia that be- fore the locusts appeared the whole country was covered with steelcgras, which caused scab, and the irritation produced bj' the steekgras is also declared by the inspectors to be scab. In many cases the inspectors are not sufficiently acquainted with the farmers and the circum- stances of the district to which they are appointed. If the scab act is proclaimed here, and my neighbour's scabb}' sheep trespass on my land, I have not only the I'ight to impound them, but can bring him up for damages with a fine to the amount of £20, and I think that is too severe, because scab is not so very dangerous and infectious as to necessitate such extreme measures, and I cannot see why the Government of the country should interest itself so much in the matter. The question has already been twice brought up in the divisional council here, whether the act should be pro- claimed in Albert, but the council and the district decided against it by a large majority. The fanners in Albert will voluntarily carry out sucli improvements as wo consider neces- sary, but we value our liberty highly, and want no interference from outside. For my own ward I can declare that, with very few exceptions, everybody is trying his best to eradicate scab ; and I know by experience that too frequent dipping is injurious to the sheep. The law insists upon dipping, but in many cases hand dressing is bettor than dipping, and the healthy state of the sheep generally depends more on good and sufficient grazing. We aro afraid to put a yoke on our own necks by allowing the scab act to be applied to this district, and we prefer liberty to good treatment, like a caged bird. If it were left entirely in the hands of the divisional council to apply the law, amending it in such a way as they might tliink fit, it might be an improvement on the present system. Another objection is that a good many of the people who are living amongst us are too poor to provide what is neces- sary for dipping purposes, and under the present act there is no iirovision that Government should assist. Scab is a dispensation of Providence, and will never be stamped out altogether. I know of districts, even in European countries, where scab continually re- appears. I don't believe that scab is caused by an insect, and that the insect is strong enough to transplant the disease from one animal to another ; it is so delicate that the 440 moment you remove it from the skin of the sheep it dies. Scab is caused by fever, and the fever may be infectious, but such infection can only take place when sheep are sleeping iu the same place together, but not when they are feeding in the open veldt. 10238. You say scab is not an insect, but is spontaneous? — I say the insect does not cause the infection. 10239. Do you say that if they are put into old kraals they will be infected with in- fected sheep ? — Yes. 10240. When your sheep become infected in that way, do you dip them, or hand dress them '? — I dip them. 10241. I understand that you keep your sheep clean by hand dressing?— Not always, but generally. 10242. Do most of the farmers in your neighbourhood keep their sheep clean ? — Yes. 10243. Do they dip them regularly ? — They mostly hand dress, but in very bad cases they dip. 10244. Have most of the farmers in the Albert district dipping tanks on their places in order to dip when the sheep become very bad ? — I cannot say most of them, but some have. 10245. Are there any farmers in this district who don't keep their sheep clean ? — I can- not say that all the farmers in my ward keep their sheejj clean, but iu most cases they try to do so, and if the sheep are very bad they dress or dip them. 10246. If you had a neighbour who let his sheep run on scabby, and did not interfere with the disease at all, what would you recommend should be done ? — -I would suggest, in accordance with the resolution arrived at by the Bond here, that such people should be spoken to, and convinc -d of the folly and the bad effect it has upon their own interests, so as to try and persuade them to do better. 10247. If after you have done that they stiU persist in allowing their sheep to go in the same condition, what would you do ? — We never had such a case, but if they did, the scab act should be held up as a great bugbear, and that would perhaps frighten them into dipping. 10248. Then you thiuk the fact that the scab act is in force in the neighbouring district has done some good to the district of Albert ? — As far as I am concerned I can say that the Bond influence has done good in that respect, but I don't say that the scab act has. 10249. Do the farmers in the Albert district lose wool every year by scab ? — Yes. 10250. If scab could be altogether stamped out of the Colony, do you think the farmers would be able to farm much more profitably ? — I cannot say that, because there are many other reasons* which cause losses ; but if scab could be eradicated it would be to the benefit of the sheep farmer. 10251. Would it be a good thing if Government supplied farmers with dips at cost price, free of railway carriage .'' — As far as that goes, it might be a good thing. It would be an inducement to poor farmers to clean their sheep. 10252. If the small farmers could purchase dip at a much cheaper rate, do you think there would be much less scab in this district ? — That is my opinion. I know of men who often wish to do something, but have not the means. 10253. Then there are many poor farmers in this district who don't dip their sheep properly because they have not the means ? — Often, but not alwajs. Their circumstances get into such a state that it is impossible for them. 10254. Have you any knowledge of how inspectors are appointed, or how the scab act is worked ? — I understood that people in Sterkstroom had to trek to Cala and other places on account of the drought, but the inspector was not to be found. 10255. Would it meet the difficulty if inspectors were appointed in each field-cornetcy ? — No. If the matter were left in the hands of the divisional councU there might be an improvement. 10256. Have you any experience of tanning skins? — Yes. 10257. Have you found any difference between tanning a scabby and a clean skin ? — There is no difference. 10258. A scabby skin makes just as good leather as a good one ? — Yes. 10259. 3Ir. Francis.^ When you dip your sheep, do you cure the scab ? — Not always. 10260. Will you describe how you dip ? — For 800 sheep I have 4 gallons of tobacco extract ; I don't always put the same quantity of water with it, but I go by the colour. 10261. Do you dip them twice withiu 14 days .? — Only once. I never have occasion to dip twice. 10262. Then, when you dip once with tobacco extract, do you cm-e the scab ? — Always. 10263. Then are your sheep always clean? — Generally. 10264. If you can clean your sheep by dipping them in tobacco extract, should not everybody else cure theirs by dipping them once ? — I cannot say that, because all fanners have-not the same advantages as I have iu regard to veldt. 10265. You thiuk it would do good if the administration of the act were left in the hands of the divisional council ? — In case it must come to a general scab act, then I must suggest, in preference to that, that the divisional councils should make certain niles and regulations in each district. 10266. Don't }'ou think it would be good to make the rule, that in a certain month in the summer all farmers should dip their sheep ? — All the scabby sheep. 10267. Do you know that according to the scab act, no sheep is accounted to be affected with scab unless the scab insect is fouad upon it? — No. 441 10268. Then you made a mistake in what you said about steekgras causing scab? — Then I think the law is no good, because there are so many kinds ot scab. 10269. D) yoii know that the old pound ordinance gave power to a farmer to demand damages without any legal action for scabby sheep trespassing? — I kao\v that, but I don't approve of it. 10270. Mr. Botha.'] Do you know any single farmer here who keeps his sheep clean? — I have heard there are some. 10271. Do you know of any cases of rams being kept clean ? — Yes, rams are generally kept clean. 10272. Is it not a fact that rams are more liable to scab than other sheep? — No, they are less liable. 10273. Do you know that Mr. Vermaak and Mr. du Plessis, M.L.A., are both of them in favour of a scab act, .and believe that scab can bo cured ? — I know that they are in favour of a scab act. Mr. du Plessis has often spoken to us about the scab act, but he never succeeded in con\'ineing us of its efficacy. 10274. Are there any other farmers in the district in favour of a scab act ? — As far as I know there are only a few. I dou't think one-tliird of them are in favour of it. 10275. Br. Smarit.] According to your own evidence, it is advisable to have legislation compelling farmers to dip scabby sheep in summer. Consequently, I presume you wish to alter your first answer that there should be no scab act of any sort ? — I don't say that nothing should be done, but at the same time 1 dou't advocate a law. I do say, however, that circumstances might arise which would make it necessary to do something. 10276. Is it advisable that euperintendents of dipping should be appointed who would instruct the farmers liow to dip their sheep properly ? — I must decline to answer that ques- tion. 10277. If scab is due, as you say, to a visitation of Providence, how is it that you con- sider it so necessary to dip and hand dress the sheep ? — It does not follow that you should do nothing, because I take advice when I get sick. 10278. Mr. du Toit.~\ If the act should be so a'tered that every inspector is bound to have a magnifying glass with him, and to show the farmer the insect on the skin of tJie sheep which he declares to be scabby, would your objections with regard to the danger of mistaking different diseases for scab be removed ? — Yes, that would remove one difficulty. 10279. If your flocks were clean, would you be satisfied if your neighbour's scabby sheep got mixed with yours, and they slejjt together ? — No. I have spoken about that. 10280. Would you like a measure to protect you in that respect ? — If the act had been left in the hands of the divisional councils from the beginning, I think the people would have become reconciled to it by this time to a much greater extent, and it would have been proclaimed over a much larger area. Mr. Gert Cornelius Strydom examined. 10281. Chairman.] Are you a delegate from the Afrikander Bondin this district? — Yes, I have farmed here for 18 j'ears, and have 1,200 small stock. 10282. Do you agree with Mr. Pansegreuw ?— Not altogether, but I agree with him that an inspector should not bo allowed to order a farmer to dip, but even then I should be opposed to the act. I disagree with him that if it was left to the divisional council it would give anj' more satisfaction than it does at present. We should be Just as much opposed to it then as we are now. 10283. Mr. Francis.] Don't you think it would be a good thing if we could eradicate scab from our sheep ? — Yes, but it is impossible. 10284. How were you appointed a delegate to represent the views of the Afrikander Bond ? — I was only appointed to come and give my evidence before the Commission. 10285. Then there were no instructions given to you as to what evidence you were to give ? — 1 was just to exjiress my opinion, because thej' knew that I agreed with them. 10286. At that meeting, do you believe there were some jJresent who were in favour of an act ? — ^^'e di-^l not discuss the advisibility of a scab act at that meeting, and I don't know whether anybody was present who was iu favour of it. 10287. Chairman.] Are you personally opposed to the scab act, or not? — If the act were improved, and I had an opportunity to see it, I might be in favour of it. 10288. Then do you think it is absolutely necessary that there should be some law to protect the farmer who keeps his sheep clean ? — No. Mr. Gert Abraham Ninaher examined. 10289. Chairman.] Are you also a delegate ? — Yes, I represent ward No. 3. I have farmed here for twenty-one years, and have 1,000 sheep. 10290. Do you ag^eewith Mr. Pansegreuw ?— Only that I am more strongly opposed to any kind of scab act, and the pre^•ious witnesses appear to be in favour of some kind of legislation. In my ward we all dip our sheep, and keep them clean. 10291. .Do they keep their sheep clean in the other wards ? — I cannot say ; I don't know that. 442 10292. Br. Smarit.'] If everybody ia your ward dips regularly, and keeps his sheep D, why should you be afraid of an act ? — I don't want an act. Jlr. Theunis Pelzer examined. 10293. Chairman.] Are you a delegate ? — Yes. I have farmed in this district for about forty years, and have .5,000 sheep. 10294. Do you agree with Mr. Pansegreuw '? — No. I appear for ward No. 1, which also contains the village, and personally I am in favour of an amended scab act. Nobody has spoken to me about this matter. If the administration of the law were left in the hands of the divisional councils, they should have the right to make such alterations in it as they might consider were necessary to make it suitable to the different divisions. I think the present act puts too much power in the hands of the inspector, and that the farmer is left too much in his power in slight cases of scab, dipping being sometimes enforced at most incon- venient times, such as too near the shearing time ; but I think three months is sufficient time in which to clean sheep, and I don't consider the provisions with regard to quarantining are too stringent. I must admit that sometimes the scab gets the upper hand. I have several flocks of sheep, and being on a farm where the veldt is very inconveniently situated, it is not always accessible, so that I cannot always keep the sheep clean. 1029.5. Mr. Botha.] Do you know whether those farmers who are careful with their sheep are afraid of the scab act ? — No. 10296. Mr. di( Toit.] Why cannot you always keep your sheep clean? — I think I am not vigilant enough, and also that the sheep sometimes get infected from the old sleeping places. 10297. If you were more vigilant, and had more help, do you think, if Government established dip depots, that you could stamp out the disease ? — If I could get the farm clean I could clean the sheep on it, and it would help one to clean the farm if I could get the dip cheaper. 10298. Is scab contagious ? — Yes. 10299. Br. Smartt.'] From your experience of the district of Albert, do you think all the farmers do their best to keep scab in check ? — No. 10300. Conser^uently, yoiu- experience as a farmer places you in a position absolutely to contradict the evidence given by the other three witnesses in that respect ? — Yes. Mr. Joteph Adriaan Jaeolus Coetzee examined. 10301. Chairman.] How long have you been farming here.? — Forty-seven years. I have 7,000 sheep. 10302. Do yon wish to give evidence before the Commission? — Yes. I have never doctored my sheep in my life, therefore I don't see the necessity of a law. When my sheep are scabby they are the same as my neighbours' ; I don't at all believe that scab is conta- gious, and I should think nothing of it if two or three hundred scabby sheep mixed with my healthy flocks. I get enough wool from my sheep, and have enough money in my house, and I need not trouble myself about the small patches caused by scab. I don't believe it is possible to stamp scab out. When bad times set in the sheep get scabby, and when people overstock small farms it also causes scab, but when it rains the scabby slieep recover by themselves. All my neighbours know that, notwithstanding I never doctor my sheep, ihey always lamb in January, February and March, and as it is they are beginning to lamb already. 10303. In which ward do you Uve ? — No. 4. 10304. Are all the sheep in that ward clean ? — No. Last year some eighty rams ran on my place, some of mine and some of my neighbour's, and though I could see the dipping stuff on some of my neighbour's they were just as scabby as mine, which were never dipped. 10305. Supposing instead of 7,000 you had only 1 ,000 sheep, would you then get enough wool, or would it be better if you could get more ? — Yes, because I have my cattle too, and I think anybody who farms well would get enough. 10306. Do you wish to add anything ? — I only believe in a blessing from Providence ; 1 don't believe in individual efforts. I believe in keeping the commandments and the law, and the blessing will follow. Mr. Albert Eruger examined. 10307. Chairman.'] Are you a delegate ? — Yes, from the branch of the Afrikander Bond in ward No. 3. I have farmed for ten years, and together with my father have 1,700 sheep. 10308. Do you wish to give evidence for or against the scab act ?— For it. 10309. Are all the sheep in your ward free of scab ? — No, I don't think a single flock is quite free, perhaps with a few exceptions. 10310. It has been stated this morning that your ward is free of scab, and that every man dips and cleans his sheep, and that therefore no law is necessary? — It is not correct, and a scab act is very necessary, to compel everyone to dip when requisite. [G. 1.— '94.] m 443 1031 1 . Do you think the farmers in ward No. 3 are in a position to dip their sheep ? — Certainly, because it pays for itself. 10312. Would it assist in stam-^ing out scab if Government supplied the farmers with dip at a rhcajior rate '? — Of course it would be a groat belj), but independoutly of that I think overj' fai-mer can keep his sheep clean. I must, however, honestly admit that the necessary trouble has not been taken to keep them clean. The farmers don't dip properly, and there is a great proportion, in fact, one-half, who don't dip at all. I have six neigh- bours, and only three of them dip, and only two out of the six have dips. 10313. Do the two who have dips dip properly } — No. 10314. Would it be advisable that sheep should be dipped under inspection? — I think so. 10315. Have you any idea of the working of the scab act } — Yes, from what I read in the AgricuUural Jojirnal, and from other sources of information. 10316. Do you think the present scab act is too stringent or too lenient ? — I think it is too lenient. 10317. Could you offer any suggestions for its amendment ? — I am not in a position to do that, because I am not under the act, but I think if we are to have an act at all it should be a stringent one, or it will not help. 10318. M)-. J^rancis.^ Can you always clean your sheep by dipping them properly .' — Yes. 10319. How long would it take you to clean them ? — They generally get clean in two dippings. It takes a month. 10320. Then you don't think it would be necessary to give a man three months to clean his sheep ? — As a rule, farmers have other work to do besides attending to their sheep, and therefore I think they might have three months. 10321. Would it be advisable that any new act should be commenced with a simulta- neous dipping ? — That would be one of the best clauses in the act. If two or three farmers live on the same place and don't dip at the same time, one gets infected from the other, and that is the case with most farms. 10322. Do you think a great part of the opposition to a scab act in this district arises from the fact that many of the people don't understand the disease or the means of curing it? — Certainly ; they are prejudiced against the act. 10323. If there were a good scab act in this disti-ict, do you think the flocks would be cleaner, and that it would be a great benefit to the farmers ? — Yes. 10324. Dr. Smartt.'\ You are convinced that you are handicapped in your farming without some protection from your careless neighbours ? — Yes. 1032.Si Are there other members of the Bond in other wards besides your own, that you know of, who are in favour of a scab act? — Certainly. We had a meeting at which 60 persons attended, who wore members of the Bond, and out of that number 20 were in favour of the scab act. 10326. Then the statement made by four of the delegates this morning, that they represented the unanimous opinion of the Bond, is not correct ? — Not at aU. 10327. Mr. du Toi't.^ Do you keep your sheep clean f — Not regularly, because some of my neighbours are very careless. They are mostly intimate friends of mine and my father, and their sheep often mix with ours, and I think that is the reason. 10328. You are convinced that scab is contagious ? — Yes, that is quite certain. 10329. Chairman.'] Is there anything you wish to add ? — I believe that many people who pretend to be opposed to the scab act are not reaUy so, but being leading men in the district, and dependent upon the sujiport they receive from others, they would not get into office if they declared themselves in favour of the act. It is even impossible to become an elder of the church if you are in favour of the act, or a member of a divisional council, or of Parliament; and they are afraid of losing their position if they should say they are' in favour of the act. I may say that Messrs Vermaak, du Plessis, M.L A., and Smidt, whose farms are enclosed, and who dip regularly, have always been in favour of the act. Mr. Johannes van Aswegen examined. 10330 Chairman^] How long have you been farming here? — For 30 years. I have 2,000 sheep. 10331. Do you wish to give evidence? — Yes. I am opjwsed to the jiresent scab act on some points. In the first place, when there is only one sheep infected, the whole flock is considered to be infected, and when a farmer comes to sell his wool the merchant says that he sees by the papers all the farmers' sheep have been infected; and I think that if only one or two sheep are infected they should be taken out of the flock, and the inspector should give instriictions for the flock to be dipjied at a certain time without i)utting them aU under quarantine, and if there is afterwards no scab among that flock the}- should not be put under quarantine at aU. I consider that if sheep are once trucked for the butcher they should be allowed to go through to their destination, even although scab should break out amongst them on the way, in which case proceedings should be taken against the owner upon the arrival of the animals at their destination. I had a ram sent up by rail, and he was kept four days without food in the trucks, and it was twelve months before he properly recovered; that is cruelty to animals. I object to the present act because a man living in 444 an unproclaimed area, and adjoining a proclaimed area, is placed in a difficult position with his neighbour, and is liable to fines on one side but not on the other. For that reason, if we must have an act, I should like it to be general throughout the country. But we must have an act of some kind. 10332. 3fr. Bolhit.'] Do you think it is necessary to dip poor sheep more than fat ones, as they are more liable to scab ? — They must be dipped, but what I fear is that we should be forced to dip our sheep, but shall be unable to cure them ; and that is why the farmers are afraid of the act. 10333. We hear that }-ou and others fear that scab cannot be altogether stamped out, and that in spite of its being cured it will continually reappear. If that should bo the case, and scab cannot be eradicated, would that be a sufficient reason to have no scab act, or would it not be a reason for having an act, and to endeavour by continual dipping to keep the scab down ? — Yes, they should be dipped. 10334. Don't you think a farmer loses by dipping ? — No. 10335. Do you think the owner gains more than he loses? — Except in some instances. 10336. How do you think inspectors should be ajipointed ? — I cannot give a good answer to that question ; I woiild leave it to the Government. 10337. Do all the farmers in this district do their best to clean their sheep } — No, not even I. 10338. If there were a scab act, would you do better? — Yes. The farmers would grumble, but they would dip their sheep better. 10339. Chairman.'] Do you wish to add anything ? — I thiak it would be a very good thing if Government would supply the dip at cost price. 10340. Br. Sma'tt.] Do the majority of the farmers in this district dip properly, or thoroughly understand how to do it ? — I think most of them understand how to mix the dip, and how to dip the sheep, but not all. 10341. "Would it be advisable to have stock dipped under inspection? — Certainly. 10342. "Would the farmers themselves acc^uiesce in such a thing ? — I think so. 10343. If at the expiration of the licence to clean sheep they were found to be still infected with scab, would it not then be better to have them dipped under inspection, than to issue a new licence to that man and charge him for the same ? — I think so. Mr. Jan Friederick Coeti.ee examined. 10344. Chairman.] How long have you been farming here? — About thirty years. I have 2,600 sheep. 10345. Do you agree with Mr. Aswegen ? — No. I don't think it is necessary to inter- fere with the liberty of the sheep fai-mers in the district of Albert by means of a scab act which might lead to the injury of my sheep. The farmers can be safely left to look after their own interests, according to their own exjjerience, and I am sorry to think that there is any chanc* of an act being put in force here which should compel me to dip my sheep, whereas I might be convinced that it was not the right time, and that the dipping might perhaps be Siifely left until a fortnight later. 10346. If scab broke out among your sheep, what would you do with them? — If it broke out amongst ewes in lamb thoy should not be dipped, but in such cases I damp the kraals with water, and b}' putting the sheep in the damp kraals they get free of the effects of scab. lu the case of young slieep, I catch them out and turn them into an enclosed cump by themselves, and in that way they recover in a month or a month and a half. That is before they are shorn. There was a time when, by the advice of other people, I dipped, and continued to do so for two years ; but the result was that at the end of that time I had 600 sheep less than at the beginning. I will not say whether or not this was the result of dipping, but I leave it to the Commission to judge for themselves. 10347. Mr. Botha.] "Will you tell us how you dipped ? — I used one gallon of tobacco extract for 400 shorn sheep. I don't measure the water, but I count the sheep that are to be dipped. 10348. Do you dip the sheep twice ? — No, only once. 16349. At what time in the morning did you Isegin to dip ? — About 8 o'clock. 10350. And how many sheep did you dip in a day } — From 8 to 11 a.m. I have dipped 1,000 sheep. 10351. How many sheep coidd you put in the dip at the same time ? — I put them in as fast as they can go, and I let them out in the same way. I prefer my liberty, and to be able to do as I Uke, above all law or custom, and what I wish for myself I also wish for others. 10352. Chairman.] Do you think someone should be appointed to assist the farmers, and show them how to dip their sheep ? — I don't want to be interfered with in any way. If I want assistance, I will find it without the help of any law or Commission. 10353. Br. Smartt.] Do you think scab is contagious? — No. 10354. Do you think the Government are bound to protect your life, your interests and yoiir property ? — Yes. 10365. Consequently the Government are also responsible for the protection of the nterests of careful farmers ? — Yes. lit 2 445 10356. Mr. BoiM?^ If scab is not contagious, why do you catch out scabby sheep from amongst the others ? — Simply because they are too weak to follow the flock to the water place. 10357. Then you acknowledge that scab weakens the sheep? — I don't know that, but a poor sheep gets scab. 10358. Have you never seen a fat sheep with scab ? — Yes, Mr, Johannes Daniel Petrwt van der Heever examined. 10359. Cliairmani\ How long have you farmed here? — 20 years, but I don't farm now, and have no sheep. Formerly, I kept about 1,300. I am the chairman of the branch of the Afrikander Bond in ward No. 3. 10360. What do you wish to say? — Last year I held a meeting of the Bond in ward No. 3 at which 76 were present, and Mr. Kruger moved in favour of the act, and pleaded on behalf of it, but he could not persuade or convince them that it woidd be a good thing. I counted the votes, and there were only 14 in favour of tlie act. There are about 87 mem- bers of the Bond living in that ward, and I think there is only one of them without a dipping tank on his place. They do the best they possibly can to keep the sheep clean. 10361. Are you opposed to the scab act? — Yes, to the present act. 10362. Are you opposed to any act? — I am not in a position to answer that question at present. 10363. Do you think something is absolutely necessary? — I cannot say. lam not sufficiently acquainted with the act to answer that question. 10364. Mr. Botha.^ Since when have the people in your ward done their best to stamp out the disease ? — The last three years, when they have dipped them twice in fourteen days. 10365. How was it that they did not dip before ? — Because they were not as wise as they are now. 10366. Do you think that the act which is in force on the other side of the mountains made those people so wise that if it were put in force here it would make these people wiser than they are now ? — No, I think the people are alive to their own interests. 10367. Do you think all the people in the district of Albert dip their sheep properly? — I cannot say what they do in the whole of the district, but I do think they dip properly in my ward. 10368. Do you think Mr. Coetzee, the previous witness, dips his sheep properly? — No. 10369. Can you say that the people in your ward, whom you know so well, measure the water properly, and make the dip as it should be done, or do they make it according to the number of sheep ? — I cannot speak for every one, but as far as I know they use the dip according to the directions on the packets. It is impossible for me to answer that, but since I have heard Mr. Coetzee's evidence, I think a great many must dip in the same way as he dues. 10370. Dr. Smartt.^ Can you state as an absolute fact that nearly all the farmers in your ward have dips on their farms, and dip properly ? — As far as I am informed, I have been told they all have dips except one. 10371. If the Commission were to make a farm to farm inspection, do you think they would find that to be the case ? — If they have not a dip on their own farms, I believe they dip on another man's place, but most of them have dips, but I cauuot positively state how many there are who have no dip. 10372. Mr. du Toit.'] Were the 67 persons who attended the meeting you referred to, aU owners of farms ? — I don't know. 10373. Then did you mean that 66 of these men had dips ? — No, I spoke of those just in my immediate neighbourhood. 10374. Are you in favour of an amended act ? — I cannot say. 10375. You don't think an amended act is necessary in the interests of the district ? — No. 10376. Dr. Smartt."] What is the name of the farm you live on ? — Hartebeestfontein. 10377. Is there a dip there ?— Yes. 10378. Is there a dip on Mr. Bosch's farm? — No. 10379. Is there a dip on Mr. Kjuger's farm ? — No. 10380. Is there a dip on Mr. C. Henning's farm? — No. 10381. Is there a dip at Leeuwfontein ? — No. 10382. Is there a dip on Mr. P. Coetzee's farm? — I don't know. 10383. Is there a dip on Mr. Hendrik Steinkamp's farm ? — I don't know where he lives. 10384. Is there a dip at Kleinfontein ? — No. 10385. Mr. Francii.'\ Is the evidence which you have now given before the Commission your honest private opinion, or have you given evidence simply to please the Bond of which you are chairman in your ward ? — No, I give it as my own opinion ; I don't care about the Bond or anybody else. 446 Mr. Jan Carl van Pletten examined. 10386. Chairman.'] How long have you been farming here? — For 55 years. I have about 1,000 sheep. I had 4,000, but last year most of them died of wire-worm and fluke. I am opposed to the act. 10387. Do you wish to give evidence? — I was the first man in this district to make a dip, 25 years ago. I got the recipe how to mix the dip, viz., 60 lbs. of sulphur to 30 lbs. of lime, with, I think, 250 gallons of water and for two years I dipped accordingly and did well by it, but after that I found that it did harm, and that the intestines were injured. I put in ten sheep at a time, and with the assistance of a fork kept them in the water for one minute. They were not scabby, but, I wanted to give them a good appearance. After that I tried something else, and I still dip, but not the second time after 14 days. I object to anyone being put in authority over me, and I understand how to carry on my farm without anybody's assistance. I live in ward No. 4, and iu my neighbourhood most of the farmers dip, but dipping does harm, and the sheep die of wire-worm and fluke. 10388. Does dipping do the sheep harm ? — Not always. 10389. Does it cure scab ? — Yes. 10390. Is scab contagious? — Yes. I keep out those sheep which are scabby, and cure them, and when they are cured I put them back again. 10391. 3Ir. Francis.'] Do aUthe farmers around you dip the pheep like you, and try to keep them clean ? — Yes, as far as I know. Mr. William Brownlee Gumming examined. 10392. Chairman.] How long have you been farming ? — About 28 years, but seven years here. Then I went to Waterford, and have been back about four months. I have only about 500 sheep here, but at Waterford I had about 10,000 under my supervision. 10393. When you were in charge at Waterford, in that scab area, were the sheep free of scab ? — They were already free when I went there. 10394. Was there any outbreak of scab amongst them during the time you had charge of them ? — Up to the time when I went there they continually dipped, but I stopped it, and for six years there was no dipping of the general flocks. 10395. Was there any scab amongst the flocks during those six years ? — There was an outbreak amongst two flocks, a little lot of rams, and a lot of weaned lambs. The rams were infected by one sheep, which came from the adjoining district, and the young sheep were infected by a neighbour's sheep. Those sheep were dipped and cured, and with these excep- tions there was no dipping at Waterford for six years. At the end of that time, I found that ticks and sheep-lice wore so bad that I dipped the sheep again, but there was no scab. 10396. Then you are of opinion that if sheep are properly dipped and attended to, scab will be stamped out of the country ? — Yes decidedly. 10397. During the last few Months when you have been living in this district, have you found the sheep as free from scab as they were in Stutterheim where you were before ? — No, there is no comparison. The sheep at Stutterheim are almost entirely free. 10398. If the scab act were put in force in Albert, do j'ou think the same results might be obtained here, as were obtained in Stutterheim ? — I think the results here would be al- most better, because it is so much easier to cure sheep of scab here on account of the dryness of the climate and also because it does not seem to be so infectious here. 10399. From your knowledge of the farmers in this district, do you tnink they dip their sheep properly ? — I know they do not. Man}' do, and chere are many who do not. I can- not say whether most of them have dips, but in my neighbourhood, in ward No. 4, thoy have. One of the principal reasons why the farmers don't dip properly is because the store- keepers, instead of telling them the dip must be prepared with a certain quantify of water, tell them it should be prepared according to the number of sheep, and sheep with short wool take very much less dip than sheep with long wool. 10400. Are we to understand by that, that they are using so very much weaker dip for sheep with long wool than for those with short ? — Decidedly. 10401. In cases where farmers do not cleanse their sheep, do you think it advisable tha they should be licensed, and pay for it, or that they should dip the sheep under inspection ? — I think they should dip under inspection, because many people do not understand how to dip properly. 10402. Do you think the method of appointing inspectors is satisfactory? — Yes, I think so. 10403. Do you think one inspector is sufficient for the district of Stutterheim, or that there should be an inspector in each Celd-cornetcy ? — I think it depends on the size of th« district. It would be too many to have one for every field-cornetcy, but the district might be divided. 10404. You are aware that one of the great objections to the act is the difficulty of ob- taining the services of an inspector when a farmer wants to remove sheep ? — Yes. 10405. Woidd it be advisable for a farmer holding a clean bill to be allowed to remove sheep on his own permit, subject to a heavy fine if he moved scabby sheep? — I think so ; it was so at Stutterheim for a time. 447 10406. And if that were carried out generally, do you think it would remove one of the greatest objections the farmers have to the act ? — I think it ought to be. 10407. Are you in favour of a general act throughout the Colony .' — Yes. 10408. If that is found to be impracticable, have you any idea where a dividing line could be drawn ? — I should think between east and west. 10409. If such a line weie drawn, would you allow sheep from the unproclaimed area to come into the proclaimed area ? — Not unless they were dipped under inspection on the boundary. They might be dipped there once, and if they went on at once they could be dipped a second time under the supervision of the inspector of the district to which they were going. 10410. Mr. Frana'a.] Is the present licence for three months, too long?— Under certain conditions it might be, but not when all things are taken into consideration. 10411. Should the inspectors have discretionary power to grant licences for periods of from one to three months ? — The difficulty iu that case would be supposing sheep have long wool, it would be very hard to force a man to dip them. 10412. How long would it take you to clean sheep in summer? — Three weeks. 10413. Don't you think it would be too long to give three months in summer ? — It de- pends upon the wool on their backs. You would not dip long wool if you could help it, but if it was the right time you might shear them first. 10414. Mr. du Toit.'] After you have cured the two flocks at Waterford, did they remain clean until you left ? — Yes. 10415. Were there any scabby sheep mixed with yours afterwards ? — I don't think so. They used to constantly trek to Komgha, in the winter, and once we trekked up to the Perie mountains and on the way had to pass through veldt where there was scab, but wa were fortunate, and escaped. 10416. Then you don't think scab is so very contagious as some people think ? — I think it is very contagious, but those sheep had not time to contract the disease. In the place they went through the scab was on stones and other places where the sheep rubbed them- selves, but our sheep just went through, and had no time to rub. 10417. What has the climate to do with killing the acarus ? — You seldom see Bucli bad cases of scab here as down country. I had long experience at Waterford before it was sold to Mr. Irvine, and belonged to Mr. Hughes, years before the act was proclaimed, and we had sheep so bad there that they got maggots ; they scratched untQ they got abcesses, and I have only once seen such a thing here, although I have seen very scabby sheep, and have just had to do with very scabby sheep. 10418. Are you in favour of dipping sheep in the winter, or would your hand-dress them until the spring? — It would depend on the weather. I think it would be very often risky to dip in the winter, and I should prefer to hand-dress until it was warm enough, and then shear and dip. 10419. Dr. Smartt.'] If a general scab act were properly administered, do you think there would be any danger of flocks becoming re-infected in the winter ? — They might for a time as it would take some time to eradicate scab, but not to such an extent as to spread, provided due care were taken. 10420. Mr. Francis.'\ Do you think a general act should be put in force in the summer with a simulaneous dipping ? — No, because so many people shear at different times, and to carry out that proposal you would have to insist upon all the sheep being shorn at the same time. It would be advisable, but it is not practicable. 10421. Chairman.'] If scab broke out badly amongst your flock, no matter at what time of the year, would you prefer to leave them to go on with scab, or to dii) them ? Which would cause the most loss ? — I should first try and stop the disease by hand-dressing, and if I could not, I should dip them. Aliioal North, Friday 3rd February, 1893. PRESENT : Mr. Frost (Chairman), Mr. BoTiiA. I Dr. Smartt. ,, DU ToiT. I Mr. Francis. Mr. William FVederich Smit examined. 10422. Chairman.'] How long have you been farming in the division of Aliwal North? — Four years. I have 1,200 sheep, and I reside in ward No. 3. 10423. Have you come forward to give evidence in favour of or against the scab act .' — I am in favour of a general act. 10424. Did you attend the meeting held in that ward } — Yes. 10425. Were you one of the delegates appointed ? — No. There were two appointed. 10426. Are you acquainted with the working of the present act ?^Not well, but I have been iu proclaimed areas. 10427. Then you know nothing of the working of tha act ? — I have no practical experi- enceof it. 448 10428. Do you think tlie present act should be extended over the whole Colony, or can you suggest any amendment to it? — I think the present act would work well if it were made general. There are a good many farmers who are opposed to the act simply because the inspectors are appointed by the Government, and they would like to be allowed to appoint their own inspectors in each ward 10429. Whj' do they suggest these alterations ? — Because there are very likely inspectors, who have no real practical esiierienco of farming and sheep. 10130. You are aware that the inspectors are recommended by the divisional council? — I only thought that it would be right to do so, but I heard in Queen's Town that inspectors were appointed not by the people in the district ; and I was told that they were not practical farmers, but men living in the town. 10431. Tou are aware that provision is made in the act that a man must be a practical farmer before he can be appointed a scab inspector ? — -I was not quite aware of it, and I think there are many who are under a wrong impression. 10432. If the farmers in a field-cornetcy held a meeting and recommended one of them- selves as an inspector, would it meet the difficulties in this respect ? — I should certainly think so. 10433. Don't you think the expense of carrying out the act would be very much in- creased by having an inspector in each field-cornetcy ? — It all depends. 10434. In case that was carried out, would it be advisable that there should be a super- vising inspector in each division to look after the sub-inspectors in each field-cornetcy ? — Certainly. 10435. As you have come forward to give evidence in favour of a scab act, I take it for granted your sheep are free of scab ? — Yes, at present. 1 0436. Generally speaking, are the sheep in the district where you live free of scab ? — No. 10437. Do the farmers in the distiict of Aliwal North dip their sheep regularly, and keep them fairly clean ? — No. I believe many of them do not dip at aU. 10438. Do you find that your sheep become re-infected from your neighbours' scabby sheep ? — Yes. 10439. If it is impossible to have a general scab act, do you think the provisions of the present act should be extended over more districts tha : at present ? — No ; if it is only a partial act I think it does us harm to a certain extent. 10440. If it is found impossible to carry out the provisions of the act throughout the whole Colony don't you think it would be possible to draw a Line through the country, and so meet the difficulties which you fear ? — I certainly think there are portions of the country where they would not like to have a scab act at all, and if it would not work well there it would be advisable to draw a line. I know the western parts of the Colony. 10441. Have you any knowledge of the north-western districts of the Colony? — I have travelled through there. 10442. "Would it be possible to carry out the act in those districts? — In times of drought it would be very awkward for the farmers there. 10443. Have j'ou any idea where such a line should be drawn ? — I have not thought of that. 10444. If a Hne were drawn, would you allow sheep and goats from the unproclaimed area to come into the proclaimed area ? — If they were not infected. 10445. How would you decide that? — Should they be dipped at the port of entry, or what would you do ? — There should be a suitable spot arranged where they could be dipped. 10446. If they were properly dipped, do you think there would be any danger in allowing them to come in ? — I don't think so. 10447. Do you think there is any danger of spreading the disease by the carriage of wool and skins on the railway or wagons ? — There might be some danger with fresh skins. 10448. But not sufficient danger to throw any impediments in the way of carrying on the trade of the Colony with the Free State or other places ?— No. 10449. Have you any knowledge of the native locations in the division of Herschel, and the way that farming is carried on there ? — They farm on a very small scale. I have been there, and have noticed that each man has only a small number of sheep, and I think they could easily be kept clean. You find some natives who are more particular than white men. 10450. Have they dipping tanks, and do they dip? — I am not so well acquainted with Herschel, but I have heard from other persons that they are very particular there, and keep their sheep clean. The act is in force there. 10451. Are the sheep there freer of scab than the sheep here } — They are the finest and cleanest sheep I have seen. 10452. Do you know if many sheep are moved through the district of Aliwal North ? — Yes, from the Free State and other places. 10453. Are they generally clean f—J. don't know. 10454. Mr. dii ToitJ] Would you allow sheep to come in from the unproclaimed area after being once dipped ? — You cannot clean them in one dipping. I would dip them twice, and quarantine them for a fortnight. 10455. You are convinced that scab can be cured by two proper dippings within a fort- night ? — Yes, by experience. 10456. Even in the winter, and when the sheep are in poor condition? — Yes. 449 10457. Don't you think it dangerous to compel a farmer to dip his flocks in winter ? — If they were very scabby, he might lose more by not dipping them. 10458. But in light cases, and when the sheep have long wool, would you not allow hand-dressing until after shearing, and until the spring ? — If they were not very badly in- fected. 10459. Are you aware of a fever which also causes the wool to fall off, or of steekgras getting into the skin and having the same effect? — Yes. 10460. Have you seen sheep scratch on account of these irritations 'i — Yes. 10461. Don't you think an inexperienced inspector might make a mistake, and take these things for scab ? — For that reason it is very necessary to have practical and experienced men as scab inspectors. 10462. Are you not aware that the fear lest this may happen is also tlie cause to some extent why farmers object to the act ? — Yes, and that is why wo insist upon choos- ing our own inspectors. 10463. Would not this fear be removed if inspectors were compelled to use a magnify- ing glass, and, before putting the farmer under quarantine, were obliged to show him the insect which is supposed to be the cause of scab ? — Yes, certainly, when there is any doubt. 10464. Has your experience taught you that scabby sheeep will infect clean sheep simply by going over the same ground without getting actually mixed with them } — Yes, I experienced that last winter. I dipped my sheep last year in October three times, and they were perfectly clean, but my neighbour's sheep were very much infected, and also my brother's and my brother-in-law's. These sheep came on to my veldt, and my clean sheep got infected. The consequence was I had to dip them again this October. 10465. Although they never got mixed ? — Tes. 10466. Why did you dip your sheep three times, whereas you said that two dippings would cure them ? — I found it was necessary. The first time I dipped it was not strong enough, because they were very bad, so bad that I was ashamed of them. 10467. Why did you not mix your dij) at once properly? — It is possible to make a mistake like that, I was only a young beginner. 10468. But now you are convinced that if dip is not properly mixed, it has no good result?- Yes. 10469. Have you any idea how long the acarus can live on the veldt and in kraals? — In kraals I think it might live for some days, but I don't think it can live long in the veldt. 10470. Are you in favour of holders of clean bills being allowed to move their stock on their own permits, subject to a heavy penalty? — I think it should be sufficient if he could prove that his sheep were free the day he sold them. 10471. Would you allow a farmer whoso flocks were under quarantine to give them one proper dipping, under inspection, and then to send them away ? — Yes, if they were properly dipped xmder inspection. 10472. Should they be dipped again at their destination? — Yes. 10473. You think there would be no danger if they came to their destination within a fortnight ? — None. 10474. Would you be in favour of Government dip depots? — I think it would be a g^eat advantage to us. 10475. Should scabby stock be dipped before being sent to a pound, at the owner's expense ? — Certainly. 10476. Dr. Smartt.'\ Are there many farmers in this district who dip their sheep in weak solutions, and who refuse to benefit by their experience, as you have done, but con- tinue dipping them in useless solutions ? — Yes. 10477. In travelling through the proclaimed areas, have you noticed that the sheep there are as a rule much cleaner that the .sheep in Aliwal North, and is that your reason for wishing to see the scab act here ? — Yes, I have lately been to New England, and I was very well pleased at the result of the scab act there. 10478. Do any farmers in this district also hold ground in the Free State, or are flocks from here often moved to grazing ground there ? — They are moved in times of drought. 10479. Would it be advisable to have ports of entry on the Orange Eiver and public dipping tanks for all stock to be dipped ? — Yes, of course that would help to eradicate scab altogether. 10480. Would it be advisable to allow a farmer in the unproclaimed area, having clean sheep, to prohibit all scabby sheep passing over his property, if he places notice boards to that effect on the main roads .' — Yes. 10481. 3fr. Francis.'] What difficulties do you consider would arise from a permissive act } — We might not be allowed to move sheep from here to New England, where we may have ground, until they have been dipped. 10482. Before moving sheep should you get a certificate from two landowners and have the sheep dipped ? — Yes. 10483. Considering that you are of opinion that some farmers either will not, or do not know how properly to dip their sheep, do you think such sheep should be dipped under inspection ? — A farmer should first be allowed to dip them himself, and if the inspector afterwards finds it necessary, they should be dipped under inspection, or under his instructions. " 1 0484. Whyjs there such an opposition to a scab act in this district ? — I think it is on account of the unenliglitened farmers. 450 1048.5. Because many people do not really understand the nature of scab, and that it is easily eradicated ? — Yes. 10186. Do you believe that with a proper act, scab can be really eradicated ? — Certainly, it has been eradicated in parts of Australia ; we have proofs of it. Mr. Jan Hemlrik Nicolaas Bekker examined. 10487. Chairman.'] How long have you been farming here ? — Thirty yoars. There are 5,000 sheep on my place. I am a del<>gate from ward No. 2, and I am in favour of a per- missive act, as it is now, but am opposed to a general act. I think it is right and reasonable that those who want the law should have it, and equally right and reasonable that those who don't want it need not take it ; it should not be forced upon an unwilling district or community. 10188. If an act of Parliament is once procUimed in a district, don't you think it un> settles the people if they are allowed to get it suspended by petitions or otherwise ? — I would favour the idea that, where the law is proclaimed and, iu the working of it, it is found necessary to make some amendments, the district concerned should have the right to go to Parliament with their petition. I think it should be no more so than in the case of asking for the act. 10489. Then you think that section in the act should remain in force as it is now ? — Yes. 10490. Have you any knowledge of the working of the act ? — Not personally. 10491. Have you ever sent any stock into the proclaimed area from the district of Aliwal North ?— No. 10492. Do you think the sheep in the district of Aliwal North are as clean and free of scab as the sheep in the proclaimed area ? — I cannot say. 10493. Do the farmers in this district generally dip their sheep } — I know several who do. 10494. Do you know of many who don't dip ? — Yes. 10495. Do you think the fanners who dip their sheep, and do their best to keep tham clean should have any protection against the careless farmers ? — A farmer can protect him- self to a great extent. 10496. But supposing a farmer who is very particular has neighbours who will not dip their sheep, and who consequent!}' have 6eabby sheep running on their farms, should he not have more protection than he has at present? — Yes, an 1 1 think the fenoiag act is one of the best safeguards in that respect. 10497. But in cases where there is no fencing, what protection would you give that man ? — I think the old pound law should be strictly applied. 10498. Do farmers, who are more or less connected, generally make use of the pound law for the purpose of sending their neighbours' scabby sheep to the pound, and claim as provided for in that act ? — I should be very sorry to have scabby sheep on my place, and if it could not be prevented in any other way I should impound them. 10499. Would it not be advisable to give further protection than that afforded by the pound act, seeing that after the scabby sheep have been mixed with your flock, you have all the expense of dipping again ? — Nothing else. 10500. "Would it assist in stamping out the scab here if all the farmers were to dip their sheep simultaneously ? — No. 10501. Why ? — It would not be convenient for all farmers and would cause great loss. They don't all shear at the same time. 10o02. Would not the fanners themseh-es who are anxious to stamp out scab try and shear about tlio same time in oVder to be able to dip simultaneously':' — It has nut come t i that yet, and until it does come to that I cannot roconimeud it. lOaO.'i. Do yon keep yonr shoeji clean .-" — I am never (|iiite free of s:i\.h on my f^irin, but it i.s not sulficieiitly bad to ciuse any loss. I have flocks which are dipped, and also docks which hare not been dipped for the last three years, and although for the last three years scab has always appeared at the same time, I have flocks on the farm which are never dipped and yet don't get scab. The sheep which for the last three years have been more or less si abby have improved very much during the last year without being dipped, but I always took out the scabby sheep and kept them separately, and when it is convenient to attend to them I can do so without interfering with the others. In this way dipping causes no loss to the general flocks and they don't lose in condition or wool, which is the case with dipping according to the complaints I hear. When I have been going to dip the small scabby lot, I have even found that some amongst them have recovered by themselves, and are quite free of scab. 10504. Do you think that under certain circumstances any scabby sheep will recover by itself } — Yes. 10505. Mr. du loit.'] Are you opposed to having the act put in force in this district ? — Yes. lO.iOG. If it should be ])iuclaimed here, would you sugges' any alteration in it? — I aia not vii-y well aiquaiiited with ih'e act, but I tliiuk t-o:uo «keiatioii.s me uecess iry 10oU7. Do you keep the small lots which you pick out in separate kraals? — They graze on the same veldt ; I only take care that they don't mix, [G. 1.— '94.] KKK 451 10508. Then you don't know that they affect tlie others? — I continually pick out what- ever get scabby. 10.509. Have you continually to pick out scabby ones ?— Perhaps for months it i* not necessary to lake out any. 10510. l>r. S/iiailt.^ Do neighbouring scabby sheep ever mix with your Bocks?— Oftnn. 1051 1 . Hare you always impounded tliom ? — Those which I don't return to tho owners at once, I send to the pound. 10512. How many times have 5'ou impounded ? — I think once or twice in my life. 10513. Consequently, when you state that the pound act affords great protection, such is not the case. You have really made hardly anj' use of the ordinance yourself ? — I hare read the pound act, and I see the protection it affords in case I want it. 10514. But neither j'ou nor other people make use of it consequently it is useless for the purpose ? — I take the trouble to return such sheep to the owners. To give a case iu point, I sold two rams to a man, but they got scabby, and as the'r owner could not take. them away, I had at last to send them to the pound, and afterwards I went to the pound and brou^jbt ihi'm back myself. 10515. ]). n't jou know as a fact that very few farmers in the district of Aliwal Nortli m ikn use of the clause in the pound ordiudiioe with referouce to scabby sheep mixing with tlieir flocks ? — I don't know any single case iu which it has been applied. 10516. Cousequeutly, as that section is a dead letter, and uo one uses it, it is no pro- tection whatever? — It is the same with all laws which are not applied. li'517. Stating as you do that it would be a good thing if every farmer in this distiict dipp(?d his .-lieep properly, according: to iustructions, and further, that many farmers h-r« do not dip their sheep juoperly, would it uot be advisable to have ."ome le^^islation compelling thefo careless farmers to dip their sheep thoroughly and efh- iently ? — Yes, if tlie law is not admiuistoied at an unseasonable timf;, it would be a good thing. 10518. If you liave a troop of sheep affected with scab and you dip them thoroughly twice within 14 days, wouM youtlean them as a rule? — Yes if they are propeilj- dipped. 10519. Ctcisequeutly suoh a dipping cbiuse as has been referred to would jdace you in a pisitionata certain time of not having a single scabby sheep on yo-.ir farm ? — Yes, if I am excluded. Iu520. That means you would like the act for your neighbour, but n >t for your self? — Just the same as it is with the different districts. 10521. Mr. Botha. ~\ Do you think it would be a good thing, if the divisional council had the right to recommend inspectors for appointment ? — Instead of the divi-■««(■/*.] Do you believe that scab is caused by an insect, and dy an intiect nlone '/ — Yes, 1 know it is only caused by an insect. 10526. Consequently, you don't believe the insect could be cause! by drought or poverty ? — No. 10527. So if you kill all the insects, there would be uomore scab ?— And if you can also kill the germs, but I think there are germs wliich are created by the atmosphere. 10528. Then you don't think that scab can be eradicated ? — No. 10529. But j'ou believe dipping does help ?— Yes, for a time ; it kills the living insect. 10530. Then being an in,sect, you must believe it is contagious? — Yes. The gnata all die by September, but thf>y all reappear next September. 10531. Don't they leave eggs behind them to be ha'ehed next year.? — Science has not solved this question yet. 10532. Would it not be a good thing if there were a rule that all farmers should dip their sheeji after shearing ? — In some cases it would be good. Mr. Gabriel Coelzee examined. 10533. Chairman.'] I understand you are a delegate from ward No. 6 ? — Yes. I have farmed here for 15 years, and have 2,500 sheep. 10-531. Do you agree with Mr. Bekker? — I disagree on certain points. The people whom I represent are opposed to any act. I only hand-dress mj' sheep, and I have never seen anybody's sheep, whether they have been dipped or not, which have less scab or are in a better condition t*ian mine. For instance, in the New England ward, whero there is a scab act, I have seen in the papers that 50,000 sheep died last year, and I have been told that tho number was 82,000, mostlj' because they were forced to dip them in unseasonable or cold weather. I wa' told thi>< bj- men who have worked for the act. The expense of the inspectors is a heavy burden on the country, and they are appointed by the Government who doB't know anything about scab. If the scab act were general and were carried out with 4d2 more justice, there would be less opposition to it, because the world is so full of dispatis- faction that it is no wonder there is dissatisfaction when the act is in operation. I have seen parties who had to trek with their sheep who were prevented from doing so on account of a few spots of scab, and as it was too cold to dip them they had to stay where thej' were, the rfsult being that they sustained heavy losses. Others, in order to be able to trek, dipped their sheep ; but tneir losses caused bv dipping were even more severe. It might happen that a butcher arrives at my place and wants sheep. I have fir-it to go to the inspect''r, which perhaps means five or six hours' ride, and when I get there he is not at home ; so that by the time I get the inspector the butcher has gone, and I have lost my chance. I am not und( T the act, but I can easily imagine that that might be the (aso. In Oraafl-Roinet they had the act, and if it had been a good one it would not have been repeiled. I consider that the Bond represents the opinion of the cmiiitry. and that body hns nevor asked for the scab act. There was a Mr. Cloete of New England, at Ghn Aniond, who when he commenced t<> dip had ."-hefp so fat that they stuck fast in the dip, 22 inches hro:id, but ho found by continuing dipping he never had such sheep any lu re, th'Higli ho is still iji f.ivour of the act. After he h.id discontinued dipping his sheep rea.hed the same proportions. I saw them four or five months ago, and they were in fine condition. 105.3.J. Mr. Butha.^ How man}' sheep did this Mr. Cloete lose last winter'/ — I don't know. He lust sheep but not as many as others. 10.536. If I tell you he lost 800 would you believe it ? — I should doubt it, but he has got 80 many sheep that it is not impossible to believe that he lost 800. With the exception of Mr. Orpen, I don't believe there is another man in the d'strict of New England who has more sheep than Mr. Cloete. 10.5.37. I>r. Situtrtl.'] Did he lose 800 fat sheep?— It is irapos.sible to say. 1 05.38. Do you think the magistrate should appoint inspectors or the farmers themselves ? — I don't trust anybody. 10539. Mr. Francis.'] Are you aware that last winter the pasturage in Barkly East iuffered severely from locusts ? — In places, but all farms were not equally ba lly destroyed by them. 10540. Do you know that the farmers there attri1)ute their heavy losses in sheep to the destruction of the pasturage by locusts ?— A few do, but mo-t of them told me that scab was the cause of their losses. 3Ir. NicoUiaa Jacobus de Wet examined. 10541. Chairman.'] Are you also a delegate ?— Yes, from ward No. 5. I have farmed here for 25 years, and have 2,000 sheep. 10542. Do you agree with Mr. Bekker ? — I do in regard to the permissive or a general act. I would rather see no scab act at all than a general act. I have two flocks of sheep, one of which was scabby. I dipped them, and cuied them for about a month, when they broke out again. The other flock I never dipped at all, and they remained clean. I put the clean sheep into the same kraal as the scabby sheep f'>r the purpose of catching them out when renuirod. I only use one kraal. In the cleau flock there woie soaie which w.nv not always clean, but I hand-dressed them, and left them with the oihors, and althougli I have not dipped for 15 mouths they have remained clean during that time. Mr. Gabriel Myburgh examined. 10543. Chairman.'] You are a delegate from ward No. 3? — Yes. I have farmed here for 25 years, and have 2,000 sheep. 10544. With which of the previous witnesses do you agree? — Mr. Coetzee. 10545. I)r. Smartt.] Are your sheep scabby at the present moment? — Yes. 10546. Have you ever had complaints from your neighbours that your sheep were ecabby, and would infect theirs ? — No. 10547. Have you ever had any farmer in your district who did not wish your sheep to tiek over bis farm because they were so scabby .-■ — Yes. 10548. Then j'ou must have caused trouble to yourneighbours? — It was nit my neigh- bours who complained ; it was people beyond. 10549. If your sheep had been perfectly free of scab, do you think thoy would have ob- j( cted to it ? — No. 10550. Were the flocks of the people who objected to your trekking over their farms cleaner than the sheep you were trekking with? — I don't know. 10551. If you had properly and cirefully dipped tho.se sheep, do you think the}- wouM have been cleaner than they were ? — I cau make them clean, but I cannot keep them so. 10552. Mr. Botha.] Who should be appointed as inspectors ? — I think the sheep far- lu' r.s. 10553. Chairman.] Have j'ou any knowledge of tanning skins ? — Yes. 10554. Would you tau scabby skins ? — No. I would sell them, but nobody could buy them. M.]L% 453 AUwal North, Hatitrdai/, ith Fehruary, 1893. PRESENT : Mr. FuosT (Chairman). Mr. Botha. „ DU ToiT. Dr. Smartt. Mr. Francis. Mr. Jacobus Guntat van Aardt examiuod. 10555. Chairman.'] Are you a delegate ? — Yes, from Klipspruit, ward No. 3. I have farmed here for 21 years, and have 2,500 sheep. 10556. Do you agree with the evidence given here yesterday by Mr. Bokker and others ? — No. 10557. Do you think it is necessary to have a scab act of some kind } — Yes, I am in favour of a general scab act, because I think it is high time in the interest.s of the C'dony that scab should be eradicated from it, as that is the only way of saving the wool from deteriorating altogethfr, and of preventing it from becoming as valueless as scabby skin.^, as we were told yesti-rday. At the present day, many coun'ries produce good wool, free of s(rab, but f am S'lriy to say that is not the case with tliis country, and unless we improve there will bo no maiket for the wool in course of time. That is my principal reason for being in favour of a general scab act, and my experience is that the farmers generally don't do what they ought with regard to scab, or what they caxi do, and tlie re.sult is that the better clats of farmers have to suffer for the negligence of the others. I will admit that there are ob- stacles in the way of a general scab act in this country, and therefure, considering the local diffidilties and the differences in the country, I think tlie farmers in each district should be allowed to make some 8i)ecial alterations in the administration of the act so as to suit their peculiar circumstances. But notwithstanding this, I am in favour of a compulsory, general scab act. 10558 From your knowledge of the district of Aliwal North, do you think there is more f cab in the district now than there was a few years ago ? — Not more. 10559. Is there less ?— Yes. 10.J60. To what do }'ou attiibuto that ? — To the fHctthat in this distri(-f sevenil farmers liiive found out that they are obliged to treat their wool better thnn they used to do. lOoGl. Don't, yoti think it is owing to the working of the scab act in other districts, and the fear they have here that the act may be put in foiTC in Aliwal North 'i — No, be- cause there is no chance of a permissive act ever bfing introduced here. 10562. Do you tliiiik that is one <£ the reasons why many fai-ni« rs in tliis district are in favcur of the present act, because they don't think it will ever be introduced here? — That may be the reason, to a certain extent, but I think tho oj)position to a scab act is more from the wish not to be interfered with. 10563. If a general act were put in force, do you think there should be a clause com- pelling farmers to dip twice, simultaneoiisly, aftir shearing? — I don't think it should be in the act; it would not be wise or necessarj' to enforce a simultaneous dipping. 10564. If such a thing were done, whether by an act or not, don't 3'ou think it ▼ould tend very much to stamp out scab ? — Certainly, but I should not like to see it indiscriminately enforced in all districts. 10565. We have it in evidence from the farmers in Komgha that, although they are free of scab, and have been for the last four years, in order to try and stamp it out of the Colony altogether they would be perfectly willing to have such a clauoe in the act. D -n't you think that the districts in which scab still exists would follow the example of Komgha? — I am afraid that by introducing that, you will disturb or hinder the free action of the scab act, and therefore I would rather not have it as a supplement or addition to the act. I give pre- f • rence to the fanning communities for the recommendation of inspect irs before divisional Council'", because according to my experience all the divisional councils are not to be trusted in such matters. 10566. Have any knowledge of the districts in the north western portions of the Colony ? — Not personally. 1(i566a. From your knowledge of the Colony, do you tliink it would be more difficult for the people living in the Karoo to stamp out scab than for those in the distric^ of Aliwal North and the grass country ? — I don't think there is any j)art of tli° Colony where scab cannot be stamped out, provided it is regulated according to the different circumstances. 10567. In case it is found impossible to have a general act, do you think it would be advisable to give protection to a farmer who keeps his sheep clean by allowing him to pre- vent any scabby sheep crossing over his farm or otherwise ? — Dccidoilly. 10568. Mr. du. Toit.] Are you aware of anj' hardships under the present act ?,-- Yes. When a farmer living in an unproclaimed area wants to move into a proclaimed area, the in8pei:tors compel him to dip before entering. 10569. Are jou satisfied with the system of appointing inspectoi-s ? — I think tlie fanners should appoint them in each field-cornetcy, and they should be good farmers, holding clean bills. 10570. Dj you know by experience that you can cure ecabby khcop by tAiro projier dip* finge Id » furtoi(j;ht ?<~'YeB, you can kill ths ecab, 454 10571. Should sheep be dipped in winter?— I have sometimes done it, but there may be occasions when it is impossible to do it. If I had a flock of sheep which were very scabby, it would be to my interests to dip them rather than let them go on ; but I would leave this to be decided by the several districts. 10572. Would you be in favour of allow ing holders of clean bills to move stock on their own permit, subject to a heavj- penalty? — Certainly. 10573. Would you make some provision for those who are under quarantine to allow them to sell a few sheep after one dipping \ — Yes, but not for speculation, or for breeding purposes. 10574. Should the Government establish dip depots } — It would certainly help the far- mers, and would be a grand thing. 10575. Do you think stock should be dipped before being sent to the pound at the owner's expense .'' — Yes, it would help to stamp out scab. 10576. Dr. Smarttr^ If the Colony were divided into areas suitable to the climate, would j-ou then object to a compulsory simultaneous dipping act in tliese areas ? — No. 10577. Do you consider that there are many farmers in this district who are not tho- roughly acquainted with the system of dipping and curing stab ? — Yes. 10578. Under these circumstances would it be advisable to have superintend-'nts of dipi'ing to instruct these men how properly to dip their flocks ? — We shall never get ril of scab without a .scab act, and that would be a good thing in conjunction with it. 10579. From your knowledge of the farmers in this division, if proper men were ap- pointed, do you think the majority of the farmers would object to such superintendence ? — I am certain they would not object in my ward. 10580. Were you ever a member of the divisional coimcU? — No. 10581 . Were you a candidate ?— Yes. 10582. Then you know how the voting is carried on for the election of members? — Yes. 10583. Do the farmers in this district vote for the members of the divisional council? — Yes, but not the farmers alone ; the squatters also vote. 10584. Are these squatters owners of sheep? — Yes, there are very few. 10585. You say you would leave the carrying out of the act in the hands of the farmers of the division ? What do you mean bj' the farmers of the division ?^ — The land owners. 10586. Not those who have sheep? — Not necessarily the squatters who may have sheep. 10587. Supposing a farmer hires a farm, and has slieep on it, should he not be allowed to have a voiie in tlie matter ? A\niat is tlie difference between him and the man who owns the fiirm but lias no .slieep on it? — I would leave it ia tlie hands of the laudowners, because the squatters own one or two sheep and are not independent enough to have a vote ; but I would not include in thi.s tlie luau who liires a farm with Socks, I onlj' mean tlie men who go about making dams and so on, and who have only one or two sheep to their names. It is these men I object to. I was appointed at a public meeting at whidi there were 42 per- sons present; 22 voted against the scab act, and 18 for it. After the voting was over, the chairman called for the votes of landowners, when five landowners voted against the scab act, and 1 1 for it. That clearly shows that there were 26 persons present belonging to the class to which I have referred. 10588. AVhat is the average price of .sheep here ?— About 10s. 10589. What is the qualification for a voter for the divisional council ? — £75. 10590. J//'. Francis. J If there were an inspector in ea'jli field-cornetcy, would it be ad- visable to make one of them a superintending inspector? — No. 10591. Should any man having clean slieep, living outside the proclaimed area, but ad- joining it, have tlie right to come under the act ? — It would help him as regards moving sheep, but that is all. 10592. Can you explain why there is suck an opposition to a scab act in this district? — Yes, it is owing to j>rpjudice. Another reason is that the farmers don't use the dip properly, and don't cure the sheep, and then they say it can't be done. One dips too weak, others do as I saw it done yesterday. There v ere 800 sheep, which looked as if they had been properly dipped, but there were about 20 amongst them that had never been dipped at all. It looked to me as though these twenty, orjierhaps thirty, belonged to the same flock of sheep, and I naturally concluded that they had siab as well as the others. In another 14 dajs these sheep will have scab again, and then they will say it is no good, and will not see that these dipped fheep have been infected b}' the others. That is one of the reasons why so many people point out that dipping does not help. 1059.'). Then do j'ou believe that those who oppose the scab act in this district are all expressing their honest opinion on the subject, or do some oppose it for other reasons? —[No reply. J 10594. Dr. Smart (."] If a plebiscite were taken of the landowners in this district holding fiom 1,000 to 2,000 slieeji and upwards, am 1 to understand from your evidence that the majority would be in favour of legislation on scab disease? — In ward No. 3. 10595. Vhairman. ] Do 30U wish to add auj'thing ? — If inspectors are appointed iu field- cornetties, I ilon't think the expense would be so great as was suggested yesterday, because if a farmer who was very careful and an.xious to stamp out scab wore appointed, he would do his utmost in that direction, and it would not be necessary to appoint an inspector over the district to superintend. I beli ve that a general scab act would be a great benefit, be- cause the profits now paid to the makers of dips, and the storekeepers who sell them, would |;u iutu the pockets of the farmers alter a time. I have beeo paving lar^e aioouqts ey«r7 455 year during tUe last 1>5 years for the purcliase of dip», and I still have to do it, and shall continue to haro to do it until we get a general scab act. Mr. Sydnfij Moorcrofi examined. 10596. Chairman.^ Do you still carry on farming? — No, I have let my farai<;, but I still have an interest in them. I have far no 1 with slieep for 40 years, and generally had about 5,000 or 5,000. 10597. Havo you farmed in a proclaimed area ? — No. T liave never been in one. 10598. Have you any knowledge of the working of the scab act ? — No, but I am against a permissive act, because I think it is a failure. I may dip my sheep, and go tq a great deal of expense, and ray neiglibour may do nothing at all. 10599. Wlion you were farming, had j'ou ever a negligent m-ighbour wlio did not attend to his slioop? — Yes, and my sons are at present in thit position. 10600. What remedy would you .suggest for this? — I would recommend a general ait. 10601. Do you think the farmers in the neighbourhood where you were farming have dipping tanks and dip their sheep?— There are a great many. I was the first who made a tank there, and since then a greit many have done so, but not all. 10602. If there were a general, simultaneous dipping clause in the act, would it not be a greit benefit to slieep farmers, and lielp to &tamp out scib? — Yes; I don't suppose they would like it, bi-t it would be a go^^d thiug. 10603. Is there less scab now in the Stormberg than when you first went there? — I think there is just as much scab, but there are not so many sheep. They have been carried oft with diseases, and scab has had its share too. 10604. If tliey hail dipped regularly, and kept the sheep clean, do you think the farmers would b<5 in a better position now than they are?— Yes, lam sure of it. Beforo thi scab act was passed. King and other speculators went up there and bo iglit thousandi of sheep, but since the scab act has been passed, and has not been put in force in the Wodehouse district, he cannot go there. 10605. Could he have got tlie sheep if he had gone ? — Yes, because he came to me and wanted to buy sheep, but could not, as he was afraid of scab breaking out ; so he went on to Strutton's, bought 500 or 600, and scab br jke out on the road. He suffered considerable loss in consequence, and has never been there since. 1 0606. Is there anything else you wish to say ? — If there were a general scab act it would be far belter as things are going now. Speculators come in here, buy sheep out of scabby flocks, and take them down to proclaimed areas, and as long as this goes on, I think, it wiU be impossible for the people in the proclaimed areas to keep their flocks clean. Mr. Gid(on Jouberl examined. 10607. Chairman.^ How loEg have you been fanning here? — 20 years; I have from 3,000 to 4,000 sheep. 10608. Do you agree with Mr. van Aardt's evidence? — Yes, entirely. 10609. Is there anythiug yo\i would like to add to it.' — The reason why I am in favour of a general act is tliat I am living on the borders of tlie proclaimed area, in New England. Formerly I sold my sheep to the Natal butchers, but now I cannot get them through, and as there is not sufficient demand in Aliwal North for the sheep I am in a difficulty to know what to do with them. 10610. Mr. Botha.'] Do you agree with Mr. van Aardt with regard to divisional councils ? — Y'es, but I hardly know what to say. One of the members s-tid he does not trust himself or anybfidy else. 10611. You know there are two parties here, the Bond anl the Anti- Bond, and that there is a very strong feeling between them ? — Y''e8. Mr. Corne'im WiUem Clode examined. 1061 2. Chairman.] Are you farming here ? — Yes. I come from ward No. 5, and have 5,000 sheep. I have farmed liere for 16 years. 1061.3. Do you agree with ilr. van A .rdt ?— Yes, generally, but I sh"uld like t > give my reasons why I appear to give evideuLC. I heatd Mr. do Wet give his evidence as a delegate appointed at a public meotipg, and I contend that that meeting cannot be accepted ■8 one at which the views of the ward wore represented, as no notice was given, and it was not known that the meeting would bo held. The opportunity was taken at a public sale, and I think that is just the reason why so few were there in favour of a scab act. I have been told that ceveral people who were at the sale, and were in favour of a scab act, went away before the meeting was convened. I am not going to say that the majoriiy of the ward aie iu f:tvour of a scab act, but at least one-third are. There are a few points in which I disagree with Mr. van Aardt. I would add a special clause providing that in case of necessity, such as drought and so on, people should have the right to trek with their fljcks ; but I would provide that they should be compelled to be verj^ strict ia separftting 456 scabby animals from the flock, and have them properly dipped. I came here with the ide* that it would be to the advantage of all concfraed if inspectors were appointed by farmers, but M liat I heard at the meeting here yesterdiiy lias changed my opinion. At tlie meetings for the election of insp'ctors, the majorities would win, and as those who ard opp ised to a 8t-ab ai;t would appear in much larger numbers, such as sijuitt>jrs, the consequence would be that the seh ction wo ild fall upon men opposed to the scab act, and its proper administra- tion. I would rather leave it as it is, for, in case the wrong man is appointed, the public h?ive always the riglit by way of petition to have it altered. I would have a heai inspector over each di-^trict, or group of districts, to look after the sub-inspectors, because they don't always carry out their duties properly. Ikno.v of one inspector, in Tarka, who was so he. ivy that he was obliged to get ab Dut in a cart, and it was impossible for a man of hii weight to inspect sheep juoperly. He used to inquire of farmers whether their flocks were clean or not, and granted a certificate upon their statement, without esaminatiim. I would reduce the time of the Crst licence from three months to six weeks, which is more than sufficient; the second time I would give a paid licence, and the third time I would increa-ie the amount. 10G14. Don't you think it would be better in such a case that these sheop should be dipped under inspection .- — Certainly. 10015. Would it tend more to stamp out scab ? — Yes. but for all that I think there should be a fine, because it is impoisible for an iasp actor to b j at every farm iu the district to attend to the dipping, and also to perform his other duties. 10616. Mr. da Toit.] Hive you not found it very difficalt, although you may h^ive been convinced that the inspector was not a fit an 1 proper person, to find evidence against him, and that farmers decline to take action in th3 matter? — Farmers generally put up with a grievance rather than take steps to oust a man. 10617. How would you appoint the chief insp3ctor in a district or group of districts ? — The Government should do it. 10618. Would it n it be better, if there is a complaint, thit the six inspectors should form a committee of appeal ? — I don't quite agree with it. I would rather leave it in the hands of the Government. 10619. Is six weeks long enough for a first licence in winter? — It might bs necessary to leave it in the hands of the inspector, but I think there are always two days in the six weeks whent man could diji. 10620. Mr. Botha. j How was this Tarka inspector appointed? — He was the first one appointed there under the old system. 10621. Which causes more loss to the district, the scab, or the jealousy and animosity which exists between difEerent farmers and families in this district .■' — I don't wish to answer that question. Mr. Stephanut Behkfr examined. 10622. Chairman.'] Where do you live? — In ward No. 3. I have farmed in this district for 14 yeare, and have 4,100 sheep. 10623. Do you agree with Mr. van Aardt ? — Yes, with everytliing, except th'it I think thete should be a chief inspector for each district, as suggested by Mr. Cloete, but I think the ward inspectors should be elected by farmers holding not less than 500 sheep. I don't think the cost of inspection would exceed £140 a year in my field cornetcy, and at it contains 35 farms it would be £4 for each farm, and I think that those who are in favour of an act would willingly pay this amount, and those who are opposed to it would benefit by more than the amount. 10624. Do you mean that the district is to be taxed for the payment of these inspec- tors ? — No, it should be paid out of the general revenue. I only wanted to show that the expense to the Colony would be entirely recouped by the advantages derived. 1 0625. Dr. Smartt.] Would you be in favour of a stock tax at so much per hundred, or thousand, the revenue from which should go towards the expense of defraying the adminis- tration of the act ?— Yes, if necessary. 10626. Mr. Francis.] If you were to impose a tax on sheep to carry out the scib act, don't you think it would cause a good deal more oppoiition to the act than there is at pres^'nt ? — I'ndoubtedly. 10627. Then when you reconsider the subject, don't you think it would be bett'jr to piy the expenses of the scib act out of the general revenue? — Undoubtedly, but I meant that should there be an actual necessity I would go as far. 10G28. Mr. Botha.] Do you acknowledge that the matter of the appointment of inspectors is of such great benefit to the several districts that, if it was unavoidably necessary, it might even be paid for locally ? — Yes. 10029. Do you therefore think that these farmers who are interes'ed in the matte should have a voice in the appointment of the inspectors? — Yes, a legitimate interest. 1;!U30 If ajiutial ajt were put iu force, would you prohibit sheep from the unpro- clrtimed area entering the proclaimel area, or would you allow them to enter if they were pr0|.'erly dipped under supervision and quarantined for a reasonable time, and again dipped on tho fronti T ? — They c >nl I eithor be dipped or quir intine 1 for two or three months 10631. Would you allow certain privileges for slaughter stock for the first year or u after the act was in operation ? — Yes. 457 10632. Chairman.] Do you wish to add anything?— I differ from Messrs. van Aardt and Oloete that an inspector must necessarily bo a sheep farmer. Perhaps a very able man might have been a sheep farmer, and bo the very man for the appointment and at a reasonable salary, although ho may not be a sheep farmer at the time. I also differ on the point that the inspectors should be appointed by the farmers possessing 500 sheep ; an inspector mif^ht be a schoolmastor, or nnytliing olso. 10633. But should not an inspector have a knowledge of sheep, and have been at one time a sheep farmer 'i — Hi^ may liave a knowlodgp of sheep withoiit ever having been a sheep farmer. Ho may have been a servant. Mr. David ile Wit examined. 10634. C'hair'nan.l You formerly represented this electoral division in the House of Assembly ? — Ye*. 10635. .^nd 3'ou are a sheep farmer here ? — Yes, for 35 years ; I have 4,000 or 5,000 sheep. 10636. As one of the former members for this division, you know the district thoroughly ? — Yes. 10637. Do you think there is less scab now than there was five years ago? — Yes, much less. 10638. Do you attribute this to the dipping, or what? — To the dipping. 10639. Do you think the farmers throughout the divi.sion dip their sheep properly and regularly ? — I don't know whether they do it so regularly and properly ; but at the same time I don't know of any who don't dip. 10640. Have all the farmers in your ward dipping tanks? — Not all, but when they have no dip of their own they dip at their neighbours'. Most of the farms have dips. 10641. Do the farmers from this district more their sheep to other districts, whether proclaimed areas or otherwise ? — Yes, up to New England. 10642. How do they arrange for the moving of their sheep into a proclaimed area ? — They either send healthy sheejj or dip them first. 10643. But is that sufficient ? — I have not heard of any complaints. 10644. Don't they get two landowners to e.xamino these sheep and the sheep on their farms ? — Yes, or else they get a permit from tlie nearest inspector. 10645. Do you know, of your own knowledge, of any sheep which have been moved into the proclaimed area, when tlie landowner have inspected the flocks being moved, but not all the flocks on the farm ? — No. 10646. You think that, generally speaking, all the sheep on the farm are examined by these landowners before the^' give a permit? — I believe so, but I cannot speak from personal observation. 10647. Do the farmers in this district ever move their sheep into the Free State for grazing ? — Very seldom. 10648. On such occasions how do they arrange with the Free State authorities? — I cannot remember that stock has been sent for any length of time, but I suppose theyjgo to the proper authorities for permission. 10649. As the owner of 5,000 sheep, you are opposed to a scab act of any kind ?■ — I am opposed to the present scab act. 10650. Are you opposed to any act? — I cannot say that I am opposed to a law that I have not yet seen. 10651. Why are yo\i opposed to the present act?--T have done well for the last 30 or 35 years without a scab act, and my only o])jectiou is that I don't see the necessity of an act; the times are not now as they used '.o be 15 or more years ago, when men in 1)usine8S, wool-buyers, would buy custom and not wool ; now they buy wool on its merits, and con- sequently all interested parties try to produce as good wool as possible. 10652. That being the case, I take it you would saj' that the farmers in the district of Aliwal North are in a better positi m now than they were some few years ago ? — As far as scab is ccmceraed. 1065 i. They have more .stock, and are farming on better terms than they were then? — I cannot saj' they have more stock. 10654. But if they are farming on these lines, it is natural to suppose their sheep would increase and do better. How is it, then, that they have not more stock, or are not in a better position .'' — I think ihe district of Aliwal North has been overstocked the last 25 years, consequently there is no more room for increase. It depends on the seasons. 10655. You don't think that scab has anything to do with it during those seasons when the sheep become less ? — I believe that scab is injurious to sheep, and may be the cause of losing them. 106 '6. Tf all the farmers in this district were to dip their sheep properly and clean tliorn of so lb, you think 'hoy would bo in a better position than they are now, and would produce better wool and liave better stock ? — Tliat is roMSonablo ; the cleaner you keep the wool, tlie b tier for tlie unimnl. 10657. Do all your nei;;lil)(iurs take as much ]iiiiiis t" ir.idicate scab and keep their sheep cleau as you do yourself ? — More tUftB one of jyy ueigiibours do more to th ir sheep than I an^ in the habit of doing. 458 10658. Don't you think there should be some means of compelling people who don't now do it to cleanse the.'r stock when they become infected, even though it should be you yourself ? — No, I think I would give a little time ; time will do it. 10659. Is it not possible that if you give them too much time they may not have the means of doing it ? — I don't think so. 10660. Then you don't think it would be to the interests of this district to have any scab act at all ? — I don't think it is necessary. 10661. Br. Smartt.'] You state that you have been in a position to thoroughly know the district of Aliwal North, that the majority of farmers dip well, and have dips on their farms. Are you aware that there is a ward in this division which consists of 35 farms on which there are six dips ? — No. 10662. Are you in a position to state that that is not the fact ? — No. 10663. Then you are not thoroughly acquainted with the farms in this district ? — I did not say the whole district ; I said the ward in which I am living. 10664. Are you in a position to state that a certain class of farmers in this district, farmers with small flocks of sheep, are in a better position now than they were five or ten years ago '? — No. 10665. What do you think? — I know of a few farms which have such a number of people on them that they cannot be in the same position as formerly. 10666. In the majority of cases of industrious farmers in the district of Aliwal North, who thoroughly look after their sheep, and dip them properly at seasonable times, are they advancing or not } — I cannot say they are more prosperous than the others. I think Mr. van Aardt is one of the most attentive farmers in the district ; ho had the first tank on his place, and I don't believe he has been in as good a position as I am. I don't believe that those who are more particular are more prosperous tlian the others. 10667. Do you know of any cases in this district where individual farmers are perfectly careless with regard to the spread of scab among their sheep ? — No. 10668. Not one single case .' — No. As far as I know, everyone does the be.st he can. 10669. If there are such cases, would it be advisable in the interests of these people to compel them to dip their sheep ? — I don't think it is necessary. I think farmers will judge for themselves, and will notice when it is necessary to be more particular. 10670. Am I to understand that in all cases the farmers in this district sell their wool absolutely on its merits } Are there not cases in which the price of a farmer's wool ia regulated by the amount of goods which he takes out of the merchant's store ? — Not so much now as it was five or ten years ago. It might be, but I don't know of such cases. 10671. Do you know that it is the prevailing custom in some districts of the country? — It is not a general practice here. 10672. Mr. Francis.'] Do you believe that scab is contagious ? — Yes. 10673. If a man had a clean flock, and they became infected, would it not cause him a great deal of loss and trouble } — Yes. 10674. Supposing there was a case where a man had 5,000 clean bheep on his farm, and he had a careless neighbour, who hardly ever dipjjed his sheep, and continually rein- fected them, don't you think that man should have some protection ? — Yes, I think it would be good, and I believe there is protection to a certain extent under the pound law. 10675. Do you think the driving money, and the halfpenny or penny per head the man would receive from impounding stock would compensate him for having to dip 5,000 sheep ? — No. 10676. Then don't you think there should be some other rule or law to cause this care- less man to attend to his sheep ? — I believe some other law is necessary, and possibly the pound law could be amended. 10677. Then, although you stated that you are opposed to the present scab act, and all scab acts, you still consider that some law is nece&sary to cause a careless man to clean his sheep, and to protect the careful one? — ^If there is a man so wilful that ho «ill knowingly inflict that loss upon his neighbour, then, in such a case, I will admit it might be necessary to have further protection. 10678. Do you believe that in this district there are men possessing sheep, who are almost entirely ignorant with regard to the nature of scab and the proper remedies for its cure ? — It is possible. 10679. 'Then don't you think it would be a benefit to these people to instruct them in the nature of scab, and then they can save their flocks from being infected ? — Yes, but if they don't know, they get the information from others. 10680. Would it not be a very great benefit to the farmers and the Colony at large if scab could be eradicated from the sheep ? — Yes. 10681. Dr. SmarU.~\ If it could bo satisfactorily proved, beyond all controversy, that scab can be eradicated, then, according to your own showing, you are in favour of a general act ? — Yes, as soon as I am convinced that it can be done I shall be in favour of it. Mr. Oliver Henniiig examined. 10682. Chairman.'] Are you a delegate ? — Yes, from ward No. 4. I have farmed here for 45 years. Formerly, I had 6,000 sheep, but now I have only 2,000. 10683. Do you agree with Mr. de Wet ?— Partly, but I don't think scab has much to do with the loss in stock. [G. 1— '94.] LLL 459 10684. Have all the fanners in your ward dipping tanks? — There are very few who have not got them. 10685. Do they all dip and clean their sheep ? — I know of very few who don't dip and hand dresa. 10686. Do you keep your sheep clean ? — Yes, but they occasionally break out. 10687. Do your neighbours also dip their sheep at all times when scab breaks out? —Yes. 10688. Then do you think it is absolutely necessary that there should be an act to force careless farmers to dip ? — I am in favour of an act. 10689. Do you think you will stamp out scab in your ward unless you have an act of some kind ? — I don't know. 10690. From your knowledge of the farmers in your neighbourhood, do you think they will stamp it out unless some acition is taken of that sort ? — We cannot eradicate scab with- out the assistance of a law, and with a law it can be done. 10691. M)-. du Toit.'] Ai-e you acquainted with the working of the present act ? — I have read something about it in the Ayrindttiral Journal. 10692. Can you make any suggestions for its amendment ? — As far as I understand it there appear to be difficulties with regard to the inspectors ; as there is only one in a district, it causes inconvenience to get him when he is wanted. I think there should be an inspector in each field-cornetcy, and an assistant on the border to make it more convenient in case of a partial act. 10693. Dr. Smartt.^ Are there many farmers in this district who would be greatly affected by a clause compelling them to keep their sheep clean? — Yes. 10694. Mr. Botha.'] Should the inspectors be appointed by the divisional council or the farmers in the field-cornetcy ? — I think every field-cornetcy should nominate candidates to the divisional council, and the council should select a man. Mr. Francis Steyn examined. 10695. Chairman.'] Are you a delegate? — Yes, I was appointed at a public meeting in ward No. 2 by a certain section of the farmers, to state that they are oppoRod to the scab act on account of certain clauses in it, but are not altogether against it. 1 have farmed here for 16 years, and now I have only between 600 and 700 sheep. One objection to the act is that the seal) inspectors have too much power. Another point is that if one animal out of a clean flock gets scab, the owner must give notice to the inspector at once before he can hand dress. For instance, if I have to leave my farm for want of water, and one sheep is scabby, I am obliged to dip the whole flock, and I may not remove that one sheep and hand dress it, but the whole flock is put under quarantine although I may be obliged to trek for want of water. Even in the case of a clean sheep out of a flock which has only been quarantined for trespassing on my neighbour's place, he has the right to bring an action against me in the magistrate's court, where I may be fined £20, and it is not even necessary to prove damages as long as the sheep have been over the bouudary. That is how we understand the law, and I believe it is also the law that when an animal out of a quarantine flock trespasser amongst a clean flock, that flock is also placed under quarantine, and consequently the man has the right to damages because he has to dip his flock. These are matters which hinder" people. I think in such cases the circumstances should he considered, and if I am obliged to leave my place because there is no water, I should be allowed to hand dress scabby animals, because it stands to reason that if there is no water to drink there can be none to dip w ith. It is quite possible that, notmthstanding the term of quarantine is three months, the weather may be so liad the whole time, as well as other inconveniences, that I may be unable to dip, and at the expiration of the time I should then be compelled by the inspector to dip, although I may have kept up hand dressing all the time. I don't think that is right. An EngUeh farmer, Mr. Halse, my neighbour, had to dip four times during the winter, and the result was that he lost nearly half of his flock, sold liis farm and went away, and that with an enclosed farm. I am not going to say that dipping is no good, but in wet and cold weather it is impracticable. In my district I beUeve pouple know by experience that dipping sheep does them good, and everybody more or less does his best, and if the matters I have referred to were altered, every reasonable man would be in favoiu- of the scab act. Mr. Eustace Arp Danckwerli examined. 10696. Chairman.] You are a wool-buyer in Aliwal North ? — Yes, and a produce buyer. I have been buying for five years in Aliwal North, and two in King Wilham's Town. 10697. During your experience here, have you found that wool and skins have become freer of scab ? — Wool has been freer of scab this last season, on account of the favourable condition of the grass, and so on, but before that they lowered very much, and now they are going down again. In buying wool, I generally pick out what I want, and don't take scabby fleeces ; but I find that 60 per cent, of the farmers here have scabby wool. I find that those people who present the scabby wools are those who don't dip. They have tried dipping, but as they do not foUow the instructions the dip does not aaswer ; it is usually 460 too weak, because they don't want to purchase so much dip. Then they come forward and say the dip is no good. Five people come forward and tell me that the dip answers, and their sheep are perfectly free, and ten others come forward and say it is not so. These ten have evidently not used enough dip. Another thing is thoy don't mix it properly : they just throw it into the tanks. 10698. As a produce buyer, you buy large numbers of skins .' — Yes. 10699. Do you find them much affected with scab? — Very many. I think fully as much as the wool, that is 60 per cent. 10700. What difference do you make in the purchase of skins between good ones and scabb)' ? — For a good, sound skin we give 4d. a lb., and for a scabby one not more than 2d. or sometimes l^d. 10701. Do you think the loss to this district in consequence of scab is very great? — Very heavy, and the same thing applies to the wool. 10702. Does the loss come out of the pockets of the farmers or the produce buyers ? — It depends on the man who buys. If a man understands what he is buying he does not lose, but the farmer ; but if he doei not understand what he is buying of course he loses. 10703. Am I to understand that there are produce buyers here who don't know what they are about ? — That is certain. 10704. I suppose they are general dealers ? — Yes, and they just buy for the custom. 10705. But the produce buyer who buys wool on its own merits does not make a mistake of this kind ? — No, as a rule he just about comes out, but the majority will say they will give 4d. all round for skins, and of course they are bound to lose. 10706. Then you think it is the general dealer, who bujs his skins from his customers in order to obtain their custom, whose practice tends so materially to prevent the farmers from cleansing their sheep ? — That is what I think. 10707. If a different system of buying were carried on, and all produce were bought on its own merits, do you think the farmers would soon realize that they must keep their stock clean ? — Yes, and that the scab act would assist them in doing so. 10708. Do you think the loss on skins is as great in some other districts adjoining as it is here ? — I don't know much about the other districts. 10709. Do you buy anj' skins from the Free State? — Yes. lOTjO. Are they scabby too? — Just as much as they are here. 10711. And you make the same difference in the value? — Yes. 10712. Mr. du Toit.~\ Have you seen yourself that some of the farmers don't dip properly ? — They have told me that it is useless to dip ; they won't dip because when they do so, and try to keep the sheep clean, they get the same price as the neighbour who had scabby sheep. I have never been at a dipping, but they buy the dip from us, and as other farmers buy it too, and we know the number of sheep they have, we can tell pretty well whether they buy the requisite quantity or not. 10713. Br. Smartf.j Is there any difference in the quality of the bulk of the wool supplied from the Kaffrarian districts and the district of Aliwal North ? — I should think so ! Tliere is a great difference, a difference of nearly 3d. a lb. 10714. Is any intelligent farmer in the district of Aliwal North in a position to know that wool is not always bought upon its merits ? — Yes, I can mention a number of names. It is a recognized fact. 10715. Then, if a man states that such is not the case, he is certainly not a man who understands the conditions of the district ? — Certainly not. 10716. Mr. du Toit.^ Do you as a rule give the same price for wool which has been recently dipped as for wool which has not been dipped at all ? — It is hard to say that ; I go by the quality of the wool, and as long as there is no scab in it, the price would be about the same. You don't go by the time when it was dipped, but by the length and strength of the staple, cleanliness, and so on. 10717. Dipping does not deteriorate the quality of the wool? — No. 10718. Irrespective of the kind of dip used ? — Yes. 10719. If merchants buy scabby wool and skins, and give more for them than they are really worth, they must make up the loss in some other way ? — They must. 10720. In buying two jiarcels of wools, what difference would you make per pound between scabby and clean wool, other conditions being similar ? — With our wools I reckon the difference at about lid. a lb. 10721. Then if wool and skins were bought on their merits, do you consider the amoimt which the farming commimity sustains in this district would, if saved, fuUy pay for the carrying out of the scab act ? — I think so. Steynslurg, Tuesday, 7th February, 1893. PRESENT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. Dr. Smartt. ,, DU ToiT. Mr. Francis. JIfr. Jan Chri.Hian Henning examined. 10722^ C'Aairwaw.] You are a delegate appointed at a public meeting to represent ward No. 1 .' — Yes. I have farmed for about 40 years fax difiEerent districts, and at present I am LLL 2 4G1 canying on fhe business of a hutcher nnd a farmer at the same time. T have 2,400 sheep, but I am living in the village, and my son is on the farm. 10723. Have you any suggestions to make in regard to the scab act .•* — Not living in a proclaimed area, I am not personally acquainted with the act, but I hear of a general complaints in regard to it. 10724. Do you hear those complaints from fai-mers in the pro Coctzee examined. 10917. Chairman.] How long have you farmed in Steynsburg ? — For 28 years. I liave 900 sheep and goats. 10948. Are you in favour of or opposed to a scab act ? — I am strongly opposed to it. I have been living for two years in a district where the scab act was proclaimed, Smithfield, in the Orange Free State, and after it had been in operation for two year.s the whole district went backwards, and that also applied to myself ; but I cannot say whether it was due to the act. I know of cases where they started dipping in the morning with fine weather, and before they had finished the weather became bad and caused great loss. 10949. Are there scab inspectors in the Free State ? — Yes, my sheep were inspected monthly. Sometimes the Commissioners found my sheep clean, and could say nothing ; but at other times they found them scabby, and told me to doctor them. That means either to hand dress or to dip them. 10950. Br. Smartt.'] And if they came back again, and the sheep were stiU scabby, what then ? — Then they left the same orders. 10951. Chairman.'} And if they came back the third time, and still found them scabby ? — They could do nothing. 10952. Br. Smartt.'] I suppose there is just as much scab now in the Free State as before the act was proclaimed ? — Yes, perhaps more. 10953. If they made a man pay a £5 note the first time they found his sheep scabby, would not they have been better the next time ? — No, they would never be clean, because in the first place in good seasons merino sheep have naturally less scab, but when there is a scarcity scab is worse. It is the nature of the sheep. 10954. Br. Smartt.'] Did you ever dip in the Free State?— Yes, often. I used lime and sulphur, tobacco and patent dips. One patent dip I used one pint to 24 pints of water. 10955. Do you mean to say you dipped a flock of sheep in that mixture .' — Yes. 10956. And did they live ? — Yes, it did them good. 10957. Then you have been very fortunate, because if other farmers used that they would probably lose more than half their stock. It is more than twice the strength recommended by the makers ? — I did not wet the sheeps' heads. 10958. Was that [producing on the table a sheep* in splendid condition] the condition the sheep were in in the Free State under the scab act you have referred to ? — Yes, I could pick one out of my flock like that. 10959. Do you believe any farmer in the Colony could produce two or three thousand sheep as clean as that ? — A farmer might be able to do so if he had a large farm and plenty of room. 10960. Chairman.] Was it on account of scab being so infectious and so bad in the Free State that you found it impossible to carry on farming there, and moved into the Colony ? — No. 10961. But is not the scab worse there than here? — No. 10962. Mr. Botha.] How long did you live in the Free State under the act .' — Two years. They never prosecuted or fined anybody who dipped, however scabby the sheep might be, only people who did not dip at all. 10963. Then you think a scab act which is applied so leniently that nobody is punished is of no use ? — I don't think it would be right to punish those who do their best, but the law was good, because it punished those who did not do anything, and therefore in my opinion the Free State act is a good one. The law is for the disobedient, for murderers, thieves an i other criminals, but I think it would be too unreasonable if the law fined me in the act of doing my best and doing what I was ordered to do, but because I cannot succeed punishes me. 10964. Mr. Francit.] Don't you tliink it would be good to have a similar law in this district to the Free State law, which you think so good .'' — No, I don't think so. Mr. Ock*rt Petrus van Zyl examined. 10965. Chairman.l How long have you farmed here? — About forty years; I have 1,000 sheep. 10966. Do you wish to give evidence against the scab act, or in favour of it ? — lam partly in favour of, and partly opposed to an act. I am opposed to the present act, but if there were a workable act I should be in favour of it. I am opposed to the present act because all farmers are not living in places which are tvell supplied with water, and others again are too poor, and are living as tenants. The result is that when the dams get dry, the people who are dependent upon dam water cannot remove their stock without the permission of an inspector, and if they cannot get it they must allow all their sheep to die. The same difficulty applies to selling stock ; you cannot remove them under the present act without the permission of an inspector, and they must first be cleaned, consequently j'ou arc deprived of all your privileges, and cannot do business, and in times of drought you cannot * The sheep produced was ouo selected by Mr. Verinaak from his flocks, and had not been dipped for 25 months. 471 avail yourself of any opportunity of moving stock to better places. I think I have stated sufficient to prove that I have good reason for opposing the present scab act.. 10967. Have you a dipping tank on your farm ? — No. 10968. Are you now farming with 1,000 gheep ?— Yes. 10969. Do you dip them anywhere ? — Yos, at my neighbour's tank. 10970. Do you cure them of scab when you dip them ? — Not always. 10971. Then how do you dip them .^ — Just like the other peojile do. 10972. How long do you keep them in ? — About a minute and a half. 10973. How do you know the time ? — I guess it. 10974. Some, I suppose, may be in a minute and a half, and some half a minute ? — No, I keep them all in about the same time. 10975. What sort of act are you in favour of ? What do you mean by a workable act ? — I mean that, when nscessary, everybody shall be obliged to pay attention to his slieop, to dress them and do whatever is necessary to have them clean ; and those who neglect to do this should be fined, and that would have the effect of compelling everybody to dip. 10976. If a man's sheep are scabby, and he is without water, and wants to trek, what would you do ? — I would allow him to trek, but the law compels him to remain. 10977. Is scab contagious? — I think so. As far as I can see there is no doubt about it. 10978. Does it cost money, time, and labour to clean your sheep?— Yes, to purchase stuff, and dip them. 10979. Then would it be right to allow a man who does not keep his sheep clean to move them across another man's clean farm ? — No, I would not call that a good law. Hanover, Thursday, 9th Fehruwry, 1893. PKESENT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. I Dr. Smartt. ,, Du Toit. I Mr. Fr.vncis. Mr. Dirlc Johannes Viljeon examined. 10980. Chairman.'] You are a delegate elected at a public meeting? — Yes. I have been farming here for 30 years, and have 4,000 or 5,000 small stock, mostly sheep. 10981. Were you appointed to give evidence in favour of or against a scab act? — Against it. I was not present when I was delegated, but I am informed that I was delegated. I am not speaking of the act by experience, because I have not been under the law yet, but from what I have heard and read I am opposed to it. In the first place, the inspectors have too much power, and it interferes with free trade, and according to my experience I don't believe that scab can be eradicated from South Africa. 10982. Do you dip your sheep regularly ? — Last year I dipped four times. 10983. According to the instructions ? — I generally dip with sulphur and lime. Before the winter I dipjped twice in 14 days, and also after the winter. It helped a little, but it did not cure them. 10984. How do you prepare the lime and sulphur } — I put a cask of sulphur with a bag of lime, mixed together in a 400 gallon tank. After boiling, the water is let into the dipping tank, and 200 gallons more of dean water is added, and that is also boiled. I boil it the best part of the night, and all the lime and sulphur is dissolved except that which gets to the bottom. 10985. Do you measure the 200 gallons of water that you add? — I guess the quantity, about half again, and I can measure it by the dipping tank, which holds 600 gallons. 10986. How long do you keep the sheep in ? — I allow them to swim 50 feet before they can get out, and I consider that equal to a minute, swimming round and round. 10987. Then some which swim faster than the others may stop in half a minute, and the slower ones more ?— No, it takes them fully a minute to get through 10988. You are aware that all the directions for the use of lime and sulphur are to keep the sheep in a minute and upwards .'' — I know that, but I cannot state positively that I am doing so. 10989. Don't you think that is one of the reasons why, after dipping your sheep as you say twice in fourteen days, you have not cured them ? — According to my experience 1 can say that is not the case. 10990. Still you will agree that, if a dipping of that kind is not done properly, the chances are that it will faU ? — Yes. 10991. Do the farmers generally in your neighbourhood dip their sheep ? — Every man has a dip on his place. 10992. Do you know whether they dip properly? — As far as I know. We sometimes meet and discuss these matters, and consequently I think I can say that they do. 10993. Do they generally fail to clean their sheep when they dip, or do the sheep 472 become reinfected after a time ? — ^I think it is the dipping that fails. I cannot say that they are reinfected. 10991. Do you and the farmers generally put the sheep in the same old kraals after dipping? — They generally lie outside. 10995. But on the same places ? — Some do, and sometimes they have a fresh place. 10996. Is there any difference in the reinfection when the .sheep are put in ^the same place or on a new one? — No, I have noticed no difference. Formeily I have seen just one dipping have the desired effect. 10997. What dip did you use in those days ? — Tobacco and others. 10998. Then the Commission must come to the conclusion that in those days, when the sheep were dipped better than they are now, they were kept clean ? — I don't think I did it as well then as I do now ; I did not time them then, but just got them through as quickly as possible. 10999. Then you are of opinion, and firmly believe that dipping has no effect upon cleansing the sheep ? — It helps, but it does not cure them altogether. 11000. If there were a clause in this act which you would Uke to see passed by which every farmer was compelled to dip his sheep simultaneously, throughour the district, do you think it would help to stamp out scab ? — I am opposed to all legislation with regard to this matter, but if reasonable and practical I would approve of it. 11001. Woidd it be reasonable and practical for the farmers in the district of Hanover to dip their sheep during the months of December and January, or any other two months in the year they liked to arrange among themselves ? — In February and March everybody could dip, but the best time for dipping is after the winter, and then it is sometimes impos- sible for some of us to do it. 11002. Then in order to try and stamp out scab, which causes such serious loss to the Colony, do you think it advisable for all to dip at some specified time ? — Yes, it would be a good thing. 11003. Mr. Francii^ Do you believe that scab is contagious ? — No. 11004. Do you believe it is caused by an insect? — I know that there is an insect, but I don't believe that the insect causes the scab. 1 1005. If the insect passes from a sheep infected with scab on to a clean sheep, do you believe it would cause scab on that sheep ? — No. 11006. Could you give the Commission \our idea of what does cause scab ? — It is natural ; just as a human being might catch cold, so a sheep might catch scab. 11007. Then how do you account for the fact that in the colonies of Australia, where there are miUions of sheep, they have eradicated scab fi-om the country ? — 1 don't believe it. 11008. Will you believe that in the district of Komgha there has not been a single sheep belonging to the district infected with scab for some years, and that the Commission inspected about 25,000 sheep there, and could find no traces of scab whatever? — I believe that, but whether it will last for two years longer I don't know. 11009. If they can clean their sheep from scab there, don't you think they could do it in other districts in the Colony ? — No, because we are subjected to such extreme changes of heat and cold, both in summer and winter. Perhaps in Komgha it is more equable. 11010. Mr. Botha?\ Would it meet your views if the divisional council appointed the inspectors, and there were one in each ward ? — If there must be an act, I would rather leave it in the hands of the farmers themselves. 11011. Dr. Smarti.~\ If you had dipped your flocks, and gone to the trouble you say you generally go to, and had them, tolerably free of scab, would you be satisfied to find some morning some very scabby sheep of your neighbours mixed among them ? — I should not like any strange thing to come on my place, but I cannot say I should be more dissatisfied if they were scabby. 1 1012. Then you wish the Commission to understand that it would not be of the slightest consequence to you, if fifty sheep mixed with your clean sheep, whether those fifty were clean or were rotten with scab ? — No ; a scabby thing is always sickly, and it has a different effect. 11013. Why would you not object .? — I don't believe scab is contagious, but I would rather see a healthy than a scabby animal. 11014. Do you know of any single instance in the district of Hanover where individua farmers keep their flocks tolerably clean of scab ? — You find that some farmers keep their flocks cleaner than others. 11015. Do you know of any single instance where a farmer keeps his sheep in a very disgraceful condition, year after year, and does nothing to check the disease ? — No. 11016. We have it on evidence in other districts, and I should wish to know if it is the case here, that certain persons who are not themselves opposed to legislation against the spread of the scab disease, publicly speak against such legislation because they believe that by so doing they gain greater influence among a large section of the people. Is such the case in Hanover ? — 1 don't think so. 11017. Mr. du Toit.~\ If the law were so amended that men who had a clean bill'^could move their sheep on their own permit, so that it would not be necessary to look for an inspector, but subject to a heavy penalty for wilfully moving scabby sheep, would not that meet your views ? — I am opposed to any act, but if there were an act the arrangement you propose would be an advantage. 473 11018. Since you dip your sheep, you believe that scab can be kept in check? — Yes, dipping does a great deal of good. ^^11019. Then don't you think it is necessary to do something to keep the disease in check '; — I shoiildlike to see it done somehow without a law. Instead of spending £300 on inspectors, the Government could supply dip at a cheap rate, that is, by allowing it to come free by rail. 1 1020. 2 And^if people wiU not make use of the means afforded them, should they be compelled to do so ? — Yes, if they won't eat they should bo made to. 11021. Mr.\Francis.'\ Do you think it would be a good thing if scab could be eradicated from the flocks } — Certainly. 1 1022. Then if you were convinced that it could be done, would you be in faTOur of a general scab act ? — Yes. 11023. Mr. Botha.'] Do you approve of the sj'stem that, if an individual farmer obtained the necessary dipping stuff gratis, and then neglected to make proper use of it, he should be punished ? — Yes. '" '■" 11024. Then you have only one objection to the present law, that they do not, under that law, get the dip gratis ? — Yes, but the law punishes now by preventing a farmer selling stock from his place. 11025. Chairman!] Is there anything you wish to add?— Some time ago there were three seasons in succession when I had almost clean sheep, with the assistance of occasional hand dressing ; and it is the general experience here that in some seasons, apparently, you can get the shf op clean, and again in other seasons it is impossible. 11026. Do you know of any large farmer in this district who is in favour of the scab act ?— Yes. Mr. Jacobus Albertus van Zyl examined. 11027. CAfltVwaw.] Are you also a delegate ? — Yes. I have about 5,000 sheep. I have farmed here for forty-three years. 11028. Do you agree with Mr. Viljeon? — Yes. 11029. Mr. Hotha.l If you dip scabby sheep properly, do you cure them ? — Yes. 11030. Chairman.] Do you tliink a simultaneous dipping would be a good thing? — No. 11031. Dr. Smartt.] Do you think that every farmer in the district of Hanover does as much to keep his flocks clean as you do ? — I think most of them do, as far as I can learn. 11032. But as regards the few who don't, would it not be in their own interests to compel them to dip their sheep ? — They all dip, but some make the dip too weak. 11033. Would it not be in the interests of these people to have their sheep thoroughly dipped under inspection ? — They wiU find out for themselves without the assistance of an inspector. Mr. Danitl Johannei KlyngeU examined. 11034. Chairman.'] Are you also a delegate? — Yes. I have been farming here for more than twenty years, and have 2,000 or 3,000 sheep. 11035. Do you agree with Mr. Viljeon ? — Yes, 1 am opposed to a general scab act, and I shall be opposed to it until I know by experience that I can eradicate scab. For three years I kept my sheep clean, but without being mixed with other stock they got scabby, and though I did all I possibly could I could not cleanse them, so I left them to themselves and they got clean. I only swam them through a hole of water, and for eight days they did not scratch ; then they commenced scratching, and I sheared them and they got clean, and remained so for four years, although I kept them in the same scabby ki-aal. Later on I dipped sheep in the same flock, and cured them. I dipped them twice, and kept up hand dressing until they were clean. That was five years later. Latety, I dipped 1,000 sheep in 500 lbs. of tobacco, and some other ingredients with it. I dipped them according to the condition they were in ; the clean sheep I kept in perhaps one minute, and the scabby ones two or three minutes, and they are worse now than they were before, and I intend shortly dipping them again, in a patent dip. 11036. Mr. Franc it.] Do }'ou believe that scab is contagious ? — When the sheep are affected with fever, it is. Notwithstanding, I ran two thoroughbred rams in a small camp wi>h sickly sheep for at least three months, they did not get infecttd although the others remained very bad. 11037. Had those rams long wool ? — Yes. 11038. And were they in tolerably good condition ? — No, they were poor, but they got fat in camp. 11039. Are you aware that sheep with long greasy wool are not so liable to contagion as sheep in j)oor condition .''—I have found it out. 11040. You would not like to see a number of scabby sheep come amongst your flock if yours were clean ? — No, I should take them out at once. All diseases are infectious. 11 041. If you had all 'your sheep clean of scab, and you had a neighbour who was care- ■in less and would not clean his, do you think you would -suffer a great injustice ? — Yes, there would be a danger of infection. 11042. Then if he would not keep his sheep clean, and did nothing to cleanse them, don't you think it would be only right and just that he should be made to do so ? — Yes, I think he should be made to do something. 11043. Chairman.} Do you wish to add anything ?— One of my objections to the act is that it presses more heavily upon the poorer classes, and in ca.se there is a general scab act the labouring classes will refuse to keep stock of their own, consequently they wLU all have to be paid in ready money and the result will be that their money will go to the canteens, and when there is nothing left they will steal from their masters, as they will have no stock of their own to kill. 11044. Mr. Botha.] Do you consider the scab act is injurious to the farming interest, or advantageous and profitable ? — I cannot say that I consider it a loss or disadvantage to the owners to keep the sheep clean. Mr. Caret Visser examined. 11045. Chairman.'] Are you a delegate? — Yes. I h ive farmed here for about 20 years, and have 3,000 sheep. 11046. Do you come to give evidence in opposition %•) a scab act? — Yes. 11047. Do you agree with Mr. Viljeon ? — I think scab is contagious, and I also believe that it cannot be eradicated altogether, but that a scabby sheep can be cleaned by being properly dipped, and that in times of drought it comes spontaneously. Steekgras also causes it. I don't think all the people in my neighbourhood dip properly. 11048. When a farmer tells you he has dipped his sheep and has not cured them of scab, do you consider that he has not dipped his sheep properly } — Not always. 11049. In eases where a fanner tells you that he cannot cure his sheep, do you think it advisable that they should be dipped under inspection ? — When he does not dip properly. 1 1050. Would it tend to eradicate scab in the district of Hanover if there were a general simultaneous dipping ? — If it could be done. 11051. If the dip were supplied at a cheaper rate, and carriage free on the railway, do you think it would assist the farmers materially in dipping their sheep in this district? — I don't think so. I am afraid to allow any interference by the Government, because they might claim some rights. 11052. But we are told there are many poor farmers who find it very difiicult to buy the dip. Would it not be good for them ? — It would be a good thing if we could have the dip cheaper, but that wLU not do anything towards the eradication of scab. 11053. Don't you think those poor farmers who are not able to purchase the dip would be more particular and dip better if they got the dip cheaper ? — They might. 11054. Then it would be a good thing } — It would be a good thing for every farmer if he could get the dip cheaper, but that would not help in eradicating scab. 11055. Mr. Francis.] Do you know it is a fact that the only sort of scab which comes under the law in this country is that where the scab insect can be found on the sheep ? — No. 11056. Consequently, if that is the case, are you still of opinion that steekgras and drought can cause scab ? — Yes. 11057. Then you mean to assert that poverty and drought and steekgras can create a living organism ? — No. 11058. Yet }'ou say that these things bring scab, although it is only considered to be scab when an insect is found on the sheep ? — I don't believe that. I say you can have the insect on the sheep without having scab. 11059. But according to your evidence, poverty and steekgras cannot bring scab? — I believe scab is spontaneous. 11060. If there were a man with 500 clean sheep on his farm, and he had a neighbour who never took any steps to clean his own sheep, do you think he should come under some rule which should cause him to take steps to clean them ? — Yes, but it does not follow that we should have a general scab act. Some provision should be made for that. 11061. Mr. Botha.] Should the inspectors be elected by the farmers in the field- cornetcy or by the divisional council ? — I think it would be an improvement on the present system if the inspectors were elected either by the farmers in the district or by the divisional council. 11062. Do you know a single farmer in this district who keeps his sheep clean ? — No. My reason for .saying so is that at every kraal I find there is a pot ready to use, and a dip, so I conclude they must have scab. 11063. Do you think any large farmers in the district are in favour of a scab a:t ? — Yes, Mr. Evans and Mr. Murray. 1 1064. Are all the English farmers in this district in favour of it ?— T cannot say. 11065. Do you know any Dutch farmers who are in favour of it? — Yes, Mr. Qert Visser is. 11066. Br. Smartt.] If a general scab act were passed, would you yourself personally object to it ? — Yes. 11067. Chairman.] Generallj-, do you agree with Mr. Viljeon ? — Yes. [G. 1— '94.] NNN 475 11068. Mr. Francis.'] If you were convincod that scab could be eradicated, would you be in favour of a general act for that purpose ? — Yes, then I would. Mr. Jan Joubert examined. 11069. Chairman.'] Are you a delegate? — Yes. I have been farming here for 15 years, and have 800 sheep. 11070. Do you come forward to give evidence against or in favour of a scab act? — Against it. 11071. Do you agree with the previous witnesses ? — I agree in the greater part with those who spoke against the act. 11072. Do you believe that scab is contagious? — ^Yes. 11073. Can scabby sheep be cleaned ? — No. I don't say it is useless to dip the sheep, but you cannot cure them entirely. You can cure them for a certain time, and then it breaks out again — it may be in three months or three years. 11074. Do you dip your sheep ? — Yes. I think that scab is not caused by the insect, but it brings the insect. Mr. SJtnry Benjamin Humphriet examined. 11075. Chairman.'] You are a delegate appointed at a public meeting to give evidence in favour ef the scab act ? — Yes. I have been farming in this district for 24 years, and have about 2,000 sheep. 11076. From your knowledge of the district, do you think there is as much scab now as there was five years ago ? — I don't think so. 11077. To what do you attribute that ? — To the more careful farming; in fact we were driven to it. Wool is low, and you must try and get as much off the sheep as you possibly can, and the sheep don't thrive or breed well unless they are kept clean. 11078. Generally speaking, do you think the farmers dip their sheep properly? — I be- lieve there is a great deficiency in that respect. I think the dips are all good, but they are not properly applied. 11079. To meet this difi&culty, would it be advisable that there should be some regula- tion by which a man who does not clean his sheep, although using good dips, should dip them under inspection of some kind or other ? — Yes. 11080. By not dipping properly, do you mean the sheep are not kept in long enough ? — Yes, and perhaps the dip is not made to the proper strength, because I have known of cases where people would take an armful of rotten tobacco and boil it up. In many cases the dips are neither properly mixed nor properly applied, and the water is not measured. 11081. Would it tend to stamp out scab if there were a general simultaneous dipping? — If a simultaneous effort were made, I beUeve it could be done. 11082. You see no difficulty in carrying it oAt in this district ? — No. 11083. Supposing it is found impossible to have a general scab act, have you any idea how the country coiild be divided into two areas ? — No, I don't believe in half measures ; I am in favour of a general act throughout the country. 11084. Supposing it was found impossible to do that, and a line were drawn, would you protect the farmer who keeps his sheep in the unproclaimed area by allowing him the privilege of preventing any sheep crossing his farm on the public or other roads ? — That would be the only way to protect him. 11085. Have you ever been inconvenienced with the sale of sheep on account of the scab act ? — I cannot say I have. 11086. Are you aware that many farmers complain of the difficulties they experience in moving sheep into the proclaimed area ? — I have heard so. 11087. Can you suggest any amendment or alteration in the act to meet such cases .'' — No, I don't see how it can be done. For instance, the railway runs through my farm, and I don't think I should be safe if scabby sheep were carried by rail through my property. 11088. Supposing sheep were trucked under a permit from two landowners when they were free of scab, and scab broke out amongst them upon their arrival at the proclaimed area, would it be better to allow them to go on and be slaughtered, or to have them returned ? — I think the remedy would be as bad as the disease, in any case, but the best thing would be not to allow them to go any further into the clean area, and to return them. 11089. Mr. Francis.'] Under the present act, any stock owner reporting the outbreak of scab among his sheep is allowed three months to clean them. If there were a general act, do you think that would be too long ? — No, it is not too long. 11090. At the end of the three months, would it be better to have that man's sheep dipped under inspection, if they were not clean, or to grant him a licence and make him pay for it ? — If a man cannot clean the sheep in three months, somebody else should, because I think three months is ample time. 11091. To do away with the objections farmers have to the act in moving^sheep in the proclaimed area, do you think a stock- owner might move sheep on his own responsibility if 476 he had a clean bill ? — ^I should think that man ought not to be handicapped any more, but ought to be free. 11092. Can a flock of scabby sheep be cleaned by dipping them twice, properly, within fourteen days ? — I think so. Experience has taught me that it can be done. 11093. Mr. Botha.^ Do you know any farmers in the district of HanoTor who keep their Bheep clean ? — No, they cannot. 11094. Why not? — Because they don't work together. 11095. If you have a scab act which compels you to work together, do you think that you could clean them ? — Yes, certainly. 11096. We have been told in other districts that people are afraid to state their real opinions as regards the scab act because it might interfere with their election for some pub- lic office. Is that the case here '? — Decidedly. 11097. When we are told by intelligent farmers that dipping does not help, do you believe that is correct .'' — I think a good many of them are just carried away with the idea. There are certain people who fii an opinion, and the others are very much guided by them. 11098. Dr. Smartt.'j This district is subject to periodical droughts ? — Yes. 11099. Under the circumstances, would it be advisable to have a suspensory clause in the act, allowing the Government to suspend the act in certain districts if they became sub- ject to severe droughts and it was absolutely essential to move stock for drinking purposes or otherwise ? — Yes. 11100. Would that remove a great deal of the opposition to the act in districts like Hanover .' — It would. 11101. Do you consider such a clause absolutely necessary? — I do. 11102. Mr. du Toit.'] Would it not be advisable to make some provision even for those who were under quarantine for three months, in case they should have an opportunity of selling some sheep, that they should only be required to dip the lot they are selling once ? — I don't think one dipping would be enough, whether for slaughter purposes or not. I don't consider it a clean bill when a sheep is only dipped once. My opinion is that the buyer would be only too glad to wait a fortnight ; sheep are not so abundant now, and the danger to others is so great. 11103. Dr. Smartt.'\ Are you in favour of a Government dip depot? — Yes, but not of Government supplying the dip for nothing. 11104. If a partial act were proclaimed, what provision would you make for outlying districts coming under the act, by a simple majority of sheep farmers, or a cumulative vote according to the number of sheep held ? — Experience has taught us that a half measure is worth nothing. The districts which have had this act in force are actually applying to have it withdrawn, so that unless the whole Colony makes a unanimous efiort, I think we shall go backward. 1 1 105. If there were a partial act, which way would you allow them to come in ? — By a cumulative vote according to the number of sheep. I should also like to say that it will make an enormous difference to the Colony from a financial point of view, perhaps hundreds of thousands of pounds, in the difference of the price of wool ; because when our wool comes to the English market, it is looked upon at once as being scabby because it comes from the Cape. 11106. Chairman.~\ Then you think the Government would be justified in spending a large amount of money in endeavouring to stamp out scab ? — Yes. Mr. Barend Johannet du Phssis examined. 11107. Chairman.'\ Are you a delegate ? — Yes, I have farmed here for ten yeare, and have 4,000 sheep. I am in favour of a scab act. 11108. Do you ag^ee with Mr. Humphries? — Yes, entirely. 11109. Is there anything you would like to add ? — I don't agree that it is necessary to dip sheep twice within 14 days before they are moved for slaughter purposes, if they are not scabby. That would apply for the removal of scabbv sheep, but cleaa sheep need inly be be dipped once, under inspection. I purchased some rams and put them in a small camp, and I kept them there, putting them among a flock of ewes which had been previously dipped, and were clean. Every year I take them out and put them into a small camp, and this I have done for five jears, and they have never had scab. Since then I bought another lot which were scabby, dipped and cleaned them, and put them into the camp, and they have remained exactly the same for five years. At the last Hanover show 1 bought a ram and stabled him ; six months afterwards I bought six ewes, and found that one of them had been dressed just before I bought it. I put them into the stable with the ram, and shortly afterwards saw one of the ewes scratching again. I sheared and dipped them, but shortly afterwards found that the ram, though in splendid condition, had got scab. I sheared and dressed him, but I could not cure him, so I dipped him, and that got rid of the dise^ise. This proves that povertj' has nothing to do with infection. In 1883, I had a small lot of bastard sheep, very fat. These got scab in the winter, and before I dippi J them half had died from the effects of scab, as I had no dipping tank thfn at my place, and at that time did not believe that sheep could be cured. I have since sati.rfied mj'self that scab is con- tagious, and I will guarantee to keep a lot of sheep in my camp, and they may die of old NNN 2 477 age and poverty, but shall never have scab. That is my opinion, based upon experience. My sheep are not clean now, because scabby sheep are continually trekking over my farm, and that is the reason why farmers here cannot keep thoir sheep clean. Mr. John Pirie examined. 11110. Chairman.'] You are also a delegate '? — Yes. I have farmed here for 26 years, and have about 2,000 sheep. 11111. Are you in favour of a scab act ? — Yes, of a getioral, but not a permissive act. I have found a permissive act has caused trouble before to-day with regard to moving sheep for slaughter purposes, and I think they ought to be allowed to go through, if the act is to be permissive as at present. I don't see why wo here, or anywhere else outside the pro- claimed area, should be punished because we happen to be in a minority. 1 1112. Supposing you lived in the proclaimed area, would you like sheep to come from the unproclaimed area over your farm ? — That has nothing at all to do with what I spoke of. I say it is a hardship for us that wo cannot send our sheep to Port Elizabeth, where the price is 25 per cent, higher than in Kimberley, and shoep going there have really nothing to do with the proclaimed area, in my opinion. You can send a truck-load of scabby skins or scabby wool, or anything you like through the proclaimed areas, and what harm do the sheep do going to Port Elizabeth more than scabby skins ? I don't mean to say that a man should be allowed to send scabby sheep, but there ought to be some much easier arrangement made for forwarding sheep than there is at present. Now, if I want to send sheep to Port Eliza- beth, I have to ask a couple of my neighbours to come over (and we don't live within 50 yards of one another), and I have to put myself under an obligation to them for giving the certificate. I don't believe in these permissive acts. It is the servants who go about with scabby sheep who carry the disease through the country, not the farmers. The servants are continually changing masters, and every one of them has a few scabby sheep. Otherwise I agree with Mr. Humphries. Mr. Hermanui Wolfaard examined. 11113. Chairtnan.] Are you a delegate? — Yes. I have 3,000 or 4,000 sheep and goats, and have been farming hero for 30 years. 11114. Do you agree with an}' of the previous witnesses } — I think they have expressed my opinion more or less, except what Mr. Humphries said about dipping sheep twice before they can bo sold and moved for slaughter. In that I agree with Mr. du Plessis. I don't entirely agree that three months is long enough to cure shoep ; you might have bad weather or other unforeseen circumstances which might prevent your cleaning them in that time, and I should say foiu' months. Mr. Edward Murray examined. 11115. Chairman.] You are also a delegate? — Yes. I have been farming here for 20 years, and have over 2,000 sheep. I am in favour of an act, and quite agree with Mr. Humphries and the previous witnesses. I don't think there is anything to add. Mr. Gert Vischer examined. 11116. Chairman.'] I believe you are a delegate ? — ^Yes. I have farmed here for 14 years, and have 3,500 sheep and goats. 11117. Do you agree with the witnesses who have spoken in favour of a scab act .' — In general I do, but I don't agree with Mr. Humphries about the two dippings. In that matter I agree with Mr. du Plessis. As for cleaning sheep in three months, it depends upon circumstances, and I think the licence should be four months. It ii imjjossible to keep clean sheep without an act, and I consider the scab act a protection for the merino sheep, and that in future it will serve as a protection for the owner. Hope Town, Saturday, Wth February, 1893. PJtESBNT : Mr. Frost (Chairman.) Mr. Botha. I Dr. Smartt. ,, DU ToiT. I Mr. Frakcis. Mr. Barend Jacohus EraBmun examined. 11118. Chairman.] You are a delegate appointed by the public here? — Yes, at a public meeting. I have farmed here for 14 years, and have about 1,400 sheep and goats. 478 11119. I understand rou are here to give evidence against the scab act ? — Yes, I don't think tho act can be applisl to iJi-' 'district of Ilopn Town, because the greater part of this district is liable to drouglits, and in a large portion of it the flocks are supplied by well water from a depth of 100 to 120 feet, so that even a moderate drought might place the farmers in a predicament with regard to dipping. For about three months last spring farms were overstocked to such an extent that it would have been impossible to dip. In the first place, there was not enough time to water all the stock. I know of a farm that had 8,000 sheep, and in some cases sheep had to wait for as long as four days before they could be watered. But that would not apply in case there was dam water. Farmers are building dips, so as to be able to dk) when it is possible ; but it stands to reason that, when one well has to supply the water, not only for the stock, but also for all household purposes, the difficulties must be very great. For instance in the Kaaien Bulte, in Prieska, it sometimes happens that they have to leave the district alto- gether for want of water, and the result is, naturally, that wherever they find the first water they stop ; but if they had to comply with the provisions of a scab act tliey would have to vacate those parts altogther. I mention this because we adjoin Prieska. I will not deny that the act may havd worked well in the eastern districts, because there is plenty of water there, but the difference between spring and well water is so great that it would be hard to fully explain the difficulties which there would be in the way of working a scab act with only the water from wells. With regard to dipping, I can speak with the experience of six years. I made a dip on my place, and until three years ago a great number of sheep, both of my own and other people, were dipped there, and I know by experience that it is impossible to stamp out scab altogether. I do not deny that dipping may improve the condition of the stock, but I must add that after dipping twice within eighteen days, two months later I had to hand dress. By way of experiment we tried three patent dips, and they all helped for the time being, but after about two months we had to resort to hand dressing. I think that is sufficient proof that, under all tliese circumstances, a scab act is impracticable for these parts, and T have read in the Cape Argus that there are about five districts which have tried to be released from it. On the 2nd February there appeared a letter from Adelaide as follows : " The ever increasing dissatisfaction in the sheep farming districts is now manifested. Humansdorp is no more under the law, and sheep farmers in the Cradock division refuse to be under the law ; Tarka struggles to be free ; Somerset will no doubt have a trial to get free. Every place is dissatisfied with the utility of the scab law, and the inhabitants of this division. Fort Beaufort." I think that goes a long way to prove my conclusions are correct, seeing what I have read about those districts which have had some experience of the scab act, and that it justifies our fears, because if that is the case in districts where there is water, we have so much the more to fear from the law. 11120. Did you not read the instructions on the dips you have mentioned that sheep must be dipped a second time within ten to fourteen days after the first dipping ? — Some say fourteen to eighteen days, and that is why I thought eighteen days was the longest time I had to wait. 11121. But you are aware that when these matters were published in the Gazf tie, in accordance with the experience of farmers in Australia, that they cured the sheep there with lime and sulphur dip by giving two dippings in from ten to fotu-teen days ? — Yes. 11122. Are you aware also that the veterinary surgeon in his reports on this question has also stated that it shoidd be ten to fourteen days .-' — No. 11123. Are you aware that the egg of the acarus liatches within fourteen days? — I was under the impression it was eighteen days. I did not always wait eighteen days ; that was the longest, but some other people took less. 11124. Did those people who dipped their sheep within fourteen days cure them of scab at the time ? — It appeared to be cured at the time. 11125. After they had cured the sheep, did they put them back in the old kraals? — No, in the veldt. Of course, I cannot say that it was so in every case, but to the best of my knowledge it was. 11126. "What did you do with your own sheep ? — I put them in a clean kraal, and I kept six different kraals for that purpose. 1 1 127. Are you quite~l.ure that no sheep mixed with yours during the next two months before they became reinfected 'f — It may be that my sheep mixed with others, but the others were also dipped. 1 1 128. Were the neighbours adjoining your farm as clean and free of scab at that time as your own flocks ? — I did not inspect them. 11129. But you knew your neigh>)ours. Did they take as much pains as you did to clean their sheep ? — Yes, all in the neighbourhood ; but on account of the wire- worm the dipping was sometimes delayed. 11130. Has there been as much scab in this district during the last one or two years as there was five years ago ? — I cannot sa}', because they have been dying so much from wire- worm. 11131. Do you think wire-worm or steekg^as amongst sheep is attended by an increase of scab ? — Decidedly. 11132. One is an internal disease, and the other external? — The poverty of the sheep and the bad water cause internal unhealthiness to be driven out, and that is favourable to the spread of scab. 11133. Do yoti reaUy think that when a sheep has wire-worm, which is an internal 479 disease, any amount of medicine will bring scab out on the skin ? — By applying internal doses of sulphur and salt, I think it produces favourable conditions for the acarun, because it weakens the animal. 11134. Then you think it is impossible to cure sheep of scab if they have wire- worm? — I dipped my sheep when they had wire-worm, but I killed about 100 of them, because they were too weak to stand it. At the same time I must say the loss by wire- worm was about 200 or 300;;sheep. 11135. If the farmers in the Hope Town district dipped their sheep simultaneously throughout the district, do you think it would help to siamp out scab ? — No ; dipping only helps temporarily, say for two months, and then you must hand dross. I am certain of that, because my^ flocks'did'not mix with others. 11136. Do j'ou think any one farmer in the district of Hope Town should be protected by being allowed to prevent any scabby sheep crossing his farm .-' — If we could get that, I should not object to it. 11137. Would you not object to scabby sheep crossing your farm if yours were clean ? — As far as I am concerned, I try and keep mine out of the way ; but I have not given the subject enough consideration to be able to answer that ijuestion. 1 1138. You moved yours away as soon as you could ? — Yes. 11139. Because you knew that your sheep were liable to be infected by the scabby sheep ?- — Yes, and I did more than I have told you. I told others to do the same, and I told hem'to dip, and not to allow scabby sheep on their land, although I knew they could not prevent them on the road. 11140. But if you could have prevented them coming on the road you would not have allowed them to trek through your farm '? — It stands to reason that I should have prevented them. 11141. Would it be advisable for the Government to erect dipping tanks at outspans and other places in order that scabby sheep travelling along the public roads might be dipped ."* — No, I think every farmer ought to know that it is to his own interest to keep his sheep clean, and if Government were to erect dipping tanks in that way you might just as well ask for the scab act. 11142. If the Government had depots where the farmers could purchase dips at a cheaper rate, do you think it would assist them materially in stamping out the scab .' — I don't think it would help, berause sometimes the farmers all get the dips direct from Port Elizabeth, and'are in a position to buy it. Dip is so cheap that everybody can buy it. 11143. Are there no poor farmers in the district of Hope Town who find it difficult to buy dip at all ? — Yes, there are, but they borrow from their neighbours, and they require very little dip. 11144. Mr. Franci*.'] Do you believe that scab is caused by an insect } — I don't know. It may be caused by the blood and the unhealthy state of the animal, or they may pick it up. 11145. Are you aware that the only scab recognised by the law is the one which is caused by an insect }■ — Yes. 11146. Consequently, if 3-ou dipped your sheep and cleaned them from these lice, could they then become legally scabby again unless they picked up the insect ? — Then we must have an act to kill the insect. 11147. After you had dipped youv sheep, and they appeared to be clean, and you had put them in other kraals, did they go on the same veldt as they were on before ? — They may have done so. 11148. Then is it not possible that the dipping may have cleansed the sheep, but that they became reinfected from the veldt ? — It might bo 11149. And if that was the reason, and the veldt had been clean, your sheep wotJd not have got scabby again? — But according to that theojy you would require two farms instead of one, so that you could first clean one and then the other. 11150. Supposing there were a farmer who had 5,000 clean sheep, and his neighbour was too careless to dip or dress his, so that they continually infected the clean sheep, dou't yfu think that farmer should have some proteetien ? — According to my opinion he is partly protected by the pound ordinance, so I would simply send them to the pound. 11151. Then do you think that a man who has been to the expense of some £20 or £30 in recleansing his sheep would be compensated bj' receiving a few shillings in pound fees ? No, but I should want to punish the other man and the pound fees would do that. 11152. You think ho shoiild be punished for infecting the clean sheep ? — Yes. 11153. Have vou heard that the sheep in the Australian colonies were perfectly clean ? — I have heard they are not. 11154. Would you believe it when we inioi-m you that in the district of Komgha, under the present act, there was cot one sheep infected with scab when we were there ? — That part of the country is suitable for the act. 11155. Before the scab act was enforced there, the sheep were just as scabby as the sheep in other districts, but we inspected 25,000 sheep and could find no trace of scab. If this could he done in one district, dou't you think it could be done in others ? — All the districts have not the same conditions. 11156. Don't you think the sheep are clean there? — Yes, I don't think it is impossible. 11157. You say the great difficulty of having a scab act in this district would be the 4 want of water, but If an act were brought in which empowered the Government to suspend it during severe droughts, would that remove the difficulty ? — That was one of my arguments) but t am going against the scab act to-day. The privilege might be abused. 1 1 158. Would it be a great benefit to the farmers in the country if scab were eradicated from the flocks?— -Yes. 11159. Then if you were convinced that it could be done, would you be in favour of an act ? — I should not be in favour of it. 11160. Not if ycu knew that it could cleanse aU the flocks in the Colony from scab ? — Not in this district. 11161. Then you would be in favour of putting other people under the law, but not of coming under it yourself ? — If I belonged to those districts where the law works well, I might be in favour of it. 11162. Mr. Botha.'] Do you know people who are called hawkers 7 — Ye». 11163. Do you think aU the farmers can depend on the word of these hawkers, or that it is advisable to induce them to go and trade with that class of people ? — No. 11164. Have you heard how inspectors are appointed in other districts? — More or less, from hearsay. 11165. Would it be an improvement on the present system if they were appointed by the farmers or the divisional council ? — By the farmers. 11168. Br. Smartt.'] In times of drought, which give the most permanent supply of water in this district, dams or wells ? — WeEs. 11167. Is it not a fact that the majority of farmers in this district, or in any district in which they depend on well water for drinking purposes for their stock, when they construct dipping tanks build them in the vicinity of the wells and not of the dams ? — Yei. 11168. Consequently, your grievance that dam water drying up would hinder people dipping does not refer to the district of Hope Town, as they all use well water for their dips .-' — Not always. 11169. If a man has sufficient water for drinking purposes for his stock, with due care, would he not have sufficient water to dip them? — Yes, if he had not to assist his neighbours. 11170. Do you know any instances of farmers in this district who, either from carelessness or any other cause, such as want of knowledge, don't keep their sheep as clean as they might ? — I acknowledge that we have farmers who are negligent. 11171. As you have stated that it is to a farmer's own interest to keep his sheep clean, would it not be in the interests of these people if the Government compelled them to keep their sheep clean, either by means of fining for neglecting to do so or, better still, having the sheep dipped under inspection ? — Yes. 11172. Had the kraals into which you put the sheep after dipping them never been used for sheep before dipping .-" — I did not put them in a kraal, but in a new place on the veldt. 11173. Have you ever made use of the pound ordinance with reference to scabby sheep trespassing upon your property ? — No, I only sent them to their owners. Ill 74. Do you know of any case in the district of Hope Town where farmers have made use of the pound ordinance with special reference to scabby sheep ? — No. 11175. Consequently, when you say that a careful farmer has sufficient protection under the pound ordinance you show yourself that he receives no protection at all, as it is never made use of ? — That is the farmer's own fault. 11176. Is it not a fact that the pound ordinance is never made use of for scabby sheep because its provisions are so severe, and might cause so much unpleasantness amongst neighbours ? — I don't rnir up business with friendship. The sheep ought to be sent to the poimd. Mr. Nicoltuu Badenhorst, sen., examined. 11177. Chairman.'] You are one of the delegates elected to oppose the scab act? — Yes. I have farmed here for thirty years, and have 3,000 sheep. 11178. Do you agree with Mr. Erasmus? — I saj- that we have had more scab during the last two years than we ever had before, and I attribute this greatly to the bad herding. There was a time in the early days when I had a good herd ; I let my sheep out, and they always lay in the same place, and when they came home, which was very seldom, they had no scab or very little Under the present circumstances we could not have a scab act, because the herd goes free, but the master is punished. The servants are all independent. I dipped my sheep in October, and afterwards I was very sorry for it, because instead of the sheep deriving any benefit it was very injurious to them, owing to their being iu a sickly condition. This also applies to my neighbour's sheep. My sheep are sciibby now, but if I were forced to dip them I would much rather see the inspector cut all their throats, and there would bo an end of it. I should consider it a disgrace to have a law to force me to do that which it is not only in my own interest to do, btit to my own credit, because I should be ashamed to show my sheep to anybody if they were scabby ; and if my neighbour does not do his duty it is not because he is ignorant, but because he is t«o stingy, and when he neglects his sheep on that account they get into such a state that he finds it is only to his 481 own detriment. The consequence is that tho folio (ring year he is far ahead of me, inasmuch as he then does more to his sheep than I do to mine. 11179. If your neighLour wOl not attend to his sheep, don't you think there should be some means to compel him to do so .' — Certainly. 11180. Br. Smartt.~\ Do you agree that scab is contagious? — Yes. 11181. Then in order to prevent the spread of the scab disease as much as possible, ■would it not be advisable if all the farmers in a district were obliged within a given period of one or two months, to dip their sheep simultaneously ? — Yes. 11182. Chairman.'] In other respects you agree with Mr. Erasmus .' — Yes. 11183. Mr. Francis. '\ Would you be in favour of (iovermnent supplying dips at cost price, free of railway carriage .'' — Yes, certainly. Mr. John Albert Swiegert examined. 11184. Chairman.'] You are also a delegate ? — Yes. I have been farming here for 30 years, and have 1,200 sheep, but a little more than a year ago I had 3,000. 11185. Do you agree with Mr. Erasmus? — I agree with the two former speakers, and am in favour of Government providing dip at cost price. I think scab is caused by dirt and poverty. The field-cornetcy I represent are all in favour of dipping, but they are not in favour of an act. As regards simultaneous dipping, I ag^ee in a way, and I believe that scab is spontaneous, but if there were no other sickness I see a chance of keeping sheep clean by dipping. If my neighbour has scabby sheep, and won't dip them, I think he should be made to dip, but that does not apply to my neighbours. 11186. Dr. Smartt.'] "Which sheep die fii-st, the sheep with wire-worm alone, or when the wire-worm is combined with scab ? — The sheep with scab die first. 11187. If a flock of sheep with wire-worm could be kept perfectly free of scab, would they not have much more chance than they have at present ? — Sheep without scab can be more easily cured than sheep with scab. 11188. Have you not noticed that though wire- worm has been prevalent all over this district, some flocks have been much freer of scab than others ? — Yes. 11189. How do you account for that } — I don't know. 11190. Do you think the owners of those sheep have dipped them, and looked after them better than the others ? — I cannot say. Dipping has something to do with it. 11191. Consequently, if sheep tolerably free of scab suffer much less from mortality when affected with wire-worm than sheep which are not clean, then I suppose it is in the interests of the people to make the owners dip them ? — Yes. 11192. Chairman.] For all that you are opposed to a scab act .' — Yes. Mr Peter Charel de Jager examined. 11193. Chairman.] Are you a delegate ? — Yes. I have farmed here for 20 years, and have 2,000 sheep. 11194 Do }'ou agree with the previous witnesses ?• —I don't believe that scab is caused by an insect, and I don't believe it is contagious. If a sheep is not healthy, dipping does no good. 1 1 195. Do you dip your sheep ? — I tried it, but as I found that it did not help I stopped it. I dipped last in May. 11196. Do you intend to dip your sheep now if they get scabby? — I shall try the effect of it. 11197. Why? — I cannot dip them as long as they are sickly, but if they are healthy and scabby I shall dip them just as an experiment. 11198. If your neighbour's sheep were scabby, do you think he should dip his also ? — If I knew his sheep were scabby, I would advise him to dip. 11199. Mr. Francis^ Why do you think your neighbour ought to dip his sheep if they are healthy and scabby ? — Because there would be a chance of his cleaning them. 11200. Then it is only in your neighbour's interests, not because you are afraid of your sheep being infected ?— It would not affect me. 11201. How did you dip on the last occasion 't — According to the instructions on the patent dip. I measured the water in a measured bucket, and I used one packet of dip to sixteen gallons of water. I cannot say positively how long the sheep remained in the dip, it may have been a minute, or perhaps more, but they were all thoroughly wet. 11202. You think it would a good thing if we could cleanse the flocks of scab ? — Of course. 11203. Br. Smartt.] If your sheep were perfectly free of scab, which would j-ou sooner find mixed with them, straying sheep which were perfectly free, or straying sheep which were scabby? — It is just the same. Once in February I bought a lot of merino ewes, which got scab, and I dipped them in a patent dip. I had no opportunity to dip them the second time 14 days later, but I hand dressed the few which were stiU scratching, and then they were clean for a couple of months. It was in the winter, and they were lambing. In August of the same year I sheared the ewes, and in September I dipped them again in the same patent dip, and they were then slightly affected with scab. Fourteen days after 482 I had dipped them I caught out about 20 which still had scab on the shoulder, and hand dressed them. After that I had nothing more, although they remained in the same scabby kraal, and I had a lot of Capa sheep fall of scab. "When the Cape sheep came home in the evening they lay outside the same kraal, and perhaps the following evening I would put the merinos outside, on the same spot, and the Cupe sheep inside the kraal, to give them an opportuninity of getting salt. There were a little over 1,300 merino*. Eight months later I sheared the 1,.3(K) ewes with the lambs, and during all that time they were every night on places, either in the kraal or outside, which were infectious, and were also feeding ou the same veldt in the day, so the}' were never protected against scab, and often mixed together. Out of the 1,300 in May there were three ewes which had very small spots of scab, and the lambs were perfectly clean. These are my reasons for not believing that scab is con- tagious. Mr. Johannes Ludovicus Pretoriut examined. 11204. C/iainiuin.'] Are you a delegate ? — Yes, I have farmed here for 26 years, and have 2,000 sheep. 1120.5. Do you agree with the evidence which has been alread}- given ? — I agree with Mr. de Jager. I have two places, ten hours apart ; the shee^j on one place are never dipped, and they have less scab tlian the sheep on the place where they are dippe i. Scab is also caused bj' steekgras ; the steekgras causes irritation, this makes the sheep scratch, and this breaks the fleece, so that it might be mistaken for scab. Mr. Barend Hans Jacob £adenhorsf-ex^a.inhied. 11206. Chairman.'] Are you a delegate .^ — Yes. I have farmed here for 30 j^ears. At present I have no sheep, having let them, but before that I had 1,000 or 2,000. 11207. Do you agree with the other witnesses? — I agi-ee most with Mr. de Jager. Mr. Johannes Urhanus Badenhorst eianiined. 11208. Chairman.] Are you a delegate .•" — Yes. I have farmed here for 8 years, and have 1,800 sheep. 1 1 209. Which witness do yoti agree with ? — With Mr. de Jager entirely. Mr. Uendrich Johannes Lielenberg examined. 11210. Chairman.] Are you a delegate? — Yes. I have been farming here for 18 years, and have 2, 1 00 sheep. 11211. Are you opposed to a scab act .■* — Yes, entirely. I agree with Mr. Erasmus, except that I am q^uite in favour of dip being supplied by the Government at cost price. Mr. Sti'phanus Vermeulen examined. 11212. Chairman.] Are you a delegate ? — Yes. I have farmed here for 1.5 years, and have 3,000 sheep. 11213. With whom do you agree .' — I am opposed to a scab act, and agree wilh Mr. Erasmus, but I believe that scab is coutagious, though I don't believe in the insect. Scab may be cured by dipping, but only temporarily. 11214. Mr. Francis.] Are you aware of the fact that the only .'icab which is recognized by the law is caused hy an insect .-■ — Yes, but I believe the scab produces the insect. I have a dip, and dip ray sheep regularly every year, and ray experience is thit sometimes it cures sheep with one dipjung, and sometimes three dippings won't cure them. Scab is spontaneous. 11215. Do you. know any other disease which will create a living organism? — I know so little about insects that I cannot saj'. 11216. You would uot like to see a dump of scabby sheep come among your clean sheep .-' — No. 11217. If you had a neighbour who never dipped his sheep, and continually let theui come amongst yours, don't you think he shoidd be made to keep them clean ? — Yes. Mr. Jacob Johannes Snyman examined, e jou a delegate? — Yes. I have farn [G. 1— '94.] 000 11218. Chairman.] Are jou a delegate? — Yes. I have farmed here for 20 years, and have 800 sheep. 4R3 11219. Witli whom do you agrse? — "With Mr. Badenhorst and Mr. de Jager, hut I don't bolievo that scab i» contagion*, lipcause altliongh T keep mj' sheep in two lots, the scabby in one and the hoalthy in tlie other, and the two lots are close together, and feed in the same lands, and get salt out of the same manger, one lot remains scabby, and tlio other lot does not get it. The merino ewes which run by themselves are scabby, but the merino slipop, which run with the Cape sheep, remain clean, although they are fed out of the same manger. 11220. Mr. Francis.'] Were the Capo ewes scabby too? — No. Mr. Chrittoffel Jacobus Lielmherg examined. 11221. Chairman.'] Arc you a delegate? — Tos. I have farmed here for 15 years, and have l,.'iOO slieep. 11222. Are you opposed to a scab act? — No; wo liad two dnlegatos in the same ward, one against and m.yself in favour of a scab act, to represent the two portions of the ward, wliich is No. 3, Rhenosterberg. I must state that I am for a general scab actj but an improved one, not as it stands at present. I belioro that scab is contagious, consequently if one farmer keeps liis sheep clean, and they come in contact with a scabby flock, they become inf(^oted, and that causes miich trouble and expense to the man who tries to keep his sheep clean. 11223. Have the farmors generally in your field-cornetcy dipping tanks, and do they dip their sheep regularly ? — Some do, but the groat proportion only dip once in two years, and somo never. 11224. Did those farmers wlio dippi^d so irregularly dip properly when they did it at all ? — I think tlic}' understood, but I doubt if they were particular enougli. 11225. Do tboy generally clean the sheep wlien they diji ? — Yes, it helps. 11226. If there were a general simultaneous dipping, do you think it would tend to stamp out scab } — It would certainly do a great deal to improve matters, but I am of opinion that at times it gets so bad that you cannot master it, but if a rensonable time is allowed, and people will try to do their best, tlioy will get rid of it. 11227. How long would it take you to clean a scabby slieep? — Under favourable cir- cumstances, three months. 11228. Would it assist the farmers in this district if the Government sold dips at cost price ?■ — That would be very good. 11229. Are tliore many poor farmers here who don't diji their sheep because they are too poor to buy dip ? — Yes, I am quite certain that is the case with more than one. 11230. Mr. Francis.^ Where there is water enough for a flock of sheep to drink, is there not alw.iys water enough to dip thoiu ? — Witli a few exceptions, ttiere will, generally speaking, bo enough water to dip. 11231. Mr. Doiha.'\ How do you think the inspectors should bo appointed? — Through the farmers, and the men appointed should themselves be sheep farmers. This was just one of my objections to the present scab act. 11232. Dr. Hmartt.^ Would it be advisable that, before placing a farmer's flocks under quarantine, tlie inspector would be obliged to demonstrate to him by moans of a magnifying glass that the scab insect actually existed on the slioep ? — Yes, because so many don't believe that tlio insect does cause scab. 11233. Would it be in the interests of the farmers themselves if the Government appointed a thoroughly practical man to suporlTitend the dipping of sheep, and prove to the farmers that shcop could be thoroughly cleaned by etficiont dipping ? — Yes. 11231. By so doing, do you believo that the very people who don't believe that scab can be cured, and who are consequently strongly opposed to an act, would be persuaded it would be to their own interests to have it ? — Yes. 1 1235. Are you not secretary of a branch of the Afrikander Bond in this district ? — Yes. 1 1 236. And there are some members of the Bond who think with you that a scab act is necopsary ? — Yes. 1 1 2;!7. Mr. (In Toit.'\ Since you are in favour of some act, and have mentioned some hard- ships that you would like to have removed, are there not others which you have not yet spoken of ? — Yes, there is the case of the removal of stock when necessary for want of water. It might happen that if we are not allowed to move sheep here at such times, although scabby, they would all die. 11238. Dr. Smart/. ^ If a suspensory clause wore put in the act, empowering the Government in times of great drought to allow farmers to move stock when absolutely necessary, would it not meet that objection ? — Yes. 11239. Mr. flu Toit.^ Are you not aware that a farmer is "sometimes prevented from scllirg shoeji because he is iinr!nnity of dipping these sh?cp once, and tlion selling them and sending them away ? — Yes, ir tlif-y were onco pvojierly dipped. Of course there would not 1)6 time to dip mol'e ihan once, as the buyer would not be in a position to wait for the sheep. 484 11242. And should those who have clean hills be allowed to remQve stock on their own penuit ? — Yes. 11243. Should he be fined if he wilfully soTit away scabby sheeii .' — Yes. 11244. Provided that he should not be held liable if he could prove that when he gave the permit his flocks were clean ? — Yes. 11245. I)r. Smartt.'\ Would you protect the holder of clean tlocka in an unproclaimed area by allowing him to prevent the passage of scabby sheep along the main roads on his property if he put up a notice to that effect ? — I think it would cause great inconvenience. 11246. If the majority of the farmers in this Colony demanded a scab act, and protested against sheep entering the proclaimed areas except when subjected to two dippings and a rigorous quarantine, would it not be beter in the interests of the Hope Town farmers if they were not included in such area by being cut off from the leading markets of the Colony ? — Certainly. 11247. Mr. du Toit.'\ For that reason do you thiuk it would be better to have a general act for the whole Colony '? — Yes. 11248. Br. Smartt.'] And if a line should be drawn, that it would be better for Hope Town to be included in the proclaimed area ? — Yes. Mr. William Johannes du Toit examined. 11249. Chairman.'} Are you a delegate ? — Yes, in favour of an act. I have been farm- ing here for 30 years, and have about 1,500 sheep and goats. 11250. Do you agree with Mr. Liebenberg's evidence ? — Yes, entirely. I have dipped for the last five years, and I find it helps. I should like to see a dip on every farm, and that ever}' man should be obliged to dij), but at present all farmers have not got dips. For the last ti\o years I have generally dipped twice a year regularly, and I get the sheep thoroughly clean, and keep them so, unless they get mixed with a neighbour's scabby sheep. 11251. You believe it vould be in the interests of Hope Town and the Colony to have a general scab act ? — Yes. 11262. J>r. Smartt.J Are you also a member of the Bond? — Yes. Mr. Joseph Holland Crump examined. 11253. Chairman.] Are you a delegate? — No, I come forward as an individual farmer. Mj- farm is in Herbert, over the Orange River ; I have been there four and a lialf years, and have 3,500 sheep. 11254. Are you in favour of a scab act, or against it? — I am in favour of a general scab act. 11255. Are j'ou acquainted with the working of the scab act in the Colony? — Not thoroughly. 11256. Can you give any information which would assist in amending the act so as to bring it more in accordance with the wishes of the farmers ? — 1 can hardly give any evidence about the scab act itself ; I simply wish to state my opinion that I think we should have an act to cure scab, but I cannot say much about the working of the law. 11257. From your knowledge of the north-western districts of the Colony, and Herbert, do you think scab is increasing there or not .'' — It is undoubtedly increasing in Herbert. 11258. Do the farmers there generally take any steps to stamp out the disease ? — Very few, and those who do, don't do it jiroperly. 11259. Then woidd it be advisable that some assistance should be rendered to the farmers by way of encouraging them to dip sheep properly, and showing them how to do it ? — By showing them how to do it, because it can be cured. 11260. Would the farmers there object if some one were appointed by the Government to show them how to dip their shtep ? — Not if he went about it in a proper manner. I think they believe that scab cannot be cured, and that is the whole secret of the matter, but that if you showed them it could be done they would try to do it. 11261. Have the farmers there as a rule dipping tanks on their places? — A few have, but even those don't keep theii' sheep clean. 11262. If it is found impracticable to have a general scab act, and the proclaimed area terminated at the Orange Elver, do 3'ou think the farmers in Herbert who keep their sheep clean should be protected hy being allowed to j'l'event any scabby shoep crossing their farms, even on the main roads? — Certainly; I think there should be a verv heavy trespass penalty, but I don't know how they could be stopped on the roads, although I don't think they shoidd be allowed to bring scabby sheep over them. They are stopped now from moving animals with the foot and mouth disease, so I don't see why they should not be stopped from moving scabby sheep. 11263. Have you ever found it impossible to dip j'our sheep in Herbert for the want of water ? — I have not. I could not say whether there are any suih farms there. 1 1264. Do you think there are farms on which a farmer still keeps his stock where the sheep could not be dipped with the water supply there ? — I have not seen any. I have cured scab oti my farm bj' two dippings. 11265. Have you any scab on your farm now ? — Yes, about three cases amongst all the sheep, in consequence of Imying scabby sheep ; but my sheep were there a whole year 000 2 485 ■witliout a spot of scab. They were not mixed together, but the other sheep went into the same kraal. 11 'iOfi. Jtr. Fnnicit:.'] Then when farmers hay that they cannot cure their sheep by two ili|ipiugs, iloyoii think it is bcf-auso thoy are not (lipping properly? — And also l>ec(iu8e tho sheep Itecame reinfected. 1 1267. "Would it assist the farmers if the Government supplied dip at cost price, free of railway carriage ? — No. 11208. You think a man would rather paj' more for his dip than less ? — I don't think they will do it projierly, whathcr the dip is cheap or dear. 11209. You don't think it is the expense which prevents people dipping? — I don't think so, except in a few instances. 11270. If there were no danger of infection on your farm from outside, do you think you could cleanse 3-our sheej) and keep them clean ? — Certainlj'. 11271. From your knowledge of scab and its remedies, do you think it is possible to eradicate it from the flocks of the country ? — Certainly. 11272. Considering the great loss which the country sustains every year owing to this disease amongst the flocks, do you think the Government would be warranted in spending a large amount of money in the attempt to eradicate it ? — Decidedly. 1 1 273. Should there be a general act, do you think it should be put in force in the summer with a simidtaneous dipping .'' — Yes. After giving sufficient notice. 11274. Mr. Botha.'] Are there many farmers in your district who keep their flocks clean ? — No. 1 127.5. How many do you think coiild be found there who do it? — I don't think there is one flo'k perfectly dean. I don't consider mine are perfectly clean, but there are many ■« ho try their best, only they cannot altogether succeed on account of having neighbours who keep scabby sheep 11276. Are there many farmers in Herbert with large flocks? — No, they have about 1,500 to 2,000. 11277. What kind of farming is generally carried on there? — Sheep and cattle. 11278. Mr. du Toit.] Have you had any difficulty in cleansing your sheep in winter? — I think I have onlj' once dipped in winter. I generally dip after shearing. 11279. Wlien j'ou dipped in winter, was it injurious to the sheep ?— No ; they fell o£P a little, but it did not hurt them. They had eight months wool on. 1 1280. Did it not injure your clip of wool ? — Not the slightest. 11281. What kind of dip did you use ? — A patent dip. I never heard anj' complaint about the wool. I dipped lambs with eight months' fleeces, and when I sold the wool in the Bay this j-ear the only complaint was that it was too yoky. 11282. Are you in favour of the present act .^ — As far as I know it. Any act which suppresses scab must be good. 11283. Chairman.'] Do you wish to add anything ? — Only that I think any man might be allowed to move his sheep, if they are clean, under a very heavy penalty if he moved scabby sheep. 11284. Ztr. Smarit.] Would you make provision imder a general act for those districts which have not beeu under the law before to allow them to remove slaughter stock on easier terms for the first year or so ? — No, I don't think so. 11285. Under such circumstances, is there not a danger of starving Cape Town, Johan- nesburg, Kimberlo}' and the large centres of consumption ? — Taking that into consideration, I think something ought to be done for the removal of slaughter stock for the first year. 11286. Chairman.] If a general act were proclaimed, would you allow the people living in what are now the unprodaimed areas to move scabby sheep into any area, under certain regulations ? — Yes, for the first j'ear. 11287. Would it not be better if there were some restrictions compelling these people ■who wanted to move scabby sheej) to dip them once properly before they were placed on the railway trucks ? — That would be still better. 3fr. Gotlieh Swiegers examined. 1 1288. Chairman.] How long have you farmed here ? — Fifty years ; I have about 6,500 sheep. 11289. Do you wish to give evidence ? — Yes. I am in favour of a scab act, and I don't agree with anj thing that has been said against it. I concur with all that has been said in favour of it. 11290. Do you keep your sheep free of scab now? — Certainly. 11291. Do you dip them regularly ? — Yes. 1 1202. Do your neighbours dip their sheep ? — No ; they infect my sheep. 11293. What would you reconmiend ? — A general scab act for the whole Colony. 1 1294. Until we have a general act, do you think it will be possible to stamp out scab ? — Never ; they are too lazy. 11295. Mr. Francis.] Do you believe that scab is caused by an insect? — Yes, miserable lice. 11296. Do you believe that all the witnesses against the act who gave their evidence this morning gave their honest opinions ? — No, they spoke against their own consciences, 4sr> instead of giving their opinion honestly : they are too lazj' to carry out what shoiild be done. 11'297. Why? — Because they are prejudiced against the act, and are too lazj' to carry one out. 11298. Mr. Botha.'] Is yom- farm subject to severe droughts ? — Certainly. 11299. How do you obtain water ? — From a spring. 11300. So you are not dependent upon rains for water to dip? — No, I have always a good suppl}-. Every farmer can get water for dipping. ll.jOl. Br. Smartf.'j Are you certain that all your sheep are free of scab to-day ? — I have not gone through all of them, but thej' ought to be. 11302. When did 3-0U dip last? — A month ago, when they had six months' wool on. The best way is to dip twice in fourteen days, and that is what I do. Mr. Johannes Petrus du Toif examined. 11303. Chairman.'' How long have you farmed Ln Hope Town? — For forty years. I have 4,000 sheep. 11304. Are you in favour of an act ? — Tes, if it is proclaimed over the whole Colony, but I am opposed to the present act. Careful farmers' sheep now get reinfected by the careless farmers' sheep. I think every ward ought to elect its own inspector, or else the divisional council. 11 305. Do the fanners here generally dip their sheep, and have they dips ? — They don't dip properly, as a rule, and there are very few tanks. 11306. How do those who have no tanks manage to dip their sheep, or don't they dip them at all ? — They dip at their neighbour's. 11307. Generally speaking, are the sheep cleansed after dipping, or not ? — I cannot say exactly, but I think as a rule they only dip once, and that is why the scab reappears. 11308. Can you give us any information in regard to dipping? — No. 11309. If a farmer states that he has dipped his sheep properly, twice, and has failed to cure them, do you think it is because he has not used the dip sufficiently strong, or other- wise has not dipped properly ? — Yes, in such cases I think they are not sulficiently up to the mark to know what should be done. 11310. Shoidd the sheep of such people be dipped under inspection.' — That might be good. 11311. Have you heard any farmers in the district complain of the cost of dipping? — Yes, I know of a fai-mer who kept his sheep clean by dipping, but complained of the expense, and the following year he did not dip again. 11312. Can you tell us anything about the cost of dipping ? — I wHl dip 1,000 sheep with short wool, twice, properly, with one case of a patent dip, costing £5. 11313. If the price of dip were reduced, do you think it would be a great assistance to the farmers in this district ? — Yes. 11314. You think the cost of the dip deters some farmers from dipping? — I think so. 11315. Mr. li-ancis.] In spite of all the evidence to the contrary, if a good act were put in force in this district do you think it would prove a great benefit to the farmers .' —Yes. 11316. If an act were put in force, would it be advisable that it should commence in the summer with a simidtaneous dipping ? — Yes, more or less, at the same time. 11317. Should a farmer's sheep become infected with scab, and at the expiration of the first licence he has failed to clean them, would it be better to give him a paid Ucence or to have his sheep dipped under inspection ?— I would have them dipped under inspection, and he should pay for the dip. 11318. I)r. Smartf.^ AVould it be advisable to have a suspensory clause in the act, allowing the Government to suspend it in times of severe drought in this district ? — If it is possible, it would be a good thing. 11319. Do you think it is absolutely essential for this district? — It is quite possible that we might have such times, and therefore I think it would be good to have that provision. 11320. If the act were proclaimed here, would it be neces-sary for the first six or twelve months to have a clause allowing all slaughter stock to be removed after being dipped once ? — Once under inspection, in a recognised dip. 11321. Would that do away with a great many of the objections to the present act ?— Yes. 11322. Would it be advisable to have public dipping tanks on the main roads? — I don't think it is necessary. 11323. Chairman.] Is there anything you wish to add? — My sheep are kept in two different flocks ; one flock I dipped three weeks ago, and I saw them last Thursday and found them all entirely clean. The other flock which has not been dipped is slightly scabby, and it will be dipped next week. Some witnesses said that the insect is caused by the scab, and not the scab by the insect. That I don't know, but I know that it sheep are* properly dipped, whether there are lice or not, they get clean, and all the infection disappears. 487 Mr. Pitt Badenhorxt pxfimined. 11324. C/iairman.^ How long have you been farming here ? — Twenty years. I liave 2,000 sheep. 11.325. Is there anything that you would like to say? — I am entirely opposed to a scab act. During the 20 yenrs that I have been farming, I have dipped my sheep three times, the last time in April, and then I found that it damaged them. My neighbours dipped and lost thousands, as the sheep got sickly. 1 used two different patent dips. 11826. Did most of your Tieighbours dip them? — Yes; when I dipped mine they were very slightly infet^ted with scab, but since then I have had to continually hand dress them. 11327. Why did you dip your sheep at all? — I went with the times. 11328. Mr. Francii.l Do you think a farmer who dips his sheep three times in 20 years IB doing his best to eradicate scab ?— Yes. 11329. Then thoHO witnesses who said this morning that all the farmers were doing their best to eradicate scab may perhaps have meant that they were dipping them three times in 20 yeari ?• — -That I cannot say. Dipping is not necessary, but you want enclosed farms, so that the ehoep may run free without herds. Bad herding is the cause of scab. 11330. Mr. Bttha. ] If you make your dip properly, don't you think it would cleanse the sheep ?— It woidd help, but it would not have the same eifect as if they were put into a clean camp and left alone. Then they would get quite free. 11331. Do you believe that scab is infectious } — No. 11332. Br. Smartt.l The first time that you dipped your sheep, did tliedipdo them any barm .' — It helped a little and did the sheep no harm. 1 1 333. Is not that sufficient proof to you that the wire-worm, from which the sheep all over the country are suffering, is altogether due to a different disease ? — Wire- worm has nothing to do with scab, but when you dip sheep with wire-worm you kUl them. Mr. Andries du Raan examin«d. 11334. Chairman.'] How long have you been farming here? — For 40 years. I have 3,000 sheep. 11335. Are you for or opposed to a scab act ? — I am opposed to it, because I don't believe the disease is contagious, and dipping does not help all kinds of scab. I agree with the last witness, and I consider a scab act would simply mean ruin for the farmers in Hope Town, as it is a dry district, and in many places water is only obtained by means of welli, which are sometimes as much as 1 00 feet deep. 11336. Do you think that the farmers who have running water can cure their flocks? — If the sheep have nothing wrong with them except being scabby, then I believe they can. You can clean the kind of scab which is caused by an insect by dipping, but not the scab which is caused by fever. Philip' » Town, Tmsdcy, \Ath February, 1893. Present : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha, I Dr. Smartt. ,, DU ToiT. I Mr. Franoi8. Mr. Charlts Johannes Marais examined. 11337. Chairman.'] Are you a delegate ? — Yes, I was elected at a public meeting of the Bond at Philip's Town. I have farmed here for about 30 years, and have 8,000 sheep on my farm. 11338. AVere you appointed to give evidence against the scab act? — Yes. 11339. Will you state your reasons for opposing the act ? — First, because I don't con- sider it practicable in this country. I Jiave been acijuaintcd with matters connected with sheep farming since my I7th year, and I cannot only speak as the proprietor and owner of sheep, but there was a time when I herded sheep myself, and consequently I know every- thing connected with them, and, as is well known, I became a successful sheep farmer. There was a time when we only hand dressed the elieep, but for the last 25 or 30 yenrs we have resorted strictly to dipping as well as hand dressing; but notwithstanding all the care and attention taken, I cannot say that we have been able to stamp out the sciib. Sometimes we keep it under, but it reappears continually, even amongst flocks which have been kept quite separate. Therefore it is not only my own opinion, but also that of those whom I represent, that the scab act will do us no good, and is impracticable. The country 488 19 continually subjected to great and radical changes, and there is a groat variety in the conditions in one part and another; the cliuate is not uniform, bo far as I know, over the whole Colony. Any questions which are put to me I shall answer to the best of m}' ability. 11340. Have 3'ou dipped your sheep regularly during the last '2.5 joars ? — Yos, at every shearing season I have dipped them twice in 14 days. 11341. Do you cure them of scab at every dipping? — Sometimes, and sometimes not. 11342. Do you alwaj's use the same dip ? — No, I try d fferent kinds. 11343. When you dip with dips that have cured the sheep before, don't you cure them again ? — Not always, and in addition to that, scab sometimes reappears in the winter, and then it is more difficult to cure than in summer. 11344. Will you explain how you prepare your dips ? — I could not say from memory, but I follow the instructions on the packets, and I have it written down at my house how all the dips are to be apjdied. My experience is that it is better, especially when the wool of the sheep is long, to make the dip weaker than the prescription. 11345. When you dip the sheep, how long do you keep them in? — Sometimes from three to four minutes. It is done by guess-work, and it may bo one or two minutes. 11346. Then may not many sheep pass through the dip in less than half a minute? — They are kept in longer than that. 11347. What is the size of the dipping tank ? — I measure the water for dipping pur- poses in casks. The water is measured, and anything liquid, and sulphur and lime and so on is weighed, but I cannot give the quantity from memory. 11348. Do all the farmers in your neighbourhood dip their sheep regularly? — Yes. 11349. Do you think the}' use the dips properly, according to the directions given? — I think so. 113.50. From your knowledge of your neighbourhood, do they generally clean their sheep when thoj' dip them ? — It is difficult to say ; it is v 'ry uncertain ; sometimes they do and sometimes the}' don't, and sometimes after the sheep are cured scab soon appears again. 11351. If sheep were dipped properly, according to the directions, and kept in the regular time of from one to two minutes, do you think that they would be cleaned of the scab they had on them at that time ? — Yes, for the time being, but they don't remain clean. 11352. If you could remove those sheep, after beiug thoroughly dipped, to clean ground, where there had been no scab, do you think they would remain clean .' — I alwaj-s move the sheep to clean places, and it is my practice to remore and burn down all infected kraals and sleeping places. 11353. Still, these sheep graze over the same ground? — It is the practice to have a perfect change. Of course I am speaking for myself ; I don't know whether it the same with my neighbours. 11354. Do you think the farmers in Philip's Town move their sheep after dipping them ? Have they sufficient ground to do it .'' — It is impossible for me to answer that, but some cannot, because they have not enough room. 11355. Are there many sheep moved in the district of Philip's Town from one place to another along the roads ? — They have to trek from one part to another, but I coidd not say it is much done. 11356. Generally speaking, do the native servants in this district have small stock of their own, and move with them from place to place ? — Yes. 11357. Are not their sheeji generally infected with scab? — Speaking for myself I always dip such sheep before thoy are mixed with mine, and they generally only trek from one neighour to another. 11358. Then in order to keep your sheep clean you think it is absolutely necessary that, when anyone comes on to your fai-m with strange sheep, the sheep should be dipped before you could allow them to mix with j'ours, although they may appear clean ? — It is done, in the case of those kind of people. Sheep are not dipped if they are apparentlj- clean, but if there is any su.spicion, or I don't kn:)W where thej' come from, they are dipped. 11359. If people with scabby sheep passed over your fcirm, and they slept on your veldt, don't you think your sheep would be liable to take the infection ? — I cannot give an opinion. 11360. Do you think there is more danger of flocks becoming infected when there are roads running through to a farm ?— It stands to reason thej' must be in greater danger than the others. 11361. Y'ou keep your sheep clean. Do you think it would be advisable to protect a man who keei)s his sheep clean, even if ho is living iu an unprudaimed area, by allowing him to prevent .scabby sheep from passing over the roads on his f arm ? — I don't think it is right to protect myself at the expense of other people who are poor. I manage the best waj' I can, because it is au established practice to trek, but now-a-days people are not so indif- ferent ; such tilings are more looked after, and of course we manage the best way wo can. I should not tliiuk it exactly right to stop all trekking. 11362. Would it be advisable to have some regulation in connectioi^with this moving of scabby sheep ? Supposing a farmer had a lot of scabby sheep, and took them across jour farm ? — I think that every farmer knows what is best for himself. 11363. But what do you thiuk? — I have sufficient protection. 11364. Have you any knowledge of the working of the scab act ? — No, except what I hear and see in the newspapers. 489 11365. Mr. Frawi*P\ Do you believe that scab is caused by an insect, and by an insect alone '? — No. 1 1366. Are you aware of the fact that the only scab which is recognised by law is that caused by an insect ? — I don't know that it is caused by an insect. 11367. But you believe that it is contagious? — I don't deny that it is contagious. 11368. Do you believe that all farmers know how to dip their slieop properly, and that they do so ? — I don't know so much about all the farmers, but those I know du it properly. 11369. Then do you mean to imply that there are no careless farmers in the Colony? — I cannot*8ay that. 11370. Supposing there was a farmer with, saj', 8,000 sheep on his fann, and thoy were all thoroughly clean, do you think it would be right for a careless farmer living next him to be allowed to infect his aheep with impunity ? — I don't think it would be right, but I cannot speak on this point by experience. 11371. Then don't you think that man should be made to keep his sheep clean ? — As I cannot speak on this point from practical experience, I cannot answer that question. 11372. Would it not be a great help it farmers all dipped their sheep after shearing, like you do '■: — Apparently it would. 1 1373. Then if you and all other careful farmers did so, don't you think the one or two who were too careless to do it willingly should be made to do it ? — No, I don't think so. 11374. Do you believe that it would be an advantage to the poorer classes of farmers if the Government supplied dip at cost price, railway carriage free, at certain centres '< — I think so ; it woidd be a good thing if you could cheapen the article. 11375. Do you believe that scab causes a great deal of loss and trouble to the farmers ? —Yes. 11376. If you were convinced that scab could be eradicated from the country, would you not be in favour of an act to do so ? — I don't believe that it can be eradicated. 11377. Mr. Botha.'] What class of man do you think is most suitable to serve as inspectors ? — Practical farmers. 11378. Who should select them ? — I think the divisional council ought to recommend them. 11379. Br. Smartt.] Do you wish the Commission to understand that during thirty years of practical farming j'ou have been so deficient in observation as not to have formed an opinion whether there would be danger of your flocks being infected by scabby sheep travelling over your ground ? — I think it would be dangerous to put scabby sheep with mine, and I would not do it. 11380. We have it on evidence that in some districts of this Colony certain men have given evidence before the Commission, and that for political purposes, and fearing lest they may lose influence among a large majority of the electorate, they have failed to give the Commission the benefit of the absolute results of their practical experience. Does that refer to the district of Philip's Town.-' — I don't believe that can be applied to Philip's Town, or to the person who now speaks. Personally, I am quite indifferent. What gives me the appearance of fencing the question is that it was a difficult i|uestion for me to answer, because I have seen sheep kept separate a whole year, and still you can't keej) the scab out. 11381. Have you ever remonstrated with farmers trekking over your property with scabby sheep, or have you always allowed them to trek over freely ? — I don't believe there is a single man who would allow such liberties. I slioxdd remonstrate. 11382. But have you ever done so? — I am doing so; and that applies to all sick stock. 11383. Consequently having clean sheep, if you coidd have made use of a measure which would allow you to prevent these men trekking over your farm, you would have done BO ? — I think there is a law. 11384. But if the trekking sheep were on a road?— It is impossible to answer a thing which has no existence. 11385. Is it that you won't or don't like to ? — It is impossible for me to say that I wiU ■ not or cannot answer it. 11386. Is it to the interest of farmers themselves to keep their flocks free of scab, or tolerably free ?— Yes. 1 1387. If it could be proved that several farmers in this Colony never dip their flocks, or take hardly any trouble to cope witli the spread of the scab disease amongst them, would it be advisable in their own interests to have a compulsory simultaneous dipping after shearing in the summer months ? — I cannot give an opinion. 11388. If a general act were introduced, would it be in the interests of the farmers of the Philip's Town division if a suspensory clause were inserted in the act allowing the Government to sus end the act in times of drought, so as to allow these people to move freely with their stock .-' — No. 11389. Then if a general act were put in force and the dis'rict of Philip's Town were subjected to a sever* drought, you would like to see all your brother farmers confined to their farms, even if they lost their stock by it ? — This question is put with the object of drawing from me a confession that the scab act is necessary, and that the witnesses are in favour of it. 11390. It is perfectly open for you to consider that any Commissioner frames his questions on the mode in which you wish to give youi- answers. You have ^stated most 490 distinctly that you are against a general scab act, but if such an act should be introduced, would it be in the interests of the Philip's Town farmers to have a clause in it such as I have mentioned '? — I am opposed to a soab ait, and this question is one of such serious importance that if it were put in Parliament, even the Tlouse of Assembly would want time to consider it ; but however much opposed I am to tlie scab act, and however oppressive it might be in times of drought, if we should have a general scab act I would allow no privi- leges which might have an injurious effect on my own property. 11391. Consequent!}', though opposed to a general act, if such an act were introduced, in your own personal interest you woidd object to any clause which might aveit the loss of thousands and thousands of sheep to your brother farmers who are not so well situated as you are, and this you would do simply to save your own flocks? — The law would be responsible, not I. 11392. Mr. iu Toit.'j How long did you generally manage to keep your flocks clean after cleansirg them by dipping? — I have managed to keep them clean from one to two years. 11393. To what do you attribute the reinfection? — I think it comes from internal causes, and the more you prevent it coming out the worse it gets. 11394. What have you found to be the actual cause of scab ? — Impurity of the blood of the animal. 1139.5. Have you found it injurious to your flocks to dip them in winter ? — Yes, but I do dip. 11396. Are you aware of more kinds of scab than one? — I think there is only one kind. There is also foror which I can clean by dipping and \>y internal medicine. 11397. Have you found that steekgras also causes sheep to appear as if they had scab? — I think it causes scab. 11 398. Do you know that those two kinds of skin affection are not under the present scab act ? — I don't know. They are not true scab. Mr. Jacolw du Pletsit examined. 11399. Chairman.'\ Are yo« a delegate ? — Yes. I have farmed here for thirty years, and have 2,000 sheep. 11400. Do you agi-ee with Mr. Marais ? — Yes. 11401. Do you agree with him that no suspensory clause shoiddbe inserted in a general act, if such an act is introduced ? — Yes, because if you allow that, the law will be no good. Mr. Dirk Bernardus Jansen examined. 11402. Cha{rman.'\ Are you also a delegate ? — Yes. I have farmed here for fifty years, and have 6,000 sheep. 11403. Do you agree vrith Mr. Marais ? — I don't believe that scab is contagious ; it ia caused by bad treatment and poverty. If there were a possibility of cleaning sheep every farmer would see and know that it was to his own interest, and would try to do so, and an act would be unnecessary. I am opposed to an act, but if there were one I think it would be in the interests of the people to have a suspensory clause. 11404. Mr. Botha.'] Do you dip youi- sheep when they are scabby?— Yes. 11405. Have you a dip on your place? — I dip at my neighbour's. I have no dip because I have no water to use for dipping purposes, and that is the case with thousands of men in this district, and that is why they are against the act. 11406. Do you often dip at your neighbour's ? — Yes, often. 11407. If you don't believe that scab is contagious, why do you dip ? — Because it helps, but I don't believe dipping wiU stamp out the disease. 11408. Where do you get your water for household purposes ? — From a well. 11409. Have you a garden ? — No. 11410. Have you a wind pump } — Yes. 11411. But surely, if you have a well and a wind pump there would be no difficulty in getting water enough to dip sheep ? — Yes, but in time of drought, when scab is at its worst, then I have scarcely enough water for my stock. 1 1412. But in ordinary seasons, if you built a tank at that wind pump, you would have water enough to dip your flocks ? — At certain times. 11413. Chairman.] Do you wish to add anything? — I am opposed to an act, but if we have one it should be regulated in this way, that it shoidd be compulsory to dip twice a year after shearing. There should be no inspection, but the field-cornets should do the work in each ward, and a man who did not dip should be fined. They should dip properly, at such stated times as the law provides. I only make this suggestion because many people cannot exist without a scab act, and I simply throw out the suggestion in case such an act should pass over the whole Colony. 11414. Br. Smartt.'] Do the farmers of Philip's Town suffer any loss or inconvenience by being prohibited from sending their slaughter stock to the Port Elizabeth market?^ Yes, great loss, and I consider it a gieat injustice, as the railway is a public work, and should be [G. 1— '94."J PPP 491 at the service of all the public in such mattois. I consider the railway department should bo independent of such local matters. 11415. But if P]iilip'.s Tuwn were under the act, you acknowledge that this grievance •would be removed ? — I have seen the same difficulty in the proclaimed area. 11116. Have you ever had sheep returned fiom Witmos station ? — Yes. 11 117. Were they affected with scab y — No; I inspected them myself, and I can swear that they had no scab. I moved them under my own certificate, but notwithstanding they were returned from Witmos station, as the inspector there said tliat they were scabby. 11418. Mr. Francis.'] Were j-ou prosecuted for forwarding sheep with scab, or for for- warding them without the necessary certificates ? — Because the certificate was not in order, and I pleaded guilty to it. 11419. But was there no other charge against you for sending scabby sheep ? — Yes, but it was not proved. The magistrate fined me 10s. 11420. Mr. Boihei.'] Was that for the imperfect certificate, or on account of both? — For both ; it was two or three months ago, and the case was tried as one. il421. Mr. Francis.] Were you not charged for giving a wrong certificate to remove another person's sheep ?— Yes. 11422. Then the fine of lOs. had nothing whatever to do with scab being in your sheep? — No, certainly not. 11423. At the same time was not there a farmer named Whitehead fined for giving a false certificate for the removal of your sheep ? — Yes, he was also fined lOs. 11424. Then you gave a false certificate to remove his sheep, and he gave a false certi- ficate to remove your sheep ? — Yes. Mr. Jacobus du Plessit, junr., examined. 11425. Chairman.'] Are you also a delegate ? — Yes. I have been farming here for 15 years, and have 1,500 sheep. 11426. Do you agree with Mr. Marais ? — Not altogether. I agree with Mr. Jansen that .scab is not contagious, and therefore I make no difference whether sheep are scabby or clean in case they trek over my place, and for the same reason I would suspend the act in times of drought. 11427. Mr. Botha.] Have you a dip on your place ? — Yes, it belongs to me. 11428. How long is it since you first dipped? — The last ten years. 11429. When did you dip last? — In September. 11430. How many times do you generally dip in a year 7 — Twice, within fourteen days, if the weather is suitable. 11431. Can you cure scab by dipjHug ? — No. 11432. You don't believe it is contagious, but the tank costs money and the dip also, so why do you dip ? — I dip to try and find out whether it is any good, and I find that it does help sometimes, but it does not exterminate the disease altogether. 11433. What do you mean by oxtenninating it altogether and what are the Commission to \mderstand bj' your answer .'' If you don't believe yourself what you have said, what are we to understand ? — I moan that it is an internal disease, and dipping cures it externally for a time, but it breaks out again spontaneously. Mr. Andries Hendrik Venter examined. 11434. C'Aatrmow.] Are you also a delegate .' — Yes. I have farmed here for 16 years, and have 1,900 sheep. 11435. Do you agree with Mr. Marais ? —Yes, entirely. Mr. Isaac Yzel examined. 11436. Chairman.] Are you a delegate ? — Yes, I have farmed here for 10 years, and have 1,600 sheep. 11437. Do you agree with Mr. Marais ? — Yes, altogether. 1 1438. Do you agree that there should not be a suspensory clause in the act ? — I don't think scab is contagious, but if I were convinced that it were contagious I should be against a suspensory clause of any soit. As I don't beUeve that it is contagious I don't see the use of such a clause. 11439. Br. Smartf.] If you were convinced that scab was contagious and could be eradi- cated, would you be in favoui- of an act ? — Yes. Mr. Francois Venter examined. 11440. Chairman.] Are j-ou a delegate ?— Yes, I have farmed here for 12 years, and have 1,500 sheep. 11441. Do you agree wilh Mr. Marais .' — Yes. Except that I am in favour of a suspen- sory clause in case of drought* 492 Mr. Gert van Vimreti examined. 11442. Chnirman.^ Are you a delegate ? — Yes. I have farmed here for ten years, and have 2, ()()() sheep. 11443. Do you agree with Mr. Marais? — Yes, entirely. Mr. Pieter Johannes Smit examined. 11444. (7/i«iV»W78.] Are you also a delegate? — Yes. I have farmed here for 35 years, and have 2,500 sheep. 11445. Do you agreo with Mr. Marais? — Not altogether. I think there should be a suspensory clause in times of drought. That is the only difference. I am opposed to a scab act, but I would suggest that if it is passed it should be as stringent as possible ; I would have no law with loopholes, or one thi-ough which you f^ould drive a coach and four ; because if there is a scab act, and you allow people to trek with scabby sheep, what becomes of other people's clean sheep ? I believe the scab act is altogether unnecessary, and a scourge to the country. 11446. Br. Smartt.] But you are convinced that, even though living in this district, no matter how stringent the scab act was made you would be able to comply with its provi- sions ? — Yes. 11447. Consequently, when the other delegates say that the district is not at all in a fit position to have an act, through the dearth of water and other circumstances, you absolutely disagree with them ? — No, I acknowledge that they are correct. 1 1448. How do you reconcile that with your statement that you would comply with the requirements of the most stringent act the Government could pass ?— I meant to say that by making a lenient law you could only put certain unscrupulous people in a position to escape the provisions of the act, and therefore I say that if you must have an act let it be as stringent as possible. I mean that if there is a law, I must comply with it. 1 1 449. Do you think that every farmer in this district does as much as you to keep his sheep clean of scab ? — No. 11450. Have your flocks ever been infected by scabby sheep of your neighbours? — Yes, certainly. 11451. Have you suffered loss under those circumstances ? — Yes, inasmuch as I had to dip my sheep. 1 1 452. Do you consider it fair to you as a careful farmer, having spent a good deal of money in dipping your sheep, that you should be obliged to dip them again through the carelessness of a neighbour ? — No, it is not right. 11453. Consequently, would it not be to your protection as a careful farmer if the Government stepped in and said that everybody should be obliged to dip their sheeji ? — Yes, and that is why I say if you make a law make it stringent. 11454. Do you honestly consider that every farmer thoroughly understands the sj'stem of dipping? — I cannot say I am in a position to say that. 11455. If such is -the fact, and you agree that it would be advisable to insist upon people dipping sheep, would it not be in their interests if, where necessary, the Government had their flocks dipped under thorough supervision ? — Yes. 11456. Would it be advisable to have a compulsory simultaneous dipping act in this district in the summer ? — Yes, I think it would assist. 11457. Mr. Botha.~\ You know that it is an evil, and a very dangerous and inconvenient thing, to have a neglectful farmer as a neighbour, whose sheep are scabby, but at the same time you know that a scab act would also be a troublesome thing ; consequently you prefer the neglectful farmer to the scab act ? — No, I would rather have a scab act, and therefore I say make it a stringent one. Mr. Adriaan Paulus Johannes Fourie examined. 11458. Chairman.'] Are you also a delegate ? — Yos, I have farmed here for 33 years, and have 3,000 sheep. 11459. With which of the previous witnesses do you agree.'' — I am opposed to a general scab act, but not to a permissive one, though I am unacquainted with the present act. I am opposed to an act in this district because wo are liable to heavy droughts, at which times we are obliged to move our stock, but with a sgib act we should not be able to do so. The act would also interfere with trade. Now, if purchasers come, and I have sheep which I can sell, I can do so, because I am not responsible for scab, but under the act it is otherwise, and I should be prevented from selling them. For the last three years I can say from experience that if I had had to dip my sheep it would have caused me great less, because they were sickly, poor, and scabby. Notwithstanding that I knew dipping might cause me loss I tried it hy putting in 400, and I lost 17 the first day. Altogether I lost about 90, but if I liad carried out the instructions of the scab act and dipped them twice, I should have lost nearly all. There were about 700 which I did not dip, and allowed them to run through the winter, after which I dipped them successfully, and only lost out of that lot, before I could dip them, about 50. The 400 I caught out for dipping wt»e the worst ia the flock. pppS 493 11460. Dr. Smartf.'] In ordinary seasons, do you beliovo that dipping helps? — Yes. 1146K The shoep which you dipped at this uusoasonablo time were certainly tolerably ecabhy i* — Yes. 11462. If there had been a scab act, which compelled you to dip them, and had not allowed you to let them get iuto that condition, don't you think that your loss would have been less 'i* — No, because if I had dipped them sooner they wore at that time in a still poorer condition, which was the result of iU health lieforc they got scabby. 11463. When did you shear them ? — At the end of March. 11464. If you had shorn those sheep between November and February, and dipped them in the warm weather, 1 4 days or a month after shearing, don't you think they would have been in a much better condition tlian they were } —It is possible, but I don't know but from November to February they had no scab, and therefore it was unnecessary to dip. 11465. Then it is not always your custom to dip twice after shearing ? — No. Mr. Michael Hendrik Neetcr examined. 1 1466. Chairman.'] Are you a delegate ? — Yes. I have farmed here for 35 years, and hare 3,000 sheep. 11467. Ai-e you in favour of or opi)08ed to a scab act ? — I am in favour of it, because it is so difficult to keep your sheeji clean when your neighbours don't try to do the same, and also with regard to trekkers and servants travelling about with scabby sheep. I think the introduction of a scab act is in the interests of all sheep farmers, and that is why I am m favour of it. ] 1468. Do you generally keep your sheep free of scab ? — Not altogether. It is impos- sible without an act. 11469. Do the farmers in your neighbourhood generally dip their sheep and keep them fairly clean .'' — Some do, but not all. 11470. Do your sheep generally become reinfected from travelling sheep, and your neighbours' sheep r* — I would not put it down always to being infected by others, because I have not yet been able to get my own flocks thorough]}' clean, but some of my shoep I have kept clean for two years. 11471. Do those sheep which you have kept clean run near a wagon road, or are they on one side, where nothing comes ? — They are generally kept on one side, but still there are roads there. 11472. I understand that you have been making some experiments with scab ? — Yes. I put the acarus on a dean sheep ; the second day I could detect it, and on the fifth day there was a spot as large as my thumb nail, and when I washed the spot it got clean. 11473. Did you ever try putting the scab insect on the sheep, and then taking it off, and found that the sheep recovered without being hand dressed '? — No, because in nearly every - case the female lays eggs on the same or the next day, and so if you take off the insect the eggs remain. 11474. Mr. Francis.'] Have you seen the eggs in the sheep.? — Yes, I have examined them, and the eggs have been laid, and three days afterwards the eggs have been hatched out ; consequently I am convinced that nothing causes scab except the acarm. 11475. Have you ever tried whether this insect can live on the bare ground, or other places ? — I cannot say, but it lives three or four days in my magnifying glass or jiocket microscope. I have tried kraals by moving the sheep out of them for six weeks, and when I put them back again I foimd that they did not become reinfected. 1 1470. Chairman.'] Had you heavy rains during that six weeks ? — There may have been. 1 1477. Did you dip the sheep before you put them iuto the kraals ? — No. 1 1478. From your experience I take it you consider it would be very easy to stamp out scab if there were a general act, and everybody dipjied properly ? — I think so, but there is a difiiculty, because the eggs may not hatch out until they get proj)er warmth. I refer to eggs laid in kraals and other places, and they may remain alive in kraals much longer than I think. 11479. Would it tend to stamp out scab if there were a general simultaneous dipping act in connection with any act which may be passed ? — It would be of great assistance, and otherwise the sheep are always liable to become reinfected. 11480. Do you see any difficulty in having a general simultaneous dijipiug clause in the act in this district .''—Not at all during January, February and March. 11481. Are there farms in this district where the owners are unable to dip on account of the scarcity of water ? — No, because one would not take more water to dip than to drink. 1 1482. If it is found impossible to have a general scab act, have you any idea where a line should be drawn cutting off the proclaimed from the unproclaimed area '^ — I don't know the country, and I don't think it is any good unless you have a general act. If the act is suspended at any time, scabby sheej) will come through and reinfect ours, and all our trouble will be lost. 11483. If there should be an unproclaimed area, a portion of country left outside the scab area, do you think it would be ad^isable to protect a farmer who keeps his sheep clean by allowing him to prevent any scabby sheep passing over his farm? — Yes, lam strongly iii favour of that. 494 11484. Do yoii know anything of the Torking of the present act ? — I think there ought to be more discipline as regards the inspctors, so that they should attend properly to their duty. For a single trespass a sheepowner may be fined up to £20, and I think that is an unnecessarily high fine. 1148.5. Do you think the inspectors should be recommended by the farmers in the field- cornetcy, or by the divisional council, or be appointed on the sole responsibility of the Government ? — I think it would be best for the magistrate to appoint them. 11486. Would it be well for the Government to establish dip depots? — Yes, I approve of that. 1 1487. Are there many small farmers in this division who find a difficulty in purchasing dip .'' — There is no one here so poor that ho cannot buy dip. 11488. Mr. Francis.'] Are there some farmers who really don't know how to dip their sheep properly ? — I believe that most of them don't know how to do it properly. I have known cases where, after sheep have beon dipped, they put them through clean water a month later because they think that enough of the dip remains on the sheep to dip them a second time without adding more dip to it. Besides that, they also make the dip too weak. 11489. Is that one reason why people are of opinion that scab cannot be cured ? — The greatest obstacle is that the people don't sufficiently understand the natui-e of scab. 11490. Do you think that is one reason why there is such opposition to a scab act in this district ? — That is the greatest reason. I have often pointed out to them that the insect the sole cause of scab, but they won't believe it. 11491. If your sheep became infected with scab, how long do you think it would take to cure them V — A fortnight, if there is a law. 1 1492. Mr. Botha.] Don't you think the four or five veterinary surgeons should find out and show the people how long the acarus lives, and takes to hatch out ? — Yes. I don't know how long they live, but I don't think the insect lives long though the eggs may remain a long time. If the veterinary surgeons cannot find that out they ought to be dismissed. 11493. You are strongly in favour of an act, but you still say you have not been able to keep your sheep clean ? — Yes, I am, and I try my best to keep them clean, but after I have dipped and cleaned them some wretched scabby sheep comes and rein- fects them. 11494. Don't you think that is the reason why some farmers do not cure their sheep, because of the fear of reinfection ? — Yes, it is. 11495. You tell us that you put youi- clean sheep into kraals which had been scabby, but had been unused for six weeks, and they have not been reinfected. Does not this prove that scab is not so contagious as some people say ? — No, the insect does not live so long, but it is very infectious while it lives. 11496. Do you think the moving of stock along the railways is a great cause of infec- tion, and is very dangerous ? — No, not if they are conveyed in trucks through the parts where there is stock in the veldt. 1 1497. "Would it be weU to disinfect trucks which have carried sheep ? — Yes, and that would be sufficient protection for the country. 11498. Dr. Smartt.] If a general scab act were proclaimed, what provision would you make for the first six or twelve months for allowing slaugliter stock to be moved through the countr)- ? — I would insist upon their being twice dipped. 11499. But for the first six or twelve months, if they were thoroughly dipped once, under strict inspection, would you let them be removed for slaughter? — Yes. 11500. As a thoroughly practical farmer, are you convinced that it is impossible to derive the benefit which you should derive from industrious farming under the circumstances in which you are placed now ? — I don't think I can. 11.501. From your knowledge of the farmers in tliis district, do you think they would object to have their sheep dipped under inspection ? — I don't know. 1 1.502. If it wore proved to them that by so doing they could keep their flocks perfectly free of scab, do you think that the same people who now opposa legislation would be in favour of it ? — I don't think they would be so foolish as to refuse. 11.503. Can j'ou explain liow it is that enterprising farmers who dip their flocks regularly, and as a rule keep them free of scab, have given evidence before the Commission absolutely opposed to scab legislation of any sort .-' — I can explain it in this way, that these people don't do it so well, and keep their flocks as clean as thry pretend. 11504. Do you think it is possible that there is sometimes apolitical object in giving such evidence ? — I think so. 11505. Mr. (!h Toit.~ Have you heard of many hardships under the present act ? — What I have seen in the AiirictiUural ■Lmrnal applies more to the inspectors, that they are not prompt enough in the performance of their duties. 11506. Don't you think it would be a hardship if the holder of a clean bill under the act should stiU be always obliged to get a permit from the inspector ? — If there is such a clause in the act, I think it ought to be removed, and if a man has a clean biU that he should be allowed to move anywhere without a permit. 11507. Would you make some provision for farmers who are under i[uarantinefor three months to be allowed to remove stock after one dipping .'' — I would not allow them to move if they had scab, 495 11508. Have you found It dangerous to dip your Hocks in winter? — If they are not too poor, there is no danger, and since I have kept mine clean they have never been so poor. 11509. Have you ever had wire-worm amongst your flocks ? — A little. 11510. Did you find it adviHa1)l/5 to dip them, even when in such an unhealthy state ? — It was so little that I did not take any notice of it. 11511. If your whole flock should suffer from wire-worm, as is the casein so many places now, woidd you dip them ? — I could not give an opinion, as I don't know how a flock looks when they are all infected with wire- worm. 3/r. John Uendrik Potgieter examined. 11512. ChainiKin.'] Are you also a delegate ? — Yes. I have farmed hero for thirty- throe years, and have 2,600 sheep. 11 51. '3. Do you agree with Mr. Noosor's evidence .^^Not altogether. I think there should be a suspensory clause in the act in case of droughts, and I should like to see the law altered in regard to the appointment of inspectors, which I should prefer to leave in the hands of the divisional councils. There was a time when I was opposed to a scab act, because I did not know the qualities and nature of scab, and I think it very desirable that the inspectors should be well informed on these points, so as to be able to know how to treat the disease, and how to advise others on the subject, and to point it out. The candidates for insijectorships under the scab act should give proof of their efficiency, and that they have some knowledge of the subject. I have uot made experiments in the same way as Mr. Neeser, because I had uot the instrumnts, but by mixing scabby sheep with healthy ones I several times proved beyoud aU dispute that within eight days they become infected, and in fourteen days they are badly infected. 11514. Do 3'ou agree with Mr. Neeser that most farmers don't dip their sheep properly ? • — More or less. I don't altogether agree with him in regard to the conveyance of scabby sheep in trucks, because it is possible that they might scratch themselves and so spread the disease. 11515. Br. Smartt.'] Do you think the same danger applies to scabby wools and skins being carried on transport wagons and railway trucks ? — It is possible, but I will give no opinion on that. 11516. Chairman.^ In other matters do you agree with Mr. Neeser ? — Yes. Mr. Adriaan Patdus Johannes Fourie examined. 11517. Chairman.^ Are you adelegate? — Yes, I have farmed here for 12year8, and have 8,000 sheep. 11518. Do you ag^ee with Mr. Neeser ? — I agree more with Mr. Potgieter, except with regard to the appointment of inspectors, whom I should like to see selected by the farming public in the same way as is done for members of the divisional council ; and I think there should be one or two inspectors in every ward. 11519. Are your sheep clean ? — Not quite, because my neighbours won't dress and at- tend to theirs, so even I don't do my best because it is useless. I cannot bring up my neighbours for reinfecting mine. Mr. Pctrm Stephanas dii Toit examined. 1 1 520. Chairman.'] How long have you been farming here ? — About 1 5 years ; I have 3,000 sheep. 11521. Are you for cr against a scab act ? — I am opposed to a general scab act, but in favour of a lenient permissive act. I should like to sec some changes in the present act, and inspectors should be nominated by tlie field-cornetcies. 11522. As you are in favour of a permissive act, I take it you generally keep your sheep fairly clean ? — Yes. 11523. Do your neighbours do the same V — Most of them. 11524. Do they dip the sheep properly ? — I don't think they understand sufficiently how to treat scab. 11525. If a permissive act were put in force in this district with the alterations you suggest, do you think it would be advisable that the sheep should be dipped under inspec- tion ? — Yes, somebody should bo appointed for that purpose. 11526. If the Government supplied dip fj'ee of railway carriage, and at a cheaper rate than can be got now, do you think it would be an inducement for the poorer farmers to dip properly ? — Yes, so long as the}' have a free choice of dip. 11527. If there were a general simultaneous dipping clause in this act, do you think it would tend to stamp out the scab soouor ? — I should uot like it, because we shear at different times. 496 11528. But the dipping would have to bo at the sar^ time, and need not interfere with the shearing at all. Supposing you take two or throe months in the summer ? — There is a difficulty in fixing a time for dipping, because stoekgras and other things might iuturfere. 11529. Don't you think that, under the present system of dipping, one doing it and another not, sheep get continually reinfected ? — I don't believe it would infect them unless they sleep together. 11530. But don't the neighbours' sheep continually mix, whether infected or not, and in this way reinfect each other ? — They do mix, and that would cause reinfection. 11531. Then would it not be advisable to have a general simultaneous dipping? — I have not considered the matter yet, but it would appear so. 11532. Dr. Smartt.^ Would you, personally, like to see that act in force here in this district ? — Yes, I have no objection. 11533. Chairman.'] Do you wish to add anything? — If there is a general scab act, there should be a suspensory clause. Mr, Barend Jacolm van der Menve examined. 11534. Chairman.'] How long have you been farming here ?• — Forty years. There are 7,000 sheep on my ground, and under my supervision. 11535. Do you agree with Mr. du Toit } — Not altogether. In the first place, I am in favour of a general scab act. For instance, take my case. I am living on a farm over which there are seven roads, and if there were a general act there would be more protection. With regard to the susjiensory clause, I object to it. If our district is thoroughly clean, and other people bring scabby sheep from other parte, we should have all the work and expense over again. I believe that scab can be stamped out by two dippings, if the sheep are then sent to a clean place, and that they will never get scab again unless they are reinfected ; but the sheep are not cleaned after dipping because the dip is made too weak, or else is not properly applied, or bec.iuse the sheep are not projjerly taken care of after they come out of the dip. 11536. Then you consider that the farmers, generally .speaking, don't dip their sheep properly ? — That is certain. 11537. Do you think that the sheep sliould be dipped under inspection, in case a man says he cannot clean them? — No. Let the divisional council recommend good men as inspectors, one in each field-cornetcy, and that will afford sufficient machinery to carry it out properly. 11538. Br. SmaHt.] And if a man does not keep his sheep clean ? — I would leave that to the legislature of the country. 11539. Mr. Francis.] If there were a general act, do you think there should be public dipping tanks on the main roads ? — That is impracticable, and there is no occasion for it. 11540. Br. Smartt.] If, according to your own showing^ many farmers do not thoroughly understand the system of dipping, would it not be fairer to the farmer, if his sheep were still infected at the expiration of the first licence, to have them dipped under the supervision of an inspector, instead of fining him for not doing what he does not know how to do ? — I think care should be taken that only such men are appointed as inspectors who are capable of telling people how the thing is to be done, but I don't believe in extending the time, because I know that sheep can be cleaned in 14 days with two dippings. 11541. Mr. du Toit.] Then how long would you suggest a man should bo allowed in which to clean his sheep? — I think the provisions of the present act are satisfactory in that respect. I believe that a simultaneous dipping, within as short a period as possible, would do great good, say from November to January. 11542. Have you found it injurious to dip your flocks in winter .'^ — If your sheep are clean in summer, you need never dip in winter. Very poor sheep dipped in July will die. 11543. You think three months is long enough in winter ? — Yes. 11544. Do you think the holder of a clean bill should be allowed to move his stock on his own jjermit, subject to a heavy penalty if he wilfully moved them with scab ? — Yes. 11545. And what about the people who are under cj[uarantine ? Should there be some provision to enable them to send away slaughter stock which they have sold after one dipping? — Yes, it they arrive at their destination in 14 days' time, and as a rule they can. Mr. Jan Andriee Herald examined. 11546. Chairman.] How long have you been farming here? — For 17 years; I hare 1,700 sheep. 11547. Do you agree with any of the previous witnesses? — I agree entirely with Mr. van der Merwe, except with regard to inspectors, upon which I agree with Mr. Ne«ser, and I will give evidence to show that he was correct with regard to the acann. It is only during the last seven years that I have dipped my sheep, and before that I was a careless farmer ; but it so happened that my scabby sheep got to Mr Neeser's, and he sent them back with a message that I should keep my scabby sheep on my own place, as they would infect his. Upon receiving this message I was very angry, but at the same time I must say that during that year I lost 80 sheep through scab : they were so hard with scab that the skin burst open. Then I built a tank on my farm, but before doing so I hand dressed, and 497 found that it helped. After I had built the tank I dipped my sheep whenever they got scabby, and they improved yearly. Throe years ago I dipped my lamlia, and since then I have not dipped at all. I have had the same experience as Mr. van der Merwe that it is impossible to keep the sheop clean on account of the continual trekking of scabby sheep over my place. Mr. Neeser told me about the experiment he made with the ncarun, and so I thought it my duty to try the same and soo if it was correct, and I tried it with the same result. Two of the three sheep upon which I tried the experiment, I washed, but the third I did not wash, but only took off the acari, and the sheep got well by themselves. I took the insects o£E on the fourth day. When my slieep were clean I bought ten rams from Mr. Joubert, which were scabby, and I brought them to my own place on a wagon. After they arrived, I hand dressed them, but they continually got worse. I put thorn witli other rams and a few ewes, and the result was that eight days afterwards the others showed signs of infection, and I was obliged to shear and dip them. It is beyond all doubt that scab it contagious, and can be cured. Mr. Cirk Bernardm Jansen, Junr., examined. 11548. Chairman.'] How long have you farmed here.' — Eight years. 1 have 1,700 sheep. 11549. With whom do you agi-ee? — With Mr. van der Merwe, but I think when sheep move along a road, and stay or sleep on a place, that they are very apt to spread the infec- tion. They might pass along the railway safely, but not otherwise. Mr. Franz Joode examined. 11550. Chairman.'] How long have you farmed here? — Fourteen years. I have 3,000 sheep. 11551. Do you agree with any of the previous witnesses? — I agree mainly with Mr Jansen and Mr. van der Merwe, but I don't think it is practicable to have a simultaneous dipping. I wish to state that the suitable place for a dipping tank is where there is a well. On my place the dams don't last long, but I have built my tank near the wells, so that I always have water, and never experience any inconvenience. With water from the same well I have dipped 2,000 sheep in one day, and both the water for dipping and for drinking was all obtained by hand pumping. I heard a farmer who said he owned 6,000 sheep state to the Commission this morning that he could not have a dip with his well, but I think that a man who has so many sheep should build a special well as well as a special tank for the purpose of keeping his flocks clean. 11552. Dr. Smartt.] Then when men living in this district advance the argument that, having to water their stock out of wells, it is almost impossible to have a dipping act, you think it is done more with a view to prevent the act being put in force in the district than that they would suffer any inconvenience ? — It is very difficult for me to say, but I am of opinion that where you can water 6,000 sheep there is water enough to have a dipping tank. Mr. George Whitehead examined. 11553. Chairman.] How long have you farmed here ? — Five years on my own account. I have 3,000 sheep. 11554. What do you wish to state } — I am in favour of a general scab act. We have had a dip for a long lime, and many people come to dip with us, but people are not strict enough with the dipping, and don't time the sheep. The result is they put the sheep through the dip as many and as quickly as possible, and I have sometimes pointed out to them that the scabby places are not even wet. Two of my flocks I keep clean, but the third is on that part of the farm which adjoins a neighbour who keeps scabby sheep, so that mine are continually reinfected. They say that the sheep are born with scab, but I believe if the ewe is scabby a lamb eight days old will become raw with scab, but they are not born with it. As was stated this morning, I was one of those who were fined for moving sheep. I was not thoroughly acquainted with the law, and when these sheep became infected, it was stated by the inspector that they had not been infected more than four or five days ; they were clean, but may have very easily picked up scab again in that time. This I attribute to my careless neighbours running scabby slieep on my veldt. Another thing I noticed was that soon after dipping their sheep, my neighbours put them in the same old kraals again, and they became reinfected. 498 Richmond, Friday, 17 ih Fehruary, 1893. PRESENT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. ,, DU Toit. Dr. Smautt. Mr. Francis. Mr. Paul Jacolus van der Menve examined. 11555. Chairman.'] You have been elected a delegate by the local branch of the Afrikander Bond ? — -Yes, I have farmed here 50 years, and have now 4,000 sheep on ray farm. I represent ward No. 2. 1 1556. You have been appointed to give evidence against the scab act ? — Yes. 11557. Will you give us your reasons for opposing the act? — In the first place because according to m}' experience I have found that in our country, and in my own district, it works badly. The act has been in force in oiu- ward for three years last January, and it has often forced me and others to dip at most unreasonable seasons, which is very barbarous. I live in a very cold part, the Sneeuwhergen, and it is consequently exceedingly injurious to dip your sheep at curtain seasons, and to do so causes great loss. Perhaps a whole lambing season is spoilt, because when the ewes are dipped at a certain time they lose their milk. Before we had tlio scab act, and I could dip my flocks when I liked, I was able to do it more judiciously and with better results than now ; but under the act I have been obliged to dip in the coldest weather because I tried to carry out its provisions. Notwithstanding that I kept the sheep for ihree days in a shed, when they were let out I found them still covered with ite, the result of dij)ping, and that has been the experience of others besides myself. 11558. Before the act was in force, did you dip your sheep regularly? — Yes. My branch of the Afrikander Bond passed resolutions, to which we aU agreed, to dip regularly, and when anj'body was found who neglected this he was to be in the first instance repri- manded, and if that did not have the desired effect he was to be fined. 11559. Did all the men who agreed to that carry it out by dipping their sheep? — Shortly afterwards, we had the scab act, so tliat we had no chance of seeing what would have been the result. 11560. But you, and the farmers living in your ward, had come to the conclusion that it was necessary to adopt some measure to stamp out scab from amongst the sheep ? — Yes. 11561. Otherwise you would not have entered into that agreement? — Yes, to keep down scab, and to improve the general conflition of the sheep as far as possible. 11562. Since the scab act has been in force you say you have dipped the sheep in the winter, and have suffered loss. Do you still dip your sheep at any time during the year ? — Yes. 11563. You find it is impossible to carry on farming without dipping? — Yes; when the sheep get scab you must do something, but I think it has just as good an effect to apply something internal, for instance, sulphui- and salt. 11564. Then do you think the scab insect comes from an internal parasite, or what ? — That is certainly my opinion, and also my experience : that the insect comes from the scab, and not the scab from the insect. 11565. Then why do you dip your sheep at aU, if you thick it comes from an internal disease ? — Because I have to obey the law. 11566. Did you not dip before the law was in force.? — Yes, but I also used that internal remedy. 11567. Then you think it requires not only something internal, but also something external to kill an internal disease ? — I think so ; for instance, after an internal dose has been applied, and the disease appears on the surface of the skin, then it is necessai-y to app])' something external to destroy it fuither. 11568. Have you at any time cured your sheep of scab by dipping, either before the act was in force, or since ?^ — For a time, but it did not last as long as when I applied something internal. 11569. How long did they remain clean ? — Before the act was in force, more than a year. 11570. How did they became reinfected?—! am not at all convinced that scab is contagious ; it is just as likely that it is spontaneous. 11571. When your sheep were clean for over 12 months, did they ever mix with scabby sheep ? — Yes. 11572. Don't you think they became reinfected from those sheep ? — No. I cannot say, because sometimes they got scabby without being mixed, and sometimes they were mixed without getting scabby. 11573. But when your sheep do get scab, you dip them? — Yes. My own opinion is that to dip sheep without applying some internal remedy at the same time only makes the calse worse. It checks the disease for a time, but when it comes out it comes with much more force. 11574. Since you have been under the scab act have you had any grievances against [G. 1— 'U4.] QQQ 499 fhe inspectors ? — No, they have only done their duty. It is the law which causes all the trouble, and not the inspectors. 1157.3. Can you offer any advice with rogard to the apiiointmeat of inspectors, or are you perfectly satisfied with the way in which they are appoiuted? — lam not prepared to answer that question. 11576. Mr. Francis.'\ Do you think all the people in your neighbourhood know how to dip thoLr sheep j)roperly, and do so ? — Certainly, beyond all doubt. 11577. Are you aware that it is a well-known fact that if sheep are properly dipped twice within 14 da>-s they will be cured of scab ? — I have been told so. 11578. Are all the ."^heep in your neiglibourhood free of scab ? — No. 11579. Then the people in your neighbourhood cannot all dip properly, or else they ■would be free ? — I can declare that they act according to the instructions given under the law, but they have even killed them with dipping without cleaning them. 11580. How many sheep did you put into that shed after you had dipped them? — About 900. 11581. About how large is the shed ? — You could put in about 1,500, according to the size of the sheep. 11582. Do you really wish the Commission to believe that the number of sheep which you mention standing in a shod of tliat size had ice on them when they came out '? — Yes, the third day, after they had been let out I saw ice on them in the afternoon, and that is caused by the cold climate where I am living. 11583. Have you ever known a flock of sheep wetted by rain in the winter to be covered with ice ? — Yes, especially if it is accompanied hy cold winds. 11584. Then are you altogether opposed to any sort of a scab act? — Yes, because I believe it is impracticable, and can only produce evil results if it is applied to these parts. 11585. Then you consider no lavv or rule at all is necessary with regard to scab? — If you could provide a more adaptable law or rule than the present one, I have no objection to anything that might tend to the good or advantage of the country. 11586. Would you be in favour of a rule whereby all farmers should be obliged to dip their sheep after shearing — Yes, that was the custom before there was an act, and it produced good results. I think that simultaneous dipping is desirable, whether the sheep are clean or not. 11587. Do you find that scab in j'otir sheep causes you a great deal of trouble and loss? —Yes. 1 1 588. And you are further of opinion that, if we could get rid of scab altogether, it would be a great advantage to the country } — Yes. 11589. Then if you were convinc^ed that by a good act we could eradicate scab, would you not be in favour of it ? — I think it could be done just as well without an act. As for the present act, I cannot see what benefit it can be. 11590. Would it be an advantage to the farmers if Government were to supply dips at cost price, railway carriage free ? — Yes. 11591. Have all the farmers dips on their farms? — Nearly all. 11592. Don't you think that every farmer should have a dip on his farm for all the stock on the jdace ? — Yes ; I think there are only two small farmers in my ward who have not dipping tanks. 11593. Do these two farmers do their duty as regards dipping? — Yes. 11594. Since they have no tanks, how do they dip? — At their neighbours'. The farms have been subdivided, and consequently the dips are on the other portion of the original farm, and it is there they dip. 11595. Dr. Smartt.'] Have you ever dipped twice within 14 days without cui-ing your sheep ? — Yes. 11596. Will you explain to the Commission what dip you used and how you mixed it? — I used a patent dip exactly according to the instructions, but I cannot remember now how I did it, because when I mixed it I just followed the prescription. 11597. Do you wish me to understand that )'0u have used a patent dip ; that you have used it absolutely according to the instructions on the packets or tins ; that j'ou have measured the water carefully, and dipped 3'our sheep and kept them in at least a minute, and that you have done this twice within 14 days and have not succeeded in cleaning the sheep ? — Yes. 11598. How mam' gallons of water does your dipping tank hold? — Four hundred gallons, both the tank in which I prepare the dip, and the (lipping tank. I measured the dipping tank with my own hands. 11599. In the portion of the country in which you live, have you ever experienced three consecutive months in which you could not find five days suitable for dipping sheep .' — We had such weather last winter, but we were determined to carry out the law, and dipped, and at one dipping we have lost as many as 30 animals. 11600. But if sulphur and salt administered internally is a perfect cure for scab, and is better than dipping, why did you not administer the sulphur and salt instead of dipping the sheep ? — Because I am under a law, and I was obliged to comply with its provisions. 1 1601. Are J'OU aware that under the law you get a three months' licence, and that the law does not compel you to clean your sheep in any particular manner ? — I am under the impression that the law compels me to dip, and that is according to what has been stated by Mr. Hutcheon, the veterinary surgeon. I followed the instructions of the inspector. 500 llfi02. But you think that if you couLl have ailmiiiistercfl sulphur anrl salt internally you coulfl have cured them ? — Yes. I meant that by applying sulphur and salt internally, and dipping externally, that is the best way to cure, but uudor any tirciuus[.ances the care is only temporajy, Viecause scab is spontaneous. 1160.3. Mr. lilt Toitr\ After you have dipped your flocks, do you as a rule iiut them back into tlie same kraals ? — Sometimes, but not always. 1 1604. Don't you think that putting them back into the same kraals may be the means of their- becoming reinfected ?— I have seen sheep remain (-lean in au old, infected kraal, whereas others lying out in the veldt get scabby. 1160-5. Wliat month, or months, and how long a period would you select for a simidtaneous dipping ? — It is impossible to state a time, because we don't all shear at the same time. I am in favour of a compidsory dipping in the summer, after shearing, twice within a fortnight. 116C6. Would you have some supervision over such dipping, to see that it is properly earned out ? — I think every farmer knows how to work with his sheep, and will do it in his own interests. 1 1 607. As a rule, do you measure your dip according to the number of sheep, or according to the number of gallons of water '? — According to the quantity of water, which I carefully measure. 11608. Mr. Botha.~\ If I told you that in the district of Queens Town farmers have gone to a man who has finished dipping his .sheep, have asked him to be allowed to dip theirs, and have gone there and added more water to it, without putting in any more dip, would you say that these men understand dipping properly ? — I am not bound to believe what you teU me. 11609. But do you believe that there are such farmers'? — If you have not seen it yourself, I must doubt it. 11610. Mr. Frandi.'\ How often has the inspector inspected j-our sheep since the act came in force ? — It is impossible to say, but always within three months, and sometimes less. 1161 1. Did the branch of the Bond which appointed you a delegate consider it was so necessary to have some law, and wore so anxious to have some law with regard to scab, that they actually enforced a law upon themselves without any action of the Government? — I would not object to any reasonable measure to attain the object of keeping down scab. Mr. Pieter Erasmus examined. 11612. Chairnum.'] Are you also a delegate .-' — Yes. I have farmed here for about 40 years, and have 2,000 or 3,000 .sheep. 1161.3. Do you agree with Mr. van der Merwe ? — To some extent, but I live in a different ward, and there is a great difference in the climate. I live ia ward No. -5, and I have no experience of what Mr. van der Merwe stated about dipping iu cold weather. 11614. You could dip your sheep all the year round without any danger? — Last winter I could not always do so, as it was sometimes too cold. I am for a measure which will work in such a waj' as to assist the farmer in eradicating scab, because I have been informed by reliable authorities that though the scab act has been in force with them for some years, scab is no better there than it is here where there is no act, and of course that makes me doubt its utility. In dealing with sheep a scab act might be a great hindrance ■with regard to trade. As far as I am concerned, I am farming with Cape sheep, and it is quite possible that, on the particular day when I am able to sell for a good price, the act might interfere and prevent my doing so, but at present, as the law is now, as long as it is not proclaimed over my own district it does not interfere with my dealings in stock : I sell, and have nothing mure to do with them. In dry seasons it is no good dipping ; you might kill them with dipping, and not ciu-e the scab ; but when the rains come they will be cured by themselves without dipping 1161.5. You say you have heard on good authority that the sheep areas bad in the proclaimed area as they are here ? — Yes. 11616. If we told you that in the district of Komgha we examined 2.5,000 sheep, and foimd no trace of scab on them, and that there has been no scab in the district for four years, woidd you believe it ? — The climate there is quite different ; it is a damp climate, with close grass ; and there is no dust there as there is here, which makes the sheep so dirty that it causo nominally clean. I should have no objection, if my sheep were clean, to sheep which had been twice dipjsed passing over my property. They might break out agaiu, but as far as infection was concerned they would be to all intents and purposes nominally clean. 11688. Do you think there woidd be any probability of eradicating scab from our Hocks by a rule which allowed a man, during the interval between the dippings, to remove sheep where ho liked ? — I said nothing, as far as I am aware, about the interval between the dippings. In the interval I should not sa^- so. 11689. Then what regulations would you make for stopping it? — Sheep should be dipped twice, and quarantined for the necessary period, to ascertain whether the dipping was effectual. 1 1 690. Is it not probable that the sheep would become reinfected within a month or six months ^ — Yes, if they trek fi;r six months. 11691. But on the same farm, by being put into old kraaLs ? — Yes, if anybody were fool enough to put them into tlie old kraals. 11692. How long have you really been interested in sheep farming ? — For a consider- able number of years, but I have only owned sheep since I have been in the Colony, for four years. 504 11693. Cannot )-ou answer me what provision you would make with regard to moving scabby sheep in the country ? — I should dip them over again. 11694. Then you would not only have a dipping act to dip twice a year, but the sheep would also have to be dipped whenever thej' became infected ? — I should, personally. 1 1695. But what would you suggest for legislation ? — I have no suggestion to make on the subject ; it would be a matter for the Government to say. 11696. Even from your four years' experience, do you believe that we should ever era- dicate scab by two dippings in a year unless there were some other rules to restrain the movement of infected sheep ? — -If everj- sheep, of both natives and Europeans, were properly dipped four timrs a year, scab would absolutely die out of the country in a period of 3'ears, with the necessary precaution of not putting the sheep back into the infected kraals or on infected veldt. 11697. You have no suggestions with regard to the removal of scabby sheep? — I liave no suggestions as to what others should do under the circumstances. The act should deter- mine that. 11698. Don't you think that under the act you suggest there would be a great many more hardships on the farmers than there are now ? — No. 11699. Would it not be a very hard case if a man's sheep had been clean for years that he should be obliged to dip four times in the year "? — I don't quite understand the drift of your question. I don't say that men with clean sheep should dip them ; only those which are infected. 11700. jyr. Smartt.'\ Have you as a rule found it work prejudicially, or has it worked well ? — It has certainly worked well, because it has been done co/i amore. 11701. Do you think any bod}' of farmers in this country would constitute themselves into a board to superintend the dipping of two or three hundred thousand sheep in the ward or area, for three or four years, gratuitously? — I am not aware that I said gratuitously. 11702. Are they to be paid? — There might be a small remimeration such as would do no more than pay the men for the time expanded, which in the case of ward committees would be a very short space of time. 11703. Do j-ou think the farmers would object now to one careful farmer residing in the ward, and elected by the sheep f aimers in the ward, to superintend the flocks aud dip, or to a committee as suggested by j'ou ? — I don't quite understand how a man could be such a mau as you say and be a sheep farmer alsj ; he would have to drop the sheep farming first. 11704. Then he becomes a Government inspector ? — That is my objection. 11705. Would the committee suggested by you, and appointed by Government, and rocei\'ifeg Government pay, be in a measure Government inspectors? — Not in the sense in which the term is at present accepted. 11706. Such committees are, I believe, at present appointed in the Free State. Have you any idea how they work there, and whether scab has really diminished in the flocks of the Free State ? — Not of my own personal knowledge. 11707. You said that if a portion of this Colony were not included under a scab act, you would protect the careful sheep farmer in that jwrtion of the Colony by absolutely pro- hibiting the passage of any scabby sheep over his farm ? — Certainly. 11708. ^Vhy give that man such protection when, if a scab act were in force, you would not put any restrictions on the movement of scabby sheep ? — I am not aware that I said so. I said I could not go into the minor details of the act. I have not studied the act. 11709 But you know that the object of the Commission is to arrive at definite opinions, and to get at the facts of the case .'' — I can give no suggestions far that. If I am to think the matter out, I think the lines to go upon would be to have very few restrictions for the first one or two j'ears, and to begin leniently, but let the act increase in severity as time goes on. As scab grew less, greater restrictions could be placed upon the moving of scabby sheep, and ultimately no doubt the provisions of the act would stop it altogether. At last it would be stopped by itself, because there would be no scabby sheep. 11710. ^\Tiat penalty would you impose ujion a man, who, under your act, did not dip his sheep properly ? — That is quite out of my province to say. 11711. But you would have him punished ?■ — If the ward committee failed to make a man dip his sheep, or if he dipped them inetticiently, under my plan I don't see that ia- etficient dipping is possible. I believe that the ward committee would be suSiciently intelligent men to see it properly don^-. B'lt if he dipped not under the inspection of the ward, and the sheep broke nut, the committee should see him dip. I suggest that there should be a penalty, but I cannot fix the amount. 11712. Do you know any cases in this district in which farmers have dipped their sheop in very weak solutions, thinkiug that they were dipping them properly? — No, not in this district. 11713. Or in any other district ? — Yes, in one case. 11714. 3Ir. du 7o!t.] Do you believe that scab is caused by an insect ,' — I know it is; I have no belief in the matter. 11715. You don't think that it can come spontaneously.' — No; 1 know that it is not so. 11716. And you know by experience that it can be cured by two dippings in a fort- niglit ? — The actual scab upon those sheop can be cured. 11717. And the sheep would remain clean unless reinfected .- — As far as my experience 505 as a sheep farmer goes, nothing but external infection, that is the reinfection by the scab acartts, could in any waj' reinfect the sheep. 11718. According to the suggestion.s you have made for a measure, would you be com- pelled to dip your sheep in the winter if they have long wool ? — I should say that the times of dipping ought to be entirelj' at the option and discretion of the ward committees, know- ing as they would the circumstances of the case and the local requirements. 11719. Are yau aware of more than one kind of skin disease in sheep which is called or taken for scab ? — No ; nothing of that sort has come under my observation. 11720. You are not aware that steekgras sometimes irritates the skin, and g^ves it very much the appearance of scab ? — I have seen the irritation frequently caused by steekgras, but I have not in any case soon any similarity between the two. 11721. It could easily be distinguished from scab? — Yes, by anybody who under- stood it. 1 1722. You are not aware of a kind of fever, which also causes the wool to fall off, and looks very much like scab? — I have scon the fever, bu t I could not have mistaken it for scab. 11723. You don't thiuk tiiat an inexperienced inspector could have taken it for scab? — I don't think so, if he ku 3";v anjiliiiig whatever of the subject. 1 1724. You don't thiuk j'our committee of farmers would make the mistake f — No, not if they are anything of farmers. 18725. Are you aware that many farmers are very much afraid that tlioso things would be mistaken for seal), and that they might be put under quarantine for something which they coxild not help ? — No. I should say they had thought very little about it, judging from the two districts of which I liave had experience. It may be so in districts of which I have no cognisance. 11726. Then would it uot be advisable that the committee should be provided with magnifwng glasses, so as to convince farmers that it is scab, and the scab that can be cured? — I think that would be a very excellent provision. Nothing short of that, I believe, would convince many of them. 11727. Chairman.'] Have you anything to add ? — There is one remark a witness made about the dissimilarity in the condition of sheep affecting theu- liability to reinfection after dipping, but according to my experience the ouly thing which militates most against the scab acarus is the grease in the wool. Sometimes after great droughts, the condition of the sheep facilitates the hatching out of the egg, and the increas e of the insect ; and a dip which may be perfectly effectual under certain favourable conditions may be quite ineffectual at other times. 11728. Still, you are of opinion that, in spite of aU this, two dippings always cures sheep ?—" Two dippings " must be C[ualified ; two dippings properly applied. I know of instances in which, under favourable conditions, the egg has been kuown to live over that space of time, and under more favourable conditions to hatch out and reinfect the sheep at a later period, although the two dippings may have been perfectly effectual as far as the living acari were concerned. Mr. Philip ran der Merwe examined. 11729. Chairman.'] You are a delegate from ward No. 2 ? — Yes. I have faiTued here for thirteen years, and have 3,000 or 4,000 sheep. 11730. Have you come to- give evidence in favour of a scab act ^ — Yes. 11731. Do you agree with Mr. Chambers ? — Not altogether. As regards the inspectors, I don't see how you can have a scab act without a Government iuspector. And as for sup- plying dip gratis to poor farmers, I don't think one farmer wUl be found so poor that he cannot buy dip ; but there might be a Government depot to supply dip at cost price. 11732. Dr. Smartt.] Do you thiuk that with a dipjnng, without provision for preventing scabby sheep being freely moved through the country, it would be possible to stamp out scab ? — No, there must be some provision of that sort. 1 1 733. You think that under all circumstances there should be no free removal of scabby sheep through the country, whether previously dipped or not? — No, certainly not. 11734. Is this district subject to periodical droughts? — Yes. 11735. If a suspensory clause were introduced into the scab act, empowering the Govermuent in times of great drought to suspend the working of the act in any particular district, would it not do away with a great deal of oi^position to the act ? — Certainly. 1173(5. Would it be advisable in this district ? — Yes. 11737. Mr. du Toit.] Are j'ou in favour of the present act? — No; I want a general scab act. 11738. And who should elect the inspectors? — The sheep farmers should recommend them to the divisional council, by whom they should be appointed. 11739. Are you aware of any other hardshijjs which farmers suffer from under the present act, and which you would like to have them relieved from ?— A man on the border has no protection whatever now. o06 11740. Would you he in favour of hoWers of clean bills under an act having the right to move stock on their own permit, subject to a penalty for any wilful abuse of it ■? — Yes. 11741. And woulfl yuu make any provision for those who are under quarantine for thi-ee months so that they might be able to sell slaugliter stock after one dipping done under inspection? — I think they should be dipped twice. 11742. But would a speculator wait a fortnight ? Would it not be safe to dip once in those cases, if the sheep were taken straight to their destination ? — I wotUd dress them well first, and then give them a good dipping, and remove them. 11743. Dr. Smartl.~] Has there been any improvement in your area since the scab act was put in force ? — Yes. 11744. Is the improvement gi-eat ? — As far as I am concerned, I am more particular now. 11745. Consequently, as an industrious farmer, the act has been of g^eat benefit to you personally ? — Yes. 11746. Is the present time of licence sufficiently long, or is it too long.'' — Too long altogether. Under the present act a man is never fined ; he can always get an extension as long as he dips, whether he uses dip or notliing but water. 11747. Then there are cases in your ward wliere fanners don't dip properly ? — I have heard so, but I have not seen it myself. I am forced, however, to come to that conclusion, because they never have clean bOls. 11748. Under the circumstances, would it not be advisable at the expiration of the term of the first licence, if sheep stiU infected were dipped under proper inspection ? — I would advise that the farmer should be fined, and he will do it himself afterwards. 11749. But if many farmers do not clean their sheep because thej- do not thoroughly undersand the system of dipping, would it not be fairer to them, and better for the country general!}', to have those sheep dipped imder inspection and cleaned for him } — I don't think 3-0U wiU find farmers so ignorant as not to kno"v how to dip the sheep thoroughly, as far as my ward is concerned. 117.5(J. Mr. Francis.'] How often havt you had a licence renewed? — Several times, but I had a clean bill for 18 months. Mr. Cornelius JEckerdt examined. 11751. Chairman.'\ How long have you been farming here? — For 30 years. I have over 5,000 sheep and goats, and I reside in ward No. 4. 11752. Are you in favour of a scab act, or against it? — In favour of a general act. 11753. Do you agree with either of the previous witnesses? — I don't go with Mr. Chambers entirely, and first as regards the sujiervision. I don't think that supersasion by farmers will ever do under a scab act, nor do I think that we .shoidd find the farmers to under- take the thing, unless jaerhaps if they were well paid, and then it would only amount to the same thing as the Government inspector over them. Then I see a difficulty about Mr. Chambers' plan for the removal of sheep, because I don't think that two dippings will cure sheep at any time, satisfactorily, while we are stiU in a scabby country. Infection is all over the place, in every stick and bush, so that sheep may always get reinfected after the second dipping, and consequently there would be a difficulty in removing them. To effectually stop the scab, there should be only one process of dipping, under a general act, and unless it is done under the strict supervision of a scab inspector I cannot see how the disease will ever be exterminated from the country. I believe there are farms in my immediate neighbour- hood from which the scab could never be eradicated in a short period unless the whole farm were dipped in a proper bath. As to the in.spection of sheep, I believe we could facilitate matters greatl}' if we were to have more inspectors, so that thej- could be more easily got at. I tliink the field-comet and the assistant field-cornet shoidd both have power to inspect sheep and grant permits in certain cases where it is easier for them to get at the sheep than for the inspector. 11754. Should there be an inspector in each field-cornetcy ? — Certainly. As regards the removal of sheep, I go with Mr. van der Merwe, and think that one dipping would be sufficient when people want to sell slaughter stock, as thej- would probably reach their des- tination within a fortnight. But they should be dipped under inspection. 11755. Have the farmers in your neighbourhood dipping tanks? — No; I think there are one or two in the ward who have not. 11756. Do they all dip their sheep ? — I am afraid there are some who don't. 11757. Do those who dip do it properly ? -Not aU. I have known many cases in which thej- have not done it in the proper way. The great object with them is to see how many sheep they can do in a day. 11758. If there is any alteration in the act, should these sheep be dipjied under inspec- tion, or should the owners be fined, in case they don't clean them ? — I should say the shortest waj- would be to fine them. 11759. Have the farmers in your neighbourhood more stock and wool now than they had some years ago ? — There is no doubt an improvement in some cases, but in a good many cases they are worse off now than thej' were 30 years ago. [G. 1— '91.] REE 507 11760. Generally speaking, do tliG)r got a f.iir dip of wool from their sheep? — Most large farmers do, but the siaull fariiiors are more iK^gligent. Generally about 50 per cent, of the weight is scab, and the other is rotten wool uud all lengths. 1176 1. Do you know of any small farmers who are not in a position to purchase dip ? — No. 11762. Would it be advisablo to have a Government dip depot? — That would certainly facilitate matters with many of tliese farmers, because oven when they can afford it some of them are very stingy. 1176.'5. Can you offer any suggestion with regard to the improvement of the act ? — Facilitating inspection for one thing, Init otherwise I cannot see that we can make it more lenient than it is at present. I am in favour of a stringent act. 11764. Do you agree with Mr. van der Merwe in regard to protecting a man in the unproclaimed area who has clean sheep ? — Yes, I would not talk about an act unless I thought it would be general. It would be simply impossible ever to eradicate scab in this country. 11765. Do you think that a general simultaneous dipping clause in the act would facilitate matters ? — It would certainly facilitate the eradication of scab, because v\ hat we suffer from mostly is outside infection, and if there were a general dipping it would reduce the infection on all sides and facilitate matters afterwards. 11766. Should that dipping be under inspection? — Certainly. 11767. Your opinion is that dipping is generally carried out so badly that in all cases where a man says he does not clean his sheep in two dippings, they should be dipped under inspection ? — Certainly. 11768. Mr. Francis.'] If your suggestion with regard to having inspectors in each ward were carried out, do you think one should superintend the work of the others ? — I doubt whether that would be necessary ; I think there will always be people in the ward who, in their own interests, will keep the inspector up to the mark. 11769. Mr. Botha.] Can you keep your sheep clean ? — As far as it is possible for a man to do who has scab aU round him. 11770. Are you obliged to dip your sheep twice everj' year? — Yes, more. 11771. Do you notice any great difference in the wool from sheep which are kept clean and those which are not ? — Yes, certainly ; there is at least 50 per cent, more from clean sheep. I know of farmers who shear four bales from 800 sheep, and I know of others who have sheared twenty bales from the same number of sheep, the latter keeping the sheep clean and dipping them, both wools being about the same length. At the same time, the market value of those two clijis differed about 25 jJer cent., if not more. 1 1772. Do you know of any cases where a man has stated that it paid liim better to let his sheep run on scabby, than it does to clean them ? — Certainly. 11773. Do you kuow of a case where a man who has kept his sheep clean has found it 80 profitable that he has always continued to do so, and is now in favour of a scab act .' — Yes. 11774. Mr. dit loiL] Would you force a stringent act over the whole Colony, seeing that a considerable section is thoroughly ojjposed to it ?^My idea is that if an act is made at all, it must be a general act ; otherwise there is no chance of eradicating the scab. Let us modify the act wheje we can, to make it easier for the people, but still the one fact will remain, that it must be a gouoral act. The only question is, how far its provisions can be modified to make it more palatable to the the people. 11775. Then, with the object of getting it over the whole Colony, would j'ou make it lenient ? — With the object of having it generally adopted, I would make it as lenient as passible, and give every latitud<» as long as everj'one sets siraultaneousl}' to work about the same purj)ose, the eradication of scab. 11776. Are you acquainted with tlie north-western parts of the Colony .'' — Yes. 11777. You are aware that in those districts there are often long and continued droughts ? — Certainly. 1177". Would you be in favour of the suspension of the act dm-ing very severe and protracted droughts in those parts ? — I cannot go with any suspension ; the moment you suspend the act, jou put the whole country on fire again, and it would only throw us back to whore we were before. 11779. How long would you give as a period for the simultaneous dipping? — In the middle of summer, 12 to 14 days. 11780. Would that work ? — It would certainly kUl all the existing infection. 11781. Would not all the farmers have to shear at one time ? — Yes. 11782. Could they all get shearers at the same time ? — That is why I do not see how the simultaneous dipping act can bo enforced ; it would not facilitate the matter. 11783. With reference to the 800 sheep you spoke of, was the quality of the stock the same in both cases ? — There might have been some difference, but I put down the different production of wool entirely to sc^ab, because some of the sheep had only half a pound of wool on them. I saw the slieoji iiiysolf, and can substantiate the matter b_v facts. 11784. Chairma?!.] Have you unj'thing to add ? — For the purpose of totally eradicating scab, I think greater facility should be given to the farmers to obtain fencing material. We find that fencing is on the increase, and it is very useful for the isolation of flocks, especially when a man has careless neighbours, and I would suggest that there should be a great reduction on the railway carriage of all fencing material. 508 Mr. John Stetrrri examined. 11785. Chairman.l^ How long have you been farming- here.-' — Four years in this district, but 16 years altogether. I have 1,300 sheep now, and live in war-l No. 2. 11786. Do you wish to give evidence in favour of a scab act, or ag:iinst it .'-I aiu iu favour of a general scab act. 1178". Do you agree with Mr. Eckerdt ? — Yes, entirely. I see that th;i dipping process is not oarrio'l uu properly here, and I think we ought to have a chief inspector to look after the ward inspectors — not one in every district, but one for a group of three or four districts. I I7IS8. Do you see any improvement in the area since the act has been in force ? — Yes, and I consider it is chiefly owing to the working of the scab act. 11789. Is that the reason why j-ou wish tliis act to be extended? — Yes. 3Ir. Jacohui Nicolaas Johannes Theunissen examined. 11790. Chairman.^ How long have you been farming in this district? — From 12 to 14 years. At present I have 1,800 sheep. 1 1791. Do you wish to give evidence in favour of a scab act, or against it ? — I am op- posed to the present act, but I ara La favour of a general act, if it could be made to meet the requirements of the several districts of the Colony. The circumstances of the Colony are not the same in the eastern aud th"^ north-western parts; there is a difference in pasturage, climate and everything, and you will have to make an act which wUl meet these people, and be agreeable to them. In droughts the act will have to be suspended, because it has come under my own observation, when travelling in the north-western districts, that a man had actually no water on his farm with which to dip his sheep. I agree that there should be either a committee elected by the farmers, or an inspector elected in the same way, but not an inspector appointed by the Government. In my own ward I think we have the men to work the committee. 11792. Would tlioy go out and stand over and see the flocks of sheep being dipped properly ? — No, not see every .sheep dipped ; they would go and inspect sheep. I think the plan of a committee would work, but not if they have to go and see all the sheep dipped. 11793. Woidd it not be better to have a thoroughly practical sheep farmer, who kept his own sheep clean, instead of the committee ? — I believe in either plan, but it is difficult to say which would be the best. 11794. Do you think the farmers generally dip their sheep properly in j'our neighbour- hood V — Those who dip, but all doa't dip. There are very few who have dipping tanks. 11795. You think it will be impossible to stamp out scab in the district of Eichmond untU you get an act of some kind in force ? — My opinion was al^^ays for a compulsory dip- ping act at certain seasons of the year. I think every man ought to have a dip on his farm, l3ut it is a hard thing to compel people to make them. 11796. Dr. Smartt.'] Do you believe that .scab is contagious? — My opinion is that under some circumstances it is, not always. Sometimes I believe it is spontaneous, and breaks out in some way. 11797. Do yo(i think an act as suggested by you would be in the interests of the farmers of the Colony ? — Yes, if it is suited to the different districts. Murrayshirg, Monday, 2Mh February, 1893. PRESENT ; Mr. Feost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. ,. DU ToiT, Dr. SilARTT. Mr. Francis. Mr. Franz van dtr Ahee examined. 11798. Chairman.'^ Aro you a delegate of the Afrikander Bond in this district, or were you appointed by a public meeting } — By the Bond. 11799. How long have j'ou been farming in the district? — For 26 years. I have 5,000 sheep and goats, but mostly sheep. 11800. Have you been appointed to give evidence for or against the scab act ? — I and the other delegates have been appointed at different meeting.^ to give evidence in opposition to a scab act. I am speaking from an e.xperience of 26 years in Murraysburg and 8 years in Graalf-Beinet, before I came here. Since I have been here I have tried to eradicate scab, and on the first farm I had in this district, Mey Platz. there were all the necessary arrange- ments for dipping and cleaning sheep, but I did uot succeed in eradicating scab. For the last 21 years 1 have been farming on my own place, where the fia-st thing I did was to build dipping tanks and all necessaries. Since then I have been most regular in dipj)ing my sheep, but notwithstanding my best efforts I have not succeeded in keeping them clean for RRK 2 509 a whole j'oar, although I did my host ; applied patent dips according to the written instruc- tions, and also had advice from Mr. Hutcheon, tho veterinary surgeon. Gimse(iuontly I have come to the couclusion, after all that experitnce, that tho scab act has failed, simply because you cannot comply with the law. 11801. When you dip your sheep do you cure tliom for a time i* — Yea. 11802. For how loug ? — That dopeuds ou the season, the weather and the condition of the sheep, but I have been able to keep thom clean as long as eight months. 11803. How do you account for their becoming infected } — I don't know. 11804. Do you think the disease is spontaneous, or is it caused by infection? — I cannot give a positive answer to that, because 1 have never been in a position to keep my sheep altogether free fiom coming into contact with other sheep which are scabby. 11805. Don't you tliink that these other scabby sheep have reinfected your flock after you have cleaned them ? — It may be possible, but I dcm't know. llHOf). What do )ou think y You must have some idea on the subject? — Sometimes I do think it is the case, but at other times I think it is not so. When sheep arc in good con- dition and the veldt is good, I don't believe sheep will take the infection. ] 1807. Then if you had a llock of slieep in prime condition, and all tho surroimdiugs were in good order, you would have no objection to .scabby sheep mixing with them ? — I should not like to see tliem mix, because there might be something in the theory though I don't believe in it myself. 11808. Still, you don't think j-our sheep would become infected by the others under those conditions ? — I don't think they would. 11809. And that, of course, is the chief reason why you object to a scab act ? — No, that is not tho chief reason. My chief reason is the difficulty in the act itself. 11810. What particular difficulty do you find in the act ? — The law as it is does not provide against reinfection, nor for simultaneous dipping, and I believe all people don't dip at tlie same time ; nor is there any certainty that those who dip do it properly, and according to the instructions. The law is not strict enough as regards sheep which are placed under quarantine. There is no blame to the inspector, but the law is nut strict enough, and does not provide sufficient security. 11811. Would it moot your case if there wore a general siinultanoous dipping clause in connection with the act? — I don't know. 11812. Would you recommend that? — Before this act came into operation, I thought it would be a very good thing, but I have been disappointed in the act, and I am afraid I might also be disappointed by any new act which might bo promulgated hereafter. 11813. Still, if there is an act, do you think there should be a clause compelling farmers to diji at the same time ? — Yes, I would recommend that it should be carried out in small areas, where the climate and circumstances are similar ; but I could not exjioct to have it applied at the same time to the whole Colony, because there is such a great differ- ence in climate. 1 1814. If it coiild be carried out in a reasonable time throughout the whole Colony, do you think it would be a very good thing ?- — It would be unsuitable. 11815. Have all the farmers in your neighbourhood tanks, and do they dip their sheep according to the regulations ?- — I don't know that they all liave tanks, but I don't tliink that they dip recording to directions, although they all dip. 11816. When a farmer dips his sheep, as he says, according to the directions, twice, and fails to cure them, do you think it is his fault for not carrj'ing it out properly ? — No. 11817. But you cured yours by dipping them. Don't you think he could cure his also ? — It depends on the condition of the stock. 11818. Then you don't always cure yours b^ twice dipping? — I have alwajs been successful, because I have always had good, clean veldt, and my shoej) were in good condition. 11819. Then if another farmer is in the same position as you are, he could also clean his sheep by dipping ? — No. 11820. Not if he were' in the same position as yourself? — Because I keep a limited stock on large veldt, and the others are obliged to do viee irrsa. 11821. But you state that you don't believe scab can be cured and tho disease eradicated ? — I don't think it can be. It can be cured for a time, but not stamped out. 11822. As you are living under the present act, is there any improvement or alteration which you could recommend in it ? — Nothing more than I luive stated already. 11823. Mr. ila Toii.^ Would you be in favour of an act which was amended according to your suggestions? — Not until I have seen the act, and how it works. 11824. Do you think any measure is necessary cither to try and eradicate scab or to keep it in check ? — Yes, I think it is certainly necessary that we should have some measure, and I can recommend nothing ])etter than dipping. 11825. Do you mean a general dipping act ? — No, not at all, because there are so many places whore such a law cannot be given effect to. My suggestion is that simultaneous dipping should be introduced whore you have got the scab act. 1 1826. Then you arc in favour of a scab act throughout the Colony ?— No. 11827. Can you make any suggestions for the measure you propose, and which you 510 think would be suitaWe ? — At first I should say luave the scab act altogether, and huve a general fencing act. 11828. A,nd you have no suggestions to make as to what should be done afterwards?— I don't think it is necessary to suggest anything else, because if you have general fencing a scab act will not, in my opinion, be required at all. 11829. Br. Smartt.] But you said that a dipping act would be the best measure ? — I say we must have dipping, but we cannot have the proper or -sufficient results from dipping unless wo have fencing also. 11830. I.S there less scab in the district of Murraysburg now than there was before the act was in force ? — No, I can see no difference. 11831. Are there no farmers in the district with clean flocks? — Yes, I have clean flocks myself. 11832. Have you a clean bill? — The last time I did not get a clean bill. I was shear- ing them and the inspector has not been at my place since ; but my sheep are clean. 11833. Is it absolutely essential in the interests of the farmers that their sheep should be kept clean, if it can possibly be done ? — Yes. 11834. Consequently, if through carelessness or want of knowledge, according to j'our on-n showing, there are farmers in the district of Murraysburg who don't keep thoir sheep clean, would it not be in the interest of those farmers if the Governirent introduced a dipping measure providing for the dipping of such sheep under competent inspection ? — Not at all, because although they carr}- out the regulations strictly they are no better off thaa the others, and their sheeji are just the same as the others. 11835. Then you mean that a thorough and efficient dipping, twice within 14 days, is not a cure for scab, even temporarily ?■ — It helps for a time, under certain circumstances, but not always. What I have said is ray conviction, and in a few words I can repeat the same thing over again. 11836. Are you convinced, as a practical farmer of 26 years' experience in this district, that scab is not absolutely contagious at all times ? — I could not take my oath upon it, but still I am of opinion that it is not alwaj'S contagious. 11837. But under any circumstances, would you, if you coidd prevent it, allow scabby sheep to mix with j-our flocks, no matter what condition they were in ? — Certainly not. 11838. If a man lived in the unproclaimed area, and kept his flocks clean, would you consider it advisable to give him protection by allowing him, if he put up notices on the main roads through his farm, to prevent scabby sheep trekking through his property ? — I do think the public want protection, as regards travelling sheep. If a farmer has succeeded in cleaning his flocks under existing circumstances, then he can also succeed in keeping them clean without any alteration in the law ; but w ith regard to trekkers I think it is necessary that some provision should be made, because animals which are trekking are subject to hardshi]5s which made it more likely that scab will break out, and there is more danger of their infecting other people's flo.cks. 11839. Is it not equally necessary to protect a careful farmer against a careless neighbour, whose .«heep are scabby ? — My experience is that it is just those fanners who ask for protection who are the most negligent. 11840. Do you think the one man deserves more protection than the other? — Some people do expect more protection, and are more anxious for protection than they are to do their duty. 11841. If you, being a careful farmer, have spent a lot of money upon dipping your sheep and eradicating scab, as a mere matter of justice, is it right that all your energy and money shoidd be wasted by the carelessness of a neighbour who has scabby sheep which run over your property — speaking only for j-ourself ? — I think people should be protected. 11842. Btit there could be no protection without legislation, and the protection which you require would naturally be a scab act ? — Until now I have not been protected by a scab act, consequently I am convinced that no scab act is of any good. 11843. Then what do j-ou mean by the protection? — I must first see the nature of the protection before I can say whether it is good or not. 11844. Mr. BotJia.^ Would it sometimes be the case that when a man receives a licence for three months, he would have to shear his sheep before he could dip them with any chance of success, and consequentl}- even three months might not be long enough ? — Some- times, under certain circumstances, dipping might be so expensive that it would be better not to dip. 11845. Sometimes when your sheep are dipped well and clean to the eye, does the scab break out without their mixing with infected sheep .-■ — I have seen it, and I do think it does break out without inieclion, but I am not so certain on that point. 11846. Might thuy not have been infected by old kraals, or some other places? — Formerly I thought so, but I dout think so any luore, having l)een taught by experience. 11847. Mr. Francix.] Why do you think the quarantine rules are not strict enough?— In case the theory is correct that scab is contagious, then I say the present (juarautino legulations are not sufficient protection, because one man might have a clean flock and his neighbour might have a three months' quarantine licence ; then, of course, there is always the chance that the scabby sheep may infect the clean ones. 1 1848. Then on that point you would be in favour of a more stringent scab act thaa tlio present one ? — That is very difficult to answer. 511 11849. If as you say dipping only rleans the sheep temporarily, how do you account fortho fact that all the sheep in Komgha under the present act are clean ? — T am un acquainted with that district, and don't know tlio nature of the place. 1 1850. Do you believe that scab is caused by an insect alone? — I believe that where there is scab there is an insect, biit I don't believe that .sca'i is onl\' caused by an insec't. 11851. Are you aware that the only scab which is recognised by the law is rhat which is caused by an insect ? — 1 believe you always find the acarus where there is scab, but I don't believe that the neanis alwa}'s causes scab. 11852. Do you believe that the existence of scab in our flocks not only causes great loss to the individual farmer, but also to the countrj', and that it would be a great benefit if we could eradicate it from the flocks ? — Yes, scab does cause great trouble, expense, and loss, and if it coidd be eradicated it would be a blessing. 11S53. And if you were convinced that it could be eradicated would you then be in favour of a general st ab act ? — Certainly. 1 1854. Do you know whether the Afrikander Bond in this district has formed any rules for the regulation of the eradication of scab ? — Yes. 11855. Then it is quite evident that a number of people belonging to the Afrikander Bond in this district think there should be some law with regard to the eradication of scab ? — I think it is done more with the object of making the experiment than from a desire for the act. 11856. Dr. Smartf.'\ Does it not prove that scab was so prevalent in the district that meetings of farmer* considered it absolutely essential to pass some measure to deal with it ? — In Murraysburg itself it is not necessary, but we want a general movement over the country. Mr. Isaac Malherhe examined. 11857. Chairman.'] Are you also a delegate? — Yes, I have farmed here for 34 years. I goneralh' have 4,000 to 5,000 sheep and goats, principally sheep. 11858. Do you agree with Mr. van Ahee ? — Not altogether. When I say I am opposed to a scab act, you must not take it as being not opposed to scab. When I began farming there was no dipping, but we hand dressed, and I always did my best, ever since I have been farming, to keep my sheep as clean as possible. Dipping is good, and so is hand dre-ssing, and I know by experience that, without dipping, you can always keep j'our sheep in such a state by hand dressing that you would not lose much Avool. My experience has taught me that you should clean your sheep as well as possible before the winter, and if they are clean iu March and April there is a chance of keeping them so until September, and then sometimes scab does reappear. Last year that was the case with my flocks, but in August .scab came like fire among them, and I had to dip them with long wool. I dressed them first, and then dipped them, once, in .Sei)teiiiber. Tliat cured them, and up till to-day I have held a ch-an bill. My experience has shown mo that any farmer can clean his sheep, but he cannot keep them clean. 11859. Do you believe that scab comes spontaneously ? — I think it is, according to my experience. 11860. Do you think it is necessary that some means should be adopted to tiy aud stamp it out ; that there .shotdd be regulations of some kind to compel thos(! men who will not attend to their sheep to do their duty ? — If the matter could be placed in the hands of tlie divisional councils, to have a dipping act, then I would be in favour of it. 11861. Would the divisional councils carry out the act better than the Qovei-nment? — Yes. 11862. Have the divisional councils stamped out the biu-r-weed in the Murraysburg division ? — Not altogether ; it is about the same as the scab ; it does reappear, but if it was not for the divisional council it would have been far worse. 11863. Ai-e 5'ou not aware that there are farms in certain parts of the Colony which are so overrun with the burr- weed that it would cost more to eradicate the burr-weed than the farm is worth ?— No. 1 1804. If you were assured that that is the case, do you think that the divisional councils in those districts have done their duty in not eradicating it ? — I don't think so. 11865. And stiU you think it would be advisable to place the scab act in the hands of the divisional council ? — Yes. 11866. Mr. dii Toit.~\ Do you believe that scab is contagious at all? — I do ; but not that it is as bad as we are told it is. 11867. As far as you believe that it is contagious, don't you think it necessary to give a farmer some protection who keeps his flocks clean ?— That is a difficult question to answer, because according to mj- experience with the scab it; is a cause of gi-eat trouble to the farmer. 11868. You believe that the hardships which come with the act are worse than the relief it affords by protecting the careful farmer ? — Yes, much worse. 11 869. Don't you think that these hardships could be removed? — I have been thinking a good deal over it, but I cannot see how the difficulty can be removed as long as the law is in existence ; but our greatest hardship is in the removal of stock. 11870. Do you think it would meet the case if holders of clean bills had the right to remove their stock on their own permit ? — It is particularly as a spectilator in sheep that I rA2 find great difficulties, and under such a proviso I would not undertake to send stock from here to Beaufort West, because scab might break out on the road. 11871. But if the clause should be that j'ou were not liable to any penalty if j-ou could prove that on the da}' when you took the flock fi-om here thfre was no visible signs of scab ? — Yes, that would be an improvement, and I should have no objection to it. I have had the experience of a flock of clean sheep coming from the Camdeboo, all of which had clean bills fi'om the places where they came from, and they were sold at Nels Poort to a butcher. The butcher, however, did not take over the clean bUls which accompanied the sheep, and when thej' got to Ehenosterkop they were turned back and impounded. Those sheep were intended for a butcher at Cape Town ; they were more than three days withou*; water ; they cost about £20 in dipping expenses, and after they had been dipped they were put into tlie train and sent away, causing a loss to the buyer on those sheep of nearly £100. There were 1,100 sheep. Mr. ElUot, tbe inspector, inspected the sheep, and thought that there was one sheep with a speck of scab under the belly, which was, however, doubtful. IU72. How wouhl it bo if the clause were so amended that sheep once trucked should be allowed to go on to their destination ? — I am opposed to scab, but I am also opposed to a scab act. 11873. C/tairman.^ Why were those sheep retm-ned? Was it because they had no permits with them ? — I cannot say. 11874. Mr. du Toit.^ Even though these hardships were rem.oved, you don't think a scab act could be made workable '? — Yes. 11875. Dr. Smartt.'] Would you have dipped that flock of sheep in Sei)tember if you had not been li^^ng in a district where the scab act was in force ? — Certainly ; h has always been my practice. 11876. And it was to their benefit to have them dipped? — Yes, of course, or I should not have done it. 11877. Consequently, when you apeak against a scab act you .speak as a specidator, and not as a farmer ? — I speak according to my experience as a farmer and speculator, and I speak in the interests of the farmers. 11878. Mr. Botha.^ Is not scab of much greater consequence to the country, or a district, than burr-weed ?--I think the burr-weed was a greater evil than scab. 11879. As the divisional councUs are not competent to stamp out the burr- weed, are they competent to stamp out scab ? — Yes. 11880. Mr. Francis.^ How long was the wool of those sheep you dipped in September? — About eight months. 11881. And you thought it was better to dip the sheep than to let them go on ? — Of course. 11882. Then when witnesses tell the Commission that scab causes tliem great loss be- cause they are obliged to dip the sheep with long wool, they must make a mistake ? — Not always, but in September you can dip with long wool. 11883. If the reason wh}- these sheep of which you have told us were sent back was because the owuer neglected to send the permits with them, then was it not the fault of the man and not the faidt of the act which caused all that loss ? — I believe they had the permit for the sheep given by the tield-eornet, but not the clean bill. It struck me later on about the pass given by the field-cornet, but in the first instance I was referring to the clean bill. 11884. Do you believe that scab is caused by an insect .-■ — No. 11885. If I were to take some scab insects and put them on a clean sheep of yours, and it caused scab, would you then believe it was the cause of scab ? — Yes. 11 880. Mr. Bot/ia.'] Did you keep those sheep which you dipped on your place, or did you send tiiem away ? — I kept them. 1 1887. So you know that they remained clean ? — Yes, they are stiU clean. 11888. Br. Sinartt.'\ Are there any cases of farmers in the district of Murraysburg who have become more careful with their flocks since the scab act has been introduced } — I can only say that, according to my experience, in some seasons scab is more troublesome than at others. I cannot speak for the whole district, but there are no such cases in my neighbourhood. Mr. Christian TJieroti examined. 11889. Chairman.'] Are you a delegate ? — Yes. I have farmed here for 30 years, and have 4,000 small stock. 11890. Do you agree with Mr. van Ahee ? — -Yes; I am ia favour of a general dipping act, but not a simultaneous ane. 11891. Mr. die Toit.] Do you think it should be carried out by the divisional council — I could not give an opinion on tliat. 11892. Br. Smartt.] Would you object to such an act being carried out simultaneously in the summer months ? — Not if it could be done ; but I don't believe it could. 11893. What provision would you make in such an act to deal with careless farmers who dip their sheep improperly ? — There should be provisiou in the act for fining them. 11894. Would it be advisable, afterwards, to have their sheep dipped under inspection? — I think under the inspection of a good man. 11895. Mr. Botha.] Have you any burr-weed on youi' farm ?— Yes. 513 11896. Which is the worse, burr- weed or scab ? — Scab. The burr-weed has not done me any damage yet, but of course scab has. 1 i897. Then you differ from Mr. Mallierbo on that point ? — Yes. 11898. Is it the opinion of most of the fanners here that burr-weed does not do much harm ? — Yes, and therefore I don't think j'ou can compare burr- weed with scab. It does not cause as much loss or damage as scab. It may do so in some places, but not here. 11899. Mr. TVancis.'] Do you think it would be an advantage to the farmers if Govern- ment were to supply dip at cost price, free of railway carriage ? — Undoubtedly. 11900. Dr Smartt.J If the act were repealed in tliis district of Murraysburg, do you not thisk many farmers would again become careless with their flocks ? — Before we had an act we had indifferent farmers who were improyed by moans of the a(;t, and if the act were repealed they might go back to the same state of affairs. 11 901. Consequently, though the act may have certain drawbacks, it has been of enor- mous benefit to the farmers to whom you refer ? — Yes, it has done good. 11902. Is this district subject to periodical droughts ? — Yes. 11903. Are there times when it is absolutely necessary to move sheep from here for pasturage or water ? — Yes, a portion of it. 11904. If a suspensory clause were introduced into the act, empowering the Govern- ment to suspend it in times of severe drought, would not tliat do away with a great deal of the inconvenience it causes at present ? — Yes. 11905. And would that do away with a good deal of the opposition to the act 'P — Yes. 11906. If there were such a clause introduced into the act, would you then be in favour of it yourself ? — Then I should be in favour of it, but I am opposed to the present act. 1 1907. Mr. (Ik Toi/.'\ Are j'ou opposed to the repeal of the present act ? — It is not of so mucli advantage as I expected it would be. 1 1908. But you see a danger in repealing it ? — Yes ; without an act, I don't see a chance of farming properly. 1 1909. Is j'our only objection to the present act that you cannot move sheep in time of drought ?— There are also difficidties in moving stock from one farm to another. 11910. What would you recommend in regard to this ? — I would give more freedom for the removal of sheep. 11911. Br. Smartt.'] Do you consider that every landowner should have the power to impound travelling flocks of scabby sheep on the main roads? — Yes. 11912. Mr. Botha.'\ Does the present method of appointing inspectors give satisfaction? — Yes, through the divisional council ; but there are not sufficient ; there should be two or three more. 11913. Would it do if there were one inspector in each field-cornetcy ? — Yes. 11914. Mr. Francis. 'I Before a man sends scabby sheep to the pound, ought he to have them dipped at the owner's expense } — Of course. 11915. Br. Smartt. '\ Would it not be better if the inspectors were chosen, from farmers living in the field-cornetcy, by the sheep farmers residing there .^ — Tliat would be a f artiior improvement. Mr. Baniel Pienaar examined. 11916. dmiriiian.^ Are you also a delegate ? — Yes, I have farmed hero for 30 years, and have from 1,500 to 2,000 sheep and goats, mostly goats. 11917. With which witness do you agree ? — With Mr. Theron, who spoke last. Mr. Barend Pietiiiar examined. 11918. Chairman.'] Ai-e you a delegate ? —Yes. I have farmed here for 17 years, and have about 1,000 small stock, chiefly goats. 11919. With which witness do you agree ? — With Mr. van Ahee, but I would give the preference to a dipping act, instead of to a fencing act. I am in favour of a workable general dipping act, but I cannot say exactly how it is to be done. 11920. Mr. Botha.'] Are you in favour of each field-cornetcy electing its own inspector? — Yes, appointed by the farmers. 11921. Which causes more damage, burr- weed or scab? — In some places it is more important to deal with scab, aud in sjme with burr-weed, because I know farms where the burr-weed cannot be eradicated. 11922. .Mr. Frmtois-.] When you dip your sheei), do you clean them of scab ? — Yes. 11923. How long do they remain free of s(^ab ? — It is five months since I dipi)ed them last, and they are clean. 11924. Do you consider that they become reinfected from other sheep, or from old kraals ? — It is spontaneous. 11925. Do you not lielieve that the scab insect is the cause of scah ? — No, I believe the scab brings the acari. 5 It 11920. Mr. lUi Tnit.\ Do you helicvo that scab is sometimes fontagioxis ? — I don't believe that the insect causes scab. 11927. If you had a clean flock, would you object to scabby sheep mixing with them ? — Not as long as my veldt was in good condition ; I know thi'y would not got the contagion then. 1 1928. Do you sec tlie necessity of a general fencing act ? — It would be a good act if it could be (tarried out, but I see a dilftculty in carrying it out. 11929. Should the dipping act be carried out under inspectors ? — Yes, the inspectors I have referred to. Mr. Franz Petrm van der Merwe examined. 11930. t'Afl(V»«rt».] How long have you been farming here? — Aboiit 40 years. I luive between 3,000 and 4,000 small stock ; more goats than sheep. 11931. Ai-e you in favour of a general scab act? — Yes, because the farmers who do their best to keep theii- sheep clean are continually being reinfected by their neighbours. 11932. Is there less scab in this district now than there was before the act was put in force y — Beyond all doubt. 11933. Do you attribute that to the working of the scab act ? — Certainly. 11934. Do all the farmers in the district dip their sheep, and liayn thoy dips on their farms } — I am not certain, but I think most of them liavo dips and dip the sheep. 11 935. Do you find that there are many sheep moving about from place to place in tlie district ? — Not so many in this district. 11936. Are there many natives moving about with small lots of sheep .' — I cannot say, there is not much of that here. 11937. When 5'our sheep become reinfected, do you consider it is more from your neighbours', or from travelling sheep .'' — I am convinced it is more fiom my neighbours' sheep. 11938. Supposing it is found impossible to have a general act, have you any idea where a dividing line could be best drawn } — I cannot give au opinion ; I am in favour of a general act. 11939. Sxipposing such a line were drawn, would you allow sheep from the unproclaimed area to come into the proclaimed area .'' — No, not unless they were dipped first. 11940. Should there be ports of entry, where the sheep should be properly dipped twice before being allowed to come in .-■ — Yes. 11941. Would you apply that to sheep placed on railway trucks to bo carried down for slauglitering purposes ? — If they are scabby they should be dipped. 11942. Ajid if they are not scabby .^ — Ttien I would allow them to go \)j rail to a butcher, but not in a district where the act is proclaimed. 11943. Incase a farmer kept his sheep clean in the unproclaimed area, would you protect him i — Yes, certainly ; I would favour such jirotection. 11944. Do you think it would assist materially in stamping out the scab if Government supplied dip at a cheaper rate t — Yes. 1 1945. Are there any farmers in the district of Murraysburg who are unable to purchase dip, because they are too poor .'' — No, none too poor. 11946. Are there any in the Colony? — It may be so. 11947. How long has the act been in force here ? — More than four years. 11948. Do you think the method of apjiointing inspectors could 1 e improved upon? — It works well in this district, but I think it would be better if the number were increased, »a3' one in each ward. 11949. Mr. du loit.'\ Are you in favour of the present act? — Yes, with tlie alteration that it shoidd be made general. I don't see any particular iuconveTiience, except vs'liat I have mentioned. 11950. Do you tliink the act would be suitable all over the Colony ? — That I could not answer. 11951. Are you acquainted with the north-western parts of the Colony? — No, not at all. 11952. Have you heard that they often sufier there from protracted droughts ? — Yes, I know that. 11953. Then do you think it would bo advisable to force such an act upon them ? — I cannot say that it is altogether impossible for them to comply with tiie act, because I don't know that the water is quite so scarce as all that. 11954. But in addition to that, they sometimes liave to trek away from their farms for six or nine months, and under those circumstances would it not be v^ry hard for tliom to comply with the provisions of the act ? — It may be so, but as I have said I am not acquainted with those parts. By saying that I am in favour of a general scab act I mean this act, made general, but more workable. 11955. Would you be in fnvour of a suspensory clause in the act, to meet the case of times of severe droughts ? — Yes. [G. 1— '94.] sss .il5 1195G. Don't j'ou think it a liardahip that lioldera of denn hills should always lip oliliged to gi't a iiormit for tl\eir ilrxks, if thoy want to ivmove Iheiii. or sell to speculators ? — No ; I think that, es2)0(ially when there is only one inspector, a man holding a clean hill should have to asTc per-iiiss'on to remove his stock. 11957. Do you think it would be still wanted in case there was an inspector in each Tird ? — It was just to meet cases of removal of stock that T thought we wanted more inspectors. 11958. In that case you don't think it advisable that the holder of a dean hill should have the right to move his stock on his own permit ''. — It would be so much easier th(>n to get an inspector, that I should say it would not be necessary to allow such privileges. 11959. If you had a ilock of sheep for sale, and a speculator came just in time to buy it, and you had to send for an inspector, it might take a day to get him there, and perhaps the speculator would not wait .so long, and you would lose the sale .'' — It may be so in other districts, but not here ; and therefore I should be in favour that, in districts where that was the case, holders of cleau liills should be allowed to remove tlieir sheep as you suggest, on their own permits. 11960. Would you make some provision for those who are under ijuarautino for three months, so that they could remove their sheep after one thorough dipping '■: — In such cases I should have no objection, if the sheep were dipped under the supervision of an inspector, or some impartial man. 11961. Do you think it would be more advisalde to have a lenient act over the whole country, or a stringent one over a portion of it? — A lenient general act. 11962. Br. Smartf.~\ Can you conceive if any sheep-run, in any portion of the Colony, having water upon it sufficient for the stock, and not sufficient water to dip them ? — I cannot understand how it can be. I don't see how they could live. 11963. Mr. Botha.^ Would you be in favour of a general simultaneous dipping act for one or two years ? — ^I think it would greatly assist the stamping out of scab, in connection with the scab act. 11964. Br. Smartt.'] Is not a good deal of the opposition to the scab act due to the fact that many of the farmers are not sufficiently acijuainted with the nature of the disease, and don't dip properly ?- — I think so. 11965. Would it be to the interests of these people to have their sheep dipped >mder inspection ? — Yes. 11966. If at the expiration of the licence the sheep were still infected with scab, would it be bettor to fine the owner, or to have his sheep dipped under inspection':' — Dipped under inspection. 11967. Mr. Frcmcis.] If your sheep became infected with .scab, how long does it take you to clean fliem ? — I have never taken more than three months. 1 1968. Then do you think that the first licence should be for a period of three months ? —Yes. 11969. Mr. ilu Toit.~\ With regard to the quantity of water being sufficient to dip, have you not heard that there are several farms in tlie north-western districts where tlie owners have to trek to one sj)ot for the purpose of watering all their stock ? — Yes, but I cannot under- stand how people can live in a country where there is not enough water for their stock. I don't deny that it may be the case. 11970. Regarding the simultaneous dipping act, don't you tliink it would be very difficult to caiTy it out, and to get shearers at the same time all over the Colony ? — Yes ; there is no good thing but has its difficulties as well. 11971. Then do you think it would be advisable to have such a compulsory clause in the act ■? — I am speaking more of my own district. As long as we have no fencing act working, and the sheep are not dipped more or leas simultaneously, we shall always run the risk of reinfection from our neighbours' scabby sheep. 11972. Would it be advisable to dip your .sheep in the winter? — Make them as clean as possible before the winter, and don't dip in winter. 11973. Have you always been able to keep down infection by hand dressing in winter? — If they are not very bad, hand dressing might do. I would not make dijiping compul- sory in winter, but I would make hand dressing. 11974. Br. Smartt.^ Do you consider that, although a general compulsory simultaneous dipping act might be accompanied with certain difficulties, the advantages it would confer would be so enormous to the country in general that tlie farmers would be justified in putting up with these difficulties for one or two years ? — That has always l)een niy idea. 11975. Chairman.^ If scab broke out amongst your sheep in the middle of winter, would you prefer to let it run on with hand dressing, or dip them at once ? — I should dip them at once. 11976. You tliink your loss in wool woiJd be much less by dipping at once than by attempting to stamp it out by hand dressing ? — Yes, and the sheep would suffer much less, even in condition. 11977. Then if we are told that there are parts of the Colony in which it is too cold to dip sheep in the winter, you don't agree with them ? — I know there are places where the cold is very severe in winter. 1 1978. Is not the district of Murraj'sburg as cold as any district in the Colony ? — Yes, a portion of it is. The difficulties in the way of dipping do not apply equally to all farms ; when a farm is well supplied with sheds, and the necessary appliances, the sheep can be dipped at any time in the winter. J/r. ^Lrchibald Rose Innes examined. 11079. C/min/ian.j lluw long luiva you Ijecn farmiug hero ? — Six years ; 1 liave 1,600 sheep. 1 1980. Have you come to give evidence in favour of a scab act ? — Yes. 11981. Do you agree with the evidence given by Mr. van der Merwe ? — -Yes. 1 1982. In every jiarticulur .' — I am for a verj' stringent act ; otherwise I agree entirely. 11983. Mr.Bothr. Siiiar/'. \ \ov. find no difficulty in curing .scab and keeping the sheep clean if you were not subjcc; to reinfection from your neiglibouis ? — No. 120.".2. But I bclic'vo your principle is to dip your sheep regularly every year, and not to wait until scab breaks out? — Yes, we dip them after sheariug. 12033. If that were the general jiractice, do you think there would be very little scab in the country ? — Preventives can be used very often. 12034. If that were the practice in tlie north-western di-stricts, would there not be much less seal) than there is now? — Certainly: if they cleaned tlnir sheep wlien they had water. 12035. And if the act you suggest were enforced for a couple of years, although at times there might be no water, there would also lie no scab ? — Yes. 12036. Mr. Botlia.] Does the present scab insjjector here give satisfaction ? — He has not been inspector long, btit I think he is a competent man. 12037. How was he appointed.' — He was recommended through the divisional council. 12038. Mr. Frdiicis.] Then you think a careful fanner deserves 2irotectiou tmder the law, and tliat a stringent scab act would be a benelit, oven to those people who now oppose it ? — Yes, certainfy. 12039. From your experience, do you consider tluit if there wore a propor act, properly carried out, we could eradicate scab from the country ? — Yes, I think so. 12040. Dr. Smurlt. \ If a general scab act were introduced, would it be bafe, in a district .51H whei'o perhaps almost all the memljors of the divisional council might lio opposed to scab legislation, to place the appointment of inspectors in their hands ? — If they want to do their duty I think it would bo safe. 1 204 1 . J//-. Francis ] Considering the gi'eat loss the country sustains f rc)m the fact that the Hocks are infected with scab, o tho i-ise after somo j'ears, don't you think that in the commencemer t there should be more leniency in tlio act as regards these liardsliips ? — I can say that unless we take tlio bull by the horns in this matter we shall not do away with scab in this Colonj . We must do all we can to eradicate it, and if we have a lenient act in ono part of the C ilonj' and a stringent one in another, or an act in one part and none at all in another, we s laU never do away with scab. 12060. Then do you think it advisable to force such an act upon people against their will ? — I thin V it has been the object of the legislature ever since I entered it not to pass any act again ?t the will of the people, but when people won't think for themselves, others must think fo • them. 12061. Then you think the time has arrived to force an act upon the people ? — I won't say that ; I can onlj' say that unless a general act is passed I shall bo sorry for that part of the country which has an act, because all their endeavours will be in vain. 12062. I;i the face of that, don't j'ou think it would be advisable to have an act of somo leniency in re2;ard to the peculiar circumstances of these parts for a couple of years, so as to educate the people up to it, and give them time to gain experience, and afterwards to have a more string ;nt act? — I cannot see, in answer to that c[uestion, what would be the good of it. Wo ca mot judge about the leniency of an act or bill untO you have it before you, and until I ca i see what lemency it is proposed to use towards these districts I am unable to answer the i^uestion. 12063. I can repeat what others have stated: for instance, not to cut the time of Cjuarantine toe short, especially in winter ; to have a suspensory clause for times of drought ; to allow the h )lder of a clean bill to remove his sheep under his own permit, and to afford those who are under quarantine an opjiortunity of selling sheep by dipping under super- vision ? — I ha'-e decided either to vote for a general scab act or for no act at all, because those portions of the country which are placed under a scab act will suffer all their lives, and generatioTis after them, but they will not be able to subdue the scab unless there is a general act. I shall look into the matter, but until I have seen any bill which may be brought forward I cannot say what amount of leniency should be used, but I may say that I don't believe in it. 12064. Mr. Botha.'] What du you think with regard to the appointment of scab inspec- tors ? Is it the best way that they should be recommended by the divisional conncils ? — I think it is quite sufficient to leave it so, although it has been suggested by somo witnesses that if there are more inspectors the public shoidd elect them in each ward. I don't see any difiSculties in that, but I think the present system works well. 12065. Mr. Francis.] If your sheep become infected with scab, how long, under ordinary circumstances, would it take you to clean them ?— Not more than a fortnight. 12066. Consec|uently, do you think a three months' licence is too long? — I think it is rather too lonj;. 12067. Would you suggest that an inspector should receive a discretionary power to grant licences within certain limits ? — I think it would be well if good inspectors had discretionary power. 12068. At the expiration of the first licence, do you think it would bo more advisable to cause the ovner of the sheep to pay for the next licence, or would you have the sheep dipped under inspection ? — I cannot exactly say. Perhaps it would bo well to make the owner pay. Ii saying this I hope I shall give no offence, but it is a well-known fact that every man does not use the efforts he shouhl to get rid of scab. 12069. Du you think all the farmers know how to mix the dips and how to dip the sheep properly ? — I am afraid a good many do it iu the cheapest way. I have been told of one farmer wlu dipped 5,000 sheep with three rolls of tobacco. 12070. TLen don't you think it would be an advantage to such people themselves if they were shovn how to dip properly? — A very groat advantage. 12071. If the disease and its remedy were bettor understood by the groat number of farmers, do you think there would be less opposition to the act than there is now .' — Yes. 12072. Would it be advisable to alter the law so that any scabby sheep found tres- passing shoulo be dipped before being scut to the pound ? — I think they should be dijtped, by all means, it the owner's expense. 12073. Ct.n you offer any sugge.stion with regard to the conveyance of skins and wool by rail .'' — I hf.ve considered that question a great deal, and I think that is one of the reasons, althotigh it may not be the chief reason, whj' reinfection takes place in the Colony, even in places where scab has been mastered. It is not known, as far as I am aware, liow long the acani : lives off the sheep, or how long it lives on the skin and wool, but I have no suggestions to make as regards that. 12074. Do you think that under an act it would be mostly the careless farmers whn would suffer, find that it would then be a benefit to them ? — Yes. 12075. Did you ever know any law passed which was not forced upon some of the people ? — No, even the Marriage Act was forced. Mr. J'jsi'pk Frederick Gocdhuh examined. 12076. Vi'iiiirmaii.] How long have you fanned hero .^ — Thu-ty years. I have 2,000 aheep and goats. I am aLo a delegate with Mr. van Heerdeu. o:iu 1:2077. Do you agree with Mr. van Ileerden ?— Yes, except with regard to in.spectors. I should like to .see clipping inspectors instead of scab inspectors, and every wa rd to have its own inspector, because when you have an inspector in every field-cometcy tlie same man can attend to the scab as well as to the dipping. As for a general stringent act, I quite agree with Mr. van Heerden, although I liave been to the north-western parts of the country, and have seen some places there myself where it is hard for people to dip in times of drought. I was there in 1871 or 1872, when it was very dry, and on several of the fanns I went over there was no dam, but they all trekked away to the Orange River. So it is difficult for them to dip on their farms, but I think they might have a chance of dipping in the Orange Eiver while they are there. There was water enough there. I don't think you can make such a stringent law as to force them to clip on their farms. 12078. You are in favour of the act being suspended there in times of drought ? — Yes. Mr. Joshun Jouberf, acoh mipecfnr, examined. 12079. Chairman.'] You are scab inspector of area No. 18 V — Yes; I was appointed on the 18th November last. Mr. Grol)belaar held the office before me. 12080. Are you the only inspectcjr in the area ? — Yes. 12081. Why did Mr. Grobbelaar retire ? — I think he became tired of it ; he resig^ned. 12082. When you took over the clistrict, did you find much scab in it ? — C n four farms I found it very bad. 12083. Hacl most of the other farms clean bills from the late inspector? — There were places under quarantine, but scab was not so bad. Most of them were under < uarantine. 12084. Did you find more scab on the borders of the division where the farms adjoined an unproclainied area, than in the centre, where they were more protected ? — No, I cannot .say I did ; it was about one and the same. 1208.5. Have you inspected all the farms in the division.? — Yes; I am on my second round now. 12086. Do you find any improvement now 'i — Yes, a very great improvement. 12087. You find that most of the farmers have shorn and dipped their shejp, and have cleaned them ?- — Yes ; the sheep I insjiected in November, I am inspecting aggin now. At that time I inspected 95,5.39 sheep and goats, and found 2,164 sheep and goats scabby. I inspected the same ward again tlus month, and found only 711 scabby. 12088. 2fr. Franch.] Were the scabby sheep those which had visible signs of scab on them? — Yes. In examining flocks I make a calculation of how many scabby fheep I find among them : sometimes there is only one. 12089. Chairman.'] Can you explain how it is that there is so much diss^itisfaction in regard to the act in this district? — I would rather not answer that question. 12090. Generally speaking, you find that the farmers in this district are veiy anxious to stamp out seal) ? — Yes. 12091. Have they all dipping tanks ? — There are perhaps a couple who hf.ve not, but their neighbours have, and they use theirs. 12092. Do they all dip properh% mix the dip according to the instructions, keep the sheep in the proper time, and so on ? — As a ride, I am nc>t jjresent when they :ire dipping, but on a couple of fanns I have come to and seen it I think they have done it well. I hap- pened to come there when they were dipping. 12093. When a farmer tells you that he cannot cure his sheep by two dippings, what do j'ou think ? — I don't believe him. He does not do it properly. 12094. Do you think' it advisable tliat his sheep should be dipped under inspection ? — It would be a very good thing. 12095. Are there any bij-woners or small farmers in this division who hav ; no dipping tanks, and are unable to get tanks on the farms where they live ? — They !iave always facilities for dipping on the farms where they live as bij-woners. 12096. Have j'ou never heard of a case where the owner of the farm objecti;d to allow a bij-woner to clip in his tank? — No. 12097. To guard against such a thing happening, do you think it would be well to insert a clause in the act compelling a farmer to allow all sheep running on liis property to be dipped in his tank. .-' — It would certainly be a good thing. 12098. Do you think it would bo well if Government were to establish a dip depot in this disti-ict where farmers could purchase dip at cost price, free of railway carri ige ? — Yes. 12099. Would that tend to assist the farmer in can-ying on his farming operations upon a better princijjle than he is doing now .-' — Certainly, and it would do awaj' v.-ith a great deal of the antipathy people have now to the scab act ; it would cost them so much les.s to dip the sheep. 12100. Ai-e there any farmers now so poor as to have to take into consideration the cost of the dip ? — Some of them are very poor, but those who can afford it would not much object, and would prefer to have their stock clean. 12101. Have j'ou found that one of the greatest difficulties connected with j our appoint- ment as inspector is the granting of permits of removal ? — No. 12102. Is it not one of the gi-eat complaints of the farmers that the inspector is often so far away that the}' cannot get him when they want to ? — Yes, it is one of the difficulties, but tlie field-comets grant permits for the removal of stock. 12103. In case a farmer has a dean bill of health for six months, do you think it would r,n brt an improvement in tho act if lip were allowed to movo his stock whonevor holikcd under his own permit, subject to a fine if he moved st'abhy sheep ? — He could do it now as long as tLey are clean, a :cording to my regidatious, and I think that slioiild be the law ; if it were, it would do iivi'ny with a great deal of opposition. 12101. 3f/: ill Toit.\ Before .you were appointed an inspector, were yo>i a farmer ? — Yes, in the Snoe iwborgen. 1210.5. Are you aware of some skin disease in sheep caused by fever or steekgras? — I think we have hud steekgras here. 121 OB. Does that cause an irritation in the skin? — Yes, and makes tho .sheep scratch and l)ite. 12107. Can you always distinguish between steekgras and scab as a cause of scratch- ing ? — Yes. 12108. How? By sight? — When you are close by you can see, and as soon as j-ou catch the sheep you can see at once. 12109. As a rule how do you examine the sheep 'i Do you examine them in tho veldt or in the kraals .■' — Just where I find them. If I find them in tho veldt I get them together and examine them there. 12110. Is it then safe to put a Hock under (juarantine when you see some of the symptoms of scab, such as scratching, without being able to catch the sheep and see that it is not caused by 3teekgras? — You can discern the 4ifforence between steekgras and scab at a distance of -wo yards from the sheep. 12111. Can you easily get as near as that to the sheep in the veldt ? — Very easily. 12112. There is no steekgras growing here in tliis district? — Not at present; the locusts have clea:-ed it off. 12113. If you examine a llock of a thousand sheep in the veldt, can j'ou always wlien j-ou give a fi-ee bill be sure that in all the flock there is not a single case of scab ? — I take good care of that. If I dou't see scab among.st them at once, I take my time to examine them closely. 12114. You are aware of that blood disease or fever which also causes the wool to fall off .>— No. 12115. Br. Smartt.'] Have you ever seen sheep in this district completely shed their •wool ? — Yes. 12116. But any man of any ordinary experience, even a novice in sheep farming, could always distinguish between that and genuine scab? — Yes. 12117. 3£r. Francis. '^ What i.s the size of your area ? — The whole district of Murraysburg. 12118. Can vou carry out your duties according to the letter of the law in the whole district ?— No. 12119. How many inspectors do you think it would be necessary to have in the district to caiTy out the duties properly ? — Two would be too many, and one is too few. 12120. How long does it take you to go round the district and inspect all the flocks ? — Three months' hard work. 12121. Then of course you have to give up all yooi- time to simply going round and inspecting ?— Y'^es . 12122. Hav6 you had anj- cases in the magistrate's court in regard to scab.' — Yes, a couple. 12123. Do y ju consider that the fines imposed were sufficient to deter a man from breaking the law ? — No. 12124. Cases might even occur where a man would prefer to break the law and be fined than carry out the provisions of the act ? — -Y^es, sometimes they might. 12125. AVith regard to the first three months' licence, do you think it is too long or too short ? —If the inspector coxild get to the farm again, thou I should say a month would be *ople time, but as it is it takes me three months to get through the district. 12126. But if there were enough inspectors, one month would be sufficient? — Quite. 12127. Would that apply to the winter as well as the summer in this district ? — Yes. 12128. If at the expiration of the first licence the sheep were still infected, which do you think would be best : to cause the owner of tho shoop to pay for another licence, or to have the sheep d pped under inspection ? — I think it would be best to have them dipped under inspection. 12129. Do yau find that a great number of the farmers in your area are ignorant with regard to the nature of scab ? — Not a great number. 12130. Did "ou hear the evidence which was given this morning? — Yes. 12131. You heard a number of witnesses say that they believed in the spontaneous generation of scab '^ — Y'es. 12132. And those men, or some of them, were appointed to represent the disti-ict by a certain political body ?^Ye8. 12133. Did ihey then truly represent the views of that bodj'? — No, decidedl)' not. 12134. From your knowledge of the district, do you think there would be any great hardship in a man being obliged to dip his sheep in winter .'■ — Y'^es, if the wool is long. 12135. Then your suggestion that one month would be long enough for a first licence would cause them to dip in winter? — Say I came to a farm in October, and gave a man a month's licence to dip his sheep ; when the month is up I come again, and if I find that the sheep are not clean they are dipped xmder supervision, and it stands to reason that when winter comes tlie sluep must be clean. 522 12136. Have the field-cornets a standing right to grant permits, or must they apply to you on each separate occasion ? — No, they are appointed by the inspector, when occasion arises, to go and grant permits. That is the regulation, but not the la«-. 12137. JL: Botha.'] With regard to giving licences for a month in October, that is all right ; but if it happened in June, and there were very bad weather at that tim 3, and the sheep had long wool, do you think then that a month would be long enough, or would not three months be safer ?— Then I would allow three months, and hand dressing. 12138. Chairman.'] Do you think j'ou will ever be able to get this district clean as long as you have the present permissive act ? — No, never. 12139. You think it is absolutely necessary to have a general act ? — Yes. 12140. If any alteration is made in the act, do you think one clause should include a general simultaneous dipping ? — Yes, that would be a very necessary clause. 12141. Do you see any difficidtj' in coming to any arrangement with adjoining districts to fix a certain time, say two mouths in the year, in which to carry out this dipping ? — No. Beaufort West, 22nd Fehruary, 1893. PRESENT Mr. Fkost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. I Dr. Smartt. „ Dr ToiT. I Mr. Frakcis. Mr. Daniel Gabriel de Villiers examined. 12142. Chairman.] You are a delegate appointed by the divisional council 1 — Yes. 12143. How long have you been farming in the district of Beaufort West, and how much stock have you ? — I have farmed here about 50 )-ears, and have about 30,000 sheep. 12144. Are you coming forward to give evidence in favour of or against a scab act? — I am in favour of the scab act. 12145. Will J'OU make a statement of your views on the subject?—! am strongly opposed to the present act, because it is impracticable for the Karoo districts, where we are troubled with very severe droughts, and the farmers are obliged to trek fi-om one district to another. Therefore, in my opinion, the present act is altogether unsuited to their rec[uire- ments. If a farmer has to trek, and only one sheep is discovered with a speck of scab, he is stopped on the spot, even if it is still doubtful, and it would be much better to cut the throats of a few scabby sheep than to stop the whole flock. In that case I would apply the same principle as the wine farmer is subject to when his vines are paid for if rooted out, and in the same way any sheep so destroyed should be paid for by Government. But there is no protection for the sheep farmer ; we coidd not even get the dip free of railway carriage. Every consideration is shown to the wine farmer, and none to the sheep farmer, and under the present act the transport of sheep by railways offers great disadvantages to the sheep farmer. In December I could have sold my sheep in Port Elizabeth for 18s. ot 19s. a piece, but I have still got them, and we might have a drought to-morrow, but when I had a chance of selling them, I was prevented from sending them away in consequence of the scab act. I am of opinion that, at the time when I could have sold them, thej- were in such a state as not to be injurious to anj'body if they had been sent by train, but as the law is unnecessarily strict on that point I had no chance. Neither Port Elizabeth nor Cape Town are sheep districts, consequently a few scabby sheep going straight to the butcher could do no damage, and therefore this act is very injiuious to the country at large. I am of opinion that it is the duty of Government to advance the interests of trade, and to bring every portion of the Colony into contact by allowing aU stock to travel without hindrance. It may be said that if I had been under the scab act I could have sent my sheep without difficulty ; but about a fortniglit ago a flock of sheep from a scab area, Murraysburg, was sent through here, and the proprietors or owners were brought uji because they had sent scabby sheep through this district. From what I have seen of Murraysburg they have never yet been in a position, according to the regulations of the scab act, to send sheep by rail to any part of the Colony. I remember, and I think the Commission must also remember, that some time ago a flock of sheep was sent from the Eichmond district to Port Elizabeth, which was returned. In the Karoo districts we can only sell sheep for six mouths in the year, and at that time the buyers are willing to give a fair price, but the inspector comes and says he cannot give a jjermit for the removal of the sheep imtil they have been dipped. Meanwhile there may be no rain, the sheep get poor, aud I lose my chance of selling. During the time of the former Government, as a sheep farmer living in tlie Karoo districts, I tried with the assistance of my attorney to draw up a scab act suitable for these parts, but coming from a farmer the Government would not take it into consideration. With these remarks I will conclude by saying that if the present scab act is forced upon the whole country the sheep farming interest wUl be ruined. In the Kai-oo coimtry, the gieatest [G. 1— '94.J ITT 523 coneicloration are the slaiiglitor «tock, and these cannot wait for the convenience of a scab inspector to grant a pass f-jr their removal ; but I will repeat that I am strongly in favour of a scab act, as I am a great sufferer from the absence of one. I have two farms on the main road, and I have often had to see, with great disgust, the miserable, scabby animals which pass over my land. But I must also consider the interests of my neighbours, who would be ruined if the present act wore jiut in force. 12146. Are any of j'our farms under the scab area? — No. 12147. Have you noticed auy difference in the condition of the Hocks in the proclaimed area in the district of Beaufort West, and in the unproclaimed portion of it ? — I cannot say ; it is so long since I have been in the other portion. 12148. But you, as a careful farmer, dip youi' sheep regularly and keep them clean? — Yes, I dip them, but I don't keep tliem clean according to the act. I keep them decently clean ; so clean that I can fill a bale of 400 lbs. weight with the fleeces of 50 sheep, and that is sufficient proof that the}' cannot be very scabby. 12149. Do you find that your neighbours have as much trouble with regard to their eheep as you do 7 — Not all. 12150. If they did, do you think you would be able to keep your sheep cleaner than you do at present ? — In my own immediate neighbom-hood, where there is no scab act pro- claimed, there is no particular danger of infection. 12151. You say that in your neighbourhood in Beaufort West the sheep are kept fairly clean ? — In the surrounding area say of five or six hom-s on horseback from the town they are kept reasonably clean. 12152. Do you think it is possible for you to keep those farms of yours clean, of which you have spoken as being so very often crossed by very scabby sheep, so lon'g as scabby sheep are allowed to pass over in that way } — It is rather difficult, and is accompanied with great expense. 12153. What would you propose in cases of that kind ? — I would not undertake to-day to dictate an act which would provide for it, and would give sufficient protection. 12154. Do you think that a farmer who keeps his sheep, like you do, should receive protection by being allowed to prevent any scabby sheep crossing his farm ? — Yes. 12155. You state that there has been a movement here to get dip brought up free of railway carriage .'' — Yes. 12156. Are there many farmers in the district of Beaufort West who are unable to pur- chase dip at the present cost ? — Yes. 12157. If the Government took this in hand, and brought up the dip by railway free of carriage, do you think it would materially assist small farmers in stamping out scab ? — Most certainly, because it will not do any goed to dip sheep unless the material used is of the right kind, and contains the necessary cpialities in proportion, which must be proved by an expert ; and when the dip becomes too expensive 2)eoj)le resort to unsuitable substitutes. I cannot see why the question was put with regard to the people being poor, but I might reply by asking whether all those people are poor who derive a benefit under the phylloxera act. 12158. My reason for putting the q^uestion was to know whether you think it would be a great assistance, and whether such an arrangement would cause them to use more efforts to stamp out scab ? — I am adding this voluntarily, because there are so many members of Parliament present that they might take the hint. 12159. Do you think that the small farmers in the district dip the sheep properly? — No, I know they don't ; and there are more present who can say the same. 12160. When the Commission is told that farmers dip their sheep twice, properly, within 14 days, and fail to cure them, you think it must be the fault of the dipping? — Certainly. 12161. In cases of that kind, do you think it would be advisable that these farmers' sheep should be dipped under inspection ? — It would do no harm. 12162. Do you think it would tend to stamp out scab ? — Yes. 12163. You would prefer that to a system by which a fine should be inflicted upon a man who did not clean his sheep ? — Yes. The farmers in this district help where necessary. I myself have given permission to others to dip on my place, and have even gone so far as to prepare the dip for them, and I think I might say the same of others. 12164. If the Commission tell you that there are farmers who have refused to allow their bijwoners and servants to use their dipping tanks, would you not think it almost impossible .^ — I don't believe that it would happen in my district. 12165. Do you think that ail owners of land should have dipping tanks on their farms, and should be obliged to allow all the stock on the place to be dipped there ? — Yes. 12166. Are you aware that if two landowners sign a permit for you to remove your sheep, being free of scab, you can remove them into the area ? — Yes, I know that, but I don't wish to be under an obligation to any man. 12167. Were those sheep you wished to sell free of scab ? — That would make no differ- ence, because even if that flock had been clean, some other flocks on the same property might have been infected, and then it would have been against the law to remove them. 12108. In case there should be an act proclaimed, do you think it would be advisable that there should be a suspensory clause in it allowing farmers in times of severe drought to remove Iheii- sheep even if they had scab } — 1 think it should be lefc in the hands of the 524 interested parties, so that a man should not move over his neighbour's land without that neighbour's permission. 12169. Then you are so con vinoed of the contagion your sheep are likely to get from these others, that you would compel a man before he moves bis sheep with scab to get permission fi-om all the neighbours over whose farms he had to cross ? — I would much rather provide him with dip and aU the appliances for dipping than allow him to [pass over without. 12170. How could you apply that to slaughter stock, which had small specks of scab, which it was wanted to send to Port Elizabeth or some other place ? — I consider that a sheep which is clean enough for a butcher is clean enough to be transported by rail without any danger, and over an}' intermediate farms. I don't think that the acnri on the sheep so transported by rail would leave the animal and infect the district through which it passed ; and I can see no difference between the acarus on the animal and that on wool and skins. 12171. Then you would allow wool and skins to be carried freely by rail without having the trucks disinfected afterwards ? — I am not opposed to that, because it would not be much trouble to disinfect the trucks. 12172. If scabby sheep or scabby wool and skins were sent in trucks, and you after- wards sent some sheep in the same trucks, don't you think they would be liable to be infected ? — Not wool, because that is aU put up in bales, and I don't think skins or sheep either, because as far as I know by experience the acams sticks as closely as possible to the body of the animal, and is not easily dragged off. 12173. Mr. dii loit.'] Are there no more hardships under the present act than those which you have stated ? — No. 12174. You are not aware whether it causes any inconvenience if farmers who have held a clean bill for some time are always obliged to go to an inspector for a permit to remove sheep ? Don't you think it would be advisable that he should have the right to move the sheep on his own permit, subject to a penalty if he abused the privilege ? — Lately a man passed through here with a clean bill, but when the sheep were inspected they were found to be scabby, and he was brought up for moving scabby sheep. 12175. Don't you think a heavy fine would prevent a man moving scabby sheep under a clean bill ? — Yes, but I am of opinion that rather than have an act so stringent that it woiild be impossible to carry it out, it would be better to have no act at all. Inspectors find the act too stringent, and that it cannot be carried out properly, consequently they allow what they should not aUcw. 12176. Will you then briefly state the main points of the act which you suggested? — I would rather not. 12177. Do j-ou think the present system of appointing inspectors is a good one .'' — ^I am not altogether iu favour of it. 12178. Would you be in favour of having an inspector in each ward, consisting of an intelligent farmer, and chosen by the farmers in the ward } — I am not acquainted with the inspectors. I never had anything to do with them. 12179. Do you think the act which you drew up would work thi-oughout the Colony? — Yes. 12180. In case a considerable portion of the Colony were opposed to it, would you force such an act upon them ? — No. 12181. You are opposed to forcing an act against the will of the people? — Yes. 12182. But I should be very glad if you would briefly state some of the main points in the act which you suggested ? — I could give some of them. The chief point which I can call to mind was that power should be left in the hands of the farmer himself, in case of sheep trekking over his land, and that he should have the right to refuse to allow them to pass if ho thought it necessarj'. Secondly, under my proposals very little was necessar}' with regard to inspectors, as every farmer woidd be his own inspector. 12183. Do you believe that scab in sheep and goats is caused by an insect only .' — Not necessarily by an insect. 12184. How is it sometimes caused? — The real scab is caused by an insect, but you often see scab very similar in appearance, but which is caused by poverty and drought, and not by the acaurs. 12185. Are you sure that in this kind of scab there is no insect ? — No. That is only my idea on the subject, but I could not speak positively. 12186. You maintain that some kind of skin disease can be caused by impurity in the blood, through povortj- or fever ? — Yes. 12187. And this kind of skin disease is verj' similar to the real scab ? — Yes, so much so that you cannot tell the difference without the assistance of a magnifying glass. 12188. Do you find that you can cure that kind of scab disease also by dipping? — I won't say that. I have had very little experience of it. 12189. Do you find that steekgras getting into the wool and skin also irritates the skin and causes a kind of disease similar in appearance to scab ? — Yes, but you can see the difference. 12190. Consec|uently you think it advisable that an inspector should be provided with a magnifying glass, to satisfy himself and the farmer before ho puts him under quarantine .' — Yes, that is very necessary. 12191. Have you thought over the pos.sibility of having a simultaneous dipping clause TTT 2 525 inserted in the scab act ? — I ani not prepared to state that. I don't want to interfere with the private business of a farmer, and I tliink every farmer who is anxious to progress will know best what he has to do. In this proclaimed area we have several flocks of sheep, which have not been dipped for a long time, and tliey are perfectly clean ; consequently I could not approve of a simultaneous dipping. 12192. Have jou found that you can cure the real scab at any time, and in any condition of the stock, and in any season ? — E.xcept in cases when the veldt is bad then it is very troublesome. 12193. Has green veldt something to do with the kiUing of the acaril — I believe both the better state of the veldt, and the better condition of the sheep are a great assistance to cure scab. I don't pretend to understand it, but it is so. 12194. Am I to understand that the wool grows sooner after dipping, or do you think that the aaum cannot be kUled so easily on a poor sheep ? — Wool certainly gi'ows better, but I cannot say about the other. 12 195. Do you believe that anything else can kill the acarttn except proper dipping ? — No. 12196. Consequently you believe that if you coidd dip your sheep properly, the (TCrtrMS must be killed, although the wool should not grow at once '? — Yes, it is killed by dipping, and not by the improvement in the veldt. 12197. Would it be advisable to dip your sheep in winter? — We are often obliged to do it. 12198. But if you saw a possibility of keeping the disease down by hand dressing, especially when the wool is long, woiild you do it? — Hand dressing will never clean them ; you only waste j'our time. 12199. Would you rather dip, even though the outbreak of scab was only a light one ? — Yes, I do it. 19200. You are not aware that by so doing, some farmers harve sustained heavy losses when their sheep are poor ? — No. 12201. Do you think that might be the case in colder climates than this .^ — I have farms in the high veldt, the Nieuwveldt Mountains, and I dip there in the winter, if necessary. 12202. Do you think it is possible that by using proper means we could stamp out scab from the Colony entirely ? — Yes ; I don't see why we cannot do it, since it has been done in other places. 12203. Dr. Smartt-I You consider that the act suggested by you would be applicable to the whole of the Karoo districts ? — Yes, for the whole Colony. I don't see why it shoidd not be applied to the other districts, because if it answers in the Karoo it would certainly answer in the other districts too. 12204. Your objection to legislation on the lines of the present scab act is that it places restrictions upon the Karoo farmers, which it is impossible to carry out ? — Greatly. 12205. Woidd it not be a very dangerous precedent to allow you to decide whether your own sheep were fit to be moved as slaughter stock, and at the same time to have the power to prohibit your neighbour from passing over your property ? — Certainly. I don't say that I shoidd have the exclusive right to judge whether my sheep are suitable for removal ; I mean to say, with the assistance of an inspector, if it should be proved that they can be moved without endangering anybody else's interests. I have already mentioned the points I object to in the existing act. 12206. Have you always objected to the present scab act ? — Yes. 12207. Have you never used j-our influence in applying to have the act proclaimed over certain portions of the Beaufort West district ? — No. 12208. What guarantee would there be under an act .such as that suggested by you that every farmer would do his best to cope with the spread of the disease, or what provision would you make ? — I am not prepared to say anytlung about that, at present. 12209. If there are farmers in this district who never dip, as you state, would the Govermnent be justified in introducing an act compelUug them to dip under inspection? — That would be a good thing. 12210. Are you not as liable to infection from straying sheep as from sheep trekking over your property ? — Certainly, more so. 12211. Consequently, without an act compelling farmers in general to clean their sheep, you would have no protection, even under the suggestion given by yourself .' — I have said I am in favoui- of a scab act, but I can give no details. 12212. Are you in favour of compelling people to keep their flocks clean? — Not tlia they must keep them clean, but that they must dip. 12213. Mr. Botha.'] Do you think there is a great difference between transporting sheep by rail, and sheep trekking over a farm ? — Yes, a very great difference. The difference is so great that according to my opinion there is no danger in sending them by rail. To send sheep by rail to Port Elizabetli or Cape Town butchers, or to send them into districts where sheep farming is carried on, are very different matters indeed. 12214. Mr. Francis.'] What do you consider is j'our annual loss owing to the fact that the sheep in the Colony are infected with scab ? — It is impossible to say what it is, but that there is a heavy loss I have no doubt. 12215. And consequently every sheep farmer in the country will bear a certain loss from the same cause ? — Yes. 12216. Then do you consider that if the flocks were clean of scab, the amount which 526 would be saved to the farmers of the Colony woxild pay for the carrying out of a general scab act ? — I am not sufficiently up in the matter to be able to answer that question. 12217. If sheep infected with scab are alloTved to be moved under any circumstances, would there not always be a danger of reinfecting other flocks? — Certainly. 12218. Then could we ever hope, under such conditions, to eradicate scab from the country ? — No. 12219. Therefore, when you say that scab can be eradicated fi-om the country, and yet would give permission to move sheep infected with scab, 3-ou must be mistaken in one or the other ? — I don't say that, but only in trucks. I said that the inspector could not give me a permit, although that flock of sheep is clean which I want to send away, as long as some of the other flocks on the farm have scab amongst them. 12220. Then you really mean that no scabby sheep .should be moved at aU? — I do. 12221. With regard to those sheep which you could not move, if they had been per- fectly free of scab would you have had any difficulty in the matter? — Yes, I should have had to ask an inspector to como and look at them, or eLse two of my neighbours. 12222. Don't you think every reasonable man would submit to such slight inconveni- ence for the sake of trying to eradicate scab ? — Well, but in such cases, if the inspector or the two neighbours shoidd find some other stock on my farm infected, they could not grant tlie permit. It is impossible to move a clean flock as long as other flocks on the same farm are infected with scab. 12223. If the law provided that a flock of sheep could be moved if they were aU clean, although there might be other flocks on the farm, would that do away with your objection ? — Yes. 12224. Did you ever know anj* act of Parliament passed which was not forced upon some people who came under it ? — I don't know. 12225. Dr. Smartt.'] If no scabby sheep could be moved under any circumstances whatever, as stated by you, what provision would you make for the severe droughts to which you have referred in districts like Beaufort, and the northern Karoo ? — Dip them properly before they are moved. 12226. In times of drought and great dearth of water, might not that cause great losses of stock in these districts ? — Yes. Mr. Hendrik Johannes de Jager examined. 12227. Chairman.^ You are also a delegate fi'om the divisional council? — Yes. I have farmed here for more than 40 j-ears, and have about 8,000 sheep. 12228. Do you agree with Mr. de Tilliers ? — Not altogether. I differ with regard to the scab act. Mr. de Villiers, is quite opposed to the present act, but if it is impossible to make a better law, I would accept this one, because I am situated similarly to Mr. de Villiers, in a place where sheep are continually trekking over, and latterly we have been troubled so much with scab that even Mr. de ViUiers himself has tried to get his farms under the proclaimed area, and as long as we cannot get a general scab act we shall never eradicate scab. My opinion is that that part of Beaufort West which is under a scab act is much better off than those parts wliich are not, for the people who are now under the act can, bj- permission of the inspector, trek to places where there is no scab in existence, but those who are not under the act cannot trek into the proclaimed areas. 12229. Are you acquainted with the noith-western districts .' — Partly. 12230. Do you think there are places there where water is so scarce at times that it is impossible to dip sheep ? — I don't believe it. I don't think it requires more water for dip- ping than it does for drinking purposes. 12231. Jfr. du Toit.^ Are you satisfied with the present system of appointing inspectors —Yes. 12232. Then you are in favour of having inspectors? — Yes. 12233. Have you ever observed more kinds of scab than one ? — I have never detected any yet. 12234. Have you never seen wool fall off in consec|uence of fever? — Yes, but that is quite a different thing from scab, and causes no infection. 12235. Do you know that steekgi-as causes irritation of the skin ? — Yes, but you can't call that scab : it is quite different. 12236. Might not an inspector mistake it for scab, unless he caught the sheep and ex- amined them carefully ?— It would be impossible to have such ignorant inspectors ; and any man who possessed a decent knowledge of sheep could not make such a mistake. 12237. Can it be easily distinguished at a distance ? — It -may be necessary to catch a sheep, but there is no difiiculty in distinguishing between the two things. 12238. Br. Smartt.'] As certain poitions of the Colony are subject to severe periodical droughts, would it be advisable to have a suspensory clause empowering the Government to suspend certain sections of the act, relating to the removal of sheep, at such times ? — I am afraid it might ba abused. 12239. Mr. du Toif.] Have you any idea how long the insect can live on bare ground, or in kraals ? — No, but it is so deHcate that I don't thiuk it can live long. 627 12240. Do you think clean sheep ■would become infected if scabby sheep had only trekked over a portion of the farm? — Yes. 122-il. Even although tho clean sheep did not go on the same spot for a fortnight ? — I cannot say how long it lives. 12242. Mr. Frann'x.^ How do you account for the fact that Mr. de Villiers tried to get the act for himself, and yet comes hero and objects to the act ? — I think he can answer that question better himself. He wanted the act becaiise so many people have been trekking over his farms with scabby slieep. 12243. Dr. Smart t.\ Would you be in favour of a compulsory simultaneous dipping act ? — Yes, if it were possible for all to shear at the same time I should be in favour of it. 12244. But without some combined effort, carried out in or about the fame time, do you think it would be almost impossible to stamp out the disease f — Yes. 12245. In the interests of farmers in general, would it not even be advisable to compel even people with clean sheep to comply with such legislation, to prevent any danger of re- infection '? — Certainlj'. 12246. Mr. Bolha.'\ Do you know of any steps that have been taken by Mr. de Villiers to have his properties brought under the scab act .^ — No, except that he stated he would do so. 12247. Is he not sometimes rather liasty, and may say things which in quieter moments lie might not do ? — Yes, he is a hasty man, but I have never heard him draw back from what he has said. 12248. But he took no steps in this matter ? — Not that I know, only that he told me he was going to apply for the act through his attorney, to have his farms placed under the act. 12249. But don't you know that was not the proper step ; that to get tho scab act pro- claimed in this district he should have gone to the divisional council and moved it there, or else have held a public meeting ? — That would be the proper step : to get the signature of a certain number of farmers in the ward. 12250. Did he get that?— I don't know. 12251. Mr. (Ill Toil. ^ You are aware that there would be many difficulties with a simiiltaneous dipping, such as getting shearers at the same time, and tho attention required for other farm work then, but notwithstanding tliis you are in favour of a simultaneous dipping clause ? — I said before that if there is a chance for the farmers to get the sheep shorn at the same time, then I should be in favour of it. I think it would be a good thing. 12252. How long would you give for it ? — Two months. 12253. Could that be called a simultaneous dipping? — I think it would answer the purpose. 12254. Mr. (Ic Villiers said: I deny that I ever made application to come under the scab act. I will state what I did. I asked to have one of my farms put under the scab act, in order to prevent trekking over that place. It was onlj- to ask to have that one farm, which adjoins a proclaimed area, put under the scab act, for the purpose of preventing indiscriminate trekking over that property. Mr. Jacobus Jonathan Fourie examined. 12255. Chairman.'] You are a delegate from. the Afrikander Bond? — Yes, from ward No. 1. I have been farming in this district about 30 years, and have about 15,000 sheep. 12256. Are you appointed to give evidence in favour of or against a scab act ? — I am delegated to speak against the present scab act. 12257. Are you personally opposed to the present act? — Yes, I consider the present act unsuitable for a dry climate like tliis part of the country. In addition to the objections raised by Mr. de Villiers there are others, and in some cases I differ from him. The experiences of the farmers here are not all the same, and there is such a difference in the circumstances of the farmers themselves. Take for instance Mr. de Jager's farms ; he has never had occasion to send his sheep away from his place, and my former experience of that was, when I used to trek for the sake of accumulating something, I had to go from place to place. Notwithstanding that I was the owner of my own farm, I was not in possession of such a farm as that of Mr. de Jager's, or others, who have no occasion to move. Consequently my experience is quite of a different nature. There are times when, if you were to prevent a farmer from trekking, he would lose everything he has got, and that is why I object to the present scab act. The present act cannot be applied at all times to the Beaufort West district, because it would be better to have a thousand sheep than none at all. I am not afraid to say in public that as for myself I want no scab act, notwith- standing that I consider scab to be my greatest enemy. At the same time there have been occasions when I have had to trek with scabby sheep. StUl, being a neighbour of Mr. de Villiers, I cannot agree with him that I should have the right to decide between myself and my neighbour, whether he should trek over my place or not. I would suggest that if the owner of sheep has had three months in which to clean his sheep, and then another three months, and then they were not clean, that he should be fined. In reasonably good seasons every man should be obliged to keep his flocks clean, but when times come that he cannot help himself, the inspector should use such leniency as to enable the man to save his flocks ; S28 and as a delegate of the Baaufort West branch of the Bond I declare against the present scab act. 12258. What time would yon give a man to clean his sheep ? — If ho ha.s the nece.ssary veldt and water, I would gire him six months, because if he cannot clean them in six mouths he cannot do it in three years. No matter how good a farmer a man may bo, it may still happen that the seasons may bring him into such circumstances that it will be impossible for liim to have his sheep clean, and although I liave latterly been in possession of one of the best farms in the district, still I have had times when the water was so scarce that even a bucket was too big to dip it up with, and I was obliged to use a saucepan. Consocjuently I had to send sheep to the nearest water, and when I had a drop to spare I used it for hand dressing, but still the sheep had scab. 1 2259. Do the farmers generally in your neigliliourhood use as much diligence as you do to stamp out scab ? — I must say that they have improved very much latterly, but they are not up to the mark yet. 12260. Do you think any regulations or rules are necessary to compel these men to do the same as j-ou do ? — Speaking personally I should say certainly. 12261. Then you see no chance of stamping out scab unless there are some regulations or rules ? — It would be possible if all wore willing, but they are not. 12262. For that reason you say there must be something done? — That is my private opinion. 12263. Mr. du Toit.'\ Do you believe that scab is caused by an insect only? — Yes, I believe that, but I also believe it is spontaneous, although I must admit there is a great difference between my opinion and that of the public. 12264. Then do you believe that scab can be stamped out from the Colony? — No, but I believe that we can keep it down to such au extent that it will not be the cause of any loss or much trouble, except in certain seasons of protracted drought, when it would be necessary to fight it. 12265. Then do you think that poverty will bring scab? — Yes, I can say so from experience ; I am convinced of it. 12266. Have you found that you could cure scab by dipping twice within a fortnight ? — I have cured it better by one good dipping than by two bad ones. Last year I lost a great many sheep by dipping twice in a patent dip. Formerly I came to the conclusion to time every sheep I dipped, and I did not take less than four or five minutes to each sheep. Last year I had a flock to dip which were very bad with scab in consequence of their having been infected by trekking sheep, and a delay in the shearing. I dipped them once, but no sheep was allowed less than four or five minutes in the dip, and I thoroughly cured them with one dipping. 12267. How long did they remain clean ? — About three months they remained perfectly clean, but then they were reinfected by a flock of trekking sheep again. 12268. After the first thorough dipping, did you put them back into the same kraals and on the same veldt again ? — No. 12269. Were you afraid to do that ? — Yes. 12270. Your experience has taught you that scab is very contagious ? — Yes; fearfully so ; but notwithstanding that I believe it to be very contagious, I believe it is also spon- taneous at times, and under certain circumstances. 12271. As a rule, do yoTi dip in winter also if they get scabby? — Yes. 12272. Without loss? — Sometimes, if the sheep are poor, I do lose. It is very injurious, and puts them back very much. 12273. Which would you rather choose, to allow your sheep to run on through the winter with scab, or to dip them ? — Of course I should dip them if they could stand it. I should wait until the weather was fine and then dip, winter or summer. 12274. Can you suggest anything with reference to the appointment of inspectors .-' — I am altogether unacquainted with the subject, but they should be practical men. 12275. Would you have an inspector in each ward, who should be an intelligent fanner, chosen by th-e farmers in the ward ? — I think so. 12276. Would you make some allowance for a farmer who was under quarantine for three months, or six, so as to enable him to sell slaughter stock ? — I don't see how you can do that without injuring the public. 12277. Would it not be sufficient protection if ho were compelled to dip them once, thoroughly, under supervision ? — But you cannot sell sheep which have been dipped. 12278. If you can sell thom after one dipping, would not that answer? — Yes. According to my idea, if a sheep is properly dipped it is safe. As regards the Government providing cheap dip, I consider it would be the greatest assistance which the Government could give the farmer in this country. 12279. Do you think that the adoption of sucli a step would remove a great deal of the opposition to scab legislation ? — Yes. 12280. ])r. Snmril.'] Are you convinced that it would be in the interests of the farmers themselves if they were compelled in good seasons to keep their sheep clean of scab, and that if a farmer were not able to get his sheep clean, and dipped them badly, the Govern- ment should bo empowered to have tliem dipped under inspection ? — Yes. 12281. Then you are absolutely in favour of a general scab act which afforded sufficient protection to the farmers in dry districts in times of severe drought? — Yes, Lf the law is sj made that it will not cause the farmer to suffer loss. 529 12282. Mr. Botha.] Who should appoint inspoctors? — Every wai-d is repr<^sontod in the divisional council, consequently, I think that would be the best authority and the most independent body to recommend the most suitable persons or inspectors for each ward. 12283. Chairman.'] Otherwise, do you agree with Mr. de Jager .' — Yes. Mr. Lourenx Johannes Jacobs examined. 12284. Chairman.] You are a delegate of the Afrikander Bond ?— Yes. I have farunnl hero for twenty-one years, and have 3,400 sheep. I live in ward Gough No. 4. 12285. Do you agree with Mr. Fourie ? — I difior from him on this point, tliat I am altogether opposed to any scab act, because you i^annot have a difleront act for every district, and it would be unworkable to have a scab act in my district. One-third of the inhabitants of Gough No. 4 and No. 5 are trekkers, people wlio have no land of their own, and it sometimes happens that the owners of land there would not be upon their own land more than three or four months during the course of two years. The greater part of them have to trek to the Karoo, where they have to stay for five or six months in the year, and where there are no dipping tanks. 12286. If the Government built dipping tanks in the Karoo, do you think tluit would do away with your difficulty ? — That would do away with the inconvenience, but I think it would be even better if the Government were to supply the dipping material, because I can- not see how people wlio are trekking about could otherwise dip their sheep. I mean to say, if the dipping tanks were built on those open lands, and the dipping stufi were provided at the cheapest possible price, and the farmers wore allowed to make use of it at suitable seasons, it would be a great convenience and they would be able to dip. 12287. If that were done, do you think you would be able to keep your sheep clean, even if you had to trek on account of droughts ? — It would be a great help, but it is difficult for me to say whether we should then be in a position to keep our sheep clean. 12288. A.re you able to keep 3'our sheep clean in good seasons in the Gough ? — Yes, it is not difficult then. 12289. And reinfection takes place by your having to move them on account of droughts, or do you think it is spontaneous ? — I don't know where the disease comes from, but it is certain that drought causes it. It is the most difficult question for me to decide whether scab is caused by the insect or by poverty, because I know that sheep have got scab, and when in good condition have got well again without anything being done to them. 12290. If you owned one of those farms close on the borders of the Karoo, would you allow scabby sheep to trek across your farm from the Gough, if your sheep were clean ? — lu that case I would allow a man to pass, but I would jioint out to him whore to go, aud for a few days I shoidd not aUow my stock to go on the same place. 12291. You think it is absolutely necessary that a farmer who keeps his sheep clean .should have more protection than he has at present ? — Very often people are so indifferent that they wiU go a long way from the trek-path and over a man's veldt with their sheep, and in those cases I think there should be some measure of protection. 12292. Mr. dti Toil.] Were the sheep in poor condition which had scab and got cured by themselves':' — Yes, they got scab when tliey were poor, but they got into good condition and became entirely free without anythi g being done to them. 12293. To prevent such farmers being handicapped in trekking with their stock in droughts, would you rather suffer the 'risk of being infected than have a regulation to protect you ? — Yes, because a man might be on a farm with only one Hock of clean sheep, whereas the scabby sheep trekking might be 10,000 or 12,000, and I consider it would be too great a hardship to allow all those sheep to perish rather than put the owner of the smaller number to a little extra inconvenience. 12294. Dr. Smartt.] Do the trekkers to whom you have referred, who have no ground, and are constantly moving, live on the neighbouring farmers or on the Government .' — They hire ground from the land-owners for as long as they can get it. 12295. Is it not as easy for a man to keep his sheep clean on hired ground as on his own property ? — Yes, if he could get land on a lease for a stated time, and long enough, and with a dip on it ; but the people I am referring to are sometimes trekking for eight or nine months between the Gough and the Karoo, before they can get a place for a fixed time. 12296. Then who are they living on while they are trekking V— Then they are living on land belonging to other people. Sometimes they have to pay for passing over a farm, but mostly they pass free. 12297. If the owner of every farm which carried small stock were obliged to have a dipping tank at his farm, would not that do away with a great deal of the difficult}' of dip- ping those sheep .'' — I think it would be a good thing if every landed jiroprietor were obliged to have a dip in the land belonging to him. But that would not do away with the difficulty. 12298. Why not? — Speaking for myself, it would bo a great lielp, but I have had the experience of having had to remain a long time in the Karoo, during \\hich time my sheep were in such a state of poverty that they could not be put through the dip. 12299. What time of the year was that ? — From April to September. 12300. At what time had you dipped those sheep previous to that? — It is years ago, 530 but T think thc}' wore dipped in December or January. They were poor in Aj>ril, but the scab ai^i^eared in July and August. 12.301. If you had properly dipped those sheep at the end of summer, would they hare been as bad as they were in July and August ? — Yos, that often happens. 12302. Have you ever dipped twice in 14 days without curing your sheep ? — There was a time when I dijiped as often as four times without curing them. 12303. How did you dip ? — I think it is unnecessary for me to tell that. I dipped tliem properly in a patent dip. I used six .small packets for 100 gallons of water, and kept the sheep two minutes in the dip. 12304. In the majority of cases, however, it cures them for the time being ? — Yes. 12305. If you have dipped your sheep as you say, and got them properly clean, and the veldt is in very good condition, as a mere matter of justice, is it right tliat a careless neigh- bour living alongside your fanu, who refuses to dip his .slioop, should infect your flock by letting his scabby sheep run next to your fence ? — No, it is not. 12306. Consequently, from your own evidence, it is absolutely necessary that the Government should give you protection, as a careful farmer ? — I can scarcely answer that question. I only know that we cannot have two laws. 12307. Would it be advisable that such a farmer should be compelled to dip his sheep in suitable times ? — I don't kuow what to do in such a case. 12308. If his sheep affected yours would you leave him alone ? — If it is possible to have an act which would only pimish such wilfully neglectful farmers, then there ought to be such a law. 12309. Mr. Botha.'] Are all your neighbours landed proprietors ? — No. 12310. But is the land by which you are surrounded private property ? — Yes. 12311. Are there dipping tanks on aU those places? — Every landed proprietor has a dij) on some portion of his land. 12312. Mr. Francis.'] Are you aware of the fact that the only scab which is recognized by the law is the one which is cau.sed by an insect ? — Yes. 12313. Then if aU these insects were killed there would be no scab ? — I don't believe it. 12314. Do you believe that dipping will kill the insect ? — Yes. 1231.5. Then, if you kill the insect, according to the law that sheep will be clean? — That is why I cannot understand the law, because even after cleansing your sheep they do get scab again. 12316. Supposing you could clean all your sheep, and all your kraals, and kiU all the insects on your farm, do you think the disease would come again? — Yes. 12317. Where would the insect come from ? — I don't know. I have seen the veterin- ary surgeon, and I don't believe he knows where it comes from. 12318. Do you know any other insect, or Uving animal, that comes from poverty, or without parents ? — Yes, a louse. 12319. But still, from your own experience, you think it would be a great blessing to the country if we could get rid of scab altogether ? — Yes, it stands to reason. 12320. And if we were convinced that we could get rid of scab, you would be quite willing to do your best, and to be under the law for some time in order to do so ? — Yes, if we could do it. 12321. Mr. du Toit.] To what do you attribute it that you sometimes dip your sheep and cure the scab, and sometimes dip three times and fail to cure ? — I put it d-iwn to un- favourable circumstances, such as cold and poverty ; but if the veldt is good, one or two dippings might cure them for a long time. 12322. Are you c[uite sure that jou followed the same process in dipping ? — Yes. 12323. Was the scab the same in appearance? — According to my experience there is only one kind of scab. Mr. Cornelius Friederick Erasmus examined. 12324. Chairmim.] From which field-cornetcy are you? — I represent wards No. 4 and No. .5, and am delegated by the Afrikander Bond there. I have farmed here for 40 years, and have 6,000 sheep. 1 232.5. Do you agree with Mr. Fourie ? — I agree partly with Mr. Jacobs, and I am directly oppose! to a scab act, for which I can give different reasons from Mr. Jacobs. I am opposed to any scab act because I consider that it would be ruinous to any of those districts which have deputed representatives to conie here. Already a groat deal of money has been wasted upon this matter by Parliament — the time wasted on scab legislation ; and also the inspectors cost a groat deal of public money. The fines which have to be paid by stock owners in case their flocks have scab are a direct loss to the owners of stock. Two-thirds of the farmers in my part don't own land, and those men are not in a position to dip properly because a good many are so situated that they cannot get at the necessary dipping material, and others are too poor to pay for it. When they sell their wool they bring it to a railway station, and might possibly get the stuff there. But even landed proprietors are liable to such droughts, as for instance, on my own place it did not rain enough for seven years to make the rivers nm. Out of the whole district where I am living, only five persons remained in possession of their land. That was since 1880, but it is not so dry there now ; it has improved since 1889 [G. l--'94.] Tjuu 12326. I)r. Smartt.'] If the country to wliicb yoii nfer has been so fearfully dry for so many years, and all the farmers are almo.-t iirai'tically ruined, hovr is it you are the happy possessor of 6,000 sheep ? — Because at that time there ■vas no scab act, and I was at liberty to trek wlierever I covdd. 12327. But the same law which applied to you applied as much to the other people, yet you say they have lost everything they possessed '? — I cannot answer for mj- neighbours. 12328. During that drought did you do your best to keep j'our sheep dean of scab ? — Yes. 12329. Is it not possible tbat those people who lost so heavily did not do so ? — Not so much to keep them clean as to apply some remedy to save tliera. I had rjuite enough to do to look after my own .sheep, and I could not look after other people's at the same time. I think evil of no one. 12330. Mr. Botha.'] Have 5-ou a dipping tank on your farm ? — Yes. 12331. Can you say the same of all j'Our neighbours ? — A few of my neighbours on the mountains have no tanks ; thej- belong to the Frasorburg district. 12332. Do they try to stamp out the scab, and keep their sheep clean by continuous and proper clipping } — With the exception of those I said had no dips, tliey do tolerably. 12333. Cousei|uently you don't want a scab act to make you do your duty } — No, it is not necessary. 12334. Mr. Francis.'] Then according to your evidence there are no careless or negligent farmers there at all ? — I cannot say there are. 12335. And they all know how to make the dip and dip the sheep properly ? — Yes. Mr. Johannes Stephonut Marais examined. 12336. Chairman.] You are a delegate from the same wards as the last witness ? — Yes. I have farmed hero for 30 years, and have 7,000 sheep. 12337. Do you agree with Mr. Erasmus? — Yes, entirely. Mr. Jacolut Pieter Verster examined. 12338. <7/i««V»ia».] Are you a delegate ? — Yes, from the Nieuwveldt, ward No. 2. I have farmed here for 3o years, and have 3,000 sheep. 12339. Do you agree with Mr. Erasmus ? — I agree with him and Mr. Jacobs. I am ojiposed to any seal) act. 12340. Are you opposed to any protection to farmers ? — No, I cannot say I want any particular protection in my own neighbourhood. The farmers are improving in regard to scab, and they all liave dips and dip their sheep. There are a few who have no dips. 12341. Are they too poor to buy dip ? — I don't think there are any too poor. 12342. Ai-e there any in such a position that they cannot get dip ? — I cannot say there are. Mr. Carl Petrus van der Westhuisen examined. 12343. Chairman.] Are you a delegate ? — Yes, from the Nieuwveldt, ward No. 2. I have farmed here for 1.5 years, and have 2,000 .sheep. 12344. Do you agree with the previous witness? — I am of the same opinion as the last two or three speakers. Mr. Pieter Daniel de Villiert examined. 12345. Chairman.] You are a delegate from the Beaufort West farmers' association ? — Yes, I have farmed here for 30 years, and have 6,000 sheep. 12346. Do you wish to give evidence in favour of or against a scab act ? — For a general scab act. We have had a scab act for more than two years, and adjoin Murraysburg, and as it works well with us, it would do good to others too. I bought a farm in the (iough, where aU the people say there is no water, and that it is too dry to dip sheep, but there was no chance for one to farm there without the protection of a scab act, because all the neigh- bours would reinfect my sheep. 12347. Do you think there is less scab in tlie ward in which j'ou live now than there was before the act was put in force ? — Yes, our ward is nearly clean. There are very few places where there is still scab. 12348. Is there less scab in the other portions of the district than there was before the act was put in force with you ? — Yes ; I tliink tlie people are all trying more or less to do their best. 12349. To what do you attribute that? To the working of the scab act in your ward ? — Yes, and because they see what good it does to clean the sheep. ■ 12350. Have you any objection to the way in which the inspectors are appointed? — No, biit we want more inspectors for such a large district. 12351. Would it be advisable to have an insjiector for every field-cornetcy ? — Yes, and a general inspector for the whole district. 12352. Do j-ou see any difficulty in carrying out the act in the drier di-stricts to the 532 north-west, or in the Gouph ? — I cannot say, but I am entirely dependent myself on well water, and I am situated on the Karoo flats. 12353. From your knowledge of the country, and the scarcity of water on your own place, you think that all the farmers could carry on their farming operations in the same way as you do ? — I think they can, because it requires no more water for dipping purposes than it does for watering your flocks. 12354. Would it be advisable, if any new act were passed, to include in it a general simultaneous dipping clause ? — No, because it would be a punishment to the man who keeps his sheep clean. 12355. Don't you think that, in order to dip and stamp out scab once for all, the farmers would be willing to dip all the sheep, even those who had clean flosks ':" — If it cannot be otherwise, I would submit to the sacrifice. 12356. Would not all the farmers here do it ? — I think so. 12357. Do the farmers generally in this district dip their sheep properly? — If they were to do that, every farmer's flocks would be clean. 12358. When a fanner states that he cannot clean his sheep by two dippings, would it be advisable that they should be dipped under inspection, or that the owner should be lined? — I think they should be dipped under insiieotion. 12359. Should dipping tanks be erected in the public roads for the purpose of dipping sheep which became infected while travelling ? — I think all the farmers ought to have dips on their places, and therefore it would not be necessary. There is no free land ; it is all private property. 12360. Supposing a flock came on to your farm infected with scab, would you give them the use of 3'our tank, or woidd you move them along the road and get them off your property as soon as you could ? — If I could help him without inconvenience I would, but I should not like to do it on account of the danger of infection. 12361. Don't 3'ou think all scabby sheej) trespassing should be dipped before being sent to the pound ? — Yes, to prevent further infection. 12362. Will you ever stamp scab out of the district of Beaufort West unless you have a scab act ? — No. 12363. Mr. du 2'oit.'] Should the inspector be an intelligent, local farmer, or a stranger } — If the farmers in the district are particular themselves, and tlie inspector does not quite come up to the mark, they will soon make him what he ought to be. I think it does not matter so much when there is a general inspector over the whole district whom they appoint as ward inspectors. 12364. Would it not be too expensive to have an inspector in each ward and a district inspector as well? — It woidd not cost as much as we lose now by scab. 12365. You don't find anj' hardships under the present act ? — No. 12366. Are you not aware that in the north-western parts of the Colony there are some wells which hold out even in heavy droughts, and that consequently there is a great accimiulation of flocks at those places, so that there is no water to spare except for drinking purposes ? — If there is water enough to water all the flocks, and for the people too, then it would be unnatural if there were not also enough to dip the sheep. 12367. Do you know that in the north-western parts people have to trek away for six or nine months for want of water ? — No. 12368. If that is the case, do you think there should be a clause to make provision for tliem in times of heavy drought, in the eveut of a general act being passed ? — Yes. 12369. Would you not rather see a more or less lenient act throughout the Colony '^han a stringent act over a part of the Colony ?^I prefer a stringent act to get rid of the scab. 12370. Would you force an act upon any portion of the community? — No. 12371. Then woidd you rather make it acceptable so as to give them a chance of trying it ? — Parliament has been busy for so many years making an act to suit the people's taste, and yet they are still as obstinate as ever. 12372. Are you aware of onl}' one kind of scab caused by an insect? — Only one. 12373. You are not aware that farmers are afraid that some kind of skin disease caused by fever or irritation by steekgras, may be taken for scab, and that they would consequently bo compelled to try and cure it in the same way as scab ? — I don't know that they are afraid of that, or that the inspectors would do sucli a thing. 12374. Dr. Sinartt.'] Are there no circumstances under which you might run great danger of reinfection if you were obliged to dip all stock before impounding them ? — Yes, it is possible. 12375. Would it not be better if a travelling dipping tank were placed in each tield- cornetcy, to be at the disposal of farmers for cases of that sort ? — I think it would lie better if the poundmaster had the necessary dipping arrangements, as it is at present. 12376. Would there bo much danger of reinfection if the owner were obliged to give notice all along the line of road to the pound, so that farmers would keep their stock away while the infected animals were being driven to the pound ? — I think that would be the best plan, and keep the infected sheep in the road. 12377. 21r. Francia.^ Do you think that part of the oppnsition to the act in this district arises from people who don't really understand the nature of scab, and how easily it is cured ? — No, thej' opposed it from the beginning, and now they arc too proud or too vain to acknowledge that they have been in the wrong. They don't exactly mean what they say. unu 2 53a 12378. And do some people perhaps oppose the act fur the sake of popularity ? — It may be. 12379. Supposing that a man in this district wore standing for Parliament, do you think ho would lose or gain by speaking in favour of a scab act? — I don't think it will make much difference, after what I have heard to-day. Mr. Jidiui Rohert Jackson examined. 12380. Chairman.'] Are you a delegate? — Yes, from the Beaufort West Farmers' Association. I have farmed here for seven years, and have 10,000 sheep. I am under the scab act. 12381. Do you agree with any of the previous witnesses? — I am in favour of a general act, but not of the present one. The onl}' use of the present act is the protection it affords to careful farmers, but it will never stamji out scab. A.t present, tlie dipping is left to the farmers themselves, but it ought to be done under inspection. The system of granting a permit for keeping scabby sheep, and renewing it time after time, is bad. After the second thi-ee months there should be a heavy fine, but I should much prefer the sheep being dipped under inspection at once. I have only dipped twice in the last seven years. I would divide the Colony into sections, and dip each section under inspection, and cure the sheep in one section before I dipped the next ; then, if one section broke out again, they shoidd be dipped under inspection again, but there should be no licence. I object to the licences altogether. Another thing is that I would appoint strangers as inspectors ; 1 don't believe in appointing local men for that office. It has worked fairly well here, but not in other districts. I don't see the necessity of appointing inspectors in every field-coruotcy, but there might be travel- ling inspectors. In dipping, I should commence y\ii\i the section farthest from the market, and when that has been cleaned, no scabby sheep should be allowed to enter it, although any sheep might go out. On other matters, generally, I agree with th-^ p-'-vk-.is witnesses. 12382. Mr. Botha.'] Does the inspector in your district work well? — Yc~, an 1 I have one for my own ward. 1 2383. How was he appointed ? — By Government. 12384. Are your sheep clean now ? — Yes, it is more than two years since they had scab. 12385. Your veldt is in the Karoo ? — Yes, it is good veldt, and I am wcU supplied with well-water. 12386. You say it will be impossible to get the flocks in the country clean under the present scab act ? — Yes. 12387. How is it that you keep your 10,000 sheep clean, in spite of the defects of the present act ? — Because I take the trouble, and believe that sheep can be kept clean ; but others don't believe it, and therefore they don't try. 12388. But if the same imperfect act were over the whole Colony, and the other farmers all tried to keep their sheep clean in the same way as you do ? — -Then you would not require a law. 12389. Would you not attain your object by simply punishing those who don't keep their sheep clean ? — You might. 12390. So that really it is not so much a scab ait that you want as that the people ■hould be willing to try and clean the flocks, and to believe that it could be done? — But you want an act to punish those who don't do it. 12391. 3Ir. Francis.] Is it a fact that some sheep sent up by your brother lately were turned back, not in consequence of any defect in the act, but because a certain Government railway official forgot to send in the permit .'' — They were not sent back ; they were detained. 12392. And that the Government granted a certain compensation to your brother for the loss caused by their servant ? — Yes. Mr. Jacobus Pieter de 'FilUers examined. 12393. Chairman.] Are you also a delegate from the Farmers' Association ? — Yes; I have farmed here for 30 years, and have .5,000 sheep. I am in favour of a general scab act. I don't agree with Mr. Jackson ; it is true that I don't think the present act is sufficient, but on the other hand I don't consider Mr. Jackson's plan is any bettor. If an inspector turned up on the sama farm after six or nine months and found the sheep still scabby, he should have the riglit to take the matter iato Ids own hands, and dip the sheep under his own inspection at the owner's expense. 12394. Dr. Siiiartl.] Meanwhile, what protection is there for a careful farmer? — The same as he has got to-day. 12395. Would you object to a clause obliging every man to dip, in the summer, withiu 14 days of receiving a licence? — I dou't tliink that is a good plan at all. I should like a general compulsory act, because nearly all the farmers under the scab act in this district have also land outside the proclaimed area, and consequently have just the same trouble as those who have not got the act 12390. Chairman.] Are you in favour of a Government dip depot? — Yes, and that the Government ought strongly to recommend liui^ and sulphur as a standing dip. 12397. I)r. Smartt.] At the expiration of the first three months' licence, if sheej) wore still infected with scab, would it bo advisable to emi)ower the Government to order a man 0.34 dip in some locoguisod solution which has stamped out scab ia other countries? — I believe that the Government shoulil order them all to dip in lime and sulphur. I am (juite convinced that if a man dipped his sheep properly in lime and sulphur, twice within 18 days, they will be clean, and I would guarantee it. 12398. Mr. Botha.^ How long have your sheep been clean? — For 1.5 mouths, because my neighbour's sheep are also clean. I have only been under quarantine once since the act has been in force. 12399. Were you able to do this under the present act? — Yes. 12400. Would you have been able to do this if it had not been for tha act? — No. The law must protect me, and it does protect me in putting down trekking over my land. Mr. Carl Jacobus de Villiers examined. 12401. Chairman.'] Are you also a delegate } — No. I have been farming here for about 18 years, and have 5,000 sheep. 12402. Ai-e you in favour- of a scab act ? —Yes, of a general act. I think the present act is good enough if properly carried out, and made general, but it is not properly carried out now. The class of inspectors we have is no good, with some exceptions. The act is proclaimed in our district, and has eradicated scab there. I live in ward No. 3, Nieuwveldt, and if the act has been in force for 5 or 6 years, and there is still scab, it must be due to the fault of the inspectors. I know of one inspector who was appointed and was recommeded by the divisional council because he owed money to two of the members of the council, and in that way they thought they would get their money out of him. He was a poor man, and not independent, and was consequent!}' afraid to report any of the farmers. In that way I believe the district of Murraysburg has been tlie worst under the scab act. But if a better class of inspectors were appointed, and the}' were more active, I think the act we have could eradicate scab. I am not making anj' suggestions for the appointment of inspectors, except that they should be impartial men and strangers. 12403. Br. Smartt.~\ Wlio shoidd recommend the inspectors to the Government ? — Not the farmers ; the Government should do it direct, and the farmers shoidd have nothing to say in the matter. I would leave it entirely to the Government. It was continually said to-day that people could not trek where the scab act existed, but I cannot see how people can make that assertion. Where the act exists the sheep are supposed to be clean : they are clean in our district, and I have got as bad a farm as anyone can boast of. I have no springs and hardly any dams ; all the water I have is in excavations and wells, and the place is so bad that I want to sell it, as I cannot make it worse. Last year I had to trek almost the whole year with my sheep, but I started with clean sheep, trekked all about and brought them home clean after the rain came. I only wish to point out that this hardship does not exist, and is imaginary. 12404. Mr. Bolha.'] If Government appoints inspectors, do you know that means that the magistrates and the Government must do it ? — Yes. 12405. And yoiu- objection is that one inspector was appointed because he owed two of the divisional councillors money. Is it not possible that a man might owe the magistraf^^ money, or may not the magistrate have a poor friend whom he would like to be recom- mended ? — There might be such cases ; but in our case the magistrate appointed the inspector, and I believe there is not a better inspector in the whole Colony. Mr. William Thomas Elliott, scab- inspector, examined. 12406. Chairman.] You are inspector of area No. 18 ? — Yes, for three years in June. 12407. When you were appointed inspector, was there much scab in your area ? — There was a good deal, but it was not very bad. 12408. Did you find the farmers work with you in attempting to stamp it out ? — Entirely ; in fact it is due to themselves that it has been stamped out to the extent that it has been. 12409. Could you have stamped it out if the farmers had been opposed to the act, and had worked against you ? — No. 12410. In those districts where the scab act has been in force so long, and there is so much scab at present, do you think it is as much owing to the farmers being opposed to the act as to the fault of the inspectors ? — To a certain extent I do. There is no doubt that the inspector of Murraysburg, which district I have heard mentioned this afternoon, was very lax in his duties, and it was greatly owing to this that scab has not been eradicated there. 12411. If the inspector in Murraysburg, or in any other tlistrict, had assisted the farmers and pointed out to them the way to dip, do you think far more benefit would have accrued ? — I tliink lio did so, but that he was too lenient. 12412. Is the act itself stringent enough if it is propeily carried out ? — Quite so, except tliat I don't tliink the renewal of licenses at the expiration of eveiy thi oe months ought to be allowed, because no one knows liow a man has dipped his sheep, ho may have dipped them in dung-water, but still, the inspector is bound to take his word, and I have known of instances where a man has used a couple of rolLs of tobacco to dip a thousand shoop. I woidd suggest that if they are not clean at the end of thi'ee months, he should get a 535 renewal for auuther three mouths, liut if they were not clean thcu lie should bo fiued, or else the shfiep should be dipped under inspection at hia own expense. 12413. Do you find that farmers who have a licence to keep their sheep for three months, wail until the time lias nearly expired ? — In my ward, ererj farmer does his very best to try and eradicate scab. 12414. Do you think that the farmor.i in Murraysburg and these other districts do so ? — It is hard to say, but judging from the appearance of their sheep, I should not say they did. I have been to several farms in their district, and found the sheep in a very bad state. I cannot say whether they had been dipped at all, but about six months ago I saw sheep which were a disgrace to their owner. 12415. Which do you think the beet, to fine or to dip under inspection? — To dip under inspection. 12416. — Are there any other suggestions you could make ? — No. Victoria Wtd, Friday, 24th Februar;/, 1893. PRESENT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. Botha. ,, DD ToiT. Dr. Smautt. Mr. Francis. Mr. Jacob ('oenrad de Klerk exanunod. 12417. Chairman.] You area delegate from the Afrikander iJond in this district ':" — Yes, I have farmed here for 30 years, and have 3,500 sheep. 12418. You with these ten other gentlemen have been appointed by the Afrikander Bond to give evidence before the Commis.sion ? — Yes.. 12419. Are you opposed to a scab act? — Yes, we are opposed to the present act on account of its inapplicability to the western portions of the Colony, whore the difference in rainfall between the east is so great that if we get two inches it may be ton or twelve in the east. I am speaking as a sheep farmer. There is always a drought in some parts of the west, and we are not so independent here with regard to the rain as they are in the east, and every year we have to trek from one part to another. Con.secjuently a scab act fur these parts would be like a scorpion between your vest and shirt. In my travels I have often seen at certain places where people are trekking, and the time comes for watering the Hocks, they have to be divided, and cannot all be watered in tlie same day ; and if such a di'ought continues it comes to this, that a man has to leave his family behind with a few small stock and trek with the rest, and if the sheep were scabby he would bo prevented from doing so. In consequence of thid state of affairs and the climate, it very often happens that for three or four months there is not a blade of grass or any food for the stock, so that they suffer in their health, and fall of so much in condition that the quality of the wool i.? affected by it, and they get so poor that it is impossible to keep scab down. To prove my assertions, if a human being were to have no change of food for live or six months, scui'vy would set in, and of course he would die. Now I will prove the origin of scab. If the veldt is as good as it has been oven during the last year in the west, we are able to prevent scab from getting the upper hand. I don't think scab is always caused by the Mcarus. If I were to camp off a ram with twenty or thirty ewes, what would be the result of it ? By that means I could prove that from scabby parents the lambs are born with scab. I have not done it, but I will prove that it can bo done. I am convinced of the origin of the acarns, and that it comes from poverty. The veterinary surgeon inspected my flocks ; he investigated scabby spots, applying the insect and removing scab, and examining it under such conditions as he th(jught woidd show the insect, but after he had taken it into the house and carofuUy examined it there he could not find any insect. Then he asked me what remedy I used, and I told him that all the sheep were well dosed with sulphui' aud salt. Then he said he could understand it, because such remedies took effect through the whole body and the skin of the animal. Still I will not deny that there are such things as the acari, because the veterinary surgeon showed me some which he had brought from other flocks in the district. My brother and myself built a dipping tank in 1871, which was the third dip built in the district of Victoria West. For the first two years we were very successful, but in the third and fourth years, when we thought we were masters of the situation, we found that the scab had the best of us. Since then we have applied internal medicines, sulphur and salt, and after that we dipped them once or twice, and have carried on that treatment until to-day, aud have found it the best remedy. That has been my experience since I became a farmer and tried dipping, consequently I am convinced that scab cannot bo eradicated under the present act. Why cannot I do what other peojilc do ? I have done my best, and cannot eradicate the disease. I approve of dipping, and I think every farmer ought to dip, but as for the present scab act I think it isuufair to apply it to the western parts of the Colony. In June, 1888, the reports were very favourable witli regard to scab iu the Graali-lieinet aud Murraysburg districts. 530 and thove were people in my branch of the Bond who put the question whether it 'wiould not be advisable to ask for the law also. My brother and I then went to the Murraysburg district as delegates, to investigate the matter, and on the first farm we came to the stock were in decent condition, but not better than ours, aad on the second farm they were not so good. The same on the third farm, and the fourth was also good. On the fifth farm I found an angora goat very bad, and also sheep very scabby. It is generally known that the owner of that place was a careful farmer, of great experience, and who held public meetings in favour of stamping out the scab, and in favour of an act. On our return we came to a farm where the sheep were more scabby than any I had ever seen in my own tlistrict. After that we found others again which were good, which shows that in the more western parts, wliich are so much more subject to droughts, it is more difficult to keep sheep clean. 12420. You say that five years ago you dipped your sheep and kept them clean for two years ? — I was successful for two years running, but they were not clean. 12421. How did you dip them .' — I used 10 lbs. of tobacco for 100 sheep, sometimes mixed with sulphur, but I cannot say the amount of sulphur or the quantity of water. I mix it by tasting it. 12422. In what do you dij) them now ? — I use a patent dip, and lime and sulphur. I use 18 lbs. of sulphur and 18 lbs of lime, well boiled for ten minutes, but I cannot say how much water. I think it is 70 gallons, but I don't know exactly. I keep the sheep in for a minute or half a minute. 12423. When you boil your lime and sulphur for ten minutes, is all the sulphur dissolved ?^I first boil the lime and then put in the sulphur and let them boil togetJier until the sulphur is dissolved. 12424. When you dip your sheep in that mixture, do you cure them of scab ? — Not all of them. 12425. Do j'ou dip them a second time within 14 days '? — Not always. I have done so, but I don't generally. 12426. When you dip them again in 14 days, are they cured by the second dipping '■: — Not every one. 12427. Are you not aware that in all the instructions in all the patent dips it is stated that you must dip the sheep twice within 12 to 18 days to ensure a cure, and that the Government instructions are to the same effect ? — Yes, but I tried it and it did not help. I tried it for two years. 12428. When you cured your sheep, what did you do with them.-' — They go back to the kraals, but sometimes they get fresh veldt. 12429. Did they not become reinfected in the old kraals or the old veldt .-' — No, I think it is spontaneous, and is caused by the condition of the sheep. 12430. Then you don't think it is possible to stamp out scab altogether.-' — No. lu 1882 I had 20 young sheep which it was impossible to cure. I tried dipping them in a hike-warm dip, because they were too poor to be put in cold water, and I held them, under this warm dip at least a full minute, by guess work, and dipped them three times within a month. When I found that through this they began to die, I applied an internal remedy and put theiu on old land, where there was green stuff, and within a fortnight after I had administered the third dose they became perfectly free of scab. 12431. Do you attribute that to the change of veldt, or to the internal remedy you gave them ?— To both. 12432. If the farmers in this district were to dip their sheep all at one time, do you think it would assist in stamping out the scab ? — It cannot be denied that dipping is good, but there is such a great difference in the circumstances of the farmers ; one has a large veldt, and on time of drought might be able to do it, but the others who have not the same advantages could not. 12433. But if they could do it, would it help? — Yes, I am in favour of every man dipping, but I object to anything in the shape of a rule or regulation, and consequently I don't believe that simultaneous dipping can be done. 12434. Do the farmers in this district generally dip their .sheep regularly, and have they all tanks on their farms '^ — Most of them have dipping tanks, but I will not say positively that they all dip. As far as I know they all try their best. In my own neigh- bourhood we have men appointed to inspect, and to report at our yearly meeting how things are carried on. 12435. If your sheep were free of scab would you object to a scabby flock of sheep trekking over your farm ? — I should not have any particular objection, provided they did not mix with mine. 12436. Do you think that scab is so contagious that, if possible, you would like to pre- vent them going over your farm '? — I don't deny that scab is contagious, but it is also spon- taneous. 12437. If it is spontaneoiis, there would, of course, b« no i-eason why you should object to them mixing with your sheep ? — In spite of its being spontaneous, it is also contagious. I am in favour of a compulsory dipping act. 12438. How would you propose to carry it out? — I have not given it my full considera- tion, but if a man is in a position to dip his sheep, and will not do it, there should be somebody to report him to the magistrate ; and in case he can prove that he is unable to dip on account of scarcity of water, he should bo aUowod time until he has got water, and that dip should be properly mixed and properly applied imder inspection. 1 '2439. Supposing he cloeB not dip his aheop ovfin after this, what should be donp ? — He should be fined. 12440. Instead of fining him would it not be better if the sheep wove dipped by the inspector, or someone appointed for the purpose ? — No, I think he should bo punished until he does his duty. 12441. Ai-e there aay fai-mors in th« district of Victoria "West so poor that they are unable to purchase dip ? — No ; I don't think it will be found necessary to drive them to do it. 12442. Would it assist the fanners in this district if the Government supplied dip at cost price, free of railway carriage ? — I think that would be very good. 12443. Mr. Francin.] Are you aware that the rainfall in this district averages lO.V inches annually ? — No ; I think that for many years there are not 5 inches. 12444. But if the average is lOi inches, and some years it is only .5 inches, there must bo some years when it will jierhaps be 15 inches? — It may be in this way, as we had here the other day a local storm which only extended as far as the commonage, where it may have been 20 inches, but that does not apply to the district of Victoria West. 1244.5. Are you aware that the returns are not only for the village and commonage, but for the whole of the distri.:t ? — I know that it is given up as for the whole district, bu'; to give a case in point, there is a rain gauge in the village : consequently, on such occasions a's last Sunda}', if it goes forth as the rainfall for the whole district, it is misleading. 12446. Are you aware that the ouly scab which is recognized by the scab act is that which is caused by the acarun insect ? — No, I don't know that. 12447. But if such is the case, and all these insects could be killed, then the sheep woxdd bo free from scab 7 — Yes, but I also believe that it will always reappear spontaneously. 12448. Then you believe that the scab insect can come without parents? — I don't know. 12449. Do you know of any other animals or insects which come without parents } — No. 12450. Then the scab insect is altogether exceptional ?-^I don't know. 12451. If I were to take some of these scab insects, and put them on a clean sheep of yours, and they produced scab, would you then believe it was the insect which caused the scab ? — Yes, then I woidd believe, and vice ifrsa. 12452. Are you aware that the yoke in the wool of a sheep will generally kill the scab insect ? — Yes. 12453. Consequently, if you put the insect on a sheep in good condition, with lots of yoke in the wool, it might not get scabby ; but if you put it on a sheep in low condition, when both the wool and the skin were dry, it would produce scab ?— Yes, 12454. If you had all your sheep clean from scab, and you had a careless neighbour who was continually reinfecting your flocks, don't you think it would be a g^eat injustice to you? — To a certain extent. 12455. If a scab act were passed for this district, with a suspensory clause for severe droughts, would that do away with jjart of your objections to the act ? — I am afraid it would have this inconvenience, that it would not alwa3's be projterly applied. 12456. Did the Afrikander Bond in thi» district take some steps with the object of checking scab in sheep ? — Yes. 12457. Then the Bond, which you represent, is of opinion that some law is necessary for the check of scab ? — Yes. 12458. Ifr. Botha.] If the wool of a sheep in good condition frequently kills the acarus, but fails to do so when the sheep is in bad condition, is it not possible that when the sheep is in bad condition it can produce the acarus without being infected ? — Yes, that is my opinion. 12459. Br. Smartf.~\ When did you dip last? — I dipped some lambs a fortnight ago. 12460. Is it your invariable rule at your yearly dipping after shearing to dip every sheep on j-our fai-m, whether lambs, ewes or anything ? — Yes. During shearing every aninial gets his dose of sidphur and salt, and a month or six weeks afterwards they are all dipped without exception — that is to say, if I think there is any danger of scab, but if there is no danger, I don't dip. 12461. But these lambs to which you refer as having dipped three weeks ago were not dipped at j'our yearly dipping with your other sheep .-' — No, the lambs are only four and five months old. 12462. Would an act as suggested by j'ou, in which one farmer would be constantly bringing up the other, not tend to create unpleasantness and ill-feeling ia this or anj' district ? — Then the field-cornet should do it. 12463. Would not an inspector appointed by the farmers in every field-cornetcy act much better ? — It might be better to elect a special man for it in the district. 12464. In the conversations which you had with the owners of the farms which you Tisited in the Murraysburg district, did you find that the owners of clean sheep were in favour of a scab act ? — One was in favour of a scab act, and another was not at home. Another man told me that he always dipped, and was finite indifferent as to whether there was an act or not. 12465. If the act presses as hardly upon fai-mers in the Karoo as you say, how is it that these men, practical farmers with large flocks, were not opposed to it .'' — I cannot say how it is. You may also find some here who arc not opposed to it. 12466. Are you aware that thousands of lambs are born every year which have got white spots on them ; but which have not got scab ? — No ; all those white sjoots are scab. 12467. Mr. duToit.] With regard to that flock of sheep which had spots of scab, and 538 were examined by the veterinary surgeon, diil the scab in that flock get cured mthout dipping ?— Yes. 12468. Did the veterinary surgeon approve of yoin- action in dosing and not dipping those sheep ? — He asked me why the shoep had those spots without the acanis, and I told him they had been dosed ; then he said ho could well understand why they had not the aearus. He said it was a good thing to do, but he did not say that I must not dip. Later on »I did dip them, because I saw those places increase. 12469. What was the appearance of scab on those twenty lambs which you refer to ? — They were hard all over the body ; I called it scab. 12470. Were they the only ones amongst your flock which had hard scab on them .-' — No, it was the same scab, only these were very bad. It is well known that when young sheep have scab they are worse than others. 12471. Have you ever had the same kind of scab since among your flocks .^ — Yes, last year there wore some, and one this year. 12472. Did you foUow the same process with those sheej) .■" — Yes. 12473. You did not dip them ?— Yes, and afterwards again, but they arc not quite clean yet. 12474. Do you think these sheep were cured by tJie green veldt or by dipping.^ — By both. 12475. You are not aware of more than one kind of scab.'' — Yes, I think there is a difference ; some are hard and some in spots, and there are also white spots on lambs, but I cannot describe the difference. 12476. Are you aware that steekgras also causes a kind of scab .'' — Yes, I have seen it. 12477. And that farmers are afi-aid that that kind of irritation in the skin may be taken for scab ? — I don't say it is much the case here ; it applies more to Brit's Town and Hope Town. 12478. But if It was the case, don't you think it might be one reason why farmers may be opposed to legislation against scab ? — It might be there, if they have such stupid people, but it is not the case here. 12479. Mr. Francis.^ If scab comes spontaneously, how do you account for the fact that the sheep in Australia, and also in Komgha in this Colony, have never been affected by spontaneous generation of the insect, and have been clean for years ? — I cannot account for it. I don't know the circumstances of those places. Mr. Girt JJirk van Schalkwyk examined. 12480. Chairman.'] You are also a delegate of the Afrikander Bond.' — Yes. I have farmed here for 30 years, and have 7,000 sheep and goats. 12481. Do you agree with Mr. de Klerk.' — Yes, but I dip more regularly than has been stated by him. I have dipped for the last 22 years without succeeding in stamping out scab. For the last eight years I have dipped twice within 14 days, after shearing.and three months later I have dipped them again twice within 14 days, and then in September I dip them once. I shear in January. I cannot keep my flocks altogether clean, but I keep the scab under. I use a patent dip, and measure the water ; the sheep are kej)t in the water accord- ing to the condition they are in ; if they are fairly clean, one minute, and if scabby, two. 12482. Dr. Smartt.] Have j'our flocks never been infected by your neighbours' sheep, which are not dipped in the way yours are } — No. 12483. Do you think the majority of farmers in the district take the same pains to eradicate scab that you do? — Most of them do. They all dip. 12484. Then how do you account for the fact that many flocks in Victoria West are much more scabby than yours ? — Bad water, bad veldt, and bad treatment. 12485. How long have you had a dip on your farm ? — For eight or nine years. Mr. Johannes Rendrik Claassen examined. 12486. Chairman.'] Are you also a delegate of the Bond? — Yes. I have farmed here for 12 years, and have more than 5,000 sheep and goats. 12487. DoyouagreewithMr.de Klerk? — Partly, but ho did not point out all the difliculties of the law, and how unworkable it was. Under the present act, whenever I get over the boundary I have to report my position to the scab inspector, and whenever my sheep get scab I also have to report. Now, if I am trekking, and must And the inspector to report to him, on whose veldt can I leave my sheep ? And whenever my sheep are put under quarantine when I am trekking, where are they to remain, becausa I shall have no right to go back to my own property, and I cannot return, as there is no water there. It seems from the questions which the Commission have put that they are in favour of a simul- taneous dipping. I will say nothing in regard to a dipping act, but I am opposed to the present scab act. I am not convinced that scab can be cured. If it is possible to cure scab, it would be the duty of the father of the scab act to do s >, but last year ho was fined a pound under the act, though if I had been the defendant I should have been lined £5. lam certain that steekgras causes scab, and I am convinced of it, because if a sheep so infected is not dipped it will die of the scab, but if dipped it will be clean. With regard to the [G. 1— '94.] Tvv 539 "question whether scah is caused l)y an insect, and the origin of the insect, it is as difficult to solve that as to solve the ajipoMrance and riioppparance of locusts. 12488. Dr. Smarll.'] Has not the distriot of Victoria West just recovered from a severe ■drought .' — Yes. 12489. Do you attrihute a good deal of the spread of scab to the drought ? — Yes. 12490. Can you account for the fact that all the sheep on the Melton Wolde estate at the preseat moment, and during the drought, were perfectly free of scab ? — It was not so dry at Melton Wolde as in other parts of the district ; it rained tliere in October, November, and December. I dipped a fortnight ago, and to-day I have not a single sheep on my farm with scab. 12491. If all the farmers in the district of Victoria West dipped simultaneously in the good seasons, and used all diligent efforts to eradicate scab fi-om their sheep, don't you think their flocks would bo in the same condition as the Melton Wolde sheep are in to-day ? — No. If they are in good condition you can clean thom, but you cannot keep them clean. I have seen scabby sheep on Melton Woldo while the sheep on the other farms were clean. 12492. Did you see them scabby either during the last drought, or at the present time? —No. 12493. Is it not in the interest of the farmer himself to keep his sheep clean ? — When he can do so. 12494. Consequently, according to your own showing, it would be to the interest of the farmers to have a simultaneous dippieg net in good seasons? — (No answer.) 12495. Chairman.'] As you have mentioned that particular case, referring to me as the father of the scab act, I should like to ask you how you became acquainted with the facts of the case ? — I saw it in the newspapers. 12496. It is (j[uite true. Those sheep had been under a clean bUl for months, and when the inspector wont down to inspect the flocks my son took him to these sheep to inspect them. I was not there. When the inspector came to them ho found them just commencing with spots of scab. My son had not reported it, and he was summoned and fined £1 under the act. I paid the fine willingly, because I saw and have always said that until we get a general scab act we shall never stamp out the scab in consequence of sheep trekking through and infecting a farmer's clean flocks. 12497. T)r. Smartl.'] If you had gone to a great deal of trouble and expense in dipping your sheep carefully, and had them free of scab, as a mere matter of justice would you consider it fair that your sheep should be infected by the straying sheep of a careless neighbour on your property, and would you not be at all annoyed if such a thing took place ? — If it is true that scab is so badly contagious as they assume, then I should certainly be annoyed, but I am not convinced that it is the case. 12498. Do you wish it to be written down as your experience as a practical farmer that, if scabby sheep are mixed with clean sheep, the clean sheep are not liable, under any circumstances, to get scab ? — In some instances the clean sheep might contract scab, but not alwa3'8. 12499. But in cases in which you acknowledge that it is contagious, would it be fair to you, as a careful farmer, that your industry and your efforts to stamp out scab should be rendered null and void on account of the carelessness of your neighbour ? — I have answered that question. 12500. In the majority of cases, when you dip your sheep thoroughly, don't you euro them for the time ? — I said so. 12501. Consequently, if other farmers are not able to do as you do, would it not be in their own interest if the Government appointed inspectors of dipping, who should show them how to apply the dips thoroughly, and would not that be much better than fining them, as suggested by Mr. de Klerk? — I object to the expense of inspectors being borne by the country, and I think if people are so neglectful of their interest that they cannot keep their sheep clean by dipping, they should bear the expense themselves. 12502. Would you object to superintendents of dipping being chosen from the farming classes, and by the farming classes in their own field-cornetcies ? — The field-cornetcy can do it if it is necessary, but I object to the country being put to the expense of paying for superintending dipping. Mr. Gideon Jaeoiu6 de Klerk examined. 12503. Chairman.^ Are you also a delegate of the Bond? — Yes. I am no longer a, farmer, but I farmed here for over 18 years, and had on the average about 2,000 sheep. 12504. Do you agree with the evidence given by Mr. J. C. de Klerk? — I differ from what has been said with regard to the inspector. I cannot see how the inspector can be appointed, because you cannot dip everywhere, as there are people who have no fixed place to live, but who trek about ; otherwise I agree with Mr J. C. de Klerk. 12505. Don't you thii.k that all owners of property where there is small stock should have a dipping tank on their place 'i—Xta. 1250(3. And that he should bo compelled to allow all the people who are living on his farm to dip their sheep in that tank ? — Yes. 510 Mr. Isaac Johannes van der Merwe examined. 12507. Chairman.'] You are also a delegate ? — Yes. I have farmed here for 20 years, and have 5,000 or 6,000 sheep. 12508. Do you agree with Mr. J. C. de Klerk .' — I do, generally ; but I should like to add something in regard to the removal of stock. If the present scab act were to be pro- claimed over this district, it would interfere with the trade in stock. If scabby sheep are under the scab act, you cannot transfer them without the permission of an inspector, who will order them to be dipped first ; this would make them unsuitable for the butcher, and he would go elsewhere. 1 2509. Do you think that sheep having very small spots of scab should bo allowed to be removed without being dipped ? — Yes. 12510. Would you like a flock of sheep, slightly infected, to sleep on your farm on their way to the butcher ? — Not if mine were clean. 1251 1 . If your sheep were clean, would j-ou allosv a flock of scabby sheep to pass over your farm ?^-Except it were in such a drought that it was indispensable for them to trek, and then my charity would compel me to allow them to pass. 12512. Mr. Botha.'] You think, and many with you, that Victoria West, Fraserburg, Brit's Town, Carnarvon cannot come under the scab act because it would put them under a disadvantage in selling stock. But supposing the other districts of the Colony came under a scab act, including Beaufort West and Philip's Town, would not you be in the same position as you are now in regard to the removal of stock '? — In that case we could take the sheep round via Sutherland or other districts where there is no scab act. 12513. Do you think that a scab act would be a greater tax upon your own district than having to trek round by Sutherland and such outlying districts for the sake of getting to your maket ? — I should prefer the latter. Mr. Johannes de KUrlc examined. 12514. Chairman.] You are also a delegate .^ — Yes. I have been farming here for 28 years, and have 3,000 sheop. 12515. Do you agree with Mr. .1. C. de Klerk, who gave evidence this morning'?— Yes. I was present at the public meeting held at Brit's Town in 1883, convened by the late Hon. Mr. Burger, and the question was put to him by Dr. Smartt whether he could cure scab and keep the sheep clean Mr. Burger said, yes. Dr. Smartt then asked in what way he could do it, and he replied that after the sheep had been dipped or cleaned they should be removed to clean ground, and not allowed to come into coatact with aay infected veldt, and Mr. Burger added that, if a farraor could not clean his sh'iep and keep them clean, it was because he was incapable of sheep fanning. IIp further stated that if anybody could not clean or keep the sheep clean, and would bring them to Mr. Bui'ger, he would do it for them, and I said to him that I would see him about it again four years later. Five years after- wards I did go to Mr. Burger's farm, and saw there about 800 angora goats, of which 600 were scabby, and also a flock of sheep badly iiife .ted with scab. Another difficulty with the scab act is that if stock are j)!aced under quarantine on the road, what must become of them when they have no right to stay where they are? Another difficulty is that the springbok are also so much affected with scab, and they might carry the infection. 12516. You think it is impossible to stamp out the scab ? — Yes. 12517. But you do clean your sheep when you dip them ? — -Yes, but I cannot keep them clean. Mr. Nicolaas Kaijaer examined. 12518. Chairman.] You are also a delegate of the Africander Bond? — Yes. I have farmed here for 32 years and have 3,000 sheep. 12519. Do you agree with the previous witnesses ? — -I agree entirelj' with Mr. Sckalkwyk. Not only I but the whole district is opposed to the scab act, for the reasons which have been given. Mr. Gabriel IFillem Andries van Eeerden examined. 12520. Chairman.] You are a delegate of the Africander Boad } — Yes. I have farmed here for 30 years, and have 5,000 sheep. 12521. With whom do you agree ? — With Mr. J. C. de Klerk, except that in regard to any insect or animal coming into existence without parents, I wish to say that I know of such ; when rain follows a great drought I have seen moths make their appearance. Poverty produces insects on sheep, cattle and goats. I should have no obje<;tion to allow scabby sheep to trek over my veldt, provided they did not sleep on it or came into my kraals. I have had healthy ewes mixing with young sheep which were scabby, and the ewes never contracted the disease. 12522. Do you at any time cure your sheep by dipping? — Certainly; I have been dipping for the last 20 years 12523. And you believe in dipping?— Yes, I believe in good dipping with tobacco. 12524. Do you think you could keep the sheep clean if they were not reinfected? — It is spontaneous. It might reappear at any time. WV 2 541 Mr. Daeid Schalh Pienaar examined. 12525. CAafrwaw.] You are also a delegate ? — Yes. I have farmed here for 32 years, and at present have 600 sheep, but I used to farm with 3,000 or 4,000. 12526. Do you agree with any of the previous witnesses? — I agree with the first witness, Mr. J. C. de Klerk. I did my best to keep my sheep clean, and for two years I succeeded, during which time we had good seasons ; but the third year it became so bad that it was pitiable to see the animals. At that time I went to my neighbour, an English- man, Mr Devenish, and expressed my surprise that his s'leop wore so fat and yet scabby, and he said he could not help it ; that ho had already killed 300 lambs by dipping. In addition to my own experience, this I think is sufficient proof that you can keep your sheep clean in good seasons, but not when times are bad, and those are my reasons for opposing the scab act. 12527. Do you think that those sheep broke out spontaneously, or became infected? — I cannot say, but I think it came spontaneously, as they did not mix with any other heep, and ray neighbour's sheep were clean. All the neighbourhood got scab about the ame time, so I must believe that it is sjjontaneous. 12528. Mr. du Toit.'\ Did j'on dip your sheep then in the same way as when you managed to cure them ? — Yes, I alwaj's dipped in the same way. 12529. Did you cure them afterwards ? — Not altogether. Mr. Jacob Gerhardus de Bruin examined. 12530. Chairman.'] You are a delegate ? — Yes, I have farmed here for 15 years, and have 5,000 or 6,000 sheep. 12531. Do you agree with the previous witnesses ? — Yes, Mr. Alfred Ehden examined. 12532. Chairman.'] Are you a delegate? — Yes; Mr. Stanbridge and I have been appointed by certain members of the Dutch community, not known exactly as the Afrikan- der Bond, and by other Englishmen resident in this division. 12533. How long have you been farming ? — Thirteen years At present I have 7,000 sheep and goats. 12534. Have you come to give evidence in favour of the scab act } — I have. 12535 Are you in favour of the jiresent act, or of a general act? — A general act. For various reasons I consider that a general act would be to the advantage of Soutli Africa as a whole ; it would not only retrieve the name which we have lost in the European and foreign markets for om- wool, but it would also be conducive to our interests as farmers as a matter of pounds, shillings and pence, and we should be able to make some money out of the country which we hold at the present time. If we had a general scab act we could farm in a more economical manner, for the amount of money spent by the farmers in these parts who endeavour to keeji their sheep clean is something surprising, and it is the opinion of the gentlemen whom I represent, and also my own ojjinion, that should we have a general act this expenditure would to a very great extent be done away with. I further consider that, were a general act proclaimed in this district, it would prevent a great deal of the stock-thieving which is now so prevalent in most parts. Labourers would then be entitled to, but would not be enabled to keep stock. When the natives cross my place in going from farm to farm, I always make it a rule to count the stock they have with them, and nlthough they usually have a family of several children, themselves, and very likely one or two friends whom they have met on the way, I find when I count their sheep that the3' correspond exactly with the number on their passes, although they may have left their last master a month ago. These are my general reasons for a general scab act. 12536. AVe have it in evidence that, in many parts of this district, it is too dry to find water for dipping the sheep. Has that been the case during the last 1 3 years ? — I have been here about seven years, during which time I have travelled through the country con- siderably, and know both this and the neighbouring districts pretty weU, and I think the neighbouring districts are more particularly alluded to in this case. I cannot agree with the assertions or arguments adduced with regard to the scarcity of water, for where there has been water enough to drink the stock, there has been water enough for them to dip them. Accepting the statement, however, as a fact that it is too dry to dip upon those occasions, I maintain that we have rainy seasons as well at certain times of the year, and it behoves every farmer then to take advantage of the water when he has it, and to dip his sheep. Undoubtedly we have dry seasons, and sheep naturally fall off in condition, but after my experience here I am inclined to the belief that poverty is in the first instance, to a great extend, brotight on by scab, and to think that if the sheep have been kept clean at the outset they would not have fallen off so much in condition as to die when the drought came. 12537. Do you think there is less scab now than there was seven years ago ? — I do. 12538. Generally speaking, have the farmers dips on their farms?— A great number have, and during the time I have been here I have noticed that more have built dips and gone in for dipping ; but that, in the majority of cases, they dip thoroughly and effectually, 5i2 I am sorry to have to state I don't helieve to be the fact Of course there are exceptions ; there are numbers of farms which I have not visited during the time when they have been dipping, but with one or two exceptions I can honestly say I have never seen them dip thoroughly or properly, even according to the recipe explained to them on the packets or tins of the patent dips. 12539. Do you attribute this to want of knowledge, or what ? — To negligence, lam Borry to say. I have told farmers, when they are dipping, tliat they are not doing it properly, and I have offered to come and show them to the best of my ability how to do it. This they have declined upon the grounds that they don't consider it necessary to keep the sheep longer in the dip, or, as they fancy, to make them laU off more in condition by putting them through the dip than would be the case in the ordinary course of circum- stances. 12540. In these cases, do you think it would be advisable to have the sheep dipped under inspection ? — Most decidedly. 12541. Would that be better than fining them for not cleansing the sheep ? — Decidedly . I take this opportunity to say that the farmers who have dipped their flocks more or less according to the recipe, have brought their sheep into a condition and appearance which, according to my knowledge, infinitely surpasses anything else in the district. 12542. Supposing it is impossible to have a general act, have you any idea where it would be possible to draw a dividing line ? — I only want one line, right round the whole country. I object to a permissive act ; I think it is impracticable, and in the interests of this division I should be very sorry indeed to see a permissive act at aU. 12543. But if after all that is found to be impracticable, and a line should be drawn, do you think it advisable that a farmer who holds a clean bill should have the power to prevent scabby sheep crossing his farm ? — Yes, as far as that goes. 12544. Supposing this line was drawn, would you allow a field-cornetcy, farm, or district to come into the proclaimed area provided it adjoined '? — Certainly, because I think it would be making the best of a bad job. 12545. Have you considered the question of the appointment of inspectors? — Yes. 12546. Do you think the present system is the best ? — No, I don't think you could do much worse myself. I would suggest that inspectors should be nominated by the Govern- ment, but should not be appointed to the district in which they live ; that they should be under the guidance or superintendence of a head inspector, and that the head inspectors should endeavour to find out how the act worked, and whether scab was or was not existing in the respective areas, somewhat on the same principle as that adopted by the detective department in Kimberley, which has been a great success. For instance, if you were at the head of the force, you might send one man to Prieska, and another round this way, via Carnarvon ; when the first man got to Prieska, you might telegraph to him to go to Carnarvon and over the same ground as the other, so that you might see that no mistake had been made, and the other could go fiir versa, and so the two would be a check upon each other. I consider that is the only systematic and thorough way. Every farmer should do his best to eradicate scab, and report all outbreaks amongst his flocks, and the inspector's visits should be surprise visits. In their own interests the careful farmers would report tlie others, and that would simplify matters. 12547. You think that would be better than having an inspector for each field-cornetcy, with a general inspector over the division ."—In a division like this, where we have a large number of sheep, and the area is so large, I think we require to have a head inspector here and one or two men under his immediate guidance. Of course, if necessary, he could caU in inspectors from other parts of the country, so that no one would ever know which man was coming. The matter must be done thoroughly if it is to be done at aU. 12548. Supposing we have a general act, do you think it would be advisable to have a suspensory clause, so that people might be allowed to move stock in severe droughts, even although scabby, when it was impracticable to do anything else ? — No, I don't, as far as this district is concerned, because we shall always have a suspension. We should have nothing else ; it would be giving a loophole. 12549. Do you mean that you always have drought ? — No, I mean it is not necessary to have a clause of that kind. 12550. You would compel a man to dip and cleanse his sheep before he moved them ? — Yes. It is not that I object to people trekking about if their sheep are clean. It would not take long to clean tlie sheep, and then they would be able to move about. 12551. Do you cleanse your sheep in two dippings, in a month or less .' — Yes, I dip the second time 12 days after the first, and I give two minutes in the dip. I don't mean to say that I don't think these sheep will be infected again : that is somebody else's fault not mine, after the sheep have been dipped, and it is quite clear in my opinion that if every man would dip systematically, fi'om one farm to another, we should eradicate scab in a very short period. 12552. Then you think in any act there should be a clause dealing with the question of simultaneous dipping ? — I think it would be most advisable, under supervision ; otherwise it would be useless. 12553. Then do you agree that Government should supply dip at cost price ? — I think it woidd be very beneficent on the part of the Government to offer such assistance. 12554. Afr. Francit.} Are you of opinion that the reason why there is such an opposi- 513 tion to the scab act in this district is because many of the farmers don't really understand the nature of scab, and how easy it is to eradicate it 'i — I am sorry to say I think that is the case. 12555. And do you believe that if these people, many of whom are now so opposed to a scab act, really understood the nature of scab, they would be in favour of an act ? — Here- after they would bless the day when the act was passed. 12556. Considering the amount which the Colony and individual farmers are losing from the fact that the flocks are infected with scab, don't you think the Government would be warranted in spending a large amount of mono}' for the purpose of eradicating it ? — Most decidedly. 12557. Mr. Botha.'] Do you think that scab can be caused by steekgras ? — Yes, most decidedly ; but I don't consider the scab svhich is caused by steekgras is the same as that commonly known as scab. It is a skiu disease. 12558. Do you remember having sold about 20 rams to Mr. Claassens some yeare ago, which he pointed out to you were scabby, upon which you said ho was mistaken, and that what he saw was caused by steekgras ? — I have sold so many rams that I cannot remember whether he was the person or not. On one or two occasions when purchasers have remarked that ehoep 1 was selling them were infected with scab, I have taken the trouble, in the presence of my assistant, to point out the steekgras, and in every singlfe instance I have drawn out the steekgras and proved it to any man who made the assertion. The marks remained, and people who don't understand it might naturally tnkf it to be the ordinary scab, but it was not scab. 12559. Dr. Swarif.'] If a general scab act were proclaimed over the country, what provision would you maKe for allowing small stock to be moved to the great centres of con.sumption for the first year or two ? — Under those circumstances, I consider we should have to put up with a certain amount of inconvenience and difficulty ; it is not going to be all smooth .sailing, but the advantages we shall ultimately derive from the act will more than compensate us. I take it that immediately the act was put in force, wo .should receive notice of it, inspectors would be appointed, and if the inspector said our sheep were clean we could send them away. No man who had small stock would leave a lot of wool on them ; he would shear and dip them, and see that they were clean, and that they can be made clean is an acknowledged fact, so I cannot see that it would cause us very much difficulty. It might inconvenience one or two people, but the minority must give way to the majority for the interests of the whole country. I would have the act brought in force once for all, but I would give the farmers every chance to provide against it by giving them a notice of six months, or a year, or two \'enrs. 1 20CO. Would you object to slaughter stock being moved if they were thoroughly dipped once in a recognised solution of lime and sulphur, under inspection, and arrived at their destination within 14 days? — I should certainly be quite agreeable to allow that, but I would not allow any scabby sheep to be removed. If they had been dipped under the supervision of a Government inspector, I would allow them to pass over my veldt. 12501. Would you apply that provision to trekking sheep also? — Yes, provided they wore not coming back again. 12502. In times of drought, if sheep were infected with scab, would it be better for the stock if they were dipped as suggested by you, or if they wore allowed to trek with the scab unattended to in any way .' — It would most decidedly be better to dip them. At one time, in a drought, some shoeii on my farm were found to be hard from scab, and as poor as church mice. I gave instructions for them to be dijjped according to the regulations of the farm, each sheej) being kept in two minutes by the watch. They were properly dipped, and I was there myself and assisted to hold them up, they were so poor, and although one or two of my neighbours had trekked at that time, those sheep managed to look afier them- selves. They had time to graze during the day instead of being irritated by the scab. 12563. From your knowledge of this district, you are of opinion that in times of drought if a farmer wished to move his sheep and was compelled to dip them first, it would lie to his own pecuniary benefit? — Decidedly. 12564. Mr. du Toil.] How would a general act prevent natives trekking ? — They would not put up with the trouble of keeping stock, and the natural consequence would be that they would remain with you longer. Now they are so independent that if a herd says to you in these parts lliut he wants to go away at the end of the month he knows ho has the wherewithal to do it, but if he had not got the stock he would not bo so anxious to leave you, and we should not have to put up with the insubordination we have to at present. 12565. But as a rule the farmers cleanse the stock of their herds just as well as their own, for their own safety ? — Some do, but not all. I consider thnt a great number of the farmers don't cleanse the stock at all. 12566. Then how do they jjrotect themselves against infection ? — They don't. We have no act here. If there were an act a man would say, he knows that upon this farm his sheep will be properly dipped and cared for, and therefore he would like to remain there ; and when another farmer does not do it properly he will say that he will have the inspector down upon him. 12567. Each farmer will be bound to do it, and the natives will soon know it? — As I say, when they are satisfied with one man, they don't care about trying anywhere else. If a servant has been well treated he is not likely to go elsewhere, especially if you place impediments in his way. 544 12568. Are you awaro of that hard kind of scab which has been alluded to this morning, wliicli could not bo cured witliout internal me Heine? — In my ojiinion it is ridiculous. I can explaiu the nature of that so-called scab. It is the old scab wljich naturally lias iidherod to the .skin ; when the sheep have had the disease in an aggravated form, you cannot get rid of it at once, you cannot tear it off the body, it must fall off by degrees, but what prevents it from loosening itself at the time is its adhesion to the wool, and this of course grows out with it. Every farmer who has bouglit scabby sheep has seen it. 12569. Have you had scabby sheep in that condition? — Often; I have bought thousands at different times. 12570. Did you cure them in cold dip or warm .? — I have used both, and have found both effective. When they have been bo badly affected, what I have usually found it necessary to do was just to dip to soften the scab ; it then grows out with the wool, and when it is just long enough to get the shears under, I take it off and let the wool grow afresh. 12571. In how many dippings, as a rule, did you cure them ? — Two, but when the scab is hard, I naturally take a little more trouble. 12572. What kind of trouble? — I would have the sheep caught, and pour the dip over them from a tub or a bucket, and rubbed in ; this loosens the hard scab gradually, and then I put thejn through the dip in the ordinary course, and if I do that once it is all that is necessary. 12573. Have you found that good veldt has anything to do with curing scab? — No, I cannot say that I have found it has assisted me in any way, but it stands to reason that when a sheep is in good condition it is not so likely to be affected with scab as when suffer- ing from poverty. When a sheep is in good condition, the wool has more yoke than when it is poor, and though the yoke is not in itself a cure, it is a prove ative in this way that it allows the insect to remain dormant for the time being. 12574. Do you know of that gentleman, Mr. Devenish, being unable to cure the oOO lambs ? — I understand that he was farming here about 30 years ago. I could not say. 12575. Have you over had young sheep in very poor condition in consequence of a drought, and badly infected with scab, and been able to cure them by dipping? — I have never had a sheep on my property yet, or in my charge, that I have not been able to cure, however badly it was affected with scab. 12576. Have they sometimes been very poor ? — Yes, very poor and bad, so much so that when I first to«k over the property, the Melton Wolde estate, it was the laughing- stock of the community, the sheep were all infected with scab. When I came here mj' neighbours laughed at me, and in fact went so far as to say that they would give me a year or two before becoming bankrupt ; but I took the matter in hand, cleansed my sheep, and I am not bankrupt to-day. The whole estate was rotten with scab. 12577. Have you ever seen a whole flock infected with scab ? — To a very great extent, but not all ; but those which were not infected were in a very much better condition than those which were. 12578. Then as a rule you would not state that sheep cannot get into a poor condition unless they are scabby ? — I would not go so far as to say that, but I will say that sheep which are scabby will die far sooner than those which are not. 12579. Nevertheless you admit that sheep may get into a poor condition ? — Decidedly, any animal can. 12580. When they are poor, and the season is very cold, is it advisable to dip them? — I have never refrained from dipping, and I have never seen the necessity to refrain from it, but I would not select a day when there was a snow storm coming on. No man with com- mon sense would do that. 12581. Have your sheep ever been troubled with wire- worm? — Not that I know of. 12582. Have you never seen it in the district ? — People have told me that their sheep are so infected, but I am really not in a position to judge. I won't say it is not in the district. 12583. In those places where, as you have heard, whole fiocks are very poor in con- dition on account of wire-worm, don't you think it would be hard if people were compelled under the act to dip their sick flocks, whereas they would otherwise have hand di-essed them until they got better ? — I don't at all. I consider it a very meagre excuse to offer. 12584. As regards the skin irritation caused by steekgras, which might be mistaken for scab by inexperienced inspectors, do you think it advisable that all inspectors should be provided with a magnifying glass, both to satisfy themselves and couvince the farmers, before putting stock in quarantine .-' — I don't think it is necessary ; if neither the inspector nor the farmer is certain about the sheep, let the inspector appeal at once to headquarters, the chief inspector of the division, and should the inspector be in the right, the farmer should pay the exj^enses of tliis further inspection, but if tlie farmer be in the right, then the expenses and all costs must be met by the Government. 12585. How will they prove it without a magnifying glass, since it looks so much like scab ? — I did not say it looked like scab ; I said people might mistake it tor scab. 12586. Is not the safest way of proving it by a magnifj-ing glass ? — Certainly, if you likb to do so. It would be very advisable that the inspectors should be furnished with one, but I thiuk that there should be an appeal. 54.5 12587. When farmers want a permit to trek, would it not bo difficult to get a travelling: inspector, if thej' are always on the move 'i — They would not be always ou the move, and the inspector of the division would be at heaaquarters, and he would send a travelling inspector. There would be one man stationed here, but he should not be always in the same place, and 1)8 friends with ever^'body. They would be put there to do their dut}-. 12588. If that is tlie only one iu the district, where could he get hold of inspectors if two or three applications came at the same time ? — If the Government find that one is not sufficient they must appoint three, and if three is not sufficient they must appoint five, according to the requirements of the division. 12589. Do you think a simultaneous dipping could be carried out in a short time? Would the farmers all over the Colony get shearers at the same time ?— No ; I think the Government might assist us there, but these matters would have to be gone into hereafter in detail. I don't supj)Ose it will be forced upon us at once. I consider simultaneous dipping to be quite practicable, and I think we should get shearers for the different divisions when we wanted them. At any rate, we could all shear within three months. 12590. Is it advisable to dip sheep with three months' wool in lime and sulphur ?— I don't think it is, but there are ot!xor dips equally good. 12591. But if a man should stick to it? — There are plenty to choose from, quite as efiective. 12592. Can you call a dipping simultaneous which occupies three months? — Yes, it is within the meaning of the term. 12593. Might not sheep be reinfected after a fortnight ? — Yes, but it is no use attempt- ing impossibilities ; you cannot dip all the sheep in the district iu one day, and I will go as far as to say that I consider three months is within the meaning of the term, though we may do it in less time. A man might be reinfected after the first dipping, but if we arc going to have a certain notice given us before the act is introduced, we can be all quite clean before the law is enforced at all. 12594. Br. Smartt.l Would you allow every holder of a clean bill to move his sheep anywhere on his own permit ? — Not on his own permit, unless you add a heavy penalty for an abuse of the privilege. 12595. To facilitate matters in cases where men hold flocks under quarantine, but which have been thoroughly cleaned, would you obj ect to shearers going from there else- where to farmers who themselves hold clean bills ? — No, not if there were a heavy penalty. 12596. Mr. Francis.^ If a general scab act is in force, would it be a groat advantage if its operations should commence in the simimer time ? — I can only give evidence in regard to this division, and I only speak for this division. 12597. When sheep are killed by dipping, do you think it generally arises from the fact that the dip has been used too strong, or from some other avoidable cause ? — You may have one or two sick sheep, which may die ; otherwise, if you lose numbers of sheep, it is negligence and nothing else. J/r. Frederick Stanbridge examined. 12598. Chairman. \ You have been appointed a delegate with Mr. Ebden ? — Yes. Lave farmed here for 50 years, and have 5,000 sheep. 12599. Do you agree with the evidence given by Mr. Ebden? — Entirely. Mr. Clifford Jaeknon examined. 12600. Chairman.^ Are you a delegate ? — No, I have farmed here for ten years, and have about 5,000 sheep. 12601. Do you agree with Mr. Ebden? — Yes. T/ie Rev. Gusiav Adolf Mader examined. 12602. Chairman.'] I suppose you are not a sheep farmer? — No, but I take a grea interest in sheep farming. I have lived here for nearly nine j'fears. I should Hke to men- tion a few things which have not been stated. It appears to mo that to-day both parties who have given evidence, for and against the scab act, have been rather carried awaj' by enthusiasm. I admire Mr. Ebden's evidence and his enthusiasm, and I admire the evidence and enthusiasm of the farmers on the other side, but I think on both sides there has been a little exaggeration. With regard to the farmers' evidence I should say that it did not appear from what was said that the bijwoners always had theu- sheep dipped, and I think they ought to te compelled to do so in some wa}' or other. I know every homestead in the division : during the last nine years there is not one where I have not been at least six times, and I think the fact that the bijwoners' sheep are not always dipped as they should be is a great drawback. 12603. Won't the farmers assi.'^t them ? — The fault lies on both sides. A bijwonor with about 400 sheep looks to his master, who is not always quite willing to dip for him. 546 12604. Surely the bijwoner can buy his own dip, and dip in the tank belonging to the farmer on whose place he lives ? — He should be compelled, but it is not always done. I can mention scores of men whose sheep are in perfect condition, but when I see the bij- woners' flocks I generally find they are not as free of scab as those of the masters. The difficulty is how it is to be done, and I think the master ought to have the right to make the bijwoner dip in some way or other. He should be responsible for all the sheep on his property. 12605. Then you are in favour of a scab act '? — Theoretically I am, but I must admit that at present it is impracticable here. 12606. Supposing a fanner who hasbijwoners on his farm does not keep his own sheep clean, would you still give him the power to compel the bijwoners to do what he does not do himself? — There are very few farmers in this district who don't keep their sheep dean, and if they don't they must be compelled to do so by their neighbours. 12607. Then j'ou must have some act 'i — Yes, you must have an act, but I should like a more fatherly act. I cannot agree with Mr. Ebden in regard to inspectors. 12608. Br. Smartt.^ If a farmer cannot clean his own flocks, and those of the bijwoners on his property, do you consider that the Government should steji in and put a man who thoroughly understands it in charge of the sheep, and dip them, and prove that they can be cured ? — I cannot say I should be in favour of that. If you know the Boer character, especially in the western pro- vince, the more j-oa try and compel them the less you get out of them. I am sorry to say that has been my own experience for the last 22 years. But if a man did not dip, I would put him under the pledge. A man told me this morning that he did not dip, and never would dip, and I say his neighbours should put him under the pledge, that is, boycott him. All farmers here don't dip. There are perhaps half-a-dozen who don't ; but at the same time, though I have not seen Mr. Ebden's sheep lately, I doubt whether there is one single flock of sheep free of scab for three months running, Mr. Ebden's included. 12609. If the farmers were to set to work together, and make a combined and intelli- gent effort to stamp scab out of the Colony, do you consider that it could be done ?— It could not be stamped out altogether, but it could bo reduced to a minimum, because although we find that some animals have become extinct, so far as we know none have become extinct since man has had rule, and though we may do our best there will always be a male and a female of these acari. I don't believe that scab is quite stamped out of Australia, but it has been reduced to the smallest minimum ; and the same can be done here. One of our difficulties is the water question. Mr. Ebden stated that where there is enough water to drink there is enough to dip, and I don't deny that in Mo, but in some cases it is utterly impossible, and in others it is the neglect of the fanners. With the boring apparatus which the Government has introduced here we shall, in two or three 3-ears, have quite enough water for Victoria West, and in ten years we shall have water all over the Kaien Bidte. There is a very good dip here besides tobacco, which coidd be used when we cannot get hold of the others, namely the Truitje-roer-mij-niet. 12610. If the farmers of Victoria West did in ordinary seasons what is expected of every careful farmer in regard to stamping out scab from his flocks, do you think that it would be possible for the sheep to be in the scabby condition thej' get into now in times of drought } — They would be a little better, but I can honestly say th^t almost everything is done in this distriot. I am proud to say this is not one of the scabbiest districts ; there is less scab here than in Murraysburg, and perhaps Queen's Town, just because everything here is done voluntarily. But Government must send the inspectors and educate the people. Sis years ago I preached a sermon on the scab, and told them to dip, aad though some of them would not believe, as soon as Mr. Hutcheou showed them the insect in the microscope, they set to work and eradicated it. 12611. Do you consider that such a man should be protected from the carelessness of the neighbours on the border of his fann ? — Certainly. 12612. Do you consider that every man iu this countr}- is entitled to all the protection which the Government can give him for his own honest industry and intelligence ? — Cer- tainly, within reason. Brit's TotcH, Saturday, llth March, 1893. PRESENT : Mr. Frost (Chainnan). Mr. DU ToiT. I Mr. Fkaxcis. Dr. Smartt. I Mr. Arie Blmnerus examined. 12613. Chairman.^ You were appointed, at a public meeting, a delegate to represent the farmers here ? — Yes, by the branch of the .Ainkander Bond in ward No. 5. I have farmed in this district for about sixteen years, and I have 3,000 to 4,000 sheep. [G. 1— '94.] www 547 12614. Are you appointed to give ovidouce in favour of or against a scab act ? — The majority of the branch to which I belong decided to oppose the act. 12615. Will you give us your reasons, or the reasons of the majority in your ward, for opposing it ? — There wore a variety of objections, but as far as I can remember tliem the principle were on account of the scarcity of labour and water, and the prolonged droughts. Another objection is because we think it is impossible to eradicate scab. 12616. Do the farmers in your neighbourhood keep their sheep fairly clean of scab '^ — Not always. 1261". Have they all dipping tanks, and do they dip their sheep regularly? — The great majority have tanks, and those who have not avail themselves of the tanks belonging to others. 12618. When they dip their eheep, do you find that, as a rule, they free the sheep of scab ? — That I cannot say, but personally I have known that it does help to cure scab. I have only once found that it did not help material 1}'. 12619. Do you generally find it the case with the farmers that they do dip their sheep, and in that way clean them, or do they complain that they are not able to dean themV — I have heard one or two cases in which people have complained that after dipping the sheep scab has reappeared after five or six months. 12620. Do you think that this reappearance of scab was caused by contagion '? — It may possibly bo that it came from contagion, or that the sheep were not properly dipped, and were consociuently not cleansed. 12621. Do you think scab would break out amongst sheep after six months from scab ■which remained in the sheep, or that it must have been picked up in some other way ? — I have never examined into this (question, but my opinion is that it was through contagion. 12622. Ai'e there many eheep travelling through your part of the country at different times ? — There are numbers of sheep moving over my farm. 12623. Are they generally free of scab when they are moving.^ — They are generally scabby. Most of them are slaughter stock and sheep belonging to traders, which have been bartered for goods. 12624. Do you think it is possible that you will ever be able to keep your sheep clean as long as these scabby .sheep are allowed to trek over your farm .'' — I doubt it myself. 12625. Wliat would you advise or recommoud the Government to do in order to jirotect you ? — That is a difficult (question to answer, but I am of opinion that anyone moving sheep should first have them properly dipped. 12626. And if they were properly dipped, you think they might be allowed to move them anywhere without danger of infection ? — That I cannot say for certain, but my opinion is that it would be a great danger. 12627. Supposing your sheep are perfectly free of scab, and quite clean, do you think you should h(> protected to the extent that j-ou should be allowed, iipon giving notice, to prevent any scabby sheep from crossing j'our farm .'' — I think it would be necessary to have such an arrangement to protect me. 12628. You have no knowledge of the working of the scab act ? — Not personally, liut I have heard something about it. 12629. So that I suppose you would not like to say anything about it, either for or against ? — I am opposed to the act, as is also the branch of the Bond which I represent, because of certain difficulties in it. 12630. Will you tell us what those difficulties are.' — I cannot give any particular reason, but perhaps some other witnesses will be able to do so. 12631. In case any alteration takes place, don't |you think it would bo advisable that there should be a general simultaneous dipping in connection with the scab act ? — If there is a scab act passed, I think that would lie a very good clause to have in it. 12632. Even if the farmers would join together and dip si uultaueously, don't you think it woidd tend ^ery materially to stamp out scab, whether there is a scab act or not ? — Yes, I think it would tend in that direction. 12633. Have the farmers in this neighbourliood over taken into consideration the diffi- culty you would have in passing slaughter stock into the proclaimed area if a scab act were put in force and a line drawn including in the proclaimed area the whole of the railway sj'stems? — I have never thought of it. Our markets have alwaj's been free. 12634. You say that the iudividual farmer .should be protected from scabby sheep crossing his farm. Would you not extend that protection to all the districts which may be in the area, b}' preventiag any scabb}' sheep moving from an improclaimed into a proclaimed area? — I think the best plan wimld be to have the sheep properly dipped before coming into the proclaimed area. 1263.'>. Dipped under inspection ? — I don't think you could depend on the dipping unless it was done under inspection. 126.'i6. Taking all these tilings into consideration, don't you think it would be much better for you, who live not very far from the border, to come under the scab act the same as the other districts ? — My great difficulty with regard to having an act put in force in this district is, as I said before, the continued droughts to which we are subject, and the scarcity of labour. Ilitliurto w.^ have been masters in our own kraals, so we should not like the inspector to come and interfere with us. 12637. We are quite aware of the difficulties this district has to contend with in droughts, but suppo.^ing there were an act of some kind to be enforced, and there were a 548 suspensory clause suspending the act in case^ of veiy severe droughts, so that people could move their stock, would not that meet j'our casfi ? — I think it would remove a very great ditRculty, hut I don't see how it could be carried out owing to the fact that rain might fall on one or tw o farms, and others might remain dr}'. 12638. Are there any farms in this district, with nhich j'ou are fairly well acquainted, that are often so sliort of water that they have not enough to dip their sheep at all ? — That is a very difficult Cjuestion for me to answer, because the part of the district in which I reside is supplied with water from sisrings, and other parts are supplied with well water. 12639. Do you think they have enough water to dip their sheep in those places where they are able to keep them even in drj' times ? — I don't think the great difficulty would be from the want of water to dip. 12640. Then you think that even if that clause is included in the act, fanners shoidd be compelled to dip their sheep, if scabby, before they begin to trek ? — That is where the diffieidty comes in, for a man naturally stays on his farm as long as he possibly can, until the sheep are in such a poor condition that he can hardly dip them before moving. ] 2641. In cases of that kind, do j-ou think a man having a very scabby flock should b» allowed to move his sheep wherever he likes ? — If scabby sheep cross my farm I should have to be contented. 12642. Do you think it woidd be right to allow Irim to move scabby sheep without dipping them first ? — Cases might arise where it would bo almost impossible for a man to dip sheep before moving them, and in such cases if lie could prove that such was the case, he should be allowed to move them without dipping ; but they ought to be dipped if possible. 12643. Mr. Francis.'] If a careful farmer who kept his sheep clean had a careless neighbour who was continually reinfecting his flock?, don't you think that careless man ought to bo made to dip his sheep and keep them clean ? — I think it should be, but I have also thought whether it woiJd not be possible for the farmers themselves to come to some arrangement in regard to this. 12644. Do yoii think it would be an advantage to the fanners if Government were to supxdy dips at cost price, carriage free on the railway lines ? — It woidd undoubtedly help to eradicate scab. 12645. You think it would be a great advantage to the poorer class of farmers if dips were so supplied .'' — Yes, for all farmers, and so much the more for the poor. 12646. Are you of opinion that if scab should be eradicated it woidd be worth all the trouble and ex2)ense the farmers would be put to '? — It would pay doubly. 12647. As a rule, do the fanners allow bijwoners and ottiers staying on their farms to dip their sheep, and see that it is done ? — I don't think any farmer would object, because it is to his own interests to have the sheep on his farm kept clean. 12648., Dr. Smartt.] Is not a good deal of the objection to the present scab act owing to the fact that farmers think inspectors might be appointed who have no knowledge of sheep ? — I think so ; that is one of the great objections. 1264y. If the farmers in every field-cornetcy had the right to elect their own inspectors, farmers Ln the ward, would it not do away with this objection ? — I think it would be better for the farmers to appoint their own inspectors. 12650. Do you think aU the farmers in the Colony thoroughly understand the process of dipping? — I don't think the sheep are properly dipped in all cases. 12651. Under such circumstances, would it not be in the interest of the farmers them- selves if the Government appointed fanners as superintendents of dipping, who would go to the farms and instruct these people how to dip their sheep properly ?— I don't tliink under all circumstances it woidd be the best arrangement. I think it might be done better through the Afrikander Bond, and Bond meetings, and debating societies, who could discuss the matter and suggest how it could be managed. 1 2652. But 30U are convinced, as a carefid and practical farmer, that it is necessary there should be legislation of some sort which w/»(?M.] I understand you represent the opinions of a public meeting? — Yes, on the 9th March we had a public meetiLg in ward No. 2, at which I was elected. I have been farming in this district for 16 years, and have 3,000 to 5,000 sheeji. 12727. Do you wish to give evidence on behalf af a scab act, or against it ? — I want first to make a report of what the public meeting instructed me to say. All present were opposed to any scab act, but the opinion was unanimously expressed that any person having clean sheep shoidd be protected from scabby sheep, and those having the scabby sheep should be fined. 12728. Will you give evidence on your own account ? — Yes. 12729. Are you yourself personally opposed to scab legislation? — I am personally opposed to the present act. 12730. On what particular points do you object to the present act, and what amend- ments would you suggest to meet your views .'' — I don't feci myself qualified to give an o^^iuion as to the amendment of the act, but I consider that at present it is unworkable. 12731. Have you any personal experience of the working of the act ? — No. 12732. Then you base your opinions upon hearsay ? — And also upon what I read. A single instance has come under my knowledge, but it is hardly fair to state it in ojiposition to the act. I heard of an instance where a farmer sent two rams to the Port Elizabeth show ; they were clean of scab, but the inspector stopped them and sent them to the pound because he had no knowledge of scab. 12733. How do you know that .^ — It was proved that there was nothing the matter with the rams. 12734. Are you aware that before sheep can come from an unproclaimed area, and enter an area proclaimed under the scab act, certain permits must be given ? — Yes. 12735. Was aU this in order':' — That I cannot say. 12736. Then you are not aware whether these .sheep were stopped at the port of entry for having scab, or for not having the proper permits ? — They were stopped because they had scab. 12737. Do you make this complaint, not on behalf of the gentleman who sent the rams, but because you consider that the scab inspector at that particular place was not thoroughly acquainted with scab ? — According to what took place, it could not be otherwise. 12738. But that is not a complaint of the working of the scab act; it is more a com- plaint with regard to the appointment of an inspector } — Not only that, but I complain of the act, because an inspector might come and when there was eight months' wool on my sheep order me to dip them within three months, and it would cause me loss to be obliged to dip my sheep with such long wool on them. • 12739. Ai'e you not aware that when the three mouths has expired you may receive a longer time under the act if you have used every effort to cleanse the sheep, even without dipping them ? — Yes, but it is left to the discretion of the iu.spector. 127-10. Is that the only objection you have to the act .' — I think an act should not be put in force hastilj', and that this district is not ripe for legislation. 12741. Do you think you will be able to prevent the spread of scab unless you have some measure to deal with those people who will not dip their sheep and attend to them proporlj ? — I think people do their best now to eradicate scab, and I don't consider it would bo right to put a law hastily upon them. 12742. Do all the farmers that you know in this tlistrict, and wherever you are acquainted, attend to their sheep in the same \yay that you attend to yours ? — They may attend bettor for all I know, but up to 1880 there was no dip in the northern part of the Ixichmond district, to my knowledge, and during the last 13 j-oars dips have been constructed on almost every farm. That proves wo are doiug our best to try and eradicate scab. 12743. Then I take it that all the farmers usually dip their sheep regularly? — As a rule. 12744. As far as your knowledge goes, do they dip them properly; do they mix the dip properly, keep the sheep in the ie(xuircd tbuo, and conduct the dipping according to instructions ? — I decline to answer that question. 12745. Have you ever been at a farm house when the dip has been mixed, and the sheep dipped, besides your own farm ? — Yes. 12746. In all such cases, were the dips mixed properly and the sheep dipped properly? — In one case where I was present, judging from the colour of the dip, I should think it was made too strong. 12747. Then you did not see the dip made, and have no idea what number of packets or tins were used ? — No. 12748. From your knowledge of that particular farmer, do you think he knew the measurement of his tank, tho exact size, and the (puiatity of water to put into it ? — No, that he did not know. Eo did not know the size of tho tank. 668 12749. Did you see any of those shoep dipped ? — Yes. 12760. Were they kept in the full two minutes, according to the directions ? — No, they were not, for no man does it, neither do 1. 12751. Then it is just possible that some sheep maybe kept in for two minutes, and some half a minute ? — It may be. 12752. Then don't you think that is the reason why some farmers dip their sheep and afterwards find they are not cured ? — That depends upon the lengtli of the wool. If the wool is short they should be kept in the dip longer than when the wool is long. 12753. Have you ever seen any slieep put through the dip, and ujion examining them found that the dip was not penetrated to the skin ? — I have in a few instances. 1275-1. If dipping is earned out in that way, do you think you are ever going to stamp out scab ? — No, certainly not. 12755. Then do you think it advisable that for some time the sheep should be dipped under inspection for a year or two, in the case of those farmers who say they have dipped properly and cannot cleanse the sheep ? — When a man says that he cannot clean his sheep by dipping them, I think it would be advisable to appoint someone to supervise the dipping. 12756. In your opinion, some of the scab inspectors are not qualified? — Yes. 12757. If some alteration were made in the appointment of these inspectors, and the farmers in each field-cometcy were to nominate their own inspector from amongst them- selves, a man whose sheep were clean, do you think it would work better them the present system ? — Partly. 12758. Would it be a great improvement on the present system '?— Yes. 12759. Would it be advisable to protect a farmer like yourself, who keeps his sheep tlioroughly clean, by allowing him to prevent any scabby sheep from passing over his farm, outside the area ? — Yes. 12760. How could you do that without some legislation ? — There comes the difficulty; there is a law already which is unworkable, and the difiiculty is to make one which wUl prove effective. 12761. But you are convinced in your own mind that unless there is some legislation on the subject you will never be able to carry on farming profitably, and stamp out the scab .'' — Such a law would be advisable if it could be made to suit every farmer, without being unduly oppressive. 12762. Dr. Smartt.^ Do you think it wotild be possible to cope with the spread of the scab disease without a united effort carried on simultaneously by aU the farmers in the country ? — We are not prepared for it. There is legislation now : the pound act provides for it. 12763. Would it be in the interest of the farmers to have the Colony divided into areas, according to the climate, and to have comjjulsory simultaneous dipping carried out in those areas at the most suitable seasons for a couple of years ? — I cannot answer that, because I have no experience of it. 12764. What do you think ? — I can hardly pass an opinion. 12765. From your knowledge of the farmers in this district do you think they would make use of the pound act to which you have just referred as a means to scope with the spread of scab ? — If I had clean sheep, and scabby sheep came amongst mine, I should make use of the act, but I cannot say whether others would. Some would, and some would not. 12766. Have any cases ever come under your notice where flocks of slieep have been infected by travelling scabby flocks passing over the farm ? — No, I don't think that my sheep have become infected in that way. 12767. If such is the case, why do you suggest that it would be advisable, if it is possible, to stop those sheep travelling over the property of a man with clean sheep? — I don't say but what it is contageous, but I will say that the chief reason vhy sheep become reinfected is owing to the kraals and the veldt, though travelhng sheop do bring scab. 12768. Would you apply the protection against scabby flocks, to which you have referred, to scabby flocks on the main roads ? — No, because a man might have to move sheep, and it would be impossible for him to dip them, so that if they became infected on the road they would be stopped. I not only require the pound act, but a more stringent law to prevent th* moving of infected sheep. 12769. Would you explain what you mean by a more stringent law to prevent the moving of infected sheep .' — I cannot enter into details as to what it should be, but the man who infected clean sheep with his scabby sheep should be made to fully compensate the owner of the clean sheep for any loss he may have sustained in consequence. 12770. Would it be advisable to have an act compelling all the farmers in the Colony to dip twice within 14 days at a reasonable time after shearing, other circumstances being favourable ? — If there are people who don't dip their sheep, then it would be advisable to make them do so. 12771. If j^our sheep had been dipped, and were perfectly free of scab, would you personally like to see scabby sheep trek over your property, or would you stop them if the law allowed you to do so .'' — Even then I should allow them to pass. 12772. Mr. dii Toit.'] Did you mean that a stringent clause^hould be inserted in the pound law, or that there should be a separate scab act ? — That I would leave in the hands of Parliament. 12773. Do you believe that scab is caused solely by an insect ? — Yes, certainly. 514 12774. And are you also aware that you can cure scab at any time or season by proper dipping ? — Yes, I can clean them. 1277.5. Can you sometimes clean sheep with one dipping ? — Yes, I have cleaned my thoroughbred sheep with one dipping. 12776. But as a rule, j'ou think it requires two dippings within a fortnight? — Yes. 12777. You believe that scab is contagious? — Yes. 12778. Have you any idea how long the acants can live on bare ground and in kraals? —No. 12779. Are you aware of more than one kind of scab .' — I know of two sorts. I cannot say if there are two kinds of insects, but the scab has a different appearance. One kind shows under the skin, and that is difficult to cure ; the other is on the outside of the skin, but both kinds can be cured by dipping. 12780. Are you not aware of a kind of skin disease, caused by fever or some other internal disease ? — No. 12781. Were your sheep troubled with wire-worm some time ago ? — Yes. 12782. Would you have dipped them when they were in such a state? — Certainly, it they had scab. 12783. Don't you think it dangerous, and that you might lose more by dipping than you «ould save by curing the scab ? — ^No, my opinion is that the dipping would have no effect on the wire-worm, but the poor sheep would be cleansed from the scab. 12784. Then j'our sheep were not so bad that they would have been too weak to swim through the dip ?— No. 12783. Have you not seen other flocks which are too weak to dip ? — Yes, I have seen some sheei) in the flock. 12786. If you were compelled to dip these flocks, do you think it would be a hardship ? — Yes, I shoidd dress them. 12787. Sjjeaking from j'our own experience, do you think it would be unadvisable for people in these parts to be compelled to dip their sheep in winter ? — That depends altogether upon the condition of the sheep. 12788. Are you aware that flocks are sometimes too poor in condition to be dipped safely in winter ? — It might cause loss. 12789. Would you be in favoiu- of Government supplying farmers with dip at first cost price, free of railwa}' carriage ? — Oh, yes. 12790. Do you think that would greatly tend to eradicate scab ?— Yes. 12791. Would you be in favour of the amendment of the pound law so that farmers should be compelled to dip stock at the owner's expense before sending them to the pound? — Yes, I think it would be a good thing. 12792. Would you be more in favour of a partial stringent act, or a lenient general one ? — I should be in favour of a general act which would be carried out by all the farmers. 12793. Mr. Francis.'] Do you think that with a proper act, and with proper efforts made by the farmers, we could eradicate scab from the country .' — I cannot say so for certain, but I think it would do a great deal towards the eradication of scab. 12794. Dr. Smartt.~\ If 3-ou consider tliat proper dipping would do a great deal to eradicate scab, would it not then be in the interests of farmers to have a compulsory dipping act all over the country ? — Yes, it would be good, but due notice should first be given to warn all farmers that such an act would be put in force. Mr. Oloff Jacohis Marcus examined. 1279.5. C'luiirmmi.'] Are you a delegate ? — Yes, I am delegated by the branch of the Africander Bond in ward No. 6. I have farmed for 22 years in this district, and have 10,000 sheep. 12796. Have you come forward to give evidence in favour of a scab act or against it.' — Against it. I am opposed to any law. 12797. Will j'ou give us 3'our reasons? — As an experienced farmer I have, on more than one occasion, "found that my sheep liave got scab, but have not got it by infection. I had sheep in a camp for nine months, and all the sheep in the neighbourliood were free from scab. I put those sheep in a stable for three months, where there had been no sheep before, and there they got scab. On several occasions they have become infected in that way during my experience of 22 j'ears. I have also dipped my sheep, and cleaned them, and put them in the same kraal, where they have remained clean for 18 months, and I have also had my sheep free of scab for three years. I have found that one flock of sheep became infected with scab without being mixed with any scabby sheep. 12798. Then do j'ou consider scab to be spontaneous ? — Yes, that is my experience. 12799. Then you don't think that certain colonies in Australia have stamped out scab, and been free for j'ears ? — I only give evidence according to my own experience. 12800 Are j^ou acquainted with the district of Komgha ? — No, but although you can cure scab, you cannot keep sheep alwa}-s clean. 12801. Do you think it is advisable to dip sheep when they get scabby ? — Yes. 12802. You believe that scab is an insect? — Yes, but I will not say that the scab comes from the insect alone, and I don't think it can be proved that such is the case. 12803. But when you dip your sheep and kill the insect, they are free of scab ? — Yes, [G. 1— '94.] .XXX 555 12804. Do you consoientiouBly believe that the scab insect can come from nothing, and that your sheep which are perfectly clean of scab can break out with the disease without any infection at all ? — No, I don't say that a scab insect would come from nothing, but the one question is, is the insect alone the cause .of the scab, or is the scab the cause of th« insect ? 12805. But you are aware that all scab laws throughout the world deal with an insect only ? — Yes. 12806. Then if there is no insect, although they may call it scab, it is not scab according to the law ?— I am aware of that, but I still think tliat scab i.s spontaneous. « 12807. Mr. Francis^ Do you believe tliat scab is contagious? — I have often found that my sheep have become iDfected without being infected bj' others. 12808. Then you are of ojunion that it i.s not contagious ? — I believe it may be contagious, and that is the general opinion. 12809. If j'ou had 10,000 ghoep free of scab, would it be just to you that a careless neighbour should be allowed to let two or three scabby sheep mix with yours and infect your whole flock ? — No, it would certainly not be right. 12810. What do you reckon it would cost you to re-cleanse all your sheep by dipping, if they become re-infected ? — £10 to £15. 12811. Can you dip 10,000 sheep for £15 '? — Yes. Perhaps I might cleanse them with one dipping. 12812. Now supposing you had a very careless neighbour who was continually infecting your flocks with his scabby sheep, a man who would not dip his sheep, do you think lie should be obliged to do something to keep his clean ? — Certainly. 12813. What rule would you suggest to cause him to clean his .sheep ? — I cannot say. 12814. What would you do if he would not dip them? — One facility might be afforded him by allowing him to obtain dip at cost price. 12815. But supposing he would not buy it, or having bought it would not use it ?— I prefer not to reply. 12816. Could you give tlie Commission any reason why you decline to answer that question ? — I cannot give an opinion whether or not a man will look after his own interests. 12817. Is your evidence your own personal opiaion, or is it that of the people you represent ? — Both. 12818. You consider that the public opinion in this district is opposed to a scab act ?— Yes. 12819. Br. Smartt.] Have you had any experience of scabby sheep grazing with your flocks?— Yes. 12820. Have you ever objected to these sheep coming, and expressed th-e opinion that it was necessary to have an act to deal with the people who owned them ? — Yes, more than once. 12821. Having said that, how is it that you now give evidence absolutely opposed to legislation of any sort? — Because, after taking the matter into consideration, I have changed my opinion. 12822. Have you ever personally objected to trekkers crossing over your property with scabby sheep ? — Yes, and clean sheep, too. 1282.3. Why did you object to tliese people passing over your property with scabby sheep ? — Because I am opposed to all sheep passing over my farm. 12824. Have you ever objected because they were scabby ?— Yes. 12825. If scab is not contagious, and if, according to your own showing, there is no danger of your sheep becoming infected from tliese scabby flocks which travel over your property, tlien why do you object to it? — I said that scab may be contagious, but from my own experience I doubt whether it is so. 12826. Would you like to see a measure empowering you, if your sheep had been free of scab for two or three years, to prevent these travelling scabby sheep passing over your property ? — Yes 12827. And would you make use of such a measure ?— Yes. 12828. Consequently you are in favour of a scab act, because that would be a scab act ? — I don't say that. 12829. What would you call it? — If the Government were to assist the farmer in fencing, this would prevent the sheep mixing, and becoming infected. 12830. You consider that the majority of the policical electorate in this division and the surrounding divisions, are opposed to a general scab act, or to scab legislation of any sort ? —Yes. 12831. You consider it would be very difiicult for anybody holding definite notions with a view to having general legislation on scab, to gain the support of these people ? — The people I represent are opposed to the act. 12832. Do the Messrs. Theron, of Wonderboom, belong to the branch you represent? — Yes. 12833. Are you prepared to state to the Commission that they are opposed to legisla- tion of any sort in connection with the spread of the scab disease in sheep and goats ? — I know they are not opposed to it, but they are in a minority. 556 Mr, Edward Frost Jackson examined. 12834. Chairman.'] Are you a delegate ? — Yes. 1 was appointed by the chairman of a meeting held by the branch of the Afrikander Bond in ward No. 3. I have been farming in the Karoo forthelast 24 years, with 10,000 to 16,000 sheep. My standing stock is 10,000. 12835. Are you appointed to give evidence against or in favour of an act ? — In favour of it. 12836. Will you give your reasons, and the reasons of those who appoinied you for supporting the act ?— I am sorry to say I was the only one who stood up for the scab act out of the whole lot. All the members were called upon to appoint representatives to come here, both for and against the act. Those who wore opposed to it appointed someone ass their delegate, and as I could not appoint myself, I called upon the chairman, and he appointed me. 12837. Can you explain how it is that the farmers in your neighbourhood are so opposed to any legislation upon the scab disease ? — It is simply prejudice. They know nothing about the scab act, and have never read it. It is simply ignorance, and they won't go to the trouble to ascertain or in<|uire from their agents. 12838. Do the farmers in your neighbourhood, and in the district generally, as stated to-day, dip their sheep regularly and thoroughly ? — No. 12839. Do those who do dip do it tlioroughiy f — Only one or two. 12840. If the sheep of those farmers who, through improper dipping, fail to cure them, as you say, were dipped under inspection, do you think it would be to their interest, and the interests of the country ? — Yes, it would lielp to such a gi'eat extent that the people would begin to see that they could check scab, and they would perceive the advantages of dipping. I have stood by and seen them dip with a patent dip, to each packet of which the directions state 16 gallons of water should be added, and they have said that would be too strong, and have added 36 gallons to each packet. 12841. Have you ever seen them dipping sheep when the skins have not been wot after the animals have been put through .-' — On several occasions. Some of the dijjping tanks are 80 small, and the sheep are allowed to come out so quickly, that they are not properly wet to the skin. 12842. Do you know of any fanners in this division having bijwoners living on their farms who refuse to allow them to dip the sheep in their tanks ? — I don't know of my own know- ledge, but I have heard that such things have occurred, and I have known of other cases where a farmer has caused those living on his farm to pay a penny a head for dipping the bijwoners' sheep, including the dip. 12843. Do you think it would tend to assist the farmers if dip were supplied to them at cost price, free of railway carriage ? — Very much, especially the small farmers. 12844. If it is found impossible to have a general scab act, have you ever thought where a line should be drawn separating the proclaimed from the unproclaimed area ? — No, I have never taken the matter into consideration, but I cannot say whereabouts the place can be in these parts where a man would not find water enough to dip his sheep ; if he has not sufficient water it is from want of energy on his part in not driving a small tunnel for the purpose of collecting more water. 12845. You think it would be advisable to have a general scab act throughout the Colony ? — Yes. 12846. You are living in one of the driest parts of the country ? — Yes, my place is as dry as any part of the country ; it consists of flats and ridges, the same as the whole of this part, and I get no more rainfall than the others. When I found that the water in my wells was giving out, I drove tunnels, and always had an abundant supply of water. 12847. Then when we are told by farmers that it is impossible for them to dip their sheep because they have not sufficient water, you think it could be easily avoided by a little more energy 'i — Yes. Many farms surrounding my place had at one time only sufficient water for two or throe hundred sheep, and on my farm there was only enough for about eight hundred ; but by sinking wells I have now sufficient for more than 15,000 sheep, and the same coidd be done on many other farms. 12848. Mr. Frdncis.] From your knowledge of sheep and the scab insect, do you think that with a proper act, pr(5perly carried out, we could eradicate scab from the country ? — Certainly ; without a very stringent act I am certain it could be eradicated from the country within three years. 12849. Dr. SmaHt.'\ Would it be advisable to start such an act as you refer to with a compulsory simultaneous dipping ?- -If a simultaneous dipping could be carried out, I think it would go a long way to get rid of scab, and prevent it being carried about by moving sheep. 12850. Would you have such dipping carried on under inspection'!' — If possible, for the first year, it would lie a very good thing indeed, because it would show the people how it should be done. One witness said to-day that he judged the strength of the dip by the colour, and it would be imposfsible to come to a correct conclusion in that way, because it would depend upon the water being clean or otherwise. Some of our Karoo water is the colour of the dip. 12851. In carrying out that compulsory dipping, would you compel the use of one or two sorts of dip : I refer more ospeciaUy to lime and sulphur, or sulphur and tobacco ? — I think the sheep owner should be allowed to use the dip he has been in the habit of using. XXX. 2 557 12852. Mr. du Toit.'\ Aro you aware that some wells become so weak that when they are even used only for diiukiug purposes the sheep can only be allowed water every other day, or at even longer intervals ? — Yes, I have seen some. 12853. Would water bo found for dipping in such wells? — If the owner of sueli a well were to use a little energy, and when there was water in his dam tunnel at the well, it would never bo necessary for him to water his sheep only once in t(vo days. 12854. But do you not know that some* parts of the countrj' are very poor in water ? — Yes, but there are none so poor that the owners could not get water by making tunnels, even in the Kaien Bulte. Twenty j'oars ago the division of Pricska was a luiwling wilder- ness with no water at all. I have gone twelve hoars on horseback without a drop, and now it is all laid out beautifully, because they have hit upon the water, in some places at a depth of 90 feet. Towards the Zwart Ruggens there may be places whore the water is weak, but not in this flat country. 12855. Don't you think it would be advisable to have a suspensory clause in the act, so that its operation might be suspended in times of lioavj- drought ? — I have thought a good deal about that. Suppose a man had 1,500 sheep. As a young man I trekked, but I made dipping tanks out of two bullock hides on a frame, and whorovor I trekked I had a movable tank ; and I hold that anybody wlio has to trek, if he has no water whore he is, can dip on the way. A man should not be allowed to trek unless his flocks are clean, or else he should dip them at the first place he comes to where there is water. I don't believe tkere is a single farm in the division of Brit's Town nor Prieska nor Carnarvon, that has not sufficient water to dip 2,000 sheep in the severest drought. I have travelled through the country everywhere, and that is my experience. 12856. Chairman.'] You think if farmers would work together systematically, that thoy would be able to get rid of scab in a very short time ? — Decidedly, in a couple of years' time it would be a thing of the past. 12857. Do you think the Government would be justified in spending a large amount of money to stamp it out .' — Yes. Mr. Julie Johannes Wilhelm van Zyl examined. 12858. Chairman.] Have j'ou been appointed a delegate ? — The field-cornet asked me to give evidence. I was foi-merly a member of the House of Assembly for the electoral division of Eiclunond. I have farmed here for about 30 years, and have 11,000 sheep, though I have had 14,000. 12859. Do you agree with Mr. Jackson's evidence? — Yes, with a great part of it. A general scab act for this Colony is a necessity. I have several neighbours who never dip their sheep, and I t. as always troubled with scabby sheep until at last I enclosed my ground. I am not so well acquainted with the water supplj^ but I think if people want to dip their sheep, there are certain times when thoy have plenty of water, and can keep the sheep clean if they want to ; but I think the great fault is their own negligence. The difficulty I find in the act is that you sometimes find labour wanting just at the time when you wish to dip your sheep ; but I got my sheep clean, and I think the other farmers can do the same. 12860. 3Ir. du Toit.] Are you in favour of the present act? — No, I don't believe in a pennissive act ; I want a general act. 12861. Would you have the present act extended all over the Colony ? — I w«uld rather have it extended as it is than have it permissive. 12862. But might it not be more lenient in some respects ? — It might be, but when I have been in places where the act is in force it seemed lenient enough as regards licences to clean sheep. I never had any difficult}^ in selling my sheep when they come into the pro- claimed area. They go to the station and are inspected by two landowners. I am the outside farmer on the Philip's Town border, where they are mostly careless. 12863. Do you agree with the system of appointing inspectors .'' — There is a great difference of opinion, but I think tlio Government should rather appoint them, because I and other farmers have too much to do to go round inspecting sheep ; and the inspector should be independent, but sometimes farmers are connected. 12864. Don't you think a stranger would soon make friends? — It might be. 1 2865. Are you not aware that farmers sometimes have strong objections to the inspectors who have been appointed ? — Yds, but any farmer who keeps his sheep clean has no objection ; it is only those who won't. No scab act wiU trouble me. 12866. Chairman ] Do you think the Government would be justified in spending a large sum of money to assist the farmers in stamjung out scab ? — What is the use of having cheap dip if the farmers will not use it ? But speaking generally. Government should spend money, because scab can be stamped out in five years. Since my ground has been enclosed I use much less dip than formerly, because now the sheep run day and night. 55ft Omdraaivlei. Prieska Division, Tuesday, 14//( March, 1893. PRESENT ; Mr. Frost (Chairman). [r. Botha. ,, DU ToiT. Dr. S.martt. Mr. Fbancis. 2Ir. John Means Derenii/i examined. 12867. Chairman.^ How long have you boon farming here? — Twenty years. I have 10,000 sheep. 12868. Are you in favour of or oppo.'sed to a general scab act? — It depends upon how it is carried out. I am in favour of a general scab act if inspectors are appointed in each field-cornetcy — a man of not less than five or ten years' experience in the district. 12869. Mr. Botha.] Should they be nominated by the divisional council .'—No, I would not give the council the power. I think the sheep owners in each ward should nominate their inspector. 12870. Dr. Smartt.'] "Would you give the preference to a farmer who held a cleau bill himself ? — I should be in favour of letting the majority of the people in each ward choose their man, and I should vote for a man that was careful about his sheep, and, of course, it would be to our interests to choose the fittest man. In case the inspector had a number of sheep himself, and while going about imposing fines on other p3oplc, neglected liis own sheep, he should be directly under the divisional council of the division, so that any parties in the ward could lodge a complaint against him if his own sheep were bad-, and the council could send a commission to inspect them. 12871. Chairman.'] Would it not be better to have a divisional inspector to superintend all the ward inspectors .-' — I don't think there should be a general inspector. I would give an inspector to each ward, and give the divisional council the power to appoint a commission from their own body to inquire into any matter which was represented to them. 12872. You have more faith in the commission? — Yes, in two impartial men selected from the divisional council. The individual general inspector might have a spite against the ward inspector. 12873. As you have so much confidence in the divisional council, you think they should do this work ? — I think so. 12874. Have you any burr-weed in this district? — Yes, on the river. 12875. Does the divisional council see that it is eradicated under the act ? — -No, it is no use trying here, because the upper parts of Victoria West are so infested with it that the weed can never be eradicated here until they are clean. 12876. Do you think the divisional councils generally throughout the Colony have carried out the provisions of the Xanthium Spinosum Act ? — No. 12877. Then are they likely to carry out the provisions of the scab act, and to look after these inspectors as well as a man appointed and paid to do the work ? — I think you are right ; it woidd be best to have the inspector. There should be a general inspector and sub- inspectors. 1 2878. Would you have the divisional inspector appointed by the divisional council, or by the Government ? — By the Government, provided they appoint a farmer living in the district, because the country hero varies. We have perhaps more steekgras than other districts, and people may contend that inspectors take it for scab ; but a man who is resi- dent in the district would be able to distinguish at once between scab and the irritation of the skin caused by steekgras. The other day I even heard it remarked that when a sheep got caught in the hak-doorn, and the wool was pulled out and made loose, an inexperienced man might take it to bo scab. 12879. Do you think any man who would take a piece of loose wool pulled by hak doom or steekgras for scab, woidd be fit to bo a scab inspector ? — No, but a man coming from a di8tri;'t like Graafi-Eeinet, where he has not got to contend against these things, or from Kichmond, might not recognize them. Here, we have a large flat thorn which often gets buried under the wool, then the sheep gnaw at it, and an inexperienced man might mistake it for scab unless he caught the sheep and examined it. Therefore the inspector should bo appointed from each district, and he would know its peculiarities. 12880. I)o you think that as a rule the farmers dip their sheep properly; that they make the dip strong enough, and keep the sheep in the proper time ? — At present hero wo do not ; we simply trj- and do the best wo can for ourselves. We know we cannot keep the sheep clean, because jioople are constantly trekking about with scabby sheep, so it is of no use to spend an enormous amount of raonej^ t) try and loot it out enlirely. For my own part, I simply dip so that I don't lose half of my wool, and so that I keep my sheep ia lairly good condition. I don't dip them twice as I ought to do, but when I do dip, I give them a thoroughly good dipping, and that stops scalp for a while, perhaps for six months. There are many farmers who don't imderstand how to prepare the dip. 12881. In cases where farmers dip, but fail to cure the sheep, do you think it would be advisable to dip the sheep under inspection ? — Yes. 12882. Should it be part of the duty of an inspector to instruct the farmers how to dip, 559 and assist thetn ? — Tes ; if a farmer has failed to do it, and the inspector comes there, he should ask the inspector to mix the dip, and show him how it ought to be done, and I am bound to say that he would cure scab iu every case. 12883. If it is found impracticable to have a general scab act, whore do you think a liue should be drawn, cutting olT the proclaimed area from the unprodaimed .•' — How about Damaraland, beyond the jurisdiction of the Colony':' I cannot suggest a line, but whatever line is drawn, should include the district of Prieska. 12884. Should there be a general simultaneous dipping in the unprodaimed area ? — I would not compel them, but I would keep them out of the proclaimed area. 12885. What provision would you make in order to enable those farmers in the un- prodaimed area to bring their slaughter stock to the market in the proclaimed area ? Would you have ports of entry and have them properly dipped under supervision ■! — Yes. 12886. You think that the farmers living in the proclaimed area would be fairly safe ? — They will never bo safe on the borlers, because there would always bo danger from the unprodaimed side, and that is whj' I am in favour of a general act throughout tlie Colon}'. 12887. Mr. Botha.^] Seeing that the scat of Government is at Cape Town, don't you think they are not in a position to know who arc the most suitable men for inspectors, but must get the opinion of the magistrate, and that consecjuGntly, by saying that the Govern- ment must appoint inspectors, you mean that the magistrate shoidd do it ? — The magistrate would be a very bad man, because he is constantly changed ; but could not tlio Government be guided by the field-cornets and justices of the peace .^ 12888. Are not the farmers themselves, or the divisional councils as representing the farmers, the people to nominate them ? — It would be unsuitable for the magistrate to do so, because he is very often changed, and is often unpractical outside his own office. It is difficult to say whether the divisional council would do the work properly, as in the case of the burr- weed, but as the field- cornets are generally appointed by the people in the district, I think the superintending inspector might be appointed upon the recommendation of the field-cornets. 12889. After a fair consideration, are yoii convinced that it is not safe to leave the matter in the hands of the Government, because Government cannot act upon its own judgment and knowledge, but must get the recommendation of somebody ? — I am opposed to a favourite being put in by the Government ; in that case I would rather be as I am to-day, although I am strongly in favour of a scab act. 12890. Speaking locally, in whose hands would you rather leave the matter? — In the farmers' . 12891. Don't you think it is a fact that a good many of the farmers don't believe in dipping, and that they dip badly because they do it in a half-hearted way ? — Why should a farmer go to the expense and trouble, at present, of dipping his sheep if he does not believe in it ? If he dips at all he does it with the belief that it will do no good. 12892. Do you believe that all the men who dip do their best ? — Yes, but they are often ignorant of how it shoidd be done. In this district there are many who might do it very easily, but simply will not because they are lazy, and also because they don't like to spend the few pounds necessary in dip. Laziness has a great deal to do with it in very many cases. I don't want to reflect upon the people in my district, but there are many of the farmers here who are too lazy to do it, and I cannot excuse the generality of them, because in the eastern portion of the district every man does dip, I believe to a man, although they often try and economise stuff, and dip badly. 12893. Mr. Francis.'] If there was a scab act in force here, would you then dip your sheep properly twice within fourteen days, in the hope of eradicating scab ? — Undoubtedly. 12894. If a reasonable act were put in force in this district, do you think it could be carried out, and would do a great deal of good to the farmers ? — Yes. 12895. Are you of opinion that the reason why a great number of people in this district are opposed to a scab act is because they really don't understand the nature of scab and how easily it is cured ? — The great ditficulty here is not so much the cause of the scab, but the question whether it is possible to cure it. I believe many people don't understand what is meant by the scab act ; they are afraiil they will be ruled entirely by the inspectors, and it is no use arguing with them. In most instances I think they conscientiously believe that scab cannot be cured. 12896. Then if the farmers were properly instructed with regard to the nature of scab and its cure, do j'ou think it would remove a great deal of the present opposition to a scab act ? — Yes. 12897. Would it be advisable for Government to supply dip at cost price, carriage free on the railway ? — No, I would not say carriage free, but it might be carried at a very reasonable rate. 12898. J/r. du Toil-I Do you think it is ncccssaiy to dip twice within a fortnight? — I keep my .sheep in fairly dean condition for six months at a time by dipping them once, l)ut if I want to clean them, and have tlie fidl benefit of my wool, I ought to dip at least twice within 14 days. 12899. Are you acquainted with the working of the present scab act ? — No. 12900. You think three months is too long to quarantine sheep on a first licence? — I think it ia a very unreasonable time ; any man can clean his flocks in that time, winter or •ummer. 12901. Do you dip your sheep in winter also ? — I do at any time of the year when they 560 gel scabby, even in the lowest condition. I select my day and start late in the morning, and stop early in the afternoon, to give them a chance to dry, 12902. Do you know of only one kind of scab ? — Yes. 12903. Yon are not aware of some kind of scab disease which is not so easily cured by dipping? — When you have a cj^uantity of steekgras which irritates the sheep on the stomach, it is not so easily cured, but even then two dippings will rot the steekgras and stop it. 12904. Yoii are not aware of some fever or internal disease which makes the sheep's lody hard without any scratching, or other signs of scab ? — That is not scab ; out of 20 or 30 sheep ,you may get one like that with fever, and the best way would be to cut that sheep's throat, because it is of such rare occurrence. It is not contagious. 1290.5. Might not an inexperienced inspector mistake it for scab ? — An inexperienced man might, but no farmer would. It is of rare occurrence, but I think every farmer has seen it. 12906. Have you seen many cases? — No, very rarely. Occasionally I have a couple. 12907. You are aware it is one of the objections some people have to the act. that they may be compelled to try and cure fever, or this kind of disease, or the irritation caused bj- steekgras, although these are not scab ? — If the inspector were an experienced farmer, he would not make the mistake, and if it were known that these would not come under the scab act it would remove a great many objections. 12908. Would it not be advisable if every inspector were to have a magnifying glass to convince the farmers of the existence of the acarutt before putting them under quarantine ? — A good many farmers would not believe that scab is (aused by the acariix. I do m3-self. 12909. Would they not be more willing to submit themselves if they saw the iicaras ':' — I was only told the other day, when a man had a sore on his hand, that you could scratch the sore and find it alive with insects, which he sa'd proved that the sore produced the insect, and not the insect the sore. 12910. Have you had wire-worm amongst your flocks ?— No. 12911. Have you seen flocks badly infected with it ? — Yes. 1 2912. Would it be advisable to dip them when they are very weak and have scab ? — Yes. 12913. Would you run the risk of dipping those sick flocks in order to heal a few sheep of scab ? — Yes, I would dip those sheep, too, and have the balance clean ; and I don't think the dip would injure them inside if they took a mouthful. I have seen a lot amongst my neighbours, right round me. 12914. Do .you think it advisable to force an act upon a considerable portion of the Colony against their will ? — Either force it, or stop trekking, and keep every man on his own ground. 1291-5. To meet your object, don't you think it would be advisable for the first year or two to have a very lenient act ? — Certainl}', I should be in favour of a very lenient act to start with, and let it be gradual, because there are many difficulties in m}' district ; water is very scarce in many places. 12916. Br. SmarttJ\ Have you ever seen lambs dropped aifected with scab ? — No. 12917. If farmers state such to be the case, does it not show a great want of power of ordinary observation ? — Certainly. Four or five days afterwards, I have seen them covered with white spots, and that is the beginning of scab. 12918. Are you weU acquainted with the district of Prieska and the back country? — Yes. 12919. On all farms in this district, in which it is necessary to fann successfully with merino sheep, is it possible in ordinary seasons to have water to dip them ? — Yes. 12920. If a general scab act were introduced, would it be advisable to have a special clause dealing with times of drought in these districts ? — I don't know whether it is neces- sary, because if a man know his well will only water say 1,600 sheep, as well aa supplying water for domestic purposes, and that he is compelled to keep them clean, he will always be able to get sufficient water for 1,4.50 sheep. 12921. Are you convinced that, with a proi>er united effort on the part of the farmers, scab could be completely eradicated from the district of Prieska ? — I think it could, unless it comes out of the gpi-ouud, and that I don't believe it does. 12922. Are you in favour of a general scab act being started with a compidsory simul- taneous dipping ? — Yes. 12923. You don't think such an act would press injuriously upon the farmers with regard to the deterioration of their wool ? — No. 12924. Have all the farmers in this district dipping tanks on their farms? — No, very few ; they go to others. One of mj- neighbours is at the present moment dipping here. 12925. Would it be advisable to compel all owners of landed property which is used aa sheep runs to have dipping tanks there ? — Yes. 12926. Chairman.'^ Are you aware that mo.st of the sheep which your noiglibour is now dipping here are allowed to leave the tank in 1 5 seconds ? — Yes. 12927. Do you consider that long enough to clean them ? — Yes. 12928. Do you wish to add anything ? — The other day I heard it said tliat the district had water which would not mix with any kind of dip, and I begged them to produce the water before the Commission at Prieska, but I don't know of any such water myself. They afterwards corrected themselves and said that chemical fluids could not be used in it. Another reason for a great deal of the opposition here is that in the western districts there 561 are almost entirely Cape sheep, and there is not much scab amongst them, and if there were an net there they would virtually have to pay for the dip out of tlieir own pofkets, whereas with a merino sheep farmer the shoop piya by tlio return on the wool. The Cape sheep farmer is naturally very mueh against it, and the merino wool farmer is in pocket. 12929. Dr. Smartt.'] Does not the Cape sheep farmer derive more benefit from clean sheep ? — The Cape slieep so very rarely become scabby, and th y are not affected for a long time, although thej' oicasionally get so hiid as to require dipping. I had some which I was obliged to dip. Another argument here is, altliough you may get over the steokgraa and so on, how about the springbok 'f I have got them to admit, however, that a springbok will not infect a .sheep, and that a scabby goat is easily dipped and cleaned. They also admit that a goat is not very liable to scab, and is easily cleaned. Frieska, Wednesday, X-ith March, 1893. PRESENT : Mr. Frost (Chairman). Mr. BoTUA. I Dr. Smartt. ,, DU ToiT. I Mr. Francis. Mr. Cornelius Jansen de Jager examined. 1293(K Chuirman.'^^ Are you appointed as a delegate .? — Yes, by the Afiikander Bond. .1 have been farming for 30 years, but only thiee years in this district. I have about 5,000 Cape sheep. 12931. Have you come to give evidence in favour of or against a scab act ? — I have my difficulties with regard to the present scab act. 12932. Are you opposed to any legislation with regard to scab? — I should be in favour of some legislation, provided it would not damage the farmer more than it protected him. 12933. Have you any knowledge of the working of the present scab act ? — As I under- stand it, if one sheep in a Hock .should be infected, the whole flock would be put under qmrantint, and three months would bo allowed to clean them, and if I am prevented during that time from selling that flock it means a great loss to me and a hindrance in my farming operations. Not only that, but before the expiration of the throe months another animal might break out with scab, and cause me to have another three montlis' quarantine, and that I think is a very objectionable feature in the act. 12934. If you dipped your slieep when the inspector first pointed out the scabby ones, and you were allowed to sell them at onro, do you think it would remove that difficulty ? — Yes, it would remove my objection. 12935. From 3'our knowledge of the districts iu which you have lived, do you think there is more scab in them now than three years ago } — No, I think there is less. 12936. Is there more here now than there was then? — No, less. 12937. Do the farmers in this district dip their sheep regularly and properly? — I am not certain, but I hear that most of the farmers here who have merino sheep do dip, and those who don't dip hand dress; also that those who have not got dips on their places dip with their neighbour. I am not prepared, however, to say that they dip properly. 12938. And the Cape sheep farmers ? — They don't dip. 12939. Is there any scab amongst Cape sheep? — Last j-ear, in August, my Cape sheep got scabby, especially some spots on their tails which were raw. I was very sorry, and afraid I should not be able to sell them when the butcher came, but when he came in November they were quite clean, all of them that were fit for sale. 12940. Did you do anything at all to those sheep ? — No. 12941. When Cape sheep get scab like that, do you find as a rule that they get over it without any dipping or hand dressing ? — About two years ago Iliad a few lambs, say four, which got very scabby, hard all over the bod}*, and I cut their throats. 12942. Did the remainder of the sheep remain infected? — I did not detect any more scab. 12943. Do you think scab is contagious ? — Yes. 12944. How do you account for it that these sheep recovered without being dipped or dressed } — Scab is not always so contagious, and sheep are not always so liable to take it. 12945. But when wooUed sheep liecome scabby, do they get over it without being dipped or attended to .■* — Formerly I always farmed with merino sheep, and I have even seen merino sheep get better sometimes ; nevertheless, merino sheep are much more trouble- some and liable to scab than Cape sheep. In the general run of cases I do, however, consider that it is necessary to dip them. 12946. If you were farming with merino sheep, and two or three scabby ones got amongst them, and they became scabby, would you dip that flock or leave it over ? — I have not so very much experience, but speaking of the time when I was farming with merino sheep, I should have done something, either caught them out and hand dressed them, or tried to do something to get them clean. But that ^^as some tiuie ago, and I don't think I .',f,\> should be able to farm now with merino sheep without more attention to it than I used to give. My reason for changing from merino sheep to Cape sheep was because there was so much steekgras on the phce I had formerly, and I found that the wool did not pay. 12947. What do you mean by being more careful ? — In former days when I farmed with merinos there were not all these foreign remedies used which we have at present, but still I attended to my sheep and saw that they were well cared for. Sometimes I burut out the kraals, and tlie sheep had the advantage of having ashes to lie on. In that way I tried to be careful as well as I could, and I often dosed them with sulphur, and when they got .spots I dressed them. 12948. Have you any knowledge of scab amongst goats? — I remember having one case with a ewe and a kid, which had to run with other scabby goats. I dipped them properly in a patent dip, once, and they were clean for ever. From them I bred a small flock of goats, and they all remained clean. 12949. Mr. du Toit.^ Are you acquainted with the present system of appointing inspectors ? — From what I have read, I think they are appointed by the Government. 129.50. Do you agree with that ? — No ; I think there are some other ways which would be better. The Government are not in a position to judge who is most suitable to serve as inspectors ; I think the inspectors should be men of ascertained experience and knowledge in regard to stock. 12951. Then who do you think would be a suitable body to appoint them ? — I think it should be the farmers, but it should be confined to persons who could satisfy them that they have sufficient knowledge to be entrusted with an inspector's duties. 12952. Do you agree with Mr. Devenish, of Omdraaivlei, that in this part of the Colony people would always have sufiScient water to dip ? — Yes, if they have enough for the stock to drink they would have enough to dip them with. 12953. But you are aware that they very often have not enough to water the sheep ? — I admit that in one portion of the district there is not enough water, but in another portion there is. 12954. As a ride do they not trek away to places where there is enough water? — Some- times. They try to remain as long as they can, Imt when there is no water at all, they send the sheep away. 12955. Sometimes is it not very difficult to find places to trek to, and therefore they keep on as long as possible ? — Yes. 12956. Are you aware of scab amongst springbok? — Yes. 12957. Have you found tliat springbok can infect tame goats ? — Yes, goats, but I don't know about sheep. 12958. As a rule do you see scabliy springbok here every year } — In the seasons when we get trek buck we generally see scab amongst tliem. 12959. Do the trek buck often come here ? — Tliey come through this district every year. 12960. As a rule, are there always scabby springbok amongst them ? — Yes. 12961. Then do you think it rather hard to be compelled to keep goats clean here? — No, I think a man miglit keep his goats clean all the same. 12962. Would you be in favour of Government providing fanners here with dij) at cost price and free of railway carriage ? — Yes. I 2963. Would it tend to the eradication of scab ?— Yes. 12964. JJr. Smartt.'] From your knowledge of the district, are 3'ou convinced that if farmers were to dip efficiently and thoroughly, there would be much less scab amongst merino sheep than there is at present ? — Yes, I tliink so. 12965. In a district like this, subject to severe droughts, which sheep die first, the scabby or the cleaned } — The scabbj' sheep. 12966. Consecjuently, according to your own evidence, it is to the advantage of the farmer to have legislation compelling liim to dip ? — Yes, I acknowledge it. 12967. Is a good deal of the opposition to the scab act in this district due to the fact that the district is subject to severe drouglits, and that farmers are afraid they might not be able to move their .slieeji ? — I think to a great extent. 12968. If a suspensory clause were introdtued into tlio act, empowering the Government to suspend it in this district in times of drought, woidd it not do away with a great deal of opposition? — That remains to be seen. How woidd you do in this case? A man might think, never mind so much abotit the water, I won't have any expense about that, because by trekking it may improve the condition of the flocks tluMUigh the change of veldt. Con- sequently, might you not encourage laziness and dishonesty, and what would become of the men whose places lie in his way, who are also under the act and keep clean sheep, because the trekker might trek with his scabby sheep right over their ground ? 12969. Would it meet the case if in times of drought a man were allowed to trek even if his sheep were infected with scab, if he thoroughly and efficiently dipped them once? — I think that in any case wliere the owner of sheep does not hold a clean bill, whether he treks or sells the sheep, they should be dipped properly liefore they are allowed to be removed, and if that clause were introduced there would be no difficulty. 12970. Are you in favour of a compulsory simultaneous dipping act? — Yes. 12971. Mr. Francis.^ If you had nil your slieep clean of scab, and had a careless neigh- bour who was continually infecting your flocks, don't you think you would be suffering unjustly from such a man ? — Yes. [G. 1— '94.] YYT 563 12972. Don't you tliiiik there should he some nile to make that man endeavour to keep his sheep dean ? — Yes. 1297;$. If it is a fact that there are a nunilior of farmers who say they cannot clean their shee]) hy dippin"', and the reason of it is they don't dip properly, would it not be a benefit for tliose men if someone were appointed to show them liow to do it properly ? — There are 80 many instructions alreadj- ; but I have noticed that when tlie .sheep's wi-f:crk examined. 13009. C/iairman.] Arc you a delegate ? — Yes. There is no branch of the Bond in my ward, but I have been asked by my ward to represent it. I have farmed in this district for seven years, and thirty-three years in Victoria West. I have 3,000 merino sheep and goats. I am opposed to a general scab act. The north-western districts are more liable to drought than any other part of the Colony — and I am acijuainted with the greater part of them, and during the last three years liave come into contact with the farmers trekking from Calvinia and Fraserburg. That is sufficient proof that it was impossible for them to stay there, and they liave also told me about the droughts. It is on account of tliese periodical droughts, which cimjiel them to trek, that they are so much opposed to the scab act. On the larger proportion of the farms there, not only those which have been lately sold by the Govern- ment, but even the others, there is scarcely sufficient water for domestic purposes, and that shows how impossible it is for those parts to be under a general scab act. I have dipped sheep for the last thirty years, and my exi)erience is that it helps temporarily, but you must always keep at it. In this district the majority of the farmers do dip, and I am surprised to hear to-day that two of the witnesses examined do not. When we have no dips we dip at our neighbours. I am not certain that you can ever stamp out scab altogether. 13010. Mr. Bothi.'] If you havo surticient water, and everything necessary, and your sheep get scabby, do you believe that it would be to your benefit to dip ? — Yes, even as a preventive. 130 11. You think tliat the Dutch fai-mers have sufficient interest to carry on farming in that way ? — I think you may trust the Afrikander farmers to look after their own interests. 13012. Don't you think that a man with 6,000 or 8,000 sheep is well to do ':" — Yes. 13013. And ouglit to have a dip ou his farm? — Yes, but sometimes he has no water. 13014. Can a man keep 6,000 or 8,000 sheep without water? — Yes, when he has sufficient water to give them every other day, liut his wife must not allow her washerwomen to go and wasli in the place. 13015. Are there not also years wlieu tliere is plenty of water to dip, and to give to j-our sheep also ? — Perhaps once iu ton years. 13016. Is not ten years too long to say':" — No. 13017. Is it in the intere.st8 of a large slieep farmer to have a dipping tank ou his own laud ? — Yes. 13018. Can you trust a large fthccp farmer with his own interests when he has no dip of his own 'i Do you still insist iu saying that he can be trusted with his own interests 'i — They say that their sheep never got scabby. 13)19. Mr. F)-ancis.~\ If you were convinced that scab could be' eradicated fiom the sheep, do you think it would be worth a man's while to take a great deal of trouble to do so y — I liavc said so. 13020. Dr. Smaitt.^ Do you believe tliat scab is contagious? — Yes. 13021. If you, being a careful farmer, and dipping your sheep regularly, should have them perfectly free of scab, do you think as a mere matter of justice, it is right that the flocks of a careless neighbour should mix with your sheep and reinfect them y — I should not be satisfied. 13022. Then should you be protected ? — It is not necessarj' where I live, but if there are districts where there are such careless fanners I consider it necessaiy that the careful farmer should be protected. Mr. Willcm Francin Gddenhuis examined. 13023. Chairman.'] Are you a delegate from the Afrikander Bond ?— There is no branch where I live, but I was appointed by the field-cornet. I have farmed for 32 jears in Hope Town, Victoria West, and the last two or three years in Prieska. I have 3,000 sheep, mostly Cape. 13024. Do you agree with Mr. Bonnan ? — Yes, entirely. 13025. Dr.Smarlt.] Do you dip your sheep regidarly? — No, I never dip. My sheep get clean ^^•heu it rains. Mr. Sti'pkanus Sigismutul Grove examined. 13026. Chairman.'] Yoti are not a delegate 'i — No, I have altogether been farming about 15 years, of which the last tliree have been in tliis division. I have on my place about 10,000 or 11,000 sheep, mostly merinos, but about 1,000 are Cape sheep. 13027. J;o you agree with Mr. de Jager?— Yes, entirely, except on one point. I don't think it is necessary to tell the farmers what size their dips should be, because water is scarce, and I don't think it would be right in some cases to insist upon their building a large tank, and therefore I should prefer to leave it to the party interested. Besides, you can dip a sheejj in a short tank just as well as iu a long one. 566 13028. Do you think that the farmers liero diii tlioir shoep properly? — I am sorry to say that there are several here who don't dip at all, and I don't think that all those who dip do it well. 13029. In case any ndes should be laid down, would it be advisable that these farmers' sheep should be dipped under inspection ? — T have read thousands of pamphlets, but I am sorry to say people will not act accordingly, so I really don't know what answer to give. 13030. When a tarmi-r saj's he cannot cleanse his sheep by dipping, do you think those sheep should be dijipfd under insjjection ? — It stands to reason that any man who inspects the dipping will have to be paid by Government, and if a man has not sufficient ambition himsffl to do that which is in his interest, it will have mo good and lasting effect even if 3-ou were to show him how to do it. 13031. If a man fails to clean his sheep, do you think he should be fined .^— Certainlv. AVhen I have dipped my sheep properly I have always found that I have cured them. 13032. Dr. Smartl.^ Have you ever had experience of fanners who, not having sufficient water or dipping tanks at conimand, have dipped their sheep in packing cases lined with tin ? — No. 13033. Do you consider that there is any farm where there is water enough to keep the sheep running where, even if there were not sufficient water to fill an ordinary dipping tank, there woidd not be sufficient to put in a small hand dipping tank or tub, and to dip the sheep in it by hand '^^Not in all seasons ; there might be enough water in the winter, but it would be short in summer. 13034. If you had a troop of sheep badly infected with scab, and there was only sufficient water to water them every second day, would it be to your interest to put the sheep in a shorter supply of water for one extra daj', and to ilip and cure them of scab, or to allow them to run on as they were 'i — I think it would be better to dip them. Mr. Jan Anthony vmi Niekerk examined. 13035. Chairman.'] You are not a delegate? — No, I have farmed in the Hope Town district fur 37 years, and in this for three years. I have 0,000 sheep and goats, meiino and angora. 13036. Do you wish to state anything ? — I am living ou the bauks df the river, where there is a pontoon, and where sheep are being coutinuallv sent over lidni both sides of the liver, with scab on them, consequently it is no good for lue to dip my sheep, as thev are continually being reinfected, and consecjuently I tliink all people should be obliged to dip. 13037. Then are ycni in favour of a general scab act ? — Yes. Since dijis came into tise I have dipped my sheep, and I think if a man is wealthy enough to have sheep, he is also in a position to dip them, an' to me. There are more merinos than Cape sheep. ° 567 130-48. Do you wish to (five evidence in fiivour olii siali ait '? — No, lam altogothor opposed to it ; I liavo never dipped slicep .since I fanned. 1 was a tslieplicrd before I li(>(aiue a fanner, and I cluillenge any man to pi'ove whether any farmer has done as much in that time as I Lave done. If tliere were a scab act, the trekkers would not he able to exist. 13049. Mr. Botha.'] Do you believe scab can be cured liy dipping? — No. 13050. Do you believe it is contagious ?— No, it is not. Mr. Jan Walters eun Niekerk examined. 13051. ChairiiKtn.^ How long have you fanned ? — Fifty years, formerly in Richmond, but I have been liere for 12 years. I liave 4,000 slieep, mostly merinos. 13052. Do you agree witlx Mr. de Jager ? — I agree witli Mr. Borman, but I will not go .so far as to say tluit 3'ou cannot cure scab ; it can bo cured for a time, but it will not be per- manent. -You must attend to it conti7iiially. I object to a general scab act because I don't believe that you can apply the same act to nil jiarts of tlie Colony, as some parts arc well supplied witli water, and others, such as these new districts of Kenliardt, Prieska, and the nortli-west, are not. I have a farm which lias three wells on it, 52, 55, and 64 feet dcej) ; and tliough in winter there would ))e sufficient water, in sunmier I am obliged to send some flocks away ; conseij^uently I am afraid that if there should be a general scab act, and .some of my sheep were scabby, it would interfere with my trekking, and that would be hard on me. 13053. If you could put your clean sheep on clean veldt, where no sheeii had ever been, do you think they would keep clean .' — No. 13054. How would they get scabby again ':" — I cannot say, because although the aairus is foimd in scab I don't know whether the scab is caused by the insect or tlie insect by the scab. 13055. But you are aware that the act detines the insect as the scab and tlie insect only ? — The same ditficulty would apply to trekkers from Calvinia, Carnarvon and those parts, in the event of a general scab act. Their flocks would be stopped, and they would be obliged to die instead of having a chance of escaping, and I think that these people also want a chance to protect themselves. 13056. Mr. Francis.] How long do your sheep generally remain clean after you have dipped them '? — I cannot say, but I know that when I was farming in the Eichmond district I managed to keep them clean for two or three years, and then it broke out and was all the worse for it. I think by having kept it back so much it made it worse. 13057. Then if a man saw that he was likely to become scarce of water, and properly dipped his sheep before that scarcity arrived, would he not be at liberty to move his sheep if they were clean ? — If his sheep were clean before the scarcity of water came, nobody would have the right to interfere. 13058. Then if everybody were careful to dip and clean their shcop before the scarcity of water, it woidd do away with the objection you make in regard to the act '( — Yes, for those who have permanent water. 13059. Jfr. Botha.] You know the Kaien Bulte ? — Yes, I have a farm there. 13000. What is the value of the ground tliere ? — In my own case I think my 17,000 morgen are worth £2,000. I would sell it for that. Off and on I keep 4,000 sheep on it, and I think they are worth 8s. a piece. 2Ir. Michiii Carl van Niekerk examined 13061. Chairman.] How long have you been farming .' — For 25 years. I have been here for 15 years, and formerly I was in Victoria West. I have over 4,000 sheep and goats on my place, 2,000 of which belong to me ; they are mostly Cape slieep. 13062. Do you agree withany of the witnesses who gave evidence this morning } — I agree with the last witness. Scarcity of water makes it impossible 10 apply the scab act to this district, and that is all I have to say. As for what was stated this morning by one witness, that ho would use the turn of one day's drinking to dip the sheep, the same quantity of water which the sheep drink is not sufficient to dip them, and you could not under any circumstances deduct more from the sheep than one drinking, because to do so would greatly injure the animals. As for dipping the sheep before the water became too scarce, the sheep might be still clean at that time, and you could not apply the remedy before the disease appeared. Mr. Jacob Grecjf examined. 13063. Chairman.] How long have you farmed here !* — More than twenty years in this district. I have on my farm something like 15,000 to 16,000 stock, of which 2,000 belong to me. I agree with Mr. Borman. On my fai-m there are all Cape sheep, and they have never been dipped ; still, I know by experience that dipping does not help for scab, becaii: e I once dipped 6,000 Cape sheep which were going to Johannesburg for slaughter, for fear that they might be infected on the road ; but on the way they got so badly infested that Bome of them died before they cuiJd bo got to Johannesburg. 568 13064. But you said you never dipped '? — I mean I have never dipped the sheep on my farm, and with which I farm. Tliese belonged to a compan}-, and I had to take thorn to Johannesburg. 1306.5. Were all the different lots affected with scab when you started? — There were four troops, and eveiy one of them did not get scab, but something like twenty out of each flock, that was in a period of one montli, or twenty days. As field-cornet I was told by the magistrate to give notice to all the inhabitants in my ward to be present here to-day, but owing to the drought, and to people having to attend to their flocks, they could not come, but I know that as a comm.unity they are all opposed to a scab act. 13066. Dr. Smarft.\ Will you kindly explain to the Commission how j-ou dipped those slaughter stock which got so bad after being dipped? — I put the water into a pack- ing case out of buckets, containing about twenty liottles each, and for eadi bucket I used about a pound of a patent dip. It was in the form of grease. 13067. Was the dip prepared according to the instructions on the tin ? — Yes. 13068. Did you weigh the dip?— Yes. 13069. How many sheep did you dip ?— 6,000. 13070. How many cases of dip did you use? — Three. 13071. If you used three cases of tliat patent dip, say five gallon tins, how can you explain j'our statement that you used a pound to every 20 bottles of water for 0,000 sheep ? — [No answer.] 1 3072. Mr. Francis.~j What was the capacity of the utensil in which you dipped them ? — It lield atiout ten buckets of water. 13073. Did yiiu put all tlie sheep into that small box by hand ? — Yes. 13074. How long was the box ? — About 10 feet long, 2 feet wide and li feet deep. 13075. Tlien do you mean to tell tlie C(^mmissiou that a box of that size onlj- held 10 buckets of water? — We did not fill it, we only put in sufficient to wet the sheep. 13076. Considering that some of these sheep died from scab, don't you tliink .scab is a cause of great loss to the farmers ? — Yes. 13077. Then don't you think it would be a gi'eat blessing if we could get rid of the scab ? — Yes, it might be a good thing, and a good law also, if it were not ai)plied to this district. Mr. Johannet Marthinus Jurgens Steyn examined. 13078. Chairman?^ How long have j'ou farmed here ?— Ten years in this district. I linve 4,000 merino sheep ; my father managed to keep Ids .sheep clean for six years without dipping and since then, the last five years, I have been dipping with all sorts of dip, and have had scab continuaUv amongst my sheep. I am therefore opposed to the act. Mr. George Ludorieus Siggs examined. 13079. CJuiirman.'] How long have you been fanning here? — For .seven years ; I have 1,500 merinos. I appear here because our own delegates cannot cross the Braak Eiver ; nearly half the popidation of our district have no land of their own, and if a man hired land for six m lastly j-ears. I haro about 8,000 Cape .sheep and goats. 13087. Are you in favour of or opposed to a scab act? — Nothing was said at the meeting to direct me what I should say, but I will g^ve my own opinion on the subject. I am opposed to a sea)) act. I do not tliink this district is suited for a scab act, first, bei-ause of tlu" scarcit)' of water, and secondly, because most of the sheep here are Cape sheep, and don't require dipping, as tliey very seldom have scab I have seen farmers here who have purchased farms from the Government, and veiy valuable farms too, but scarce of water. Although they paid a good price for them, tliero is no water on them, and when the dry season sets in they have not enough water for their stock ; this makes it necessarj' for them to trek, but if there were a compidsory scab net here, the people would simply have to allow their sheep to die wherever they happened to be when the scab broke out. Then two- thirds of this district is crown land, only a third has been sold, and the farms I have alluded to where water is so scarce and those which have been sold, are mixed with the Government land ; and although the remainder of the crown lands might be sold, they are still drier tlian the others, and there would be times when the ])eople would have to trek whether the sheep are scabbj' or not. I have found only two per cent, of the sheep liere get scabby in a year. 13088. Do the goats get scabby ? — Goats and sheep I call the same in this part of the world, liut goats are more liable to get scab. Those on the farms which liave been .sold get no scab, but they are more lialde to get scaVi when they trek. As far as I am concerned, it is unnecessary to have a scab act in this district, and I say it cannot be done here; the district is not suitable for it. 13089. Is .scab more prevalent among goats on the Government lauds than on private farms ■• — Yes. 13090. Have you any experience of scab among goats in the village of Kenhardt '?— Yes. 13091. Do you find it more virulent here tlian on tlie farms'? — Certainly, the common- . age is about 16,000 morgen. 13092. Are j-ou a member of the village management board ? — Yes. 13093. Has there ever been any discussion at your board about the scabby goats running on the commonage ? — Yes. 1309-1. Will you explain what action, if any, was taken by the board in regard to that? — The members of the board did not agree. The proposal was that we shoidd cut the throats of all the scabby goats, and I say we cannot do that. 1309.5. Then was scab very prevalent among the goats on the commonage'? — No, it is not. I have been here ten years, and this is tlie first year that it has been like this. 13096. Have you had a fairly good season tliis year? — No, a very bad, dry season. 13097. Did you have your average qiiantity of rain last year '? — In the early part of the year of course we had very good rains, but last year we had very little rain, and very bad veldt. 13098. As yon have lived here for thirteen j"ears, and found very little scab among the goats, on the c pass over into the proclaimed area '? — The Govern- ment cotdd do that, but as I say every experienced fanner coidd judge for liimself, as well as anybody else could see, whether the goats are fi-ee fi'Om scab or not. He would be quite iure of it if he saw the goats. 570 13108. Still scab might he amongst tliem witliout being visible, and before it breaks out, although there may be scab, it may not be visilile ? — If I send goats from mj' farm to the eastern province and they are clean on the day I send them away, and have been clean for the previous three months, I am quite positive that they cannot become scabby or get Bcab on the road. 13109. Supposing you were living in the proclaimed area, where you are liable to be punished for having scabby goats or slieep, would you, as a farmer holding large flocks of goats, allow any goats to come througli your farni which had not been inspected by someone besides the farmers on the way ? — If I could see them and judge for myself, I would let them pass if I thought them clean. 13110. Then if you, as living in the unproclaimed area In this part of the country, satisfied yourself by looking- at the flock of goats, j-ou would allow them to pass through your faiTii without an}- interference whatever '? — Yes, if I coidd see that they were clean and if they were in condition. If a goat is in a condition to be driven such a distance, then I am sure that no scab would infect it. 13111. Would you allow breeding goats the same privileges? — Yes, if they were in good condition. 131 12. Supposing they were in low condition .'' — If they were not too low to go to any distance where the act is proclaimed, they are good enough to pass. 13113. Li^-ing as j-ou are here, and your goats being perfectly clean, supposing a lot of very poor breeding goats that you were not very sure about yourself came along, would you allow them to pass over your farm if you could prevent it .- — I should not object to it if I saw that they were clean ; and I shoidd know tliat having come from such a distance they must be able to go to their destination ; but if I saw anything wrong with them I would not let them pass. 13114. What do you think .shoidd be done with the owner of those goats .' Should he be compelled to dip and cleanse them ? — That is difficult to say. I think he should have stayed at home where he was. 13115. But you say he must be allowed to move for water 't — But he would not go into another district with those goats if he had scab amongst them. 13116. Supposing a man who has scabby goats wants to trek with them, should he be compelled to dip them and cleanse them first, or would you allow him to go and spread scab wherever he Uked .' — No, I should say the best thing would be after all, as I said, if there were not too many to cut their throats ; but if they are to trek about the country I should say there ought to be a place where they could stay and be doctored or have their throats cut, or whatever else they liked to do with them. 13117. Then you think it would be advisable to have a dijiping act of some kind for goats that are affected with scab ? — Not in this district : only when they go into a district where the act is proclaimed. But I don't say that they should be allowed to trek free over everybody's farm, even in this district. 13118. What provision would you make to prevent these goats being moved with scab .' — As far as my experience goes, if you have to move with scabby goats all over the district you had better cut all their throats. They should stay where they are, and should not be allowed to go over a man's property with scab anywhere. 131 19. Supposing this flock of scabby goats is on your farm - — I shoidd impound them ; I would not allow scabby goats to drink at my well, and if everybody were agreed on this point no farmer would have the pluck to trek through the countrj' with scabby goats. 13120. Do you think the farmers in this district as a body, woiild prevent you moving with scabby goats over their farms, or refuse to give you water ? — If we agreed upon it they would : and they would agree if everybodj' had a farm. 13121. Do you think it advisable to have dipping tanks erected on certain places, such as outspans or pounds, for the purpose of dipping these scabby goats on the road ? — No, let everybody see that he gets clean, but no dipping. 13122. You don't believe in dipping at any price? — Yes, let a man dip on his own farm, but not on public outspans wliere other goats have to pass through. 13123. Mr. Francis.'] Do you think it would be advisable so to alter the law that goats should be dipped at the owner's expense before being sent to the pound ? — No, there should be no dipping of your scabby goats on my farm. 13124. Then do you think it woxdd be right to drive those scabby goats over perhaps four or five neighbours' farms in order to get them to the pound ? — As I have said, the only remedy would be to refuse water to all scabby goats on every farm where they come. 13125. If a man with a flock of .scabby goats brought them onto your farm, and infected j-ours, don't you think he ought to be punished ? — I should go for him for damages, if he did it wilfully. 13126. Don't you think there should be some rule to make a man with scabby goata dip them twice within 1 4 days on his o-wn farm before removing them ? — He should not remove them at all. 13127. Then if a man's goats happened to get infected with scab, and all the water on the farm was done, you think the goats should stand there on his gfround and perish ? — Yes, because they are not worth much when they are like that. 13128. Do you know that the evidence which you are giving is more strongly in favour of a stringent scab act than any evidence the Commission has received during the whole course of its proceedings ? — What I have said I mean, whatever tne consequences are, and [G. 1— '94.] zzz m this IS what I say, that tho district cannot do with a scab act, and the meaning you draw from my words has notliing to do With me. 13129. But you say that a man should be restrained from moving these scabby goats off his place even if they died for want of water. Would not be a very stringent scab act V — He might lind a neighbour or friond who also had scab, who miglit take liim in, and who could give him water. Let them join together. 13130. Have j'ou had any exporionco of wooUed sheep? — No. 13131. You don't believe that scab in sheop is contagious ? — No, not in Cape sheep. 13132. What, in your opinion, is tlie cause of scab in Cape sheep here.' — It is the winter, when tho dow falls. 13133. Do you think it is caused liy an insect ? — Tliat is possible ; I don't know. 13134. Do you think that tho winter and tlio dow create the insect ? — If it is an insect they may. 13135. Do you know of any other insect or animal which is created in that way, with- out parents ? — No. 13136. Then the scab insect must be an exception to all other rules ? — That may be ; I have not seen the animals wdiich make an insect, but 1 leave it to those who are experienced in it. I call it scab. 13137. Considering that, according to your .statement, only two per cent, of Afrikander sheep are infected with scab ; don't j'ou think it would bo very easy to cure them? — They cure themselves; just give thom better veldt, and it grows out in no time. 13138. I believe you buy a good deal of wool and produce in those parts ? — Yes. 13139. Do you make any difference between wool which has been badly infected with scab, and wool which has nut been infected ? — I only buy good wool, without scab. 13140. But if a man came and offered you ten bales of infected wool, and another ten bales free of scab, both of e(|ual quality, w')er of sheep go. I might have given him one can, and told him if he saw a sheep breaking out to try and wash it, but I am sure that he diil not dij) any considerable number. 13154. Consec[uently, the evidence of any man who made such a statement, would in your opinion be utterly wortliless and untrustworthy? — At least j-ou would not take that part of his evidence, and j'ou would doubt the other parts. 13155. There are certain farmers in this distri(d who do farm with merino sheep ? — Yes. 13156. And I believe that a large portion of this district, particidarly that known as the Kaien Bulte, is very suitabh,' for merino sheep farming, if water were found? — A very small part of the district would bo suitable for it. 13157. Do you wish it to be written down as your opinion as an experienced man, that 672 the Kaien Bulte, taken as a wliol©, are unsuitable for merino slieep farming ? — What is the Kaien Bulte ? I see nobody here in the court room who can describe to nio where the Kaien Bulte l)eg'ins or ends. 13158. According to survey there is a large portion of the Kaien Bulte in the district of Konhardt ? — WiH you give mo the names of the farms ? 13159. Chairman.'] You say there is only a very small portion of the district suitable for merino sheep, including the Kaien Bulto 'i — Yes, I know the Kaien Bulte, but I df anything objectionable. As for scabby stock, I would say let them pass, but let the owner of the land over which it goes be informed of it so that ho may keep his own away. 13207. Are there not many farms similar to yours in which there arc woolled sheep ' — Yes. I cannot say the larger proportion of the district is similar to my own farms, but there are parts which are. One portion of my farms is at the point of what are called the Kaien Bulte. 13208. Is the Kaien Bidte itself suitable for merino sheep? — Yes, if there were not so much sour grass there. 13209. Dr. Sma.rtt.'\ If this district is so unsuitable for merino sheep, how is it that you, a farmer of twenty years' experience, can still be so dead to your own interests as to continue farming with an equal number of merino and Cape sheep ? — I am farming with merino sheep because I left this district some time ago and went to Carnarvon and had merino sheep ; but going away from there I again changed 1,. 5 00 merinos for the same number of (5ape sheep, and it is not easy to get rid of your merino sheep all at once, but I would if I coTild. I invited you to inspect my wool simply to prove that you could produce good wool without dipping, but the sheep did not run iu my veldt when the wool was grown, but on my brother's. 13210. Were you requested to give evidence as to the unsuitability of the district for merino sheep 'i — No, liut I have heard it. Cahinia, Saturday, Ibth March, 1893. PHESEXT : Mr. Frosi ;,Chaii-man). Mr. Botha. | Dr. Smaktt. Mr. Sydney Fryer examined. 13211. Chairman.'] You are a delegate of the Afrikander Bond .^ — Yes. I have been farming for 30 years, five of which have been passed in this district. I have 2,000 sheep, mostly merinos, and a few goats. 13212. Are you in favour of any legislation with regard to scab f — Not for this district, at present, because the circumstances here are quite different from many others in the Colony, especially the eastern province. Here our sheep have large tracts of country to run over, and are never kraaled ; and owing to drought and scarcity of water they are obliged to be constantly moved about for watering piu-poses, and large numbers of sheep, sometimes 40,000 or .50,000 have to drink at one place, so the act would be unworkable here. And how would it be possible to dip sheep at these places ■- The veldt woidd become inpregnated with the dip, and would be the means of poisoning the sheep as well as the people who drank the water, if a poisonous dip were used. Besides this, much of the water cannot be used for making dip, because of its brackish qualities. Another reason why an act would be unworkable in thi^ district is that if -50,000 or 60,000 sheep are drinking at one place, and one became infected with scab, it woidd be absolutely necessary when the water gave out to move them away ; but under the act it would first be necessary to get an inspector, who might be many miles away. But it would be necessary, on account of the water, to move the flocks at once to another drinking station, and as they have all been drinking at one place they would all have to be (quarantined on account of one sheep. In some seasons the springbok migrate in thousands and tens of thousands, even mixing with our flocks and constantly infecting them with scab. I am convinced that if the act were proclaimed in this district it would, imder present circumstances, mean ruin to the sheep farmers here. I should further like to state that scab causes very little trouble or loss in this district, and as a rul« 575 is mostlj' seen amongst the young sheep if they ave not shorn at tlic proper time. The small loss caused hy scab in our flocks would he nothing compared to the expense and inconvenience of carrying out any act liero. Before pornianent drinking places arc estalilishod it will be impossible to out carry any act liore. 13213. Do you think that scab is increasing in the district of Calvinia, or not .^ — No, not generally speaking. 13214. Do any farmers in the district dip their sheep It — I believe there are some who do, but not to any very great extent. 13215. If your sheep were free of scab, and you had dipped them, do you think it wotUd be right for scabby sheep to be allowed to cross over yoiu- farm } — Our holding being 80 large, they could be moved over any farm without coming in contact with the sheep on it. 13216. Then you think scab is very contagious .-' — It is in a certain degree, but under the peculiar circumstances of tlic district, it is not so much liere as elsewhere. If you kraal the sheep there is a great difference, but as we never kraal them, and our holdings are so large, there is not the danger of contagion here that there is in other districts. 13217. Do you think goats would become infected with scab from these scabby spring- bok .■" — Certainlj'. 13218. How do you explain it that, the countrv being so large, as you say, tliese springbok which have free run of the country infect your goats which are not kraaled } — They mix sometimes ; sometimes one's goats or sheep get among the springbok. 13219. Don't you think there is more fear of contagion from travelling sheep which are driven across your farm, than from the springbok which come on in the way you say ? — No, I don't think there is any fear of contagion of scab with sheep. There is plenty of room to drive them through. 13220. What other districts do you put under the same category as this in regard to veldt .-' — More or less I should say Fraserburg, Carnarvon, Kenhardt, and perhaps Sutherland. 13221. Supposing a line were drawn, and the districts Ij'ing eastward of those you have mentioned were under an act, and those to the westward were left out, what provision would you suggest for the passage of flocks from the uuproclaimed area ? — Under the provisions of the act allowing two land owners to give a certificate of freedom fi-om scab, they should be allowed to be removed. 13222. Do you think that this would afford sufficient protection to the farmers living in the proclaimed area .•' — It would for stock coming from here, because, for instance, a sjwculator buying sheep in this district would never buy sheep infected with scab, and there- fore there would be no danger. 13223. Supposing scab should break out amongst these sheep on the way to the station, wliat protection would the farmers have in the proclaimed area .•' — Stock is only moved from here to the proclaimed area to go to the butcher, and the short time required for them to reach their destination, would be sufficient quarantine against any such danger. 13224. Do you know how lung it takes for scab to sliow itself? — Ni ). 13223. We have it on evidence iu Pliili)i's Town, from Mr. Neeser, tliat he put two oj the acari insects on a sheep, and witliiu four days the scab had liroken out, sliriwiug a pimple, and in seven da3's there was a large patch of scab. Under such circumstances, do yoti consider that your provision w(juli.~\ Are you a delegate ? — Yes ; I have been 23 years farming here, and have about 3,000 small stock, merino and Cape sheep and goats. 13259. Do you agree witli Mr. Fryer? — Yes, but I wish to add that as so many of our grazing lands are leased for a short number of years, tmly two or throe, it would be im- possible to make the necessary arrangements there for dipping. 13260. Do you think it is necessary to dip ? — Not according to my experience, in this district. We have never had mudi loss here from scab. Mr. Jacob van Wyh examined. 13261. Chairman.'] Are you a delegate ? — Ye*. I liave farmed here for 25 years. At o77 present I have only 1,200 sheep, but I have an interest in about 2,000 more, all of which are merinos with the exception of a oouple of hundred Cape sheep. 13262, Do j'ou agree with Mr. Fryer? — Yes, altogether. As regards portable tanks, a fanner very often can scarcely remove his wagons, on account of the scanity of labour, so how could he deal with portable tanks ? 13363. But if tanks were provided by Government, do you think tliat it would be advisable to dip the sheep ? — As a rule, Government systems are so inconvenient that farmers would not make use of them. Mr. Jeremiat Nieuwoudt examined. 13264. Chairman.'] Are you a delegate? — Yes. I have farmed here for 20 years, and have 5,000 small stock, lialf merinos and half Cape sheep and goats. 13263. Do you agree with Mr. Fryer ? — Yes, more or less, but even the drinking places are not as a rule to be depended upon, and when these dry up we have to remove our stock to the trek veldt, where there are only six or seven pennanent springs or wells, and tliore it would be still more impossible to have a seal) act. 13266. Dr. .Smartt.'] Where is tliis trek veldt to which you refer? — To the north. 13267. Whose property is it ? — Most of it belongs to tlie Government, and is leased on a year's lease. 13268. Then yon mean to infer that tlie farmers in this district, having such an enomious amount of back country to fall back upon, don't develop permanent water upon their own property ? — The farmers comliiiie together, and hire this Government ground for three years, and use it jointly. 13269. So that really there is a large tract of countiy being used as a sheep run which is perfectly undeveloped, and which under the present circumstances never will be developed ? — I cannot say whether it will ever be developed. 13270. How long has it been used in that way ? — As long as I can remember. 13271. Is that country suitable for carrying sheep if plentifully supplied with water ? — Yes. 13272. Tlie fact of the case is that a large portion of Government ground is lying undeveloped, and is simply used in times of drought by tlie fanners of Calvinia ? — A\'hen rain falls, this veldt is good, but there are times of drought in which it is absolutely useless, because tliere is no water. 13273. Can you give me any idea of the amount of money paid yearly for the use of this veldt ?— No. 13274. What do you pay, individually ?— From 5/- to 10/- a 100 sheep. 13275. Who receives that money, the Government or private indi\-iduals ? — We lease the ground from Government for three years, in a company, and each pay a pro rata share. 13276. Do all the farmers in the district of Calvinia evenly benefit in the speculation, or is it a certain section of the farmers wlio lease the ground ? — All who are in the company. One or two people lease the ground from the Government, and let it out to tlie others with- out making any profit. 13277. But as that gi-ound is only suitable for carrying a certain quantity of stock, the lessees and their friends have the first privilege ? — It is only used by the syndicate. Mr. Marthitmt Jacohu van Wyh examined. 13278. Chairman.'] You are a delegate ? — Yes. I have farmed here for 30 years, and have 3,000 small stock, mostly merinos. 13279. Do you agree with Mr. Fryer? — Partly, but I should like to give an explana- tion about that ground question. A company of the Bokveldt farmers leases the land from the Govermiieut, and all, rich aud poor, pay according to the number of stock which is sent into the veldt. Two men lease the veldt in their own names, but it is paid according to the number of the stock which is sent in. 13280. Dr. Smart/.] Wheu you state that all alike have the use of that veldt, do you mean all the farmers in that portion of tlie district of Calvinia, or all farmers who are mem- bers of the company ? — A list is made mit of tlie names of the members of the company, and the number of stock which each man represents; but in addition to this I know tliat others whose names are not in the list do send their stock in, and then, as the quantit\- of stock increases, the prices are reduced, so as to help all, whether their names are on the list or not. 13281. But in times of scarcity, that veldt is naturally first used by the members of the company ? — No, it is used by those who come first. It is a great tract of country. 13282. Can you give us any idea of the amount of money paid ? — No, but it is registered. 13283. Don't you think that the fact of this country being free to move to at any time is the cause of a large section of this country not being developed ? — No ; there are seasons when you must move : when your ground in this district becomes worthless, independently of the water question. I am a storekeeper as well as a farmer. With regard to the doorn- bosch, which combs out the wool, I wish to explain that the fanners here, independently of dipping, are very particular not to allow free running over their land, and consequently the mau who took the trouble to dip would be even moxe strict. As for the insect, I am eon- 578 vinopd ahi-)ut it, nnd hare 'jpen it myself ; Imt in tlie main I .agi-ee with Mr. Fryor. and I rnnsider that the expenses of dipping would )pe greater than the benefit w)ii
  • f the sheep, it is sufficient proof that it would be much less safe to dip. It is no good to dip slieep when they are falling off in condition, as, instead of cleaning them j-ou miglit Idll tliem ; but it is different when there is sullicient veldt for them to improve on. Speaking from my own standpoint, my own farm is one of the best in tlie district for water. You will find several fai-ms here of "the extent of 10,000 morgon where there is onlv water in one spot, summer and winter, so that it is impcjssible for sucli peojile to keep their flocks separate in case one flock becomes scabby. On other farms here the water dries up altogether, and tliey are obliged to trek. Under such circumstances I don't see liow the scab act can be applied, tor there is not a single }-ear wlien some farmers in this district are not obliged to trek elsewhere; there are always some trekking about, but the scab act would make it impossible to move with the stock when necessaty. Just befcu'e the rain came I got good veldt on tlio lioundary of the Fraserburg district, but if there had been a scab act in existence it would have prevented mo from trekking, and I should have lost to the extent of a thousand sheep. Many people here are trekkers, commencing with small flocks, and obliged to trek wherever tliey can get a place for a longer or sliorter time ; so tliey improve tlieir condition, until the number of their flocks has increased to such an extent that tliey are able to buy land for themselves, and a scab act would simply make it impossible for that class to remain in existence. If a seal) act were to be proclaimed here, unprepared as we are, it would simply mean general ruin. 13300. mien you dipped j'our sheep, did 3'ou find tliat you liad cured them of scab for the time ? — If there was sufficient food for them to improve in condition, then they were clean. 13301. And remained free from scab until the veldt got dry again? — Yes, and some- times even before then. 13302. You don't know of any farmer in the district of Williston who has been able to keep his slieep clean for six months ? — No. 13303. You believe it would be impossible, on account of the droughts? — Yes. 13304. Mr. Botha. ~\ Where is the market for your slaughter stock? — In Cape Town, the Diamond Fields and the Gold Fields. 13305. Can you reach these places without using the raUway ? — Yes; .some are driven, but we also make use of the railway. 13306. Mr. Francis.'] Do you believe that the scab disease is contagious ? — It is difficult to say ; I cannot say so by experience. It is not very catching. 13307. If it is contagious, and one man keeps his slieep clean, don't you think it is an injustice to that man if his sheep are continually reinfected by another man's ? — Yes. 13308. Then don't you tliink that the man whose sheep are infected by his neighbour's should have some protection ? — If possible. 13309. In what way would you suggest that he should be protected ? — Only by law. 13310. Then j-ou are to a certain oxteiit in favour of an act with regard to the scab 580 disease, to protect the careful fanner ? — Yes, in tliose parts where it is jwssibla ; but here it is impossible. 13311. Dr. Smartt.~\ Do you mean us to inter that yuu were unable to carry out the instruotious of the voterinury surgeon witli regard to dipping your sliocp because you liad not sufficient water to dip tliem, or is it because you had no clean vddt to put them on V — I have enough water to dip, but not onougli to give them a ck'au run ou wliich no other sheep graze. 13312. Wlien did you dip your sheep last ? — More than a year ago. 13313. Why? — I have had no opportunity since. I hand dressed through tlie winter, but as some of my sheej) wore removed to other places it was impossible to dip them all. 13314. So tliat even in good seasous it has nsver been your ride always to dip your sheep, if possible, after sliearing V— No. 13315. To what districts do those flocks generally travel which leave this district in seasons of drouglit ? — Calvinia, OarnaI•^•on, Fraserburg, Graaff-Eoinet, Murraysburg Richmond, Pricska, Brit's Town and Hope Town. 13316. These flocks are generally affected with scab? — Yes. 13317. And in the majority of cases have not been dijiped for months before they are removed ? — Yes. 13318. As a practical farmer, do you not consider that sheep in such a condition as you describe woidd be a great danjrer to careful farmers all ahmg the line of main road ? — No. 13319. Have you ever moved witli travelling sheep yourself? — Yes. 13320. Have you ever trekked into the districts of Richmond, Murraysburg, Ciraaff- Reinet and so ou ? — No, I have never been with them mj'self . 13321. Have you ever heard that farmers in those districts have objected to travelling sheep simply because they are affected with scab ? — No. 13322. Mr. da Toit.^ Do sheep get badly affected with scab here as a rule ?^ — It very seldom happens that the whole flock gets scabby so badly that the whole troop dies. 13323. If you dipped and hand dressed them, do j'ou think they would die? — I find that my neighbours on both sides, who never do anjihing to their sheep, keep them in better condition than I do miue. Somefimes the sheep get scab, and get better themselves the following year when the veldt gets good. 13324. Then you don't tlunk scab is so contagious and so dangerous that it is necessary to have a law on the subject ? — No. 13325. If the districts to which the people trek from here came under an act, what will be your position if you are out ? — We shall be in a difficulty, and it would be far better for us iu that case to come imder the act. But if the northern districts are left open we shall have sufficient scope to move iu times of drought. 13326. Which are the northern districts? — Calvinia, Carnarvon, Prieska, Kenhardt, and Fraserbiu'g. 13327. WiU not your district be in a comer, providing all the others are under the law ? — There would be some difficidty, but we should be able to manage it. 13328. If Prieska came under the act, how woidd you manage then "? — We should then be in a much greater difficidty, aud should be debarred from going to the Orange River. 13329. Supposing Prieska is cut off, would }"ou rather be under the act? — No, we should stni be better without the act. Mr. Martin Hollander examined. 13330. Chairman. \ Are j'ou a delegate .'' — Yes ; I have farmed here for eight years, and have 4,000 small stock, consisting of merinos. Cape sheep, and goats, but mostly merinos. 13331. Do you agree witli Mr. van Schalkwj'k ? — I am soiTy to say tliat the proceedings to-day are very liurried, but I can add that there is not a single individual in the whole district in favour of the scab act, because it woidd be the ruin of the whole district. My experience also is that dipping does not help. "Wlien I started farming I was heai-t and soul in favour of a scab act from wliat I heard, but after my personal experience, I say it does not help iu this district. In 1883, 1884, aud 1885 there was not a farmer who was on his own place, because ou account of the drouglit there was nothing to be done ; aud I can take my oath that during my twenty years of experience in WUlistou aud Fraserburg there was not one in which the wliole of the two districts had sufficient rain. There were large portions of the districts whicli had no rains, and cousei£uently the people had always to trek about, There are over ninety peoi)le in the district of Williston who are landed proprietors, but all tlie rest also have stock, aud they must trek from one place to another, even the Hottentots, , and what is to be done with these people? 13332. You say that you dipped your sheep and find that it does them no good? — Yes. 13333. How did ycni dip them ? — The first time I used tobacco dip, according to the instructions, >iut I cannot say what was the quantity of water, and so on. 13334. How long did you keep them in the dip ■? — According to the instructions, but it is eight years ago, and I cannot remember. 13335. i)r. 5wfl;-<<.] But you don't mean to tell me that you have dipped your sheep thoroughly in tobacco extract, and j'ou don't know what strength j-ou made it ? — I mixed it according to the instructions, but I camiot remember it for eight years. AAAA 2 68t 13336. Chairman.^ But cannot you say Imw long you l (picstiou whether, if all tlie districts are proclaimed, we should remain free or come under the act, I should say it would be in our interest to remain free. My strongest olijection to the act under any circumstances is tliat in tlie northern parts of this district there are farms which are totnlly dependent upon dams, and in some montlis the dams get dry ; but in any case it would always be better for those parties if there were au ojiening left for them to trek to where there is water. Mr. Daniel Gerhardus Roitx examined. 13355. Chairman] Are you a delegate ? — Yes. I have farmed here for 8 years, and havp 2,000 merinos and goats. 13356. Do you agree with the previous witnesses? — Yes, except that sometimes th^ railway service would be convenient to us, though we can get on without it. It is not absolutely necessary to us. Out of the eight years T have been here, I have been field-cornet for seven, of ward No. 5, and I inspected every one of those 87 farms on liclialtof the Govern- ment for divisicmal council purposes. Since then I have been a]>i">inted hold-cornet of ward No. 3, for the last three years, and have become acquainted .vith wards No. 3 and No. 4. I know 173 farms in the district of Willistou, out of which there are not more than 33 suitable tor having dips at all times. During all that time I have never had rain on my farm except in March and Apiil, and the rest of the year it remains dry. 382 Jfr. Pieter Johannes Moolman examiQed. 13357. C'AaiVwan.j Are you a deleiiig so poor; and because they were not dipjied they ultimately recovered. I also know of a man wlio was very strongly in favour of a scab act at that time, who managed to keep his slieep clean for years, but afterwards I came across the same man's slieep and found tlieni very scabliy, and he then atlmitted to me that he had tried to keep tliem clean, but liad only checked it, and wlien it then broke out it was worse than ever. I think in the district of Fraserburg every man is tlie best judge of )iis own interests, and that we all do what is necessary in our own interests and want no scab act here, as there is no necessity for it. As for myself, I have never been accused of negligence, although I have been well known here for many years ; I have never even heard anybody complain, or say that I sliould keep my scabby sheep on mj' own land, neither have I heard any complaints of anyliody else, or from any wool-buyer regarding anj- wool in the district. A scab act would only cause opposition and discontent ■Vfith the Government of tlie country, and tliat would be a pity, as subjects ought to be obedient to the Government of the country. One of the results would be that in.spectors who have no knowledge of sheep would come and order me how to deal with my own sheep. We must also consider the difficulties of trekkers, which number many respectable individuals, with tlocks of perhaps thousands of sheep. Even trekkers may have tliousands of sheep, but people situated as they are cannot liave dips wherever they go, and at least oue-third of the inhabitants of Fraserburg consist of that class, who woiild be ruined by a scab act. The peculiar circumstances of the district make it necessary for sheej) to be very often out of sight of the owner, when tliey are frequently badly treated by T>eing left too long in the sleeping places, or being driven too hard to water. As for the east, it is quite different ; it is a country rich in grass and water, and tliere the seal) act can be applied. 13371. Is it not said that the Karoo veldt is much better than the grass veldt i* — Although gi-ass also get dry tliere is always something to feed on, and the farms being small arc bettor adapted for supei-vision by the owner. They are not dependent ujion sheep farming; that is only an addition to their occupation ; but liere it is just the reverse, and there are many who are entirely dej)endeut on their sheep. 13372. Have ^'ou a dipping tank on your farm 'i — No, 1 have a cask. I have no suitable Btone on my farm to build a tank with, but I can do it better in a cask than by throwing the sheep into a dipping tank. 13373. Wlien you dip your sheep in the way you do, do you clean them of scab ? — Yes. 13374. Then if sheep are properly dipped, you think they can be cleaned 1 — Yes, but not for ever. 13375. They remain clean until they become reinfected } — No, not by infection, but by bad seasons and drought. 13376. Then you think that scab is spontaneous, and comes fi'om nothing? — Yes. 13377. Ai-e }-ou aware that scab is an insect '{ — I know of an insect, but it is caused by scab. 13378. Tlien you think the insect conies from nothing i — It is caused by the scab. 13379. Do you know of any other insect that breeds from nothing 'i — Yes. 13380. What insect ? — I have seen fleas. A house after being cleaned for two days, when you return after the second day is c^uite full of fleas. 13381. Don't you tliink they hatch 'out from eggs?— No, I don't think so. 13382. Are there any farmers whom you know of in the district of Fraserburg who keep their sheep clean for a time, say for six months .' — I do, if the veldt is good, but the moment bad times set in, with scarcity and poverty, then of course scab reappears. 1338.'). When scab breaks out, have not scabby sheep ever lieen mixing with yours ? — I have never lieard any complaint that one neighbour's sheej) get infected by another's. 13384. If your sheep were free of scab, and another man's scabby sheep mixed with them, do you think yours woidd become infected ? — Not according to my experience, but I will not say it is impossible. 1338.5. Have you ever seen any sheep in the district with the wool hanging down with scab .'' — Yes, in this district, but not belonging to my iieiglibours. 13386. Were the sheep belonging to that man's neighbour in the same condition as regards scab ? — The neighliour had sheep, but they were not so bad. 13387. Don't you think the neighbour had cause to complain of tliis man having scabby sheep in the state in which these were ? — No, because each flock has its herd. 13388. But j-ou have stated that the herds are not to lie depended upon, and con- sequently these sheep would probably occasionally mix ? — How can I ans« er that question ? I was not there, and did not see the herds. It is quite possible 584 that they might Tnix, but if ono neighbour does harm to another, then he would hare cause for complaint. 13389. From your knowledge of the farmers in the Fraserhurg district, do )-ou think any one of them would go and complain if scabh}- sheep mixed with his when his sheep were perfectly clean } — No, hut I think he would go and speak to his neighbour aliout the matter if he suffered any injury. 13390. And suppose the neighbour took no steps to cleanse the sheep, do you think he would go and complain ? — If I knew that I suffered loss, I should know soon enough where to find my rights. 13391. Then you yourself would complain } — If I were convinced that I was suffering loss, I should lodge a complaint against that neighbour ; but the state of things of which I am speaking is very exceptional, and it is not a matter of every-day occurrence tliat the sheep are so bad. 13392. Are you acquainted with the district of Williston ? — ^No. 13393. We have it on evidence there that there is very little or no scab in the district, and when there is any scab that just a little dressing cures it, with the improvement of the veldt, and that it never causes any damage to the sheep or to the wool. Do you think that is correct ? — Yes. 13394. Do you think it is right that a man should move over four or five or more farms with badlj- infected sheep ? — Yes, I tliink it is right, because I don't see what harai they can do by moving over the farm. If they were to mix with other sheep they might infect them, but by trekking over the road the}- do no harm. 13395. Not if they left pieces of wool on the bushes ? — Even if sheep die on the road, they would not infect the others. 13396. Supposing there were a couple of good season.s, do you think that the farmers in the district of Fraserburg could do a great deal towards stamping out scab, if thej- all dipped together '? — Tliere is no scab in good seasons, though there might be little specks, so we don't want the scab act. 13397. If the sheep with those small specks you speak of were dipped and cleansed, don't you think that when the dry times came, there would be very little or no .scab ? — When they get poor the scab reappears. 13398. Supposing the Government decide to extend the provisicms of the .scab act in a way which will leave out Fraserburg and these districts, have you evei' considered how you are going to dispose of your slaughter stock, seeing that tlie farmers in the pmclaimed area would object to any scabby slieep coming in ? — I think we shall find a way imt of it. 13399. Do you think you would T)e able to find a market for your slieep even supposing the markets of the large towns, sucli as Cape ToTn, Kimberley and so on, were cut off from you ■? — Yes. We will submit to anything but the scab act. 13400. Where will you find a market? — It is always dangerous to tell your own secrets. 13401. Mr. Franck.~\ Do you mean to tell the Commission that every fanner in the Fraserburg district does his best to cleanse his sheep of .scab ? — I don't know, but my opinion is that they all do. 13402. Supposing scab were contagious, and one farmer who kept his sheep clean had a careless neighbour who alwaj's had his sheep infected with scab, do you think it would be fair to the careful man to allow his sheep to be continually reinfected b}- careless neigh- bours ? — I don't think it would be right, but if a man should suffer loss in that way he could know wliat to do. 13403. \Vliat would he do ? — Impound them. 13404. Then do you think that by getting a few shillings in the way of pound fees that man would lie compensated for liaving to spend perhaps £20 or £30 for redeansing his sheep 'i — It lias not been proved yet that in our district one sheep will infect another with scab, but if tliat were proved then I should not consider the compensation to be sufficient. 1340.5. Do you tlierefore think tliat there ought to be some law to make this lazy man look after his own interests, and the interests of his neighbour, by cleansing his sheep .' — No, I don't tlxink so. 13406. From your experience as a farmer, you tliink it would be a great blessing if we could get rid of scab entirely ? — Yes. 13407. If you were convinced that we could eradicate scab from the sheep, would you not be willing to go to some expense and a great deal of trouble to attain that end ? — Yes. 13408. How do you account for tlie fact tliat many sheep die from poverty in .some parts of the eastern province, and yet never became infected with scab ? — Even here they die of poverty without being scabby ; it does not follow that slieep always get scab. 13409. Do you know that in tlie district of Komgha under the present scab act the sheep have been clean for over four years, and during tliat period many of them have died from poverty ? — I leave that tliere. 13410. Mr. Botha.'] Where do the sheep go which you sell ? — To Cape Town. 13411. How do they get there y Are they driven, or do they go by train? — I don't know what the speculators do ; I think they sometimes go by tlie veldt, and sometimes by train. 13412. Those are slaughter stock ? — Yes. 13 413. Are tliey generally free of scab when they go away? — Yes. 13414. Do you think thej- are clean enough not to infect those places through which the train runs ? — Yes. 585 1341.5. You cannot i^lo without the ifiilwav in PrasprViurg? — No. 13416. Dt. Smartf.j You as a praitical farmer are naturally convincofl that at rertaia times dipping is efficacious, otherwise vou woulil not dip ? — Yes. 1:3117. Consequently, if it is true tliat a huge section of farmers in thes(> districts don't (lip tlieir .sheep, it would he to their own interests if they were compelled to dip, in suitable seasons ? — I don't sec the necessity of compelling them. 13418. If sheep in the district of Fraserhurg constantly die in times of drought without being affected with scab, can you explain your tjieory that drought alone is the cause of scab breaking out in the flocks ? — I did not .say that it applied to every aniuml, but it is the rule. 13419. Mr. flu Toit.~\ Has it ever come witliin your experience that sheep in good condi- tion are killed by scab 'i — No ; they might get scab, but they would not die from it. 13420. Have vou also found that scabby sheep get cured without anj'thing being done to them ?— Yes. 13421. Does tliat apply only t,) dry sheep, or to lambiug sheep also ? — Mostly to ewes with lambs at their sides. 13422. Is it particularly the lambs or the ewes? — The ewes. Ewes with lambs at their sides are generally miuli freer from scab than drj' sheep. 13423. Has it been yaut experience that they were scabliy before they lambed, and got bettor afterwards ? — Yes. 13424. Did the lambs get scabby then ? — Not then ; not as long as tliey .ire sucking. 13425. Which is it that makes the flocks too poor for farmers to trek, scab or poverty ? — The drought. 13426. ChairmanJ] Do you wish to add anything? — Since so much has been said about scab and the scab act, I have made an experiment with the aid of the veterinary surgeon. I could not believe that scab could get from one sheep on to another, and I exposed the nearut for an hour in the warm sun, and it was killed. I then tried putting it out in a frost at midnight, and the next morning it was dead. I also tied up a healtiiy sheep and put the aniri on the ground, for the whole night, and it had no effect, and I sheared the shoep and examined the wool with a magnifying glass, but could not discover a single insect. That insect is altogether helpless to move itself. 1342". If scaTi insects which are put on the wool of the sheep would go down to the skin, don't you tliiuk tliat if the sheep laid on these scab insects which are scratched off in the veldt, the insect would get on to the wool and on to the sheep in the same way ? — He cannot do it ; he cannot climb. Mr. Jacobus Hendrik Hough examined. 13428. Chairman.'] How long have j-ou been farming in tliis district? — Four years. I have 900 merino sheep, and am also a delegate. 13429. Do you agree with Mr. Nigrini ? — Yes. 3fr. WilUnm Francois Stoffberg examined. 13430. Chairman.'] How long have you been fanning here ? — For fifteen years. I have 2,000 or 3,000 merinos, and am also a delegate. 13431. Do you agiee with Mr. Nigrini ? — Yes. 13432. Mr. Hatha.] You have never been under the scab act ? — No. 13433. In those districts where the scab act is in foi-ce, who should be inspectors ? — The mem who have experience of sheep. 13434. A^Tio sliould appoint them? — They should be recommended by the sheep farmers themselves. 13435. Dr. Smarft.] Are you convinced, as a practical farmer, that scab is not contagious ? — Yes. Mr. Caret Petrut van dei- Merwe examined. 13436. Chairman.] How long have you been fai-ming here? — About thirty years, have 4,000 merimos and a fev goats. 13437. Do you agree with Mr. Nigrini ? — Yes. except with what he said with regard to the eastern province. I am not acquainted with the eastern part of the Colony, but as far as Fraserburg is concerned I agi-ee with him. 13438. Mr. Francis.] Do you dip your sheep regularly? — No, I never dip. 13439. What do you do if your sheep become scabby ?— I onlj- look after them. 13440. Then do you consider that a man who, when his sheep became infected with scab, neither hand dresses, nor dips them, does the best he can to eradicate scab ? — Yes. 13441. Then how can you agree with the previous witness that every man in the Fraserburg district does the very best he can to ei'adicate sca>>. when you do nothing at all .- — It is all understood when I say I lf)ok wcU after them. 13442s Dr. Snuirl/.] Mr. Nigrini distinctly states that it is in the interests of the farmer .586 at times to dip his sheep, and that he flips them ; liut since yon do not dip, how can you possibh' say that you agree entirely with Mr. Nigrini ? — ^Last year I liau — Yes ; I think in seasons like the present, if we were to club togetlier and do our best, that in two years, if not altogether eradicated, there would at all events be very little scab left. 13462. When a fanner teEs you that he has carefully dijiped his sheep, but that there are times when that dipping will not help, does it not prove to you that he does not under- stand the system of dipping ? — Yes, that is my experience. 13463. Consequently, would it not be advisable if this dipping act were introduced of which you are in favour, to have the sheep of such people dipped under inspection ? — Of [G. l-'94.] BBBB 687 course. Our people have not tried tlie tiling jet, and the reason why they have not taken to it is partly ignorance regarding the disease itself. 13464. It is impossible for you, without more protection from the law, to derive that benefit from your industry to which ycu are entitled by taking care of your flock.s ? — Impossible. 13465. Would it be advisable to compel the owners of all landed property on which small stock are kept to have suitable dipping tanks built tliere ? — Yes. 13466. And to compel them to allow every man grazing stock upon their properties the right of using such tanks ? — Yes. 13467. That would do away with the difficulty stated with regard to trekkers not being able to dip their sheep ? — Yes. 13468. Mr. dii Toit.] Do you see j'our way to farmers being compelled to build tanks on farms which are hired ? — No, I think that would be rather unreasonable. The owner should build them. 13469. Are you aware whether a good many farms in this district are leased? — Not so very many as there used to be. 13470. In case there is a general simultaneous dipping act, how would you arrange for these farmers to have their flocks dipped ? — In such cases I think the owners of the farms should provide dips. 13471. Then would you suggest that the Government should Iniild dipping tanks on the farms which they let out on lease to others ? — Yes. 13472. Ai-e you aware that scab sometimes gets cured by itself? — ^Yes, I have seen sheep cured by nature, but I will not say what has been said hero before. After a time some hard covering comes over tlie scabby place, and that lifts the crust and throws it off, and consequently the animal is cured. 13473. Has it also been your experience that ewes which have had scab before lambing get well afterwards ? — I have heard it, but I don't know it by expei'ience. 13474. Should the dipping act only be put in force in good seasons ? — Yes. Mr. Hendrik Louwrens van der Westhuhen examined. 13475. Chairma>i.~\ How long have j-ou been farming here ? — Fortj^-five .years. I have 2,000 Cape sheep, and my children who are living with me have 2,500 merinos. I am a delegate. 13476. With which of the previous witnesses do you agree ? — Witli Mr. Nigrini, entirely. 13477. Dr. Siimrtf.l Have you ever dipped ? — No. 13478. Consequently, never having dipped, you are not in a position to give an opinion upon dipping ? — No, I cannot give an opinion. Mr. Jacob Johannes du Toit examined. 13479. Chairman.'] How long have you farmed here? — For 25 years. For 16 years I farmed with merinos, but now mostly with Cape sheep. I am also a speculator, and large flocks of merinos as well as Cape sheep pass through my hands. I have 5,000 Cape sheep and merinos, but mostly Cape. 13480. Do you wish to give evidence in favour of or against a scab act ? — Against it. Even if it could be proved that the insect is the cause of the scab, I should still be opposed to a scab act, because on account of the prevailing droughts here we could never carry it out, and for the same reason no remedy could be properly applied. It would only be possible to dip, but it would be impossible to keep them clean, because the dipping could not be applied in the proper way. 13481. Do you dip your own sheep? — Formerly 1 did, when I kept merinos, but not now. 13482. Did you fiid the dip effectual in cleaning them for a time? — When there were spots on them I found that dipping cured them, but if the times were bad you could kill them by dipping, but without curing them. 13483. What dips did j-ou use ? — Tobacco, and sulphur and lime. 13484. Did you dip them twice? — When necessary I dipped. 13485. Did you ever dip them a second time within 14 or 18 days of the first dipping? — No, I cannot say I did. 13486. Are you aware that all the dips state that unless you dip twice within something like 14 days you will never cure the scab ? — No. 13487. Why did you not dip a second time within 14 or 18 days? — Because 14 or 18 days later I might not be in a position to dip a second time, on account of drought, or having to trek away. 13488. Supposing the country is in good condition, the veldt is good, is there any diffi- culty then in dipping twice within that time ? — No, but you must consider how often we have the opportunity, and how many times we shall have that favourable condition. 13489. The question is whether in good seasons, you can dip twice within 14 days.? — Yes, you might even dip oftener. 13490. If you look at the directions on any of those patent dips, or at the veterinary surgeon's instructions, you will find it stated that unless you do dtj) within about that time 588 you vrill never stamp out scab, because the insects breed again, and lay their eggs -within that time. Do you believe that scab is spontaneous? — Yes. 13491. Then what is the use of dipping at all? — In order to cure it for the time being, and by doing so to preserve the wool. 13492. Iff. Francit.'] Do you believe that the scab disease is contagious ? — I cannot say so by experience ; tliere is always some sort of cause without being infected. 13493. If all your merino sheep were clean of scab, would y(ju have any objection to tliem being mixed with a troop of scabby .slieep ? — No, not necessarily. 13494. Are you aware of the fact that the only scab which is recognised by the law is that which is caused by an insect and is contagious ? — I only know one kind of scab, that which damages the wool. 13495. If it is a fact that the only scab is caused by an insect, then, if that insect were killed would not the sheep be clear of scab ? — Even if that were the case, as I said from the beginning, we should not be in a position to cure scab. 13496. Do you think it would be a good thing for the farmers and the country if we could eradicate scab from the flocks of the Colony ? — If it could be done it would be a good thing, but I must add that on accoimt of the drougJits it cannot be done here. 13497. But the more scab tliere is in the sheep, the greater is the loss and injury to the farmer ? — Yes, we lose more wool. 13498. Then by dipping j'our sheep you partly avoid that loss ? — That aU depends on circumstances ; in case there is an improvement in the veldt, scab gets cured, but if there is no improvement there is no healing. 13499. But you consider under many circumstances it is an advantage for the farmer to dip his slieep if tkey are scabby ? — When the veldt is good. 13500. Do you think all the farmers in tliis district dip their sheep when the veldt is good in order to try and eradicate scab ? — It is difficult to answer for all the farmers. I don't know whether I could call those people farmers who trek about with .small lots of sheep and who are not in a position to dip, but surely all farmers who are iu a position to dip will do so, as it is in their own interests to do it. I refer specially to landowners and those who hire land, and only trek when they are obliged t(j on account of the droughts ; but however necessary it ma}' be to dip, times may be so bad that they are obliged to do without, and unfortunately we are in that condition the greater proportion of our time. 13501. Are there dipping tanks on all the farms in this district ? — On the majority of them. 13502. Mr. Bofha.'] Wliere is the market for your sheep ? — Sometimes at Beaufort West, sometimes at Piquetberg, and so on. 13503. Are you obliged to use the railway ? — Yes, they ^o to the nearest station. 13504. Are the sheep you send always free of scab ?— Even if they are free of scab when I take them from the fanus, tliey may break out on the road. 13505. If you were obliged to dip those sheep before you sold them, would jou be able to do so ? — No. 13506. Br. Siiiartt.'] If you have never dipped sheep properly, and according to instruc- tions, do j-ou consider that you are in a position to state that dipping will cure under any circumstances, or not ? — Yes, I can. 13507. How did you dip your sheep ? — I cannot remember exactly. 13508. Are you prepared to state that the water with wliicli you dipped those sheep was measured, and that the tobacco was carefully weighed ? — Yes. 13509. And that it does not help ? — Not in dry times. 13510. Are you a large buyer of ^lleep in this district? — Yes, I Imy tliousands. 13511. Consequently, as far as you are concerned as a speculator, it would be to your interest to have as free movement of stock as possible in the district ? — Yes. 13512. Are you now speakiug more in your own interest as a speculator, or as a sheep farmer ? — I speak as a sheep farmer, because that is my greatest interest. 13513. As j'ou state that you dip to preserve the wool, and as it has been proved that there are certain farmers in the Colony, and iu this district, who don't dip, then according to your own showing would it not be better in their own interests to compel those people to dip ? — No. 13514. Do you wish the Commission to understand that in ordinary seasons, in the months of March, .\pril and May, in tlie district of Fraserbui-g, it is in the majority of cases impossible to dip sheep twice within 14 days? — Yes. 13515. When you state that tlie majority of farmers who holringlii)k como in here in large numbers within the last few years ? — I cannot speak for Carnarvon, but where I am living they come every year. 13696. Have jou any practical experience of springbok infecting boer goats witli *9ab ? — I have never seen it, but I have heard of it. 13697. As your interests are entirely bound up with Cape sheep, it is a matter of no consequence to you whether the wool industry of the district suffers or not ? — No, it is of no consequence to me. 13698. Mr. du Toif.] How far is your farm from the village ? — Fifteen hours. 13699. Is that on the boundary between Carnarvon and Kenhardt ? — Yes. 13700. How far are you from Kenhardt':' — Ten hours. 13701. Are the spriugliok always s>y experience that it does infect tame goats ? — No. 13705. Do you farm with goats ? — Yes. 13706. It has lieen stated that 8cab1)y springbok infect horses. Do you believe that? — Yes; in carrying a buck houie on a horse I have known the horse to become infected. 1 3707. Mr. Botha.'] Can you give an instance in which you have seen a scabby springbok go into a kraal and die ? — No, I have not seen that, but I have seen it caught by a buck badly infected with scab on the homestead. . Mr. WiDwlmm Lambertiu Vos examiaed. 13708. Chairman.'] How long have you farmed here ? — For about thirty years. I have about 9,000 merino sheep on my place. 13709. Do you agree with Mr. Visser ? — I agree entirely with Mr. Moolman, and I am sati.sfied with the evidence which has been giveu hero. 13/10. Have you a dipping tank on your fanu ? — Yes. 13711. And you dip your sheep regularly? — No, but I dip them when I think it necessary, and when they get scabby. 13712. Then you find the dipping assists to free fhem from scab ? — Yes, it deans them. 13713. Do you find that this applies to times of drought as well as to good seasons ? — I liave never dipped iu drouglit, tliey generally have long wool then, and sol don't dip them. 13714. But if scab broke out amongst your sheep when there was a drought and the wool was short what would you do ? — I don't know ; that has never happened to me. My shearing time is generally in Febrimry or March, and the veldt is genei-ally good then. 1 37 1 5. Have j'ou found that when the veldt is good the scab goes away by itseK without auy interferance on your jjart '? — Yes. 13716. Mr. Francis.] Do you know of any experiment that was tried, of placing the scab insect in a clean sheeji in this district ? — Yes, it was done at my place. The veterinary surgeon came to my place and took the scab insect. I was, and still am, of opinion tliat the insect cfHues from the scab. We brought a clean sheep and the scab was put on it ; in eight days jiimples appeared, whicli were scab. The sheep was then shorn and got well by itself. 13717. How can you account for the fact that this district is considered so bad, and suffers so severely fi'om drought, and yet you have aliout 9,000 sheep on jour farm, and almost '■•ery fanner who has given evidence this morning saj's he has between 3,000 and 4,004 sheep ? — Because we look after them and they increase. 13718. Br. Sinartt.] If it is stated that in all the experiments conducted by the veterinary surgeon in this Colony he has been unable to transfer scab from one shecii to another, your experience allows you to contradict that ? — Yes, it was caused by the scales \vhich were transferred. 13719. If j-ou are so convinced that this case of scab was caused by the scales which were transfered with the insect, and not by the insect, woidd not your conmioii sense have tatight you to have tested the matter by transferring scales alone to another of your sheej», and see whether by so doing you would have been able to infect that sheeji with scab ';* — 1 keep my sheep clean ; they don't get scales. 13720. Is it not a fact that you are, like many people in this country, holding to a particular belief, and though it was proved by experiment that you are wrong, you woidd still stick to the old opinion .-' — Yes, I stick to my old opinit)n. 13721. Chairman.] Is there anything that j'ou would like to add':* — I believe that you tan keep down the scab for three or four years, but then it will break out again, and nothing will cure it. -5«8 Mr. Sleplmnug Johannes Lntsky examined. 13722. Chairma)!.'] How long have you farmed here? — About fortjr /ears. I have 8,000 or 9,000 sheep, a few of which are Cape sheep. 13723. Do you agi-ee with Mr. Visser? — Yes. 13724. I)r. iSi/ttir/f.j Do you dip, or have you ever dipped? — No. 13725. At the present moment, are your sheep affected with scab ? — So far as 1 know, they are entirely clean. The wool is short ik.w. 13726. Were they in that condition before you sheared them? — They were slightly infected, and had spots on them. 13727. When did you shear ? — The first lot at the end of January, and the second lot about a fortnight ago. 13728. Then you wish me to understand that sheep which H days ago, having long wool, were affected with scab, are to-day perfectly clean without anything having been done ? — Yes. 13729. Have you hand dressed them since they were shorn ? — No. 13730. Then you do mean to state that those sheep which were affected with scab, accordiig to your own evidence, 14 days ago, are now clean, without having been either dipped or hand-dressed ? — The reason is the good veldt. 13731. Chairman r^ As yoiu- sheep have no scab, jou must have good servants as well ? — Yes, my herds are white men. 13732. And you account for your sheep being free of scab because you have white herds in lieu of Hottentots, who attend to them carefully } — Yes, that is my opinion, but I think if I did not apply something internal the sheep would not remain clean. It depends on circumstances how long they wQl remain clean. 13733. But never having dipped your.self, liow do j-ou form yoiir opinion .-• — I hand di'ess. Jfr. Petnis Jacobus Feriiieulen examined. .3734. Chair)nan.'\ How long have you been farming in this district .-'—For 34 years. On my place there are 4,000 merinos. 1373.5. Do you agi-ee with Mr. Visser .? — Yes. AH those who have given evidence this morning liave been appointed delegates for that purpose. Mr. Ahoyn Johanms Vorster examined. 13736. Chairman.^ How long have you been farming here .^ — Twelve years. I have now 3,000 merinos, and a few goats. 13737. Have you come forward to give evidence in favour of an act of some kind, or against it .-' — In favour of the act. My reasons are that although I am doing my best to keep down scab it does not help me much, because according t<> the practice iu this country tliere is continual trekking of scabTiy flocks over my property, wliicli lie about, and rest tliere for a certain time. Also it is not all of my neighboiu-s wlio are very particuhir. I have neighbours who don't take the same view of the question as I do, and are not particular in dipping ; consequently my sheep constantly become reinfected, and I am put to expense, and require some protection in the shape of a law. 13738. Wliat wmdd you suggest? Have you ever thought of any remedy? — I admit that in this district we are labouring imder gi-eat difficulties, and therefore it is difficidt for uio to say what can be done ; but I know this, that there are times when sometliing more ciiuld be done than they do at present, for when a man can keep his .slieep on his farm lie can also dip. if necessary. 13739. Then you think that if any act is passed it shoidd include a general dipping clause ? — Yes. 13740. Do the farmers generally in this district dip their shoop? — Tlien- are merino sheep fanners who liave never dipped their sheep yet. They believe that if it only rains the slicep will become healtliy, and hat scab only comes in the winter, and gets cured in summer by itself. 13741. In case it is found impossible to have an act for this district, do you think that a careful farmer like you.' self, who dips his sheep and keeps them clean, should have the power to prevent any scabby slieep crossing over his farm, even upon public roads .■' — Yes, unless they are dipped before coming on to his property. 13742. Do you find in this district that farmers are trekking nearly every year, and that they are constantly trekking with very scabby sheep ? — Yes. 13743. And you think that it is necessary that carefiU farmers should be protected in some way such as you now p;>int out .-' — Yes. 13744. Would it be bitter to have some act which would apply to this district, and to others similarly situated, and which suffer from the same drawbacks as you. which would compel them to take better care of then- sheep than they do at present ? — I think we must have some kind of law. 1374-5. Without some kind of luw, do you think )ou will ever be able to keep your sheep clean ? — No. 699 i;i746. 3rr. Fmncis.'] Don't you think a grenter injury is caused to the oareful farmnr from the absence of a scab law than would \>c wlio would favour a scab act only they are afraid that the existing act would be too ditKcult to be carried out here. 13751. Mr. Botha.'] If the Dutch farmers iind out the benefit to be derived from dipping their sheep, don't you think that they would give up this opposition to anything being done .^— Yes, if they were to take the thing in hand they would get cured of their opposition to any sort of a .scab act, aud treat scab according to tlie rules laid down. 13752. Dr. tSmar(i.~\ To reap tho advantage of a dipping act, as suggested by you, would it not bo necessary to have many flocks dipped under inspection ':*— As far as that goes I woidd like myself to be under such personal inspection of somebody who knows more than I do. 13753. Do you tliiuk such a clause would really be a benefit to the farmers themselves instead of oppressing them .'' — Yes. 13754. Wluit men wimld you recommend as su]>erintendents of dipping.^ Would you take tliem from noted careful fanners residing in each field-cornetcy, wlio clean tlieir own sheep, or not ?■ — I think it might be a fanner of tliat kind, but a man altogether indepen- dent wlio does not Itelong to this district. 13755. You fear that a man residing iu the district would not bo impartial enough ? —Yes. 13756. Mr. du Toit.'] How many dippings do you Iind it takes to clean your slieop ? — I never found it necessary to diji tJiom more thau once, if they only had spots, 1)ut if necessary, 1 hand dressed. 1 have my times wlien I do dip, whether the slice]) are scabby or not, and if they get scab in between, I hand dress them. After shearing I invariably dip twic to have the comiiulsorv dipping act recommended by you, made a simultaneous dipping act as far as po.ssible in the diiierent districts .^ — Yes, within a ri-asonable time. 13762. Witli sucIl an act, and reasonable diligence im tlie part of tlic farmers, do you think that in a short period of time, say in three or four years, scab could be eradicated from these districts '^— It is difficult to say as regards tliis district, but I think it would certainly be decreased veiy much. 13763. In times of drouglit, are a large portion of the lossi's due, according to your own experience, to the fact that sheej) are affected witli scab .^—Certainly. 13764. Chairman.] In case there should be an act of some kiml wliicJi sliould include under its operations the railway systems of the Colony, do you tliink it would be in tlie interests of Carnarvon to come under the act, or to remain out, with reference particularly to tlie sale of slaughter stock V — I sho\d)iisenueutly, wlieii many fanners in this and otlier districts say tliat theii' experience of dipping is not the same as yours, is it uot a proof that their dipping is carried out iu a careless manner i' — Yes. 13772. And is tliis constantly the case in th6 district of Carnarvon? — Yes, Kimb&rky, Monday, 9th Ocfoher, 1893. Mr. Botha. Mr. Du ToiT. I'KESENT : Dr. Smartt (Chairman). Mr. HOCKLY. Mr. Francis. Mr. Jnhan Ahraiii ran Wyh examined. 13773. Chairman.] Are you a delegate? — Yes, I was elected at a public meeting to represent tlie farmers at Wonderfontein. I have 700 merinos, 800 Cape sheep, and about 200 goats. 1377-1. Are you aware of th<^ objects of tliis Cominisision ? — Yes. 1377-li. Do you come to give evidence in favour of or against it .' — Against it. 13770. Wh}';'— Becau.se the putilie of Wonderfontein are opposed to it. They are opposed to it hccnuse they believe that dipping only helps temporarily, aud afterwards it has no effect. Moreover, they don't think the district is suitable for it ; the natural inconveniences aud drawbacks would make it impossible because tliere is so much steekgras and harddoorn. 13777. Do you consider scab to be contagious ? — I think it is spontaneous. 13778. To the best of yom- knowledge, do all the farmers in your portion of the country dip their flocks regularly ? — They don't dip but they liand dre.ss. 13779. Do you mean that the majority hand dress ? — Yes, nobody dips. 13780. Is it possible for the farmers in your portion of the country to give an opinion upon the efficacy of dipping when, according to your own statement, nobody dips ? — Yes. •• 13781. Personally j^ou have never dipped your sheep ? — No. 13782. Then how do you consider that you are in a position to give a definite opinion ? — Because I have travelled through parts where there is a good deal of dipping done, and I have been told by experienced farmers who have tried it that dipping only helps for a period of perhaps three years, or so od, Imt later on it has no effect. 13783. Mr. Francis.] At the meeting where you were appointed n delegate, were thev all opposed to the act, or was there a difference of opinion ? — They were unanimonsly opposed to it. 13784. In what manner was the meeting called ? Was it by advertisement, or in what other way ? — By giving a special notice tliroiigh the divisional council. ^ 13785. Is tliere much scali amongst the flocks in your neighbourhood ? — At my place there is none at all, but there is a little in the neighbourhood, here and there. 13786. Do you ever manage to get the flocks perfectly i^ean by hand dressing? — Yes. 13787. Are there any tanks on tlie farms in your neighbourhood? — No. 13788. Then really you cannot give any opinion with regard to dipping ? Wliat you aay about dipping is only what you have heard from otlier jieople ? — Yes. 13789. But you flunk it would be a very good tiling if we could clean all tlie scab out of the sheep ? — If it were possible. 13790. Because I suppose that while there is scab among the sheep you lose a good deal of wool, and the wool is not so good as it would be if the sheep were clean ? — I don't know. 13791. Mr. Botha.] In case tliere should be a scab act, how n*any inspectors ought there to be in order to carry out the work properly, and to give the necessary information to owners how to dip ? — In fiehl-coruetiy No. 2, I think there ought to tie fivemspectors. i;5792. Why should there be so many as five ?— So as not to give individuals so much inconvenience in finding the inspector. 13793. How would you propose to pay them ?— In case they are to be paid, I tliink three will be suflicient. 13794. 3[r. (ill Toit.] Do you believe that if .scab once breaks out it is contagious to other sheep ? — I cannot say that it is not contagious when it once l>reaks out, but 1 know that sheep are born with it now. 13795. If your sheep are clean, would you object to 3four neiglibour's scabb3- sheep mixing with them ? — I have an idea that it might infect mine. 13796. Then since the disease may be contagious, is it not your opinion that it is nece.s- sary t7) have a rule to prevent people with scabl)y sheep infecting tiieir clean neighbours ?— Yes, if the majority are in favour of it. 13797. Mr. Sock/;/.] Do you think that scab is caused by an in.sect ? — Yes. 13798. Have you ever seen the insect ? — No, but I discover it, and that leads me to think that lambs are born with scab. 13799. Admitting it is an insect, I suppose you will agree that tliis insect will increase * —Yes. 13800. And in that case more sheep are liable to get the insect ? — That lias not been my expei'ience, but it may be so. 13801. If you could devise a plan to destroy tliose insects, don't you think it would be advisable to do so ? — If more information coidd be given on that point to the farmers in my ward, No. 2, I think that in course of time they wiU work out their own salvation. r,o] 13802. Tlion yoii tliink thnt, if the ppoiilo in your ward could be convinced that the scab is caused by an insect, and tliat the insect could be destroyed, and that there would not be any more scab, they would tlien be prepared to try those remedies ? — I don't know. 13803. Then supposing' the more intelligent men in your district saw that the thing could be done, and were desirous of doing it, and that there were a few carelesN and negli- gent men, who would not take any means to destroy the insect, do 3'ou think there o\ight to be some means of protecting the fanuer who wants to keep his sheep in good condition ? — Perhaps. 13804. But don't you think it would he desirable ? — I think so. 13805. Chairman.] Were you personally convinced that two efficient dippings would cure any outbreak of scab, in any flock, would you then be in favour, personallj', of a dip- ping act ? — If so, it is very natural that I should be in favour of such an act. 13806. Under such circumstances, so many people in your district being opposed to scab legislation, and not having nuy experience of dipping, would it not be advisable to appoint inspectors of dipping (ju whom the responsibility would be placed of cleaning the .sheep, and not on the farmers .' — I don't wish to answer that, as I shoidd be going beyond my instructions. 13807. But personally what is yoiu- opinion? — I think the inspector should be responsible. 13808. If a dipping act were introduced, would it do away with a good deal of the opposition of farmers if the Government suppliod dip at first cost price, and carriage free over the railwa^• system of the countrj' .?— Yes. 13809. When did you last hand dress your sheep ? — About three or four months ago. They are now free of scab. 13810. When you state that your sheep are free of scab, do you mean they are free of scab in the ordinary acceptation of the term amongst the fanners, or do you wish the Commission to understand that among your 1,400 sheep and goats there is not one spot of scab .'' — Yes, they are absolutely free. 13811. Mr. Ftoniix.~\ If the Government made an agreement with a private firm that they would supply dip without making the farmers pay for it, and they were to dip the farmers' sheep and get them clean, do you think some farmers would then be in favour of an act who are now opposed to it ? — It depends upon what tax would be put on. 13811.'. Mr. till Toft.^ Which do j'ou consider the best, the scheme of Messrs. Cooper and Nephews to clean tlie fiocks of the Colony, or that the Government should do it themselves ? — I cannot sav. Mr. JohanniH Hercules Viljoen examined. 13813. Chairman.'] Are you a delegate? — Yes, from Warrenton. I was appointed at a public meeting to represent ward No. 1. 13814. How long have you been fanning in Warrenton? — Five years. I have 600 merinos, 300 Afi-ikander and bastard sheep, and 300 goats. 13815- Are you in favour of scab legislation or not ? — No, I am also opposed to it. 13816. Why y — Been use, as far as my personal experience goes, and that of the eld sheep farmers of the district, it does not help. Scab is siwntaneous in bad seasons, and in good seasons it will disappear without the action of man. 13817. Then do you agree entirely with the evidence of the last witness ? — Yes. 13818. Do jou personally, or the farmers in your ward dip their sheep ? — No, there is no dipping in our district ; here and there they hand dress. 13819. But there are several farmei's in j-our ward who don't even hand dress their sheep ? — I could not say for certain, but I think ever\' farmer does what he can to keep his sheep in good order. 13820. Do you hand dress your sheep regularly if they have scab? — I am not very particular. 13821. Mr. Francis.'] Are your sheep free of scab at present? — Not altogether; they are about the same as usual. I think there is always some scab amongst them. 13822. But you sometimes hand dress your sheep to try and clean them of scab ? — Y'es. 13823. Why do }'ou do so? — Because I want to try and find out whether it helps, and what does help. 13824. Mr. Bofhri.] Do you think that the expense of dipping, and keeping sheep'clean, will be greater than the lienefit wluch is derived therefrom .'' — Yes, I think so ; the expense would be greater than the profit derived from it. 1 3825. Mr. du Toil.'] Do you believe that scab is contagious ? — Since it is called a disease it is possible that it may be, but my own experience is that it comes from natural causes, and goes away naturally. 13826. Mr. Ilodly.'\ Have you ever seen any flocks in your ward verj- badly infected with scab ?— Yes, I have seen them get totally naked to the feet. 13827. And I suppose you have known cases where farmers have had to shear on account of scab simply to save ihe wool ? — Generally when scab gets very bad, the farmer shears to save the wool. 13828. And that is sometimes out of season ? — Yes, I have known such cases. 602 """^ 13829. Is it not bad for the sheep to shear them at unsuitable seasons, paj- in the winter ? — Yes, and disadvantageous for the farmer. 13830. Don't you think it would be more profitable for the farmer to go to the expense of dipping, and save his sheep and the wool ? — Naturally. 13831. Tou have never known a sheep to be dipped in your district, either by hand or in a tank .' — No, only hand dre.ssed. 13832. What dress is generally used? — A patent dip. 13833. What strength do you use it ? — I use a cupful to a bucket of water. 13834. When you have used that, is it efficacious? — Yes. 1383.5. If the whole sheep were immersed in it, don't you think it would cure the whole sheep, since a small spot is cured by hand dressing ? — Naturally. 1 3836. You believe that if the sheep were dipped in the dip which you use for curing small spots, the whole sheep would be cured ? — Perhaps for a time. 13837. If }-ou were satisfied that it would cure the sheep, do you think it would be advisable for j'ou as a farmer to do it in order to cure the sheep ? — Natural!}- it would be to my profit if I were convinced of the fact. 13838. C/iairman.'] Have j'ou noticed in times of drought in your district that the farmers whose flocks happen to be the scabbiest are the heaviest losers ? — -Yes, I have ex- perience of that : that the scabby sheep die in larger proportions. 13839. Mr. Francis.^ Do you know of any people in your neighbourhood who are in favour of a scab act ? — Not as far as I know of. 13840. J/r. Hockly.'] Are ycni acq^uainted with the provisions of the scab act ? — No. 13841. Will you give us your ideas of the working of the act? — As far as I know, I believe certain people are sent round to see if the slieep have scab, and tliat if sheep are scabby the owners are obliged to hand di-ess them, but if they are very scabby the owners are obliged to cut their throats. J/r. Hermanut Steyn examined. 13842. Chairman.^ Are you a delegate ? — Yes, I was appointed at a public meeting of ward No. 4, Kimberley, to give evidence before the Commission. 13843. How long have you been farming in this division ? — Since 18-54. At present I have about 1,400 sheep and goats, but in 1884 I had 3,000. 13844. Do you come to give evidence in favour of or against scab legislation ? — Against it, according to the opinion of my district and my own personal experience. 13845. What are your objection.s to scab legislation? — I look upon it as a disgrace to a farmer to have legislation in his own interests ; the scab act will not cure sheep of scab, and we have acts euough. The farmer does not belong to the lower cla.ss of animals that he ehould have such legislation. 13846. From your knowledge, do the farmers in your ward do their best to cope with scab ? — I tliink in most cases they do. For the last thirty-five years my experience with scab in sheep has been that when sheep are internally healtliy tliere is no difficulty in curing the scab, any remedy will do it ; but when they are in a sickly state you can only cure scab temporarily, it is sure to reappear. 13847. Have the sheep in your district been very scabby during the late drought ? — I cannot say they have been very bad. For the la.st ten years I don't believe they have lost a' sheep from scab. They lose wool, but nothing to complain about. 13848. Do you dip your sheep if .scab breaks out amongst your flocks ? — Not regularly, because it is not always convenient ; sometimes I hand dress. 13849. Have you ever dipped your sheep twice within fourteen days ? — Yes, that is the custom. 13850. Is that also the custom amongst the majority of farmers in your ward ? — No, certainly not all farmers ; the majority have no tanks. 13851. But you have dipped your sheep in that way. Do 3-ou find that it cures them of scab ? — Dipping always helps, but only temporarily, for three or four months. 13852. But you find it pays you in suitable times to dip your sheep if they are scabby ? Yes, certainly. 13853. Conseijuently, according to your own opinion, there being many farmers .who don't dip their slieop in your district, would it not be to their interest to compel them to dip ? — No. Some who don't dip their sheep have cleaner flocks than I, who do dip, and some who dip even better than I do are worse. 13854. What do you mean by dipping better than you do, if you state you dip your sheep thoroughly twice within fourteen days ? — They dip. more frequentlj-. 13855. After dipping your sheep twice, and temporarily cleaning them, do you think they are in danger of reinfection if scabby sheep were to mix with them .'' — No, it is not contagious here, though it may be in the eastern districts. I am in a position to prove that it is not coutagious. 13856. Consequentl}-, if your sheep are clean, you have no objection whatsoever to the scabbiest sheep mixing with them ? — Certainly not. 13857. Mr. D-ancis.^ Do you believe that scab is caused by an insect ? — After three years' diligent search I found two insects, consequently I have given it up. Here in the [G. 1— '94.] DDDO «03 we«t they are not so numerous, and moreover thd insect is very delicate, and dies within 24 hours. 13858. Do you believe that scab is caused by an an insect ? — No, the scab brings the insect. 1 3859. Are you aware of the fact that no flock of sheep would be accounted to be infected with scab under the present law unless that insect could bo found on tliem ? — No. 13860. Still, the scab causes a great deal of harm amongst the flocks of the Colony. I don't mean to a man like you who is so very careful in cleaning his sheep, but to some careless farmers ? — No, it does not cause loss. 13861. If you did not dip your sheep, would it cause loss to you ? — Yes. 13862. If it causes loss to you if you don't dip, would it not cause loss to others if they don't dip ? — That is why their sheep would not be like mine. 13863. In what way would they differ frr)m yours ? — The case is this, that slieop which have no internal disease are not at all so badly subject to scab as the others, and they woidd require to be dipped as I do with mine when not internally affected. 1 3864. Do you think it would be a great advantage to the Colony if we could get rid of scab, so that it would never reappear ? — If we coidd get rid of tlie internal diseases which affect our sheep, it would be worth millions of pounds to us, but scab is a very secondary consideration. 13865. But if you were convinced that you could clean your sheep of scab, and that it would not come back again, then you would be prepared to go to some expense and a good deal of trouble to do so ? — Yes. 13866. If you were convinced that scab is a contagious disease, and that one sheep wiU infect another, would you then be in favour of causing a man who did not keep his sheep clean to be made to do so, in order to protect his neighbours } — I would only oblige him to keep them away from another man's veldt. 13867. Mr. Botha.l How uiany people do you think it would be necessary to have in order to properly supervise your ward and inspect tlie sheep ? — My ward is very small, and I think one would be sufficient to keep proper supervision over it. 13868. Who shouJd recommend or appoint him ? — I think tlie inhabitants of the field- cometcy Ought to know best who is the most suitable man for the office. 13869. Mr, du Toit.~\ Do you know more than one kind of scab ? — Yes, there are three kinds, and I will explain the difference. One kind is caused by povertj', for want of grease on the skin, and that causes scab. It commences on the shoulders and extends gradually all over the body if the sheep is not healthy. The second sort is what I call wet scab. I noticed it first in the year 1868, and it does not only appear on sheep strickeu with poverty, but also on sheep in better condition, and is much more difficult to cure than tlie other. It breaks out on the ribs and sides, and eventually spreads all over the body. This ecab occurs very seldom in this district. The third sort I have known since 1868, and this is what we call spot scali, which comes out all over the body, and generally when the sheep is in poor condition, and depends on internal disease, sheep affected with fluke, and running on sour veldt. All scabs can lie cured, but they don't remain cured. Dipping helps to cure all kinds of scab for a few months. 13870. If dipping cures scab for a time, and it breaks out again, what are your reasons for thinking that it comes spontaneously, and is not caused by contagion from other shCep ? — Because I have known it to break out when the sheep have not mixed with others. 13971. Don't you think they may have been infected from the kraals? — No. I know that my troop of sheep that lay in the kraal last year were not so bad, but my rams, which never came into the kraal, were very bad. 13872. Don't you think it is worth while to make every experiment, and that your ex- periments are not sufficiently final to enable you to give a definite opinion on the subject ? — I consider my experiments are sufficient. The insect is so delicate that it is utterly impos- sible for it to crawl into kraal walls and to live there ; and besides, as it is the product of a diseased animal, it is quite impossible for it to thrive on a healthy animal. Wo use lime and sulphur and patent dips, and prepare it according to the rules in the Agricnltural Journal. 13873. Chairman.] If a Government dip depot were established, and dip given to the fanners at cost price, free of railway carriage, would that do away with a great deal of the objection to farmers being compelled to dip their flocks ? — Yes, certainly ; and under those circumstances I should be in favour of a dipping act. Mr. Frederick Steyn examined. 13874. Chairman.'] Are you also a delegate ? — Yes, I was elected at a public meeting to represent ward No. 3, Kimberley. 13876. How long have you been farming here } — Since 1868. I have now about 600 or 700 merinos. I had 2,000, but many are dead. 13876. Do you come to give evidence in favour of or against scab legislation ? — Against it. 13877. Are your reasons the same as the reasons of the last witnesses .'' — Yes. 13878. How was it that you formerly liad 3,000 sheep, and have now only 700 ? — 604 Internal diseases. Most of our losses occur with the lambs in oonsequene* of wiw- womi. 13879. Did you notice whether the sheep you lost were afEected with scab ? — They had no scab. 13880. At the present time are your flocks free of scab ? — No. 13881. Is it very bad ? — Not very bad, but there is scab. 13882. Have you dipped them ? — Yes, every year. The last time was in March, when I dipped them twice in a fortnight. 13883. When did you notice scab break out amongst them after dipping ? — In May, as usual. 13884. Is it your experience that during the heavy losses from which this district has suffered within the last few years, the flocks of other people also suffered heavily with scab ? — It was generally in the same way as my losses, in consequence of internal diseases, and the sheep had very little scab. 13885. Mr. Hoekly.'] You say you dip your sheep regularly every year? — Yes. 13886. Can you teU us the size of your tank ? — It is 18 feet long, 4 feet deep, and 18 inches wide. 13887. How many gallons does that hold ? — At the present moment I cannot aay how many gallons of water the dip holds. I measure it every year. 13888. Do you measure the stuff as you put it into the tank ? — Yes. 13889. What preparation do you use ? — Lime and sulphur, twenty lbs. of each. At the present moment I forget exactly how I mix it. I throw the sheep on his back in the dip and let him get out as quickly as he can, some being quicker than others. 13890. Do you think that these sheep, which are thrown in and go out so quickly, are thoroughly and efficiently dipped ? — My experience is that my sheep are cleaned by dip- ping, but only remain clean for a time, until May or June, when it breaks out spontaneously. 13891. Are your neighbours' sheep generally clean ? — Generally they are just the same as mine ; they have a little scab, and the farmers dip and take care of them. 13892. Is your farm enclosed } — No. 13893. Then occasionally some of your neighbours' sheep may come over? — Yes. 13894. If your sheep are clean, and your neighbours' scabby, don't you think there is danger in letting the sheep mix ? — No. 13895. You don't think scab is contagious? — No. When May or June comes it breaks out. 13896. You say you don't believe it is contagious, but should a man come on your farm with a troop of sheep bad wdth scab, would you object to giro that man a clean kraal to put his sheep in ? — No, I should not object. I speak from experience. 13897. Have you ever tried the experiment of putting scabby sheep in a kraal, and afterwards putting in clean sheep to see if they become infected ? — I have never tried it. I should like to, but I cannot get an opportunity. 13898. You say your sheep are clean from February to May .' — Yes. 13899. Is that the case with all your neighbours ? — Yes, generally. 13900. Have you seen any difference between the sheep of people who are careless, and yours .'' — Yes, they lose more wool than I do, and the man who has no dip is not so careful in his general farming as the man who has one. 13901. When a drought comes, then the man who is careless loses more sheep than the careful farmer ? — Yes, because he is careless in his general farming as well. 13902. Would it not be adyisable to have a law to compel the careless farmer to do his duty ?— No, I don't think it is necessary to compel any man. 13903. Then you are of opinion that a careless fanner should be at liberty to do damage to a carefiil farmer ? — I don't think it can be done, but if it could be proved that it can be done, then I consider it would be advisable to prevent him doing damage. 13904. If you were told, or went into a district and saw 50,000 sheep clean, without scab, would you then believe that there was any efficacy in dipping sheep, and in having a law to try and keej) them clean ? — No, it would be no proof, because the difference of climate in the different districts is so great, and has a wonderful effect upon the sheep, and the scab in one district might not be the same as in another. I have even noticed that some sheep are cleverer than othei-s ; for instance, in the sour veldt I have seen two troops of sheep mixing and drinking at a dam, and afterwards separating and going to their respective veldt, whereas Karoo sheep are not clever enough to do that. 13905. Are you acquauited with the provisions of the scab act 1 — Yes, I produce a copy of it. I object to it because it is criminal to infringe its provisions. 13906. Mr. Francis.'] You say scab may be eradicated from one district and not from another, but if scab is caused alone by an insect, would not the medicine which would kill the insect in one district also kill it in another district ? — Yes, if it is caused by an insect. 13907. If there were greater facilities for moving sheep imder a scab act than there are under the existing law, do 3-ou think it woidd induce people to be more in favour of an act than they are ? — Pos.sibly. 13908. But do you think that Lf we could get rid of scab it would be worth while going to some expense and trouble to do so ? — -Yes, if it could be done. 13909. Mr. Botha.] You dipped last in February and March? — Yes. SDDD 2 , 605 13910. Had the sheep scab then ? — Yos, I had shorn them,, and they had not more scab than ufiual and tlieu they were cured until May. 1391 1. What (lid you do when scab broke out in May? — I hand dressed them. 13912. Did that help? — Yes, the places 1 dressed got well, but other places broke out. Mr. Jacohus Steyn examined. 13913. Chairman.] Are you also a delegate? — Yes, from ward No. 5. I was elected at a puWc meeting. I have farmed liere since 1869, and have 400 goats and 450 sheep. 13914. Are you in favour of some scab legislation ? — No. 13915. Do you agree with the last witness ? — Yes, more or less. Mr. Pieter Willem Martkinui Botha examined. 13916. Chairman.'] You are a delegate from the Kimberley branch of the Afrikander Bond ? — Yes. I have farmed here for three years, and am general manager for Mr. Marais. I have from 8,000 to 9,000 stock — mostly merino slieep. I came here from Bedford. 13917. Do you come to give evidence in favour of or against bcab legislation ? — In favour of it, with a few alterations of the existing law. 13918. Are you in favour of the present net ? — Not altogether ; in this way, that Ithink tine scab infipector for each district is too little, and that there should be one for each ward. - ' '13919. Would you have him elected by a majority of the farmers owniag sheep and residing in the v.ird, or })y tho divisional, or appointed by the Governments — I think elected by the divisional council. 13920. From your knowledge of your portion of the district, do the generality of farmers do their best to cope witli the spread of scab amongst their flocks ? — There are some who try to do their best, but I cannot say they all do. 1S921. But without an act, you consider it impossible to keep your flocks thoroughly clean ? — Yes. 18922. Would you be iti favour, if a scab act were introduced, of coupling it with a compulsory simultaneous dipping act ? — Yes. 13923. If a general scab act were not introduced, would it be advisable to protect a ■careful farmer, with clean flocks, in the unproclaimed area, from scabby flocks of his neigh- bour trespassing over his property .'' — Impossible. 13924. But if it were possible, don't you think the principle of protecting him would be good ?— Yes. 13925. Are you in favour of Government establishing a dip depot, supplj'ing dip at cost price, free of railway carriage, or would it do away with much of the dissatisfaction with the act? — Yes, I think it would have that effect. * ■ 13926. Under a general act, would you allow a farmer who held a certificate that his 'flocks were free of scab to remove them to any portion of the Colony under his own personal permit ? — Yes. 13927. If sheep were found infected with scab, what period would you recommend for the licence to be granted to clean them ? — The usual time according to the old act, three- months. , 13928. You don't think th*ee months is too long? — I think the time now given will suit best. 13929. At tlie expiration of tho three months, would j'Ou empower the inspector to have the sheep dipped under inspection, if not clean, at the expense of the farmer, and thoroughly cleansed, or would you have tlie farmer fined, or would you extend the licence free of cost ? — I would give an extension for another two or three months, as sometimes you can't do it in a short time. 13930. And at the expiration of that extended period? — It aU depends upon whether the farmer can prove to the satisfaction of the inspector that he has been doing Ids best to fat the scab out, and could not succeed, in which ease it would be rather hard to have him ned. 13931. You are convinced that if you thoroughly and efficiently dip y^our sheep twice within fourteen days, you will completely clean them ? — Yes. 13932. Consequently, if at the expiration of five months a man's sheep are still infected, it would prove that they had not been thoroughly dipped ? — No, because they might be 1 50 per cent, better, and I don't see why he should not have another extension. \ 13933. But if they were just the same? — That is different. 13934. Would it be better to fine that man, or have the sheep dipped imder inspection ? —Then I would prefer to have tliem dipped imder inspection. • ■■ 13935. And place the responsibility of cleaning them on the inspector, who should have full powers ?-i— Yes. 13936. Do you know of cases where men themselves have considered that they had thoroughly dipped thoir sheep when they had not reaUy followed the instructions on the patent dips they used, and having been fined have considered that they have been treated 60« unjustly, and have in consequence become great opponents to the act ? — I don't knoir whether people ha^e been fined in that way, but I do know cases of dips being used, but used improperly. 13937. Would you make any provision in an area under the scab act for allowing slaughter stock to be removed to market if they were thoroughly and efficiently dipped under inspection ? — Yes, then I would allow them to pass. 13938. If they could arrive at their destination within fourteen days, and be slaughtered within that time, would you allow them to be removed after one dipping ? — It aU depends on the state of the scab on the shieep when they were dipped. If slightly scabby, one dip- ping would be sufficient ; if bad, two dippings. 13939. Do you think a provision of this sort would do away with a great deal of the opposition which exists at the present time to the existing scab law ? — I suppose so. 13940. If an act were proclaimed over a certain portion of the Colony, what proviaion would you make for ordinary stock moving from an unproclaimed to a proclaimed area .'' — They should be dipped on the border of the area, quarantined for fourteen days, dipped again and then passed in. 13941. To cope with cages of scab breaking out in travelling flocks, would it b© advisable to have public dipping tanks upon the main roads of the Colony ? — Yn, I think so. 13942. Would you make it compul."?ory on the landowner to have sheep affected with scab thoroughly dipped before removing them to the nearest pound ? — Before removing them, I think you must dip them properly. 13943. At whose expense ? — The owner's. 13944. Mr. Hocliy.'] Under the present conditions don't you think that the owner of the sheep quarantined should satisfy the inspector that he has made sufficiently diligent efforts during that time to defrtroy the scab ?~Ye». 13945. You have had an opportunity of seeing the working of the act in some districts of the Colony ? — Yes, for nearly three years. 13946. What is your experience in the districts where the act is proclaimed ? Is there less or more scab now than there was before ? — Considerably less. 13947. You knew tlie Bedford district before it was under the operation of the act ? — Yes. 13948. And yotz knew, generally, the condition of the sheep th:re .^ — Yes. 13949. You have noticed a decided difference ? — A great difference. 13950. I suppose the ground where you are now farming is not all enclosed ? — No, not quite all. t . . 13951. Do you think it is possible, with an unenclosed farm, and roads running through it, to keep sheep clean for any length of time if there are scabby sheep in the neighbour- hood .' — It is impossible. 13952. And even with wire fences you would not be absolutely safe? — No. 13953. In the district where you are farming now, is it a general rule to have tanks, or is it the exception ? — It is the exception, but lately they have been beginning to build them. 13954. Have you not found that the greatest objections are raised by people who don't really thoroughly understand the working of the act and the curing of scab ? — Yes, it is so to a great extent, because most of those people have not been to places where the act has been in force for some time. 13955. Have you not also found that there were even people who were strongly opposed to the act, but who, after coming under the provisions of the act became strongly in favour of it ? — Yes, there was one of my neighbours in the Colony. 13956. Then do you think it would be in the interests of the Colony if there were a general act ? — Certainly. 13957. Do you not think that where you have a partial act an injustice is done to every farmer on the boundary by having the act on one side and not being protected on the other ? — Yes. 13958. Supposing a line had to be drawn somewhere, can you suggest any remedy for that ? — Only a general act, but if that cannot be got I think the present provision is sufficient. 13959. Mr. du To%t.'\ Are you aware of a kind of scab which cannot be cured by dipping ? — No. 13960. In how many dippings did you always manage to cure scab amongst your flocks ? — Not less than two. 13961 . Do you believe that scab is contagious ? — Yes. 13962. Would you be in favour of forcing an act up^n a part of the population against their will } — That is a very difficult question for me to answer. 13963. But for yourself, you would be in favour of a general compulsory scab act ? — A general act. 13964. Would you prefer a very moderate general act, or a very stringent partial act .' — I think it would be best to have it verj' moderate, to sliow the farmers how good it is. 13965. Are you acquainted with the north-western districts of the Colony ? — No. 13966. Are you aware that they frequently suffer there from heavy droughts ? — I have heard of it. 18967. If that is the ease, do you think that it would be very hard for them to comply 6 07 with the scab act ? — It greatly depends on the oirnumstances of the country there, but it would be of great service to them if thoy could have those moveable dipping tanks which they could carry with them. 13968. Do you believe that scab can be stamped out? — I daresay it might )be in time. I believe it could be. 13969. Have you heard that it has been stamped out in other countries? — Yes, in Australia, ami I believe it really has been stamped out there. 13970. And, therefore, do you think it could be done liere too ? — Even if it could not be stamped out entirely, by means of a general act it could be so reduced that the benefit derived would be more than the expense. 13971. Have you read the proposal made by Messrs. Cooper and Nephews ? — Yes, 13972. Do you think it is an acceptable proposal for us ? — Yos, if we do away with the Government. 13973. Have you always managed to cure your sheep with two dippings at any time of the year ? — Not always. 13974. How many times were you obliged to dip them? — Sometimes three or four, but not more. 13975. Do you think it was because the scab was so severe, or that they got reinfected in the mean time ? — I don't think they were reinfected, but it greatly depended on the con- dition of the sheep. Sometimes you cannot prepare the dip as strongly as it ought to be done on account of the condition of the sheop and tlie time of year, and in order not to lose any sheep I have had to make the dip rather weak. 13976. Then have you found that dip properly mixed according to the instructions is too strong for sheep in poor condition ? — I cannot say for certain, but I think it would be too strong. 13977. Mr. Francis.^ You believe that scab is caused by an insect ?^ — Yes. 13978. And consequently it is contagious .'' — Yes. 13979. And that no flock of sheep will ever become reinfected unless the insect or its egg is conveyed to it ? — Yes. 13980. You believe that by two proper dippings sheep can bo cleaned ? — Yes. 13981. Don't you think it would be a manifest injustice to a careful farmer if he had a very careless neighbour who did not take any means to eradicate scab from his flocks, so that the careful farmers' flocks wore continually reinfected ? — Yes. 13982. But if a man can eradicate scab by two dippings, don't you think it is an in- justice to the carefid farmer that he should he liable for thi-ee months to have his flocks reinfected? — You liavo to give them time. If you want to carry this scab act, you must not try to rush the farmers and make the time too slioit. Besides there are occasional droughts and other difficulties to be considered. 13983. Don't you think it would be an injustice to a careful farmer to give a careless one three months to eradicate scab when it can be done in two dippings ? — No, I stiJl hold that it is better to allow the farmers three months in whi(^h to do their best. You will find very few farmers as neglectful as all that. 1 3984. But if a man had throe months in which to clean his sheep, I suppose you would be in favour of some provision in the law which obliged him to take some steps within the first week or two to eradicate scab ? — I can see the difficulty, but I am not in favour of that ; but I think after the expiration of the first three mouths he should not be allowed another period. Of course, if the inspector finds out that a man has not done his duty, and has not dipped the sheep, then there should be some provision in the act to meet the case, but it mu.st be clearly proved. 13985. From your knowledge of scab, are you of opinion that it would be of benefit to the country to eradicate it, even if a large sum of money were spent in the attempt ? — Decidedly. We must have more inspectors for the district, and they should divide the country. Let them have inspectors in each ward of Griqualand West, and a general inspector over the whole, who should have some discretion in times of drought. 13986. Chairman.^ From your knowledge of the district of Bedford, and of this district, do you consider it is so easy to clean sheep and keep them clean in a district of this sort aa it is there ? — Yes, they can bo cleaned here as well as there. 13987. Is it easier to clean them here ? — I don't say that. 13988. Is it easier to keep tliem clean liere if thoy are clean ? — It will give the same trouble but not more. 13989. From your experience of the farmers here, is not the great objection to scab legislation a sentimental one? If the farmers were persuaded that a scali act was in their own interests, and that after (me or two compulsory, simultaneous dippings the scab had greatly diminished amongst the flocks of the country, would not the greatest opponents of the act be in favour of it ? — Yes. 13990. You speak with a thorough knowledge of tlie farmers in your own district ? — Yes, most of the farmers here are not accjuainted with the act, and have not been to those places where the act has been in force fur some time, and can only go by hearsay, as you have heard to-day. 13991. Do you wish to add anything';' — Owing to the peculiar climatic differences between different parts of the Colony, I think it would be advisable to divide the country into circles or areas, according to climate, and to have a chief inspector in each area with Bub-inspectors under him, the act being administered in each area as circiuustanoes might direct. 60S Mr. Peirm JohtinneK Ifarais examined. 13992. Chairman.'] You are also a delegate from the Kimberley branch of the Afrikander Bond ? — Yes. 13993. How long have you been farming in this district? — The last ten years. Mr. Botha is my overseer. 13994. Do you come to give evidence in favour of or against a scab act V — I can endorse what Mr. Botha said. He is my manager, and I agree with everything he said. 13995. Is the opinion which you and Mr. Botha have given, with regard to the advisability of a scab act being proclaimed over the Colony, the opinion of the majority of the members of the Afrikander Bond of the Kimberley branch ? — I think it is the feeling of the majority of tliis branch. 13996. Mr. Sockly.] I suppose the farms generally are not heavUy stocked with sheep? — Not in this part. 13997. So there woxild not be a very groat difficulty in setting aside large portions of the farms for a time, and after the sheep have been dipped putting them on new pasturage? — I think it could be done. 13998. Would it not assist them ver}' much in eradicating scab ? — Yes. 13999. Then taking tliat into consideration you think it would be easier to eradicate scab here tlian where the farms are small, and they cannot change the runs?- -Yes, I should think those who have room to change the runs would have a better chance of stamping out ■cab. 14000. Is it a general rule with the farmers in your neighbourhood to dip their sheep ? — No, there is much more hand dressing. 14001. Do you think the dips are increasing as the farmers see the advantage of it ? — Yes. 14002. I suppose at present, you don't send sheep from this part into the proclaimed areas ? All the slaughter sheep you have for sale are consumed here ? — Yes. 14003. But if you had to send sheep from here into the proclaimed areas, and had no act, your difficulties would be very much greater than they are at present ? — Yes. 14004. Chairman.'] Have you any experience of the class of sheep consumed in Kimberley for slaughter pui'poses, and as to their condition with regard to scab whea they come here ? — Tliose from the Colony are clean. I consider we should do all we can to improve our wool supply, and by the introduction of a scab act to allow us to compete favourably with other wool producing countries. 14005. From your knowledge of this district during the last ten years, are the majority of the farmers financially imjjroving their position, or is a large section of them going back- wards } — They are trying to improve their position. 14006. Is tliere not a large section of the least progressive portion of the farming popvdation in this district who are going l)ackivard8? — I cannot say. 14007. Mr. Francis.] Is the number of slieep increasing or diminishing ? — We are only commencing with sheep farming here now. Formerly it was all cattle and horses. Mr. Henry Johannes Morkel examined. 14008. Chairman.] You are also a delegate ? — Yes, from the Kimberley branch of the Bond. 14009. How long have you been farming in tliis district? — I was slioep farming in Caledon for twenty-five years, and I was farming here for about seven years. I am not farming at present. 14010. Do you agree in tlie main with the evidence of the last two witnesses ? — Yc.i, I have seen some of the farmers in this district, and they approve of the scab act. I saw one just now, and I saw some a few days ago, who could not come in, and they were also in favour of the act. 14011. From youi- knowledge of the district, you are convinced that a scab act would not press injuriously upon any section of thojf ariners in Gri(|ualand West ? — Exactly, if pro- perly administered, because it appears to me that they don't quite understand the act. As a witness said this morning it was criminal, and they are afi-aid it may be too heavy upon tliem. If they understood it, I believe they would be in favour of the act. 14012. If a certain section of the farming population here were incapable of thoroughly and efficiently dipping their flocks and curing them of scab, would you be in favour of having those sheep dipped under inspection, or fining them } — Of dipping the sheep under inspection. 14013. You think that would not only cause less friction between the farming popu- lation and the administrators of the law, but woidd also tend more quickly to eradicate scab from the Colony ? — Yes, I would treat them as leniently as possible. 14014. But should a man not be able to clean liis sheep by dippii^them, would you bo in favour of having them dipped for him under supervision ? — Yes, because I have known one sheep in a tlock to infect the wliole flock. It is very infectious, as bad as measles, and a bad flock is often called a measly lot. We used to whitewash our kraals, because oven the kraals are very infectious. 609 14015. Mr. Hoelcly.~\ Have you had aay opportunity of seeing sheep brought up from other parts of the Colony and sold at Kimherley ? — Yes. 14016. What was the general condition of those sheep } — I have s^en some very good indeed. 14017. At other times, have you seen flocks which are very scabby ? — Not as a rule. I have not seen many scabby sheep. 14018. Ah a rule, those which are brought here for slaughter are comparatively clean ? — Yes. Even the butchers themselves told me that thoy will pay ii couple of shillings more for a sheep where the act is in force. 14019. I am speaking now of the market, irrespective of where they come from — generally of the sheep sold here for slaughter '( — As a rule tliey are very clean. 14020. How do you account for thati' Do the butchers come to the proclaimed areas, or buy indiscriminately ? — I suppose thoy buy whore they can get the liest sheep, not exacth' indiscriminately, but generally in tlie Colony, because a butcher told me himself he pays Is. 6d. to 2.s. more for dean sheep in the proclaimed area than he does for sheep outside the area. 14021. So that the farmers who have scabby sheep are at a decided disadvantage V — Certainly. 14022. Mr. du Toit.] How long did you farm under the seal) act ?^I fanned before there were any scab acts, twenty-five years ago, but in the Caledon district we used always to dip with arsenic, soda and yellow soap. 14023. How did you manage to keep the scab down ?-^After .shearing we dipped twice, once eight days after shearing, and the sw:ond time a fortnight after. Sojnetinies \v© dippccl a third time a month afterwards, whenever we saw a spot ; and after that, if we thought it necessary, we hand dressed. 14024. But you did not succeed in stamping out scab in the Caledon district without an act ?— ^Everyone did his best to stamp it out. 14025. Then although the farmers in the Caledou district thought it was to their advantage to have their flocks clean, they did not come up to the mark without an act ? — They could not get them clean without an act, because there was perhaps a man here and there with a hundred or two hundred sheep who would not take cure of tjiom properly. 14026. Your experience has taught you that scab can be cured at any time i* — Certainly. 14027. And that it is infectious? — Yes, most infectious. 14028. You don't believe it is spontaneous ? — No. 14029. You believe that if scab is once stamped out, and if the sheep do not come into contact again with scab, the area must remain clean .'' — Yes. It may come again. 14030. How will it come ? — All diseases come and go away again. At certain seasons it might come again. 14031. How do you account for it returning if it is thoroughly stamped out, and the sheep don't come into contact again with scab? — All other kinds of diseases reappear in human beings. 14032. Then you don't believe that those Australian colonies, where the scab has been entirety stamped out for many years, will always remain clean ? — It may appear again if re-introduced. 14033. Do you believe that scab is caused by an insect? — Certainly. 14034. 11 the insects are all killed, how would scab reappear ? — The doctors say that fever is caused by a kind of germ, in bad water and so on, and this might originate in the same way. 14035. Then you believe that a kind of germ may remain? — Yes, in the water, pastur- age, or anywhere else. How is it that measles cannot be entirely stamped out ? 14C36. We are told to believe that if scab is once stamped out of the country, we shall be entirely done with it ? — Seeing is believing ; we cannot go by other countries. . 14037. Then you would not bo in favour of Messrs. Cooper and Nephews' scheme .'' — Theirs is not the only dip. 14038. Mr. Francit.^ As you consider the scab disease to be so very contagious, don't you think there is a great danger in giving a man a three months' licence to clean his sheep, because during that time he may lie infecting his neighbours' sheep ? — If cases of infection can be proved. 14039. But are there not farmers as well as other people who will not look after their own interests, and do you think it would be just to a careful farmer if lie had one of these men adjoining hun, and hi.s sheep are being continually reinfected ? Should not that careless farmer be made to clean his sheep ?— Certainly, because 1 do it myself. . .14040, If there wore a number of farmers in any district who were opposed to a scab act, and if that oppositiou arosf! from the fact that they did not understand tiie nature of scab or its cure, would you be in favour of placing an act over those people, even although they .were opposed to it? — Certainly. 1 I '.141. If the Government made some arrangements by wliich a farmer's sheep were dipped without anj^fjlxpenso to liimself, do you think that would do away with a good deal of opposition to the act in some districts amongst a certain class of farmers ? — Certainly it would. 14042. Mr. Botha.] Don't you think that the offer made by Messrs. Cooper and Nephews is as much, or more, a new way of advertising themselves as it is a proposal which 610 the Government are seriously expected to entertain ? — I should say £700,000 is a large amount of money. 1404o. Chairman.'} Do you consider it fair to clean the flocks of the Colony at the expense of the general taxpayer, and should not the owner of the sheep be responsible for ^ome of the oost ? — Certainly, because it is for his own benefit and interest. 14044. Is not the freedom from scab of slaughter .stock brought to Kimberley due to the fact that speculators will not buy sheep affected with scab if thej- can possibly get any other ? — Certainly ; only a few days ago a butcher told me he does not mind paying Is. 6d. to 2s. more for the sheep in the proclaimed area, where the flocks are better. 1404.5. JIfr. Francis.} As far as you know, are there any sheep or goats brought in to Griqualand West from the Free State, the Transvaal, or Damaraland .'' — I think they are mostly from the Colon}', those that come to Kimberley. Some of the Jew boys may bring a few from Damaraland. 14046. If there were a general scab act, including those districts, what provisions would you make to prevent scab being brought in from outside ? Would you have ports of entry, where sheep should be twice dipped and quarantined ? — Yes. 3tr. Andries Johannet Kuhn examined. 14047. Chairman.'] You carry on a butchery business in Kimberley ? — Yes. 14048. And buy large quantities of stock ? — Yes. 14049. Does the stock that vou buy come from the north-western districts of the Colony ? —Yes. 140.50. In what condition do you generally find those sheep, as regards scab ?— Some- times we get some amongst them with scab, but as a rule we don't take any in that condi- tion, but pick out sheep at a farmer's place and take only the healthy ones. 14051. So tliat really it resolves itself into this, that you as butchers wiU not buy sheep with scab if you can possibly get any other ?— Certainly. 14052. It is not due to the fact that there is verj' little scab in those districts where you buy slaughter stock that the sheep you get are so free } — No. 14053. And in times of drought, do your buyers constantly find a difficulty in obtaining slaughter-stock free of scab ? — Yes, we always get sheep then with scab amongst them. 14054. So far as your business is concerned, if the flocks in this portion of the country were free of scab, you would be better able to supply the necessary slaughter stock that you require than you are now ? — Yes, I have often found that a sheep which has scab gets into poor conditii n very quickly. 14055. What would be the difference in the price which your buyers would be prepared to give for clean sheep in comparison with sheep toleraldy badly infected with scab? — That I cannot say ; it all depends on the weight of the sheep. 14056. But if they are perfectly equal? — I would not buy a scabby sheep if I could help it, because they fall off so in condition. 14057. From your experience as a buyer of stock, you think the farmers of this Colony are losing enormously by keeping scabby flocks .'-—Yes, 1 think so. If the sheep could be kept clean from scab, they would certainly remain in much bttter condition. 14058. You think that legislation to cope with the spread of scab amongst the flocks of the Colony would be of great benefit to the farming community themselves ? — Yes. 14059. Mr. Hockly.'] Where do you dispose of your skins } — We sell them here. 14060. Have you to classify them? — No, there is a general price. 14061. But supposing you had a lot of scabby and a lot of clean skins, would j-ou not get a better price for the clean ? — I have never tried that yet, but ever since I have opened business here, there has been one price for skins. We sell all skins by contract, at one price. 14062. Has scab in skins increased or decreased since you have been in business here? — I have never been out to buy stock since then. My brother is buj'ing, and I have never licard from him on the subject. 14063. Mr. Francis.'] From what parts do you generally get your slaughter sheep? — From Victoria West, Carnarvon and Eiclimond. 14064. Do you get any fi-oui the Free State? — Sometimes. 14065. Have you any difiiculty in bringing them from there in consequence of the Free State scab act ?— No. 14066. Could you tell the Commission what regulations there are with regard to buying affected sheep from there ? — No, I cannot. 14067. Of course, when you sell sheepskins by contract they are taken in the lump, but still I presume j-ou are aware that a sheepskin affected with scab would be of less com- mercial value than one which is not ? — Yes. 14068. Mr. Botha.] You say you sometimes buy shee]> in the Free State. In what state do you find the Free State stock as comjiared with the colonial stock ? — I don't think there is any difference between the sheep of the Free State and the Colony as regards scab. 14069. But are there more scabbj" sheep in proportion in the Free State than in these parts ? — No, I think there are more in the Colony. [G. 1— '94.] EEEE c.l 1 H070. Mr. Francis. \ Wlieii you say th^re are more in tln^ Oolmiy. do you not mean in those districts of the Colonj' where there is no act ?— Yes. 1-1071. Chairman ] Ynu nro rnnvinced that a srah net, properly administered, would not lianiper your business in llio sligh est as refjards procuring slnughter stock? — If a sheep is (ilenn from scab it would not, luit supposing it slionhl Vireak out on the road it woidd intor- fpre very much with my Tmsinpss. 14072. But tho inconvenienre to an isolated troop of sheep getting seal) on tlie road would be nothing compared to the inconvenience of having to buy scabby sheep, which you have to do at present ? — No. 1407.3. Mr. du Toil.'] Do vou buy stock out of a scabby flock, selecting only those which are clean ? — Yes. 14074. But under a scab act, you would not be at liberty to buy out of a scabby flock ? — Perhaps then the sheep might all be clean. Mr. William Diehel examined. 1407o. Chairman.'] You rnpresont the firm of Messrs. Diebel Brothers of Kimberley ? — Yes. 14076. Do your buyers report to .you that in buying stock over the Colony they find a great deal of scab amongst the flocks they visit ? — Most of our sheep are bought in the pro- claimed areas, and the^- also come from Namaqualand, so we don't hear much about scab. 14077. From what districts do you generally buj' ? — From Victoria West, Richmond, and all about tliere. 14078. Those are unproelnimed areas, but I suppose your liuyers have distinct instruc- tions not to bring you scaliby sheep ? — Certainly. 14079. Mr. Rockly.~\ Have you ever lost by your buyers buying scabby sheep, contrary to your instructions .'' — Yes, heavily. 14080. How much do j-ou think a sheep is depreciated in value by having scab .' — If scab gets amongst a flock of sheep, I should think the value is reduced, but it is difficult to gauge the amount. When sheep once get scab they get poor in no time, and the flock becomes useless, but it is difficult to estimate the loss. 14081. So that, supposing two lots of slieep were offered to you, say about the same weight and condition, but one scabln" an. 6 of the Afrikauder Bond in this district. 14178. How long how you been farming in Herbert? — About thirteen years. I have about 5,000 sheep and goats. 14179. Do you agree with the evidence given by the last witness .' — Not altogether. First, I know that dipping does not always help. I have dipped for the last four years, and 1 cannot say my sheep are clean, and although I am very careful with them, scab is very prevalent among my flocks this year. There are other farmers in the same predicament as I, who have dipped their sheep and it did not help ; and there are many poorpoople who are not in a position to dip tlieir sheep. In this district, generally, scab is principally due to drought and the haakdoorn, and if an act were put in force in my portion of the district it would mean ruin to us. 14180. Have you a dipping tank on your farm ? — Yes. " 14181. What are the dimensions of the tank 'i — It holds 6D0 gallons. It is 5 feet deep, 2 feet wide and about 1 5 feet long ; that is the measurement from one end of the tank to the other, but there are .stops in it. 14182. When did you last dip your sheep ? — About six months ago. 14183. With what did you dip them ? — Lime and sulphur. ^ 14184. How did you mix it? — 25 lbs. of lime and 25 lbs. of sulphur to 100 gallons of water. 14185. How often did you dip them ? — Twice within fifteen daj'S. 14186. Do you wish me to understand that after dipping your sheep thoroughly twice within fifteen days in a solution of lime and sulphur of the strength you say, that those sheep were not thoroughly cleaned of scab ? — This j-ear it did not help. 14187. How long did you keep your sheep in the dipping tank ? — I did not keep them in any recognised time ; I threw them into tlie tank, put them under the water a couple of times, and let them swim out on the other side. 14188. So that you never kept a sheep from a minute to two minutes in the dipping tank ?— No. 14189. Is it not possible that the fault is due to your own carelessness in aUowing the sheep to pass through so c^uickly .^— But why should the dip have helped before ? I admit that hard scab would not get wet. 141'.>0. Might not tliat be tlic cause of j-(mr sheep not being cured? — I don't think that can be it, because I have always dipped them in the same way, but this time scab broke out again four or five months afterwards. 14191. How am I to understand you ? — You now state that after thoroughly dipping your sheep in lime and sulphur, the last time, scab broke out again four or five months iator, wherea,- i few months previously you said that the lime and sulphur had no effect ? — [No answer". 14192. Do you wish your reply to my previous question to be altered, when you said that after twice dipping in lime and sulphur \i had no effect upon the scab 7 — Yes, I wish that to be altered. 14193. Is it not possible that the reappearance of scab in yotir flocks four months after dipping was due to reinfection from careless neighbour's, or from old kraals ? — No. 14194. Is your farm fenced ? — No. 14195. Ai-e you surrounded by neighbours who are perfectly free of scab? — Not altogether free. 14196. Have you never had experience of your neighbour's sheep straying and mixing with your flocks ? — I have never seen it. My father's and brother's flocks mix with mine, but they have no scab, and I have. 14197. Do you wish me definitely to understand that among all the sheep your father and brother possess, there is not one single sheep showing one trace of scab ? — It is impossible f»r me to say that, as it is a long time since I have seen their sheep, but they have told me that they have no scab. 14198. Then how can you wish to have it placed upon evidence that you are convinced they have no scab and that it i.s impossible for their sheep to have infected yours .' — I believe thorn. 14199. Have \'oiir brother definitely told you that there was uo trace of scab amongst his f-heep ? — No, he did not say that ; he said it was going well with his sheep. 1-1200. Then what authority have j'ou for stating that your brother's sheep are absolutely free of scab ? — There is less scab there than with me. Further, I should wish to state that my mother lives with me on the farm, and though her sheep are never dipped they are quite clean of scab. 14201. Seeing that your mother's sheep are clean without being dipped, you as a aid practital farmer dip your own sheop. Wliy ? — My mother farms with Capp sheep, I must confess ; and I dip because I have seen that Mr. Steyu's flocks are in such good condition after being dipped. 14202. Do all the farmers in this district, to your knowledge, use diligent efforts to keep scab under in their flocks ? — Not the majority. 14203. Consequentl}', if at time.s dipping is efficaciou.«, it would be decidedly in the interests of these people to have some measure to oblige them to dip their flocks ? — I think it would : it miglit have a good effect. 14204. If your sheep were perfectly clean, would you object to scabby flocks mi.ving with them ? — I should not like it. 14205. Consequently, do you consider that under such circumstances the law should protect you from a careless neighbour? — I think it would be good. 14206. Mr. Hackly.'] Where did you get your directions for mi.xing the lime and sulphur dip? — From Mr. Steyn. 14207. At the same time, did you not get directions as to the length of time the sheep should be kept in the dip ? — No. 14201. Have you never yet heard that it is necessary, if you want to cure your sheep, to keep them a certain time in the dip ? — No. 14209. Don't you think yourself, as a farmer, that if a sheep with rather hard scabby places on it is simply dropped into the tank and let out, the places are likely to remain dry ? — I think they ought to get wet the second time. 14210. Supposing it did have effect the second time, do you believe your stuff is made strong enough to destroy the eggs under the skin ? — I think so. 14211. Don't you think that any dip which is strong enough to destroy the eggs of the insect would also be strong enough to destroy the animal itself ? — No. 14212. What temperature do you make the dip ? — I don't make it hot, just luke- warm. 14213. Are there any roads across your farm ? — Yes. 14214. Have you ever seen any .scabby sheep pass along those roads over your farm ? —Yes. 14215. Don't j-ou think it is possible that they may have affected your sheep ? — It is possible, but I have not seen it. My stock don't ruu near the public road. 14216. Can you positively say that your sheep never ruti near the rodil ? — It is difficult to say that they never go over there when passing to and from tlie water. 14217. So that your sheep do pass constantly ? — Yes. 14218. Do you not think it is possible that during the four or five months you spoke of, when your sheep remained clean, they may have caught the contagion in that way ? — t cannot say ; it is not impossible. 14219. Do these trek sheep ever sleep on your farm ? — Yes, occasionally. 14220. If scabby sheep were to deep on any part of your farm, don't you think the farm would be liable to be infected ? — My sheep don't sleep on the same place. " 14221 . Don't you think a famier would he better off if he had a law which enabled him to prohibit any man with scabby sheep jwssing over his farm, than a farmer who could offer them no let or hindrance ? — Natiuall^-, the man who has the protection is the Tiest off. 14222. Mr. Franci».'\ Do j-ou believe tliat scab is caused by an insect ? — No, I have liad no experience of that. 14223 What do you think is the cause of scab? — Drought and the liaakdoorn. 14224. Are you aware that, according to the law, no sheeji or flock of sheep isoiQ- eidered to be infected with scab unless that insect is on them? — No. 14225. Do you think it would be a good thing if we could keep the sheep altogether fi'ee of scab ? — Yes, naturally, if it could he done. 14226. If you were couN-inced that all the flocks in the country could be cleaned of scab, and that it would never come back again, would you be in favour of some law to get rid of scab ? — Of course. Mr. Reintcke further examined. 14227. Chairnmn.'] I understand you wish tomato .i further statement? — I wish to make a few remarks on the evidence oi my co-delegate, as I uni not sent here as a delegate to speak in my own interests, but to speak for the public good. After many years' experience I am con\-inced that if properly applied dipping is thorouglily officiK ious, and that if sheep have hard, scabby places, it is necessary to break them up before putting the sheep in the dip. In regard to what Mr. Faher said about hnakdoorn, my fanu has a areat deal more haakdooru tlian his, and tlie only damage it does to the sheep is tliat it pulls out the wiol, but it does not cause scab. With regard to his statement that there are poor people who are not in a position to dij) themselves, I acknowledge it ; but where do they reside ? Thev reside on the properties of the richer farmers, and if the owners of the places where these people are will not dip their sheep of their own free will, they should be made to do s.« by law. I should like to state again that we should be compelled to dean our flocks, and the man who cleans his flock certainly has a right to demand protection from the law frum a careless neighbour. 14228. Is it not a fact that many people in this district who hold the same opinions as you do, are unwilling, for political purposes, to express a definite opinion upon scab legis- lation ? — That is quite possible. I should not like to state my opinion. 617 Mr. Theitnis Johannes HolUhuisen examined. 14229. Chairman.'\ Are you a delegate } — Yes, from the branch of the Afrikander Bond in ward No, 2, district of Herbert. 11230. How long have you farmed in this district? — Eighteen years. I have about 1,200 slieep and g-oats, mostly merinos. 142;51. Witli wliich of tlie two last witnesses do you agree ? — With Mr. Faber, mainly. 14232. Whoro do you disagree with him ? — I don't agree that it is necessary to have any rule to protect the clean farmer, because it is just as likely that shearers may bring the insect from the Free Staie as that my flocks may be infected by my neighbours. 14233. Do you think that such things are possible ? — Certainly. 14234. Consequently, if scab is so verj^ ('ontagious as you say, it is necessary to do something to prevent tlie spread of that disease ? — Yes, in a good district, but not in a district like Herbert, because it would be hard for us to protect the boundary of the Free State and the Transvaal. 14235. Will you explain your meaning? — I mean that shearers might pass from the Free State or Transvaal and infect my flocks, and I might be the means of passing the disease on to my neighbours. If the boundary line were protected it would be a different matter. 14236. So if the farmers of Herbert could be protected against reinfection from the Free State or Transvaal, either by shearers or otherwise, then you would not object to legislation in this district ? — No, only partly. 14237. What other objection have you? — I find that my neighbour, who lives within three hundred yards of lue, never dips his sheep, while I do ; but during the la's! five years there has been no difierenco in the condition of our flocks as regards scab. 14238. Then why, as a practical farmer, after five years' experience of the non- efficacy of clipping, (io you still continue to spend money in a useless process ? — In order to make an e.-speriment. 14239. Mr. du Toil.] After these five years' experience, are you now willing to give up dipjiing altogether? — As far as I am concerned, I should be willing to give it up alto- gether, but in the expectation of having an act I am preparing for it, because I must bow to the law. 14240. Would it not be better for you to rest now, and to save the expense, and to wait until the act comes, and then comply with it, since you have found dipping to hi useless? — I have determined to give up dipping now, as 1 find it is useless. 14241. Jfr. Francis.'] You speak about the insect being brought through from the Free State. Then I und(>rsta:i(l you believe that scab is caused bv an insect ? — Yes. 14242. If scab is caused by an insect, and you dip 1 ho sheep in anything which will kill the insect, would you not then get rid of the scab ?— It is difficult to believe it, because I dip my sheep and they remain scabby, it does not kill the in-ect; while my neighbour does not dip and his sheep are apparently free of the insect. 14243. How do you account for the fact that your experience with regard to dipping killiug the insect is different from that of thousands of people throughout the ivhole world, who all find that by properly dipping the sheep they kill the insect ? — I don't think much of that, because in districts which have a good climate and a sufficient rainfall the (circum- stances are different from the circumstances hero. For instance, if my sheep have wire- worm, I may dip them three times a month, and they won't rem:tin free of scab. 14244. But it v)U wei-e convinced that by proper remedii's you could eradicate scab from your flocks, you would be quite willing to go to the trouMe and expense of rovided they could be slaughtered within fourteen days afterwards, or in the case of travelling stock, provided they were dipped a second time within fourteen days ? — Tes. 14395. Such a provision, I presume, would be a great benefit to the farmers of Herbert f — Yes. Mr. Redmond Newenham Morris Orpen examined. 14396. Chairman.'] You are a delegate appointed by the Herbert Farmer's Association to give evidence before this Commission ? — Yes. 14397. How long have you been farming in the district, and with how many stock? — I have been farming here for ten years, but it is only quite recently I have started farming on any scale, and at present I have 600 or 700 sheep. 14398. Do you agree with the evidence given by Mr. Cook ? — Almost entirely. 14399. On what points do you differ ? — i don't know that I can say on the spur of the moment ; they are not worth mentioning. I think he goes a little too far on the side of leniency. 14400. Mr. Francit.] You think the more stringent the act the sooner we should get rid of scab ? — Yes. 14401. Chairman.] Is there anything you wish to state? — lam the secretary of the association, and we should like it definitely on record that the association, as an association, is in favour of a general compulsory scab act. Mr. George Maekay examined. 14402. Chairman.] You are are a farmer, residing in the district of Herbert } — Yes, for eleven years. At present I am managing for a company which is just starting, the Bead's Drift Land Company, and we have only a few stock as yet. 14403. I presume this company has large holdings of land in the district } — Yes. 14404. Is it their intention to farm largely with merino sheep ? — -I think so. 14405. In the interests of the company, do you consider it advisable to have a compul- sory general scab act } — Yes. 14406. Have you heard the evidence of Messrs. Cook and Orpen ? — Yes. 14407. Do you agree with it ? — Yes. 14408. Mr. Rockly.] Have you been engaged in sheep farming before this? — Yes, for ten years in this district. Before I took over the company's work I was for six years with Mr. Cook, who gave evidence just now, and I was four years by myself. 14409. Have you seen much of scab during that period?— Yes, a great deal. 14410. Had you any difiiculty in cleansing sheep which were scabby ? — None what- ever. 14411. After they were cleaned, had you to dip them again ? — Yes, because the neigh- bours' sheep infected them. 14412. You feel satisfied that if you had not cleaned your sheep, aud if your neigh- bours had done the same, there would have been no danger from the shoep mixing ? — I am certain of it. 14413. Was it your custom to dip your sheep immediately after shearing, whether|they showed signs of scab or not ? — Yes. 14414. Do you dip once or twice ? — Twice in fourteen days ; once after shearing and again fourteen days later. 14415. Can you mention any case where your sheep were clean, and after finding scabby sheep among them scab broke .out on your flocks ? — Yes, once after dipping I found ten of my neighbour's sheep in the flock, and about fourteen days afterwards I had to hand dress. 14416. How long was that after the dipping? — About six weeks or two months, and the sheep were thoroughly clean in the meantime. 14417. You have no doubt that was the cause of it ? — None whatever. 14418. Chairman.] Do you wish to make any further statement ? — Only that I should very much like to see a general scab act, and the stricter the better. Mr. Marthinui Lauren* Latter examined. 14419. Chairman.] You are a farmer residing in the district of Herbert ? — Yes, for seven months. Formerly I was seven years in the district of Calvinia. I have about 200 sheep and goats. 14420. Arp you in favour of a gpnoral scab act V — I am altogether opposed to it. 14421. Why ? — Because I have dipped shorp, and it has not cured them. 14422. When and how did you dip those shoep ? — I generally dipped them with 625 tobacco after shearing, and on two occasioiiB, when the season was favourable, I dipped them in that way and tho}' were cured. 14123. Kindly explain how you prepared the tobacco solution which was inefficacious? — I had two half-casks, filled them with water, and put two or three rolls of tobacco in them. 14424. About what weight was the tobacco ? — ^About 15 to 18 lbs. 14425. How much water did you mix with that? — Thirty-two gallons. We then hand dressed the sheep in that solution. 14426. Did you put cold water with the tobacco ? — Tes. 14427. Are you not aware that any farmer who thoroughly and eflSciently dips his sheep in a tobacco solution, boils the water with the tobacco, and then lets it cool off ? — Tes, I forgot to say I boiled the water. 14428. Have you not found that this cured the place wherever you applied it ? — At the time, it the veldt was good, it helped at once. 14429. But you have had no experience of thoroughly and efficiently dipping sheep in a properly prepared solution ? — No. 14430. Consequently you were wrong when you stated that you were opposed to a scab act because you had dipped sheep and found that it did not cure them ? — I consider hand dressing is the same thing as dipping. I never dipped sheep. 14431. Do you consider that the same weight should be given to your evidence, never having dipped sheep in your life, as should be given to the evidenee of large flock owners who have dipped their sheep for years, and who are confident that dipping is efficacious ? — No, I think not, but nevertheless I was in charge of 5,000 or 6,000 sheep, and in good years I got them clean in the way I have mentioned. 14432. Mr. HocUy.'] During the time you had charge of those 5,000 or 6,000 sheep, did you never dip them ? — While I was still with that man he built a tank, and used to dip his sheep ; but he dipped them himself, and I had nothing to do with it. 14433. Then you know absolutely nothing about dipping; you can only speak about hand-dressing .' — Yes. 14434. Mr. Francis.'\ Are you at present a sheep farmer jor a blacksmith ? — I am a blacksmith and a farmer. Mr. Thomas Turner examined. 14435. Chairman.'] How long have you been farming in the district of Herbert? — Fourteen years. I have now over 3,000 sheep and goats of my own, and in 1876 when I trekked across the river, I and my brother-in-law had 1,108 between us. 14436. Are you in favour of a compulsory general scab act ? — Yes, altogether. I have a dip on my place. 14437. Are you convinced that scab can be eradicated from the flocks ? — Certainly. I use 20 lbs. of sulphur and 20 lbs. of lime to oveiy 100 gallons of water. It would be a good thing for the whole district if an act were proclaimed. Mr. Holtshuisen said to-day that he and a neighbour lived 300 yards from one another, but my brother-in-law Uves half-an-hour from me, and I know that if he did not dip it would be impossible for me to keep my flocks clean, and how was it possible for two people living within 300 j'ards of each other to keep the sheep clean when one dipped and the other did not ? Mr. Johannen Jacobus d€ Koch examined. 14438. Chairman.'] You are a farmer residing in the district of Herbert? — Yes, for the last twenty years. I have from 500 to 1,000 small stock, and I speculate in stock. 14439. Are you in favour of a general scab act ? — Greatly. 14440. Are j'ou in favour of a compulsory, simultaneous dipping being worked in conjunction with a scab act ? — That is the only thing which will be of profit to the farmers. 14441. You reside at Belmont ? — Yes. 14M2. Are there many farmers in j'our part of the district who are in favour of a scab act? — I am glad to say that the greater part of ward No. 1, which I represent, are in favour of it. 14443. Mr. ITockly.] Do you dip your sheep regularly ? — Yes, whenever I shear them, I dip them at once. 14444. You are constantly adding to your flock ? — Yes. 14445. Do you dip the new sheep before mixing them \rith the others? — No. 14446. Then do you succeed in keeping them dean? — -I am sorry to say T do not. 144 47. To what do you attribute that? — To my own carelessness in not understanding how to use the dip properly. 144 18. Don't you think it is also caused by your buying sheep from infected flocks ? — Certainly. 14449. Do you know any farmers in your ni ighbourhood who keep their flocks clean ? — Yes, Mr. Attwell for one. 626 14450. How do you acioiint for his slioep being kept clean? — Because he is very particular with his dipping. 14451. Then if all the farmers in the district were as particular, do you think they would all .suoeed in keeping their flocks dean ? — If they all pat their shoulder to the wheel they can do it. 14452. Do you think the farmers will ever do it without an act ? — I don't think so. 14453. The only way to compel the negligent man, or the man who refuses to dip, is to oblige him to do it by act of Parliament .-'—Yes. 14454. Although some of the farmers may object to it at first, do yju think they will find it is to their advantage, and approve of the act ? — I am sure of it, because I have seen it already. 14455. Don't you think a good deal of the opposition to the act is caused by the farmers misunderstandfng its provisions ? — In the ffrst place to not knowing the act properly, and in the second place not knowing the proper proportions of dip, as in my own case. I only got the information from a farmer, and that was not the right way. 14456. Chairman.^ Is there anything further you wish to say? — Only that I don't esactly agree with Mr. Cook's evidence. I agi'ee as regards a compulsory scab act, but not as regards the inspectors. It is impossible for one inspector to have the control of the whole district of Herbert, especially when stock have to be moved to the markef. Herbert stretches away about 60 miles square, and one inspector cannot do the work alone. The valuator of farms goes about very rapidly, without muuii iuspection, and as far as I am aware it takes him two months to do that work, and he does not go to all the farms either. Sd it is im- possible for one inspector, if he wishes to do his work properly and conscientiously, to get through it in four months' time. I should be in favour of an iaspector in every field- cornetcy, ajipointed, not by the Government, but by the farmers themselves. If the act is compulsory, and I am in favour of it being so, there is another point with regard to the removal of stock from one farm to another. If a man has clean flocks, I think he should be allowed to move them on his own responsibility, subject to a penalty, but I am not ia favour of letting a man remain with scab among his .sheep, if his dams are dry, and mt allowing hira to remove his stock to his neighbour's farm if his neighbour is willing to give him water, provided that the neighbour gives him a certain place, and does not allow the flocks to mix. It would not bo fair to make him remain where he is, and starve with his wife and children. Mr. Paul van Niekerk examined. 14457. Chairman.'] How long have you been farming in this district ? — Ten years; I have 1,000 sheep. 14458. Are you in favour of a general scab act ? — Yes. 14459. Do j'ou agree with the last witness ? — Yes. 14460. Mr. Hockly.'\ Have you had experience in dipping sheep ? — Yes. 14461. Do you find that it does good?--Yes, certainly. 14462. By proper dipping, can j'ou clean sheep? — Certainly ; I have only dipped once, and then not as it should be done, twice within fourteen days, but I have had enormous benefit from it. When my flocks were once clean, but became reinfected. I have always been certain that the reinfection came from old kraals, or from scabSy s'leep mixing with mine. 14463. How do you account for the fact that there are so many sheep f irmors who positively deny that dipping does any good, and wiil not have a scab act ? — In a great measure it is due to unwillingness to try. I myself first farmed with scab, but since a friend persuaded me to dip I have seen the enormous benefits I have derived from it ; and ever\-- body whom I know in this district who dips his sheep keeps them in better condition than those who dwan.] I believe you wish to make a further statement y — I should like to say, from conversations I have had with farmers aU over the district, I am in a position to state this positively. I have valued the farms once, and the houses once, and have had numerous cotiversations, and I have always found that the farmers dip and dose the sheep on the " omtrent " principle. I don't thiuk there are ten per cent, of the stock-owners in the district who know what a gallon is. They get an oil drum or a paraffin tin, ami use either of them as a gallon measure, and I think they get mixed up in many ways as to the sizes of their dips. There are moreover, very tew farmers who possess a proper scale to weigh the stuff. They consider a beaker-full is a pound of anything. re. 1— '94.] GQGG ti'j; Mr. Jacohm Ilendrik r/in ■'•/• Westhahfn esainined. 'z' H4C7. Chulriiian.] Are you a farmoi :* — Tam a '^raiii fanaer residing here, and I have a fpw goats which run on the town coiiimonage. My 500 goats were infected by scabby goats belonging to other parties running on the commonage, and I was ])ersuaded to dip my goats. As they had been iJrtJ'jctl.- r-lean before that, I was under the impression that there was no s(n>) among goats, bit after my cxporienci' I consider it is advisable to have an act, as I helieve every one can clean his stock by dip])iiig, and until they do so their neighbours' stock will always be liable to bs inft>cted. The majority of farmers are in the same position as I wa'* before I had proved the efficac}' of dijiping, because they don't understand the benedts to be derived from it. Prince Albert, Saturday, 2\tt October, 1893. PRESENT : Dr. Smartt (Chairman). Mr. Botha. I Mr. Hockly. Mr. DT7 Terr. | Mr. Francis. Afr. Frederick George Oudendal examined. 14468. Chairman. \ Are you a ilelegate ? — Yes, from Lningsburg, Goiigh No. 4 branch of the Afrikander Bond. 14469. How long have you been residing in the district of Prince Albert ? — Seventeen years. I have 3,000 sheep and goats on my place. 14470. Do you appear here to g^e evidence for or against scab legislation? — Against it. 14471 . Will you state j-our reasons ? — First, because the Gough where T live is subject to severe droughts, and it is absolutely necessary at those times to remove the stock, some- times fifty or sixty miles away. In a period of five years, at least three years will be dry, during which years it is necessary to move the sheep. The water gives out in summer :' even on the Crown lands there is hardly any water, and our great objection to the act is the scarcity of water and food for our stock. Between Beaufort West and Buifel's River and this district there are at least 150 small, poor farmers, having from about 100 to 400 sheep, and if the act were to come into operation over these people they would be reduced to the condition of the poor whites, and would not be able to support their families as they do now. I am acquainted with the district of Rivcrsdale, and there is an enormous difference between thiit district and this as regards the rainfall ; at least eight morgen is required here for the sustenance of a shaep, and there one. The water supply here is standing water, which becomes brackish and bad, and I believe this to be a great cause of scab amongst sheep. 14472. Do the farmers in this division as a rule dip or hand dress their sheep ? — ^Those people who have opportunities to dip their sheep do so ; I myself dip my sheep, and so do my children. I have used several patent dips. 14473. What has your experience been after dipping j-our sheep? — Has it improved their condition ? — No. If the sheep have short wool, and rains have fallen and the veldt is growing, then if you diji it improves the sheep and cures them of scab, but if it is a period of drought nothing helps. If the drought continues and scab breaks out again, then the sheep die, and it is dangerous to dip them. 14474. But has your experience alwaj-s been that if your sheep are thoroughly and efficiently dipped at any season the scab is cured for the time being .'' — No ; I once assisted a man to dip his sheep, twice within fourteen days, and it did not help at all. 14475. Would you kindly state in what solution tho.se sheep were dipped, and how they were dipped ? — A tank was made from American deals, and the sheep were dipped by hand in it, in a patent dip used according to directions ; but it did not help at all because the veldt was dry. Tlie same man told me afterwards that he dipped the sheep once when the veldt was good, and it then helped. 14476. Are j'ou positive that you know exactly the contents of that dipj)ing tank, and that the dip was prepared exactly according to the instructions given on the packages of the patent dip ? — We made the dip exactly according to the directions, according to the number of the sheep. 14477. So that in preparing the dip you reckoned the number of sheep which had to he dipped and prepared what you considered sufficient dip for that number of sheep ? — Yes, so many gallons of water aud so many packets of dip to .so many sheep 14478. Was the water measured, and a certain quantity of dip added according to the quantity of water ? — Yes, the water in the tank was measured : I measured it with a two- gallon bucket. We kept the sheep in about 25 seconds. 14479. When you used the dip according to the directions on the packages, did it not strike you that it would have been advisable to have followed the instructions in their entirety, and kept tlie sheep in the dip at least a minute or two minutes instead of twenty- five seconds, as now stated b3- you ? — My belief is that if twentj--five seconds in the water 628 does not cure the sheep they would not be cured if they remained iu for tweuty-tive minutes ; as long as the sheep are wetted it is sufficient. 144^0. During periods of drought are there heavy hjsses of scabby sheep in this dis- trict? — If there were thne sheep, affected with seal), and another three, clean of scab, I should say that one-third of those infected with scab would die before those which were not infected. 14481. Consequently, if you could be convinced that a dip of a certain character, pro- perly applied, would absolutely cure any case of scab, with two di])ping8 within fourteen days, j'ou think .such a dip would be of enormous benetit to the diiitriet of Prince Albert, according to }our own showing '/ — I must confess, that if a dip were discovered which would clean the sheep, it woidd be of great benetit. 14432. Such a dip would naturaUv be of more benetit to the p. Have j'ou ever used anj' other dip? — Yes, another patent dip. 14.J07. Have you dipped with it twice within a fortnight ? — Yes, and I have dipped with tobacco. 14.508. Did you try two dippings in a fortnight with these other dips? — I am not very certain that I used those dijis twice. I don't think I did. 14509. After dipping your sheep twice within a fortnight in the tirst patent dip, did you allow them to go back to the same kraal or veldt .-' — They remained in the same kraals and in the same veldt, except on the last occa.sion of mj- dipping them, when they trekked. 14510. After dipping your sheep, have you ever tried putting them on clean veldt and in clean kr-aals .'' — No. 14.51 1. Don't you tliink they may have got re-infected in those kraals, or on tlie veldt .- — No, certainly not. I am certain that was not the cause. 14512. That is what you believe, according to your own opinion, but you are not vmi- vinced, because j-ou have not tried .-' — When I dipped the last time, as I said , and after two dippings within 14 days the clean trekked to fresh veldt, then I did try, and it proved that the dipping did not heli), because these sheep were not cleaned. 14513. After two thorough dippings within a fortnight .-' — Yes. 14514. Are you qtiite sure that there had not been any scabby sheep on the veldt they went to a short time before .^ — That T cannot say ; the whole world is full of scab. 14515. Jfr. Butha.'] How many dipping tanks do you know of in this district ? — As far as I know, there are about ten masoned dips on ten places, but by far the larger farms have no dips on them. Besides these dips, there are many people who have tubs and barrels in which they dips their sheeps. 14516. You have known the district for seventeen years. From your experience, has scab increased or diminished during that time ? — Besides farming, I have been buying and selling wool, and the condition of the wool is variable. In good season the scab dimishes, and increases again in drj- seasons. 14517. Can you say that all the faiiiiers do their best to dip their flocks.? — That its more than I can say. 14518. Do you know of farmers who never dip their sheep, even if they are scabby ? — There are people who never dip their sheep. 14519. Mr. Franiis.'\ You give as one great reason why this district is opposed toa scab act the difficulty with regard to droughts ? — Yes. 14520. I presume j'ou mean that if there were a scab act, and a drought occurred a man would be unable t" move his sheep } — Yes. 14521. Are you acquainted with the provisions of the jreseut scab act? — I know a little too much of it. 14522. Would you kindly tell the C 'omniission what regulation there is in the present act with regard to the removal of sheep ? — I did not know I was going to be confirmed, or I would have learned my catechism well before I appeared here. 14523. But you see you have just said that you are too well acquainted with the pro- visions of the present scab act, and that was why I asked you the question. Do 3^ou know that under tho present act, if a man's sheep are free of scalD, he can move them ? — Yes, if he holds a clean bill from the inspector. 14524. Consequeutlj', if a man kept his sheep clean of scab, the act would cause him no difficult}', as he would be able to remove his sheep .' — If he could keep his sheep clean, then of course that would be the case. 14525. You say tliat while dipping does not cure the scab when the veldt is bad, it does helj) in good seasou.s ? — I believe in dipping, and that it has curative properties, but in times of drouglit we may do what we like but we cannot keep scab down. 1452(i. You also say there are a number of farmers who don't dip their sheeji. I)on't you think it would be beneticial if in good seasons all were to dip their sheep ? — Yes, but I am against compulsion of any sort. 14527. 1)0 j-oK consider that the existence of scab in this district causes a great deal of loss to the farmeis. from the loss of wool, the price of wool and skins, as well as loss of stock in cold rains ? — Ceitainly, scab is the cause of great loss. 14528. 1)0 you also buy skins? — Yes, a great man}'. • 14529. What do you think is the difference in value between a clean skin and a skin badly infected with scab ? — From 20 to 25 per cent. 14530. Consequently, if we could get the flocks free of .scab, it world be a great benefit to the countiy ? — "If ifs and ans were pots and pane." 145J]. Chuiniiaii.'' Do yuu know of any instance in the district of Priufc .\il.ert wiiere 630 any one farmer carefully and regularly dips his sheep, and in good seasons and bad seasons has the reputation of keeping his stock cleaner than tliose of his neighbour ? — No 14532. You have stated, when dipping, j'ou keep j'our sheep in 25 seconds: you have also stated that you have tried keeping them in a minute, and it did not lielp. Which state- ment do you wish to remain in evidence ? — Both, because this was some years ago, and the other lately. 14533. Did you time them with a watch, in the dipping tank ?— No, I guessed the time, and I 'can guess wonderfully well. J//-. Andiies Enixmwi, examined 14534. Chairman.'] Are you also a delegate ? — Yes, from thi' .Vfiikaudfr Bond in Gough No. 4. I have farmed here -for thirty 3'ears, and have about lOOd sheep. 11535. You have heard the evidence given by Mr. Oudendal 'i — Yes. 14536. Do you agree with it y — Yes, entirely. 14537. Then when he states that a large section of the rich farmers in Prince Albert have done all they possibly can do to oppress the poor, and by so doing have placed them- selves in the position they occupy to-day, do you agree with liim '^ — No, I cannot exactly agree with that. I believe it is done, but it is done over the whole world, and I wont say it is done to any great extent here. 14538. Mr. nockh/.'] Do you dip your sheep regidarly ? — .\s long as the drought does not prevent me ; when I am at home and, the condition of the veldt allows it. 14539. Will you tell us what is 3-our system ? Do you shear once or twice a year ^ — Once a year, generally in February and March. 14540. Then it is your custom to dip those sheep after shearing, whether you see scab or not ? — Yes, if not prevented by drought. 14541. Do you mind telling us what dip you use? — On the last two occasions I used patent dips. ' ' 14542. Do }-ou dip the sheep once or twice 'i — Only once if they are not scabby. 14543. And if they are scabby j'ou dip them a second time ? — Yes. 14544. How niauy days after the first dipping do you dip them the second time? — Fourteen to twentj-one. 14545. ^\nien you have dipped the sheep twice, has it cured them ':" — Yes, they get clean if the veldt is good. 14546. If you shear in March, and it is then dry, do you dip } — If tliey have scab I dip them, whether they are fat or lean. 14547. When you have dipped them twice, do they remain clean for any length of time '' — Yes, as long as they don't suffer from poverty. 14548. Have your sheep never become infected by being mixed with scabby sheep .^ — No. 14549. — Am I to understand you that after you have dipped your sheep and cleaned them, you would have no objection to a lot of scabby sheep being mixt^d up with them ? — No. For instance, my sheep had once been clean for about three years, when I had to move them, and camped upon a farm where scab was very bail, the wool of those sheep lianging from them in locks, and there were locks of wool and scales of scab on the tloor of the kraal. I kraaled my sheep in the same kraal, and ten of my lambs remained with the rams belonging to the owner of the place, which were in the same coutlition, and for twi-'ve months no scab broke out amongst my tlocks 14550; Mr. di< Toit.~\ How loug ago was that? — Six years. 14551. Are you quite sure that that was tho case? Have you not perhaps made sume mistake? — I am quite sure fif the circumstances. 14552. Were your she 'p dipped sliortly before you put them into the kraal? — Not for twelve months previously, because there was no scab. 14553. How long liad the kraal stood emptj' ? — One day. 14554. Were not those rams dipped shortly before ? — No. 14555. Chairman.] Was the veldt on that farm intolerably good condition ^ — Yes, it was good. 14556. If the veldt was good how can you account for the fact that the sheep on tho farm were in such a deplorable condition as you have stated, if pcjverty alone is the cause of scab ? — Because sliortly l)efore it was very dry there. 14557. To your knowledge had that man dipped his sheep shortly before you arrived there? — No, I believe not. 14558. — Asa rule he never dips r — I saw no dip on his farm. 14559. If there are cases in the district of Prime Albert, or any district of tlie Colony, where farmers exist, such as the man you have referred to, and who keep their sheep in tlie disgraceful condition in which you found those sheep, is it not justice that such men .should be compelled to do something to ameliorate tho conditiim of those aninmls '/ — Yes, it would be a good thing, such a man deserves coq)oral punishment. 14560. Consequently, you consider it necessary to have legislation for people of the class to which j^ou refer ?— Certainly. Mr. Jacobus Adriaan Stii/de>:s examined liJGl. Chairman.] Are you a delegate? — Yes, from the Afrikander Bimd iu Ivlein Zwartberg. Ml 14362. Are ydu farming here '? — Not at present. I was a farmer in this district for a)iout 40 years, and in Beaufort West. 14.5(i;i. How iiwny slieep did you farm with then? — 2000. 14564. Do you agree with the evidence given Tiy Mr Oudeudal ? — Yes. 1456.5. In its entirety .' — Except what hfi said with regard to the rich and poor. 14566. AV'as it your custom regularly to dip your flocks when you wore a farmer':' — No, in those days wp did not dip; wc hand-drossod. 14567. Did you liud hand-dressing eflSacious ? — Yes. 14568. Then would you be against a measure compelling farmers who never dipped or hand-dressed in good seasons to be compelled to dip or hand-dress their sheep? — Yes, I would have legislation, liut not a general act, I would not interfere with those who attend to their business. 14569. If dip were supplied at cost price and free of railwaj' carriage, to the farmers in this district, would it do away with a good deal of the opposition to compulsory di])piug and hand-dressing ? — Y'es. 14570. Mr. Botha.'\ Do you know of any farmer in the district of Prince Albert whose rule is regularly to dip Mis ?heep and do his best to keep them clean? — -\11 the farmers do their best to keep their sJieep clean. 14571. Have they all dipping tanks ? — No. 14572. Then how can they do their best .^ — They hand-dress. 14573. But e^'idence has been given this morning that some farmers never dip or hand- dress, and you have agreed with that evidence ? — I dont think there is one man who does not hand-dres*. I don't agree with that evidence. 14574. Mr. Fraiicis.^j Do you agree with Mr. Oudeadal that scab is not contagious ? — Yes. 14575. And do you also agree that it is not caused by an insect ? — I cannot say. 14576. Do you kaow that according to the present scab act, no sheep can be accounted legally scabby unless that insect is found on it .■' — No. 14577. If scab is caused by an insect, and by an insect alone, and you could kill that in- sect, would j'ou not then clean the sheep of scab ? — Yes. 14578. And if scab is only caused by an insect, do you believe the insect could be created by drought, poverty, or bad water ? — Yes. 14579. Do you know of any other living animal or insect which is created by dirt or poverty ? — Yes. 14580. Will you tell the Commission what it is .^ — I know that certain insects come on vines, and it a farmer does not at once sulphur the vines he is a heavy loser ; but that is left to the farmer to attend to, and he is free U) sulphur his vineyard whenever he wishes. 14581. Tlien do you suppose that this insect which comes on tha vines comes without parents or oggs .•' — I don't know. 14582. Do you know we are told in the Bible that in the beginning every living thing was created ? — Yes. 14583. Tlien do you believe that creation is still going on, and that living things are being created out of dirt and poverty ? — No, I dont thmk that anything was created after that. 14584. Then, according to your own evidence, the scab insect could not come from poverty and dirt ? — Yes, poverty causes scab. Mr. Petrus Johannes fUbelaar examined. 11585. ('Iiainnmt.^ Are you a delegate i' — ^' ■'. from the Afrikander Bond in ward No. 1. 1458t>. I low long have you been farming iu this district? — For forty-three years. I have 3000 sheep. 14587. With which of the last witnesses do you agree.? — I don't agree with any of them on all points. H588. Whcredoyuu diifor? — Scab is the result of povert}-, which is caused by feverish- ness. and an unhealthy state of the constitution. I don't agree that the rich farmers oppress the poor. 14589. Do you dip your .sheep regularly? — I have never dipped sheep yet. 1 4590. Do you hand-dress ? — Now and then, with a little tobacco. My sheep hardly ever have scab. 14591. Do you conseientiou.sly consider that you are in a position to express an opinion upon the efficacy or non-efficacy of dipping, never having dipped sheep yourself .'' — I have s(>cn dipping on other farms, but I cannot speak from experience. 14592. Are j'ou prepared to state that in these dippings which took place under your own observation, the dip was carefully weighed, the water carefully measured, and that they were mixed in exact proportions ? — I don't understand dipping. 14593. ^fr. IIuvMij.^ Do the farmers in your neighbourhood never dij) their sheep.? — No, they dip them. 14594. What induces them to do s(. ? — Scab. 14595. And are not your sheep subject to the same conditions when it is dry? — Yes, but I have so much room to move them. 14596. But the dipping they give their sheep does not help at all? — It helps, but when the drought appears it breaks out again. 14597. Is not that the more reason why thoy should try and have their sheep clean bo- fore the drought breaks out, so that thoy can stand it better 'i — I am of opinion that no dipping helps for a longer period than two or three mouths. fia2 14598. Do j'ou remember h.ow many tauks there in tlie district? — There are four or five in my ward. 14.599. Do the people w}io have these tanks dip regularly i — I lieur that they do. 14600. Do they dip every year after tliey have finlslicd shearing whether the .sheep have scab or not ? — I don't think they dip when the sheep have no scab. 14601. Do you know what they do with the .sheep after they have dipped them ? Do thej' send them back to the same kr.ials? — Some are forced to do so, but some don't. 14602. Are you surprised to had tint sheep which have been dipped and sent back to scabby kraals get scab again '■! — If the veldt is good I don't believe they wiU get scab again. 14603. Mr. du Toit.'] As a rule, you hand-dress your sheep? — Now and again. 14604. You do it be<^au-se you are convinced it is efficacious ? — Yes. 14605. Don't you think it advisable that everj' farmer should hand-dress his sheep when they get scabby ? — Yes. ' 14606. Do you believe that, if he does not do so, it will increase enormously P^Yes. 14607. But if a man does not hand-dress his sheep in order to cope with scab, don't you think it would be a good thing to have a measure to compel him to do so ? — It does not help to compel people of that class ; it would ruin them. A workable act which would not compel them to dres^ their sheep in times of drought might bo serviceable, but under no circumstances should they be prevented from trekking. 14608. Mr. Bofha.'] You don't believe in dipping ? — I have never found any necessity for it. 14609. It is not because you are too poor to have a dip, but simply because you don't think it is necessary? — Yes. 14610. Have j-ou always water on your farm? — Yes. 1461 1 . .So that if you believed that dipping wa.s necessar j? you would alwa}"S have water for it ? — Yes, I could dip if I wanted to. 14612. Is that the condition of the majority of tlie farmers here ? — No ; other farmers may not have the same amount of water, though to a certain e.^tent they might. I put my sheep througli clean water. 14613. Mr. Francix.'j You say you hand-dress your sheep, becouse if you don't do so scab increases amongst the flocks .' — Yes. 14614. Then you must consider scab is contagious? — No ; it is not contagious. 14615. Mr. Bothd.^ You say scab is an internal disease, but why then did you pass your sheep through clean water, and how is it efficacious ? — Because if they are dean they don't get scab. Scab is caused by dust and dirt. Mr. Gabriel Baniel jRussokic examined. 14616. Chairman.'] Are you a delegate? — Yes, from the branch of flie Afrikander Bond in Ward No. 1 . 14617. How long have you farmed in this district/ — I don't farm, but I have lived here for 41 years. I have no occupation. 146 18. With which of the last witnesses do you agi'ee '^ — With Mr. Oudendal, as far a.s my experience goes, but many things he refers to I have no experience of. 14619. Mr. Botha.'] Do you know the district ? — Yes. 14620. Are there farmers wlio make it a rule to dip and wash their sheep ? — Yes. 14621. Are their sheep in better condition than those of their neighbours who do nothing ? — I cannot say. Mr. Witska Marthima ran der Wesfhuizfii examined. 14622. ChairmaH.] Are you a delegate ? — Yes, from the branch of the Afrikander Bond in Ward No. 4. I have farmed in this district for 25 years, and have about 4500 small stock. 14623. Do 3-0U agree with Mr. Oudendal? — Yes, almost entiiely. 14624. Have vou a flip on your farm ? — Yes. 14625. Do you dip your sheep regularly? — Yes, as long as the circumstances of the season allow it, and it is not too dry. 14626. Have you found it efficacious':' — -Yes, as long as the veldt is good. 14627. Are your dipped sheep freer of scab, as a rub-, than tliose of your neighbours who never dip ? — As long as the veldt is good. 14628. Consequently, it would be in the interests of your neighbours, when the veldt is good, to compel them to dip also ? — Yes, it woidd be good for them also as long as they can dip. 14629. Therefore, from your own .showing, you do not agree with Mr. Oudendal when he says he is opposed to legislation of any sort ? — I am opposed to legislation on that point. 14630. You contend that i; is advisable to let the sheep of tlie farmers of this colony go backward from want of knowledge of the principles of dipping, when experience lias taught you that in good seasons you are able to keep your flocks in better condition, aud freer of scab, than your neighbours who don't dip ? — I cannot sa\-. 14631. Is it that you don't want to express an opinion"? — I cannot say. 14632. 3Ir. Botha.] What siort of dip have j'ou? — A masoned dip, built with stone and lime. 14633. Have you a draining kraal ? — Yes. 633 14634. Are tlie majority of land owne^^ lUi in a pisition to build similar tanks? — Yes, I should think about half of them, of the rflm lindor, some have no cattle, and some are too poor. 14635. Mr. Franoi.<<.'\ From your experienoe, do you think it would be a great benefit to the farmers if we could get scab out of our sheep ? — Yes, but not .vith the assistiuce of an act. 14636. But if you were convinced that you could get rid of scab by having a certain law, would you thon be iu favour of the law? — Yes, if I were convinced. 14637. J/r. rf« 7«('<.] Have you ever dipped your sheep in droughts when they were scabby .-' — Yes. 14638. In what kind of dip ?— A patent dip. 14639. How did you prepare it? — A packet of dip to 25 sheep . 14640. How much water? — I cannot say, but according to the directions. 14641. Have you ever measured the capacity of your tank ? — Yes. 14642. How many gallons does it hold .-" — I cannot say now. I measure the water and dipping material in prop >rtioQ and I prepare it for a thousand sheep at a time. 14643. How long do you keep them in the dip ? — That I cannot say ; I let them through as quickly as they can gi, but if they look very scabby I stop them in the tank with a stick. 14644. Are you certain that sheep with hard scab are thoroughly wetted by retaining them in the tank the time you say ? — Yes. 14645. When you say that dijiping is inefficacious at times, are you certain that you have thrC,i, Will you give us some idea what your views are about the provisions of the act y — I am under the impression that, if a man does his best, and cannot cure scab, he is fined into the bargain. Mr. Matthys Pieter Wilmach examined. 14665. Chairman-I Are you also a delegate? — Yes, from the branch of the Africander Bond in Gougli Nd. 3. 14666. How long have you farmed here ? — The last 15 years, and I have between 3001) and 4000 sheep. 14667. Do you agree with Mr. Oudendal ? — Not altogether, I agree mcstly with the last witness, but I am not so strongly opposed to regulations being made, although I aiu opposed to a general stringent act. Tliere might be regulations cooipsUing people to do all they can to keep their flocks clean, if they will not do so otlierwise. 14668. Then you have very many people here who don't do their best ? — Very possibl}' but I don't say it is from laziness. 14669. If these people don't do their best to clean their flocks, and if this is due to want of kaowledg •, is it not the duty ef the Government to teach them how their flicks can be cleaned ? — I tijink so. 14670. Mr. ILnckly.'\ Do you dip your own sheep? — Yes, but I cannot say I doit properly, because the ground I farm on is not very extensive ; we get very little rain; and I am not always in a position to dip as I should. 1 467 1. But if 3-ou had the facilities, 5'ou think it is desirable to do it? — I think so. 14672. What has been the result of the dippings you have given the sheep? Have they been satisf.ictory ? — Not always, but when the veldt was good it did help. 14673. Have you made it a rule to dip your shaep twice in succession within fourteen days ? — If there is a possibility of doing so, I generally dip my sheep twice after shearing. 14674. How long do you find that they keep clean after two dippings? -When I have dipped twice it has happened that my sheep have remained C[uite clean for twelve months. Sometimes a little spot has broken out, but that I hand-dress. 14675. I suppose in every case during that time j'ou can remember their having mixed with scabby sheep? — No, I don't think that they mixed. 14676. Can you be certain that in twelve months no single strange sheep mixed with yours 'i — I cannot say. 14677. 80 that if is contagious it is perfectl}' possible that strange sheep might have infected your tioiks ? — Yes, if it is contagious. 14678. Do you doubt for an instant that it is contagious ? — I cannot believe it. 14679. Supposing your shoip have been clean for twelve months would you with the greatest willingness allow scabby sheep to mix with them ? — No, because I have a doubt whether I am not mistaken, and that it may be contagious. 14680. Mr. dii Tuit.^ Since you kept j'our .sheep clean for twelve months, don't 3'ou think j'ou could keep tlii>m clean always? — I believe I could keep them fairly free of scab if we always liad good seasons. 1 1681. AVas the veldt good the whole year round to which you allude ? — At the end of the year it was more or less dry. 14682. If you are successful in good seasons, do you consider that sheep can also be kept tolerably clean in times of drought ? — If the drought is not ver}' severe, j'ou can keep the scab tolerably under. 14683. Mr. Francis.'] Are you aware of the fact that in one district of the Colony which is now under the scab act they have completely cleared the district of scab, and that except for sheep which h.ive been brought in, it has been clear foi' four years? — I don't know it, but I liave seen something to that effect in the papers. 14684. If it is a fact that one district can be cleared, don't you think that other dis- tricts in the Colony would also be cleared of scab ?— I don't know the district yon have re- ferred to, 80 it is impossible to say. 14685. Do you believe that scab comes from an insect? — I don't know. 1 know there are insects on sheep, but I cannot say whetlier it is caused by scab, or whether scab is caused by an insect. 14686. But if it is caused by an insect, which is the only legal scab, don't you think what would kill the insect in one district would kill it inanotlier? — Yes, if scab is caused by an insect. Mr. Christian JEendrik Venter examined. 14687. Chairman.'] Are you a delegate ? — Yes, from the branch of the Afrikander Bond in Gough No. 3. I have farmed here for twenty-five years, and have 3,000 sheep, mostly merinos. [G. 1— '94.] HHHH Mr, 14688. Are you in favour of scab legislation ? — No. 11589. Why? — Because it is impossiV)le for us in this district. In my district the farmers dip. l)ut we cannot keep the .scab under in bad seasons. 1 I(i90. Do you dip your own sheep regularly? — If the season is favourable I dip after shearing. 14'J91. Uo you then wisli me to understand that a season may be favourable for shear- ing and unfavourable for dipping? — The seasons here are so uncertain. 14692. Have you over in your life dipped sheep twice in fourteen days after shearing ? — Yes. 14693. What was the result of that dipping? — It did not cure them completely. 14694. AMiat dip did you use ? — A patent dip. 14695. AVhat is the capacity of your dipping tank ? — It holds 50 gallons. 14696. How large is it .' — About 12 feet long, 4 feet deep, and 2^^ feet wide. Mr. Samuel Peter Luttig examined. 14697. Chairman.'] You are a farmer residing in the district of Prince Albert ? — Yes. 14698. How many years have you been farming here ? — About thirty yoars. I have 6,000 small stock, mostly sheep. 14699. Are you in favour of legislation of any sort to cope with the spread of scab amongst the stocks of the colony ? — Yes 14700. From your knowledge of this district, is it a fact that the farmers here as a rule do their best to cope with the spread of scab amongst their stocks ? — Yes, more now than formerly-. 14701. Would you be in favour of acompulsory simultaneous dipping act, in accordance with the climate and circumstances of the district ? — Yes, if everybody had an opportunity to do it. 14702. If such an act were introduced, would it be advisable for the Govermuent to supply dip at cost price to the farming population ? — Yes, I think the Government could assist in several ways, and firstly the Government could sujiply dip at cost price on the best possible conditions. In the Gough people can farm without the assistance of kraals, but it is not so in the Nieuwveldt. But in the Nieuwveldt kraal making is an expensive affair, and if people have to destroy their kraals, the Government should assist in rebuildiug tbem. 14703. Have you any idea what the expense of rebuilding such kraals would be? — Stone kraals would cost from 2/6 to 3/- a running yard. 14704. If you had a troop of sheep in a season of drought in this country, and they were badly affected with scab, fi-om your experience as a practical farmer, do you think your loss would be less if you dipped those sheep carefully, choosing a suitable day for it, or if you allowed them to run on with scab, as described by many witnesses to-day ? — It would be better to dip them. 14705. So when farmers state that, if they were obliged in times of drought to dip sheep wliich were badly infected with scab, they would be heavy losses, they are speaking without a knowledge of dipping and its efficacy .' — That is my experience. 14706. There are, I believe, times in this district when it is absolutely necessary to remove stock, eitlier from scarcity of water or scarcity of food ? — Yes. 14707. If a clause were introduced into the scab act empowering the Governor in times of severe drought to suspend the operation of the act in certain districts, would it do away with a great deal of the objection which has been raised to an act so far as moving stock is Concerned ? — Tliat is the greatest difficulty the farmers here have. 14708. Who do you think would be the most suitable persons to be inspectors of .stock, and how should they be appointed ? — The people who are the most aaxious to keeji their own sheep clean would make the most suitable inspectors. 14709. Then you are of opinion that they should be practical sheep farmers residing in the district ? — Yes. 14710. In whose hands would j-ou place the appointment of these men.' — I think the Government must do it. 14711. Would it be ceces-ary in a district like Prince Albert to have the dipping of sheep supervised ? — Yes I think so, especially in the beginning, not only to show the farmers how to mix and apply the dip, but also to explain the cause of infection, and how to prevent it. 14712. Would the farmers object to such inspectors coming upon their property? — I think thej' would be glad to have such assistance. 147 13 If all the flocks in the district of Prince Albert were carefully dipped in a suitable season, do you think from your knowledge of the farming jiopulation here, that many of the present opponents to legistation regarding scab, seeing the results of a compulsory simul- taneous dipping, would become advocates of legislation ? — It is my conviction that many a man who has spoken this morning against an act of an)' kind whatever, would speak quite differently if they were convinced of the good effect such legislation could produce. 14714. So that you are convinced that a workable scab act properlj' administered would be the salvation of the farmers of this countrj', especially those of the poorer class ? — Certainly. 14715. Mr. Franci».'\ Do you consider that a great partof the opposition to a scab act in this district arrises fi'om the fact that farmers don't know the nature of the disease, how 636 aasily it is tiu-ed, or the benefits they would derive from the act ? — Yes, I think that is tiuo to a great extent, and that people are prejudiced in the matter. 14716. Is it perhaps also partly owing to the fact that farmers in districts where the act is not in force have an idea that the act is a very stringent one ? — Certainly ; a good deal of opposition is cause I by the fact that people know too little of the law, and fancy it will cause a great deal of obstruction and loss of proxJertj'. I don't know the law myself, but I know that laws are not made in such an unworkable way. 14717. Are you aware of the fact that some few years ago, although there is no clause in the act giving the Government power to do so, yet in a severe drought at that time the act was suspended in the districts of Cathcart and Queens Town V — No. 14718. From your knowledge of this district, are you convinced that with a proper law, properly carried out, you could eradicate scab from the sheep ? — Yes, and all sources of in- fection should be removed, such a% infected kraals and so on. 14719. From your knowledge of the great loss caused to farmers from the fact that the flocks are infected with scab, do you think the Government would be warranted in spending money liberally to do away with it ? — Certainly, I think it is the duty of Parliament and Government, considering the loss caused by scab to do everything in their power to eradi- cate the evil. 14720. Mr. du Toit:'] What do you think is the cause of scab ? — The insect, but how it is brought here I dou't know. 14721. Then you believe it is contagious ? — Yes. 14722. You believe that if a scabby sheej) comes into contact with clean sheep, it will certainly infect the flock ? — Yes. 14723. Do }ou know that by experience'/ — Yes. 14724. Convinced as you are of the desirability of a workable act, would you be in favour of forcing such an act upon a portion of the population against their will ? — Yes, if it is a workable act. 14725. You believe that those who are now opposed to such an act would soon be con- vinced by their experience ? — Yes. 14726. Mr. ITockli/.'j Do you think that those people who say they have dipped their sheep twice, can have used dip of the proper strength and have dipped their sheep properly, if it did not cure them ? — Yes : the dip might be mixed properly, but the sheep might be in a place where they became reinfected. 14727. Then where a good result is not obtained, you think it mtist either be attri- butable to the fact that the clip was not properly used or that the sheep were put in a place where they became reinfected ? — Yes. 1472y. Don't you think that many of the farmers mix the dip very imperfectly ? — Ye.«, I am sme of it. I have sometimes dipped sheep myself in a solution properl)- mixed, but then perhaps you run short before the sheep are through, and I must admit that the second time it is not so secure as it was in the first instance. 14729. Don't you think a great many farmers make the stuff far too weak when dipping ? — Yes, by far the larger j)roportion make it too weak. For one who makes it too strong there are ten who m ike it too weak. 14730. Then, is it not also the fact that they do not soak the sheep, but just allow them to swim out at once, so that the animals do not get thoroughly saturated ? — I cannot say that. 14731 . Do you think it is necessarj' to soak the sheep thoroughly if you wish the dip to have the projier effect ? — Yes. 14732. Chairman] Wiuld you like to make any statement ? — I listened most attentive- ly this morning to all the witnesses, and heard that all declared themselves against the act ; some did not even believe in the insect, others did not believe that scab is contagious, but I did not hear one who said that the sheep should be left to themselves. Thej" all did some- thing. My own opinion is that you will never eradicate scab without the assistance of an act which will oblige people to dip, and will compel them to keep scabby sheep separate from others. I am of just the opposite opinion to that expressed by Mr. Oudendal in his evidence this morning. He said that if a scab act is enforced a number of small farmers will be the sufferers, but I think it is just the reverse, and that it wiU affect the large and wealthy farmers more. A man who has a small flock can keep it clean much more easily than a man whose flocks are more numerous ; the small farmer can manage even without a dipping tank, he can do it by hand, but as the whole country is scabby in consequence of in- fected animals continually trekking about, his sheep, even if he cleans them, soon come in contact with scabby places and get reinfected. For instance, if Parliament and the Govern- ment should come to the conclusion that there shall be no act, and that anybody who dips shall be punished, then there would be an outcry in favour of an act. Otherwise, why do the farmers spend so much money in trying to clean their sheep ? It would be a duty to forbid them to waste money in that way. I was very much put out by what Mr. Oudendal said this morning with regard to well-to-do farmers taking advantage of the poorer ones in order to get their property at a cheajjer rate. This is not mj- experience, and I protest against such a statement being made here. I imderstood afterwards that Mr. Oudendal did not mean it in that way, but I wish it to be plainly stated~in the evidence that this charge was withdawn. It has further been stated that a scab act would ruin the poorer farmers, and consequently it would appl}- that I and other well-to-do farmers in this district wish for such an act to make use of it in order to ruin and get possession of the flocks of our poor neighbours, and I wish to give that statement an unqualified denial. HHHH 2 637 J/r. Louis Daniel van Zyl examined. 1 1733. Chairman. ] How long have you been farming in the district of Prince .Albert ? — Twenty-eight years. On my place there are about 8,000 or 9,000 slieop. H734. Do you agree with the evidoiK'o of the last witness? — Not altogether. If we had to <;arry out the \-iews expressed by Mr. Luttig, I should have, for inst inoe, to clean my sheep on my own farm, and keep them dean, consequently I fhouM not allow any poor man to conio on my property, and the result would be that the poor man would lose all his little possessions, and such men wo\ild then become thieves, like the blacks. 1473.'). Tf the owner of fixed property were obliged to place his dipping ta;ik at the disposal of all the people living or squatting there, would it not do away with tliat objec- tion, and under tlioso circumstances would not rich and poor have to clean their flocks alike? — J should not wish to give strangers veldt under such circumstances. 14736. At the present moment do you dip your flocks-? — Yes, I have a dip on my place. 14737. Do you believe that dipping is efficacious, and that scab is cont;igi"U8 ? — Yes. 14738. Do yoxi allow bij-woners on your property ? — Yes, and I dip their sheep when mine are done. 14739. Would you not do so under a scab act? — Then I should want more room f'lr my own sheep, because the more room I have the less scab there is. Ii740. Then I presume, under the present circumstances of this country, ynir runs are overstocked, and j-ou are running more sheep upon them than they can comfort ibly carry ? — Yes. 14741. Is not overstocking the ruin of any sheep country ? — Yes. 14742. Consequently, a scab act would be your salvation, if it would prevent you over- stocking your run ? — Of coui-se. 14743. Do j'ou consider it fair, under present circumstances, that a man who lias devoted a large amount of time and capital to the cleaning of his flocks should be subject to re-infection at any moment from a careless neighbour ? — No. 14744. If this district did not come under the operation of a scab act, would you be in favour of a measure allowing every farmer who had large flocks perfectly free of seal) to jn-event .scabby stock trekking over his property ? — Yes. 1474.5. But would not the provisions of a general scab act be less irksome than those? —Yes, but I have bought and paid for my farm and I am the master of it. I cannot say it would bo less irksome. 14746. Would it be advisable to make it incumbent upon any person in this country moving with travelling .stock, to give reasonable notice, even though travelling on a public road, to the owner of the ground they were going to cross, so thai the owner might have an oppi^rtunity to remove his flocks which might be grazing nea r the main road ? — I don't know. 14747. Mr. Francis.'] I presume that scab amongst your sheep has caused you a good a good deal of loss and trouble ? — Yes. 14748. And if it causes loss and injury to yoii, it will do so to every stock farmer ? — Yes. 14749. And a small farmer, with 200, 300, or 400 sheep, would be less in a position to •ustain that loss than you? — Yes. 147.i0. Tonsequenfly, an act which would be good for the rich man, and which would clean his sheep, woidd be even a greater benefit to the poor man? — Yi s. 147.31 . Do j'ou find that when you dip your sheep you cure them of scab ? — Y s. 147.52. Then how do j-ou account for the fact that almost all the witnesses v, ho gave evidence this morning said that dipping sheep does not cure them? — It depends upon cir- cumstances ; they liave less veldt, and are confined to one and the same spot, and that makes it difficult. 147.53. When people teU you that dipping sheep does not cure the scab, do you think the reason is because they don't dip the sheep properly ? — I don't know. 14754. Do you mean you would rather not say the reason why ? — I would rather not judge. 1475.5. You consider that scab could be far more readily eradicated from a large farm than from a small one ? — Yes, much more easily. 14756. Then the evidence which the Commission has received in other districts, that the great difficult}' of carrying cut the scab act would arise from the fact that the farms are so extensive, would not be correct ? — No. 14757. Mr. Botha.'] During the time you have been farming here, what i.s your epinion regarding the amount of scab in the district, is there more or less now than when you began .■' — In the old days there was less scab than now ; it has been increasing of late, be- cause we used to wash our sheep before shearing, in clean water, and to a certain extent clean them of .scab. 14758. Mr. du Toil.'] Would it not have the same effect, as regards the oppression of the poor farmers, if your suggestion were carried into effect, that fanners, outside the pro- claimed area, should 'have the right to stop anyone trekking with scabby sheep, over his farm ? — I cannot sa}-. 14759. At anj- rate you maintain that it is right that a farmer who keeps his flock clean .should have j^rotection ? — Yes. 14760. Mr. iTbfX/y.'lDo you mind telling us what extent of land you farm? — Abou' flO.OOO morgen. '' ' -^ » 638 14761. Is any of it fenced ? — No. 14762 How long is the roadway, tlu'ougli your farm, over which the public have aright to travel ? — There are two divisional roads, and it would take six or eight hours to travel over the public roads across my farm, a distance of 48 luiles. 14763. Do you think under such circumstances that it is possible for anybody to keep his sheep f;ee from infection by travelling flocks ? — Not for any length of time. 14764. Would it not be much better for poor farmers ii tLey farmed with healthy sheep ? — Certainly. 14765. If the law compelled such a man to keep his sheep clean, would it not be for his own advantage, and if he cannot see for himself that it is to his advantage to have his sheep healthy, would it not be well that some means should be taken to open his eyes to the fact ? — Cecidedly. 14766. So Aat, if a workable act is passed, both the rich and the poor would benetit by iv .' — Yes. 14767. Jlr. Francis.'} If you had all your flocks eleau, and there was a farmer next to j-ou who never did anj'tbing to eradicate scab from his sheep, and they were continually re- infecting yours, don't you think something should be done to protect your sheep ? — We have made rules among ourselves to fine a man who will not keep his sheep clean. 14768. Consequently, yoti and your neighbours are so positive that it is necessary to have some sort of a scab act that j'ou don't wait for the Government to bring one in, but you do it yourselves ? — We are quite competent to do it, and we work with our own money. 14769. Chairman.'] Is there anj'thing you wish to add } — There is more scab here now than formerly, becatise where one man farmed before there are ten farming now. Mr. John de Wet examined. 14770. Chairman.'] You are a farmer residing in Prince Albert ? — Tee, I have been farming here and in Beaufort West for twenty years. I have now about 2000 meriuus and Cape sheep. 14771. Do you agree with the evideuce given by Mr. Luttig? — No. 14 772. Are you opposed to scab legislation of any sort ? — I am opposed to an unwork- able act. If my sheeji were clean, I should be in favour of an act. 14773. Have you never succeeded in cleaning your owu sheep yet ? — I have often tried, and sonietimes I have succeeded and soniftimes not. 14774. When did }ou dip last .? — In June. 1477.5. How often did you dip, then ?— Once. 14776. Did it help .' — Yes, all my sheep were cured. 14777. AVhat did you dip with ? — Lime and sulphur. 14778. Was that the first time j^ou have ever used that dip .- — Yes. 14779. Having had the experience of dipping your sheep with Ume and sulphur only once, in the winter, in a drj' seasou, dont you think that if you used that dip at anj- time of the year, twice within fourteen days you would be able to cure your sheep of scab .-■ — I caunot say, because I have heard from another man who dipped twice that it did not cure his sheep. 14780. Judging from the experience you had when you u=ed that dip yourself do you think this man made the dip of the proper strength, and used it properly ? — I - geth"r ; but T know somethinff about it. 1 1790. Are you in favour of scab logislation of any sort? — No. 14791. What is the condition of the rtucks in this district? — In good seasons scab is very exceptional, but in all bad scas.m- there is a great deal of it. 14792. Is scab prevalent amongst tlie Hocks iu this district at the present moment? — Yes, very. 14793. Would you desci'ibo this as a period of drought ? — Yes, I consider it is a dry season : a worse season than we have had for a long time. 14794. Is scab more prevalent amongst goats or sheep here ?— Amongst the goats. 14795. Do the farmers as a rule take auy precautions with regard to the spread of the disease among their flocks } — Yes ; ^e use arsenical dip for the goats, but we never dip the sheep After dipping the goats wo se.ul them to clean ground. 14796. Do you find the dipping efficacious .' — Yes, c^'tainlj' ; it cures them. 14797. Do you only dip onco, or a second time within 14 days? — I dip a second time about 12 or 14 days later. I dip every goat, whether scabby or not, and if scab then makes its appearance, I repeat the prucoss in 12 or 14 days, but when I repeat the dip, I only dip those which are scabby. If the season is bad and the veldt dry, I repeat the dipping three or four time-:, but if the veldt is good, a second dipping will cui-e the goats, only you must always remove them to clean ground. 14798. Would you explain exactly the strength of the dip you u.se? — I use arsenic, soda, and soft soap, a pound of each to eight buckets of w.iter. The bucket holds three gallons, which makes 24 gallons. This I mix and boil. 14799. Do j'ou use the dip hot or cold? — It is warm when I commence, but before I have finished it is cold. 14800. How long do you keep the goats in ? — I just put them under the water and let them out. 1480!. Then it is not the practice in this district to keep goats one or two minutes in tlie dip ? — No. 14802. Do all the farmers in the district of Ladismith dip as you do? — If their goats get scabby they all pay attention to them. 1 1 803. You know of no case of a farmer in this district who never dips his flocks ? — No, he is obliged to dip if the goats get scab, otherwise they die. 14804. From your exjjorience of the contagiousness of scab, if there were fannois in this colony who did not dip their goats when scab broke out, would you consider it advisable to compel them to do so ? — Yes. 14805. Mr. dii Toit.^ After having cleansed your stock, how long do they remain clean ? — If tlio veldt is good they may remain free for years. 14806. What do you think is the cause of scab ? — Poverty. 14807. But you said you think it is contagious ? — Yes, one gets it from another. 14808. If your flocks were clean, and in a good season they came into contact with scabby goats, would they not get scab ? — Yes. 14809. Although they were in good condition ? — Yes. 14810. Jlf. Uockly.'] In dipping your goats what sort of tank do you use ? — I dip them in a cask. 14811. Do you know of any built tanks i;i his district ? — Yes, tliore are masoned tanks on some of the firms, but they are used for a duTerent kind of dip, li ,ie and sll^^'u^r. 14812. D" yf>u know of any farmer in Ihi.^ listrict who keeps moiino sheep? — No, not to speak of. 14813. Have you never seen any Capo sheep with scab ? — No. 14814. Have you never heard of such a thing .' — No ; Cape sheep don't get scab, only the bastards. 14815. Do none of the f'lrmers in this district keep. the crossed sheep } — No, they don't farm with thorn, but there may b6 a few in a flock. ;4816. What do they do with these wnen they get scab ?— They dip them. 14817. Do you think th it kind of scab is infectious, like the scab on a goat ? — No, I do do not believe it. 14818. 1) ) you believe that the insect causes the scab in the wooUed sheep } — In the goats and wooUed sheep also. 1 1819. Then you believe that the scab th) sheep gets is infectious also ?— As a rule there are only a few. I cannot say. 14820. If you put these bastard sheep with a flock of merinos, woidd they take the disease? — I think then it would be contagious. 14821. t)ou't you think farmers who keep merinos sheep should be protected against contagion ? — In mj' own case I do what I can, or I should be a heavy loser, but I cannot speak foi- other districts. 14822. 2Ir. Botha.'\ Is the scab in this district less now than it was formerly? — It remains about the same ; it all depends upon the seasons. 14823. Mr. Francis.^ Is much slaughter .stock sold in this district? — Not much. 14824. Where do those that are sold go to ? — To Montagu and Eobertsou. 14825. As far as you know, is the general opinion of the farmers in this district opposed to legislation with regard to scab ? — Yee. 640 14826. Why are the people opposed to it?— They don't think it is necessary to have such a law. 14827. If the Government were to supply dip at cost price, free of railway carriage, do you think it would assist the farmers to get rid of scab ? — I don't think it would make any difference. 14828. If you were convinced that a good scab act throughout the whole country would be the means of getting rid of scab for ever, would you then be in favotir of such an act ? — I do as much as anj-body can do, consequently I don't believe that any scab act can do any good at all. 14829. But I should like a direct answer to my question.' — No, I should not be in favour of it. 14830. Considering as you do that is a very contagious disease, and causes great loss to the farmers, don't you think that if you were opposed to such an act, and that the absence of any such act caused that loss, you would be acting very fooKshly } — A.s I said already the riile is that if you find any scabby goat oming onto your place you must cut its throat; but if I know that, in the event of a scab act, you could come on to my place and cause me to be fined for every scabby goat, the result would be that I myself should cut ths throats of the whole lot. Consequeutly a scab act would* tend to destroy goats, and not to preserve them. 14831. Chairman.'] According to youi- evidence, the farmers in this district as a body dip theii' goats regularly if scab breaks out amongst them, and as scab is unknown amongst sheep in this district, legislation providing for dipping of all the sheep, in this country, affected with scab, would not press injuriously upon the farmers in this district ? — No. 14832. Taking this into consideration, in the interests of the sheep fanners of this colony, it would be most unfair of the farmers in this district to object to scab legislation ? — I don't want an act here. 14833. You are quite prepared that all the colony should suft'er in tlie interests of Ladismith ? — Let those have it who want it ; we don't want it here. 14834. Mr du Toit.] You say that j'our flocks sometimes remained clean for years after being dipped. Are you sure that when scab broke out again it was from poverty, and that they were not infected by other scabby goats coniiag into coatact with them V — Yes 14835. Were there any scabby goats in youi' neighboiu-hood at that time? — Yes. 14836. Where do you think they got the insect from ? — [No reply.] Mr. C'arel Francois Van Zyl examined. 14837. Chairman.'] You are a farmer in the district of Ladismith? — Yes I have not many stock now, but I used to farm here. I have about 100 goats now I have farmed for twent}- years, but only twelve on my own account. 14838. Do you agi'ee ^vith the evidence given by the last witness? — Yes, with the exception of a few j)oints. I differ from him in this, that I don't believe dipping helps in dry seasons; you might kill them but it would not help. It helps however in good seasons. 14839. Have your goats scab at the present time ? — No. 14840. You stated that formerly you farmed with a much larger number of stock than you have now. Has that been due to loss from drought or scab 'i My land is less, but I have lost by scab. 14841. So, if it is possible, by thorough and efficient dipping, to clean goats of scab, an act compelling you to dip your goats, even in times of drought, would have been a benefit ? — I did dip them properly, and apparently they improved for about a month, but then they got worse again, and nothing would help. 14842. Would you explain shortly in what you dipped them, and how ? — I did it in the same way as the last witness. 14843. You just put the goats in and took them out again at once? — Yes. 14844. Is it dry on your farm at present? — No. 14845. Wlien did the drought break up? — About a month ago. 14846. How long have your goats been clean of scab ? — More than a year. 14847. If you agree with the last witness that drouglit is the cause of srab, and accord- ing to j'our evidence the drought has only broken up on your faim last month, how do you reconcile it with the fact tliat j'our goats h ve been fiee of scab the last twelve months ? — Although it was drj-, as I had only a small number of goats, I could always get good food for them. 14848. Then you wish me to understand that during the last twelve months there was not a general drought over the district of Ladismith .' — Yes. but notwitlistanding j'ou could always find small places where there is g'jod feeding. 14849. Wlien did you last hire veldt for your goats .' — The last eight months. 14850. Then do you wish me positively to understand that during tlie last twelve montlis there has not been a single spot of scab amongst your goats ? — Not one, but not- withstanding, I dip as a preventive. Mr. Johannes Cornelis Wolfaart examined. 14851. Chairman.'] You are a farmer residing in the district of Ladismith? — Yes, for two years. I have about 600 boer goats. 14862. Do you agree with Mr. Langenhover .? — Pai'tly, but I differ in this. Mr. Langenhover stated that dipping helps in dry as well as in good seasons, but my experience 641 is that in bad seasons it does not help, you may kill theui with dipping and yet not clean them. 14 353. When did yoii dip your goats last, and in what solution, and what strength ? — A few months ago I dipped a portion of my young stock. I used the same dip as Mr. Langenliovor, and in the same waj'. 1485}. Would you state exactl}' the strength of the dip you used? — Three pounds eaoh of arsenic, soda and soft soap to sixteen gallons of water, and then I hoil it. 14855. Have you dipped your goats in a solution of that strength twice within fourteen days, and fotind tliat it did not perfectly cure them ? — My goats have never had scab yet. 14856 If your goats have never had scab, what authority have you for stating as a practical farmer, that dipping in times of drought will not cure ? — I know what takes place in the district, ns I continually come into contact with many of the fanners in it, and know what is goi)ig on. 14857. Of V our own practical experience you have no knowledge of the subject what- ever 'i — No. 14858. When did you dip your goats last ? — I think in Jul}-. 14859. As your goats have never had scab, will you explain why you dipped them ? — Because they sometimes get covered with lice, after the lambing season. 14860. As a general rule, are the goats in this district subject to lice ?— At that time of the year it is a general complaint, but mostly among the ewes. 14861. Wliy did you only dip a portion of your young goats, when you don't dip for scab, but f(jr lice, which you say is mo:e prevalent among the ewes .•' — When I said I dip- ped the young stock, I meant the mothers as well, and I wish my previous answer to be altered to that extent. 14862. Mr. Tfockly.'] If every farmer dipped in the solution 30U use for these lice, do you think if the goats were scabby thej' would benefit ? — I don't think they would. 14863. IIow do you account for the effect being different on your goats .' — Bad seasons. 14864. If 3'ou Siy that drought causes scab, how do you account for it that your goats have been free of scaV> for two years during the drought ? — Because I have much more veldt than is necessary for the stock. 1 have only stock for one-third of m}' veldt. 14865. Mr. FraiiciH.'] T>o you agree with the first witness that scab is cause i by an insect ? — I believe it, although I cannot say that it is my experience. 14866. Then how does it happen tiiat the dip which will kill this insect at one time will not kill it at another .^— I mean simply that starvation will bring it on. It coraes from poverty and starvation, and it does not matter hiw often you clean the goat, the same disease will return. 14867. Then j'ou are of opinion that poverty creates the insect ? — Yes. 14868. Do you knon' of any other insect which is created by drought or poverty, with- out parents ? — I mean that during the drought the goat gets weaker, and in worse condi- tion, so that there is naturall}- less resistiince to the plague. 14869. If the goat on which this insect feeds is in poor condition, would not the insect probably be also in poor condition, and more liable to be killed by the dip ? — No that wont apply to the insect. Mr. Pieter Cornelitts du Toit examined. 14870. Cfiairnifin.^j How long have y^^n furmel in Ladysmith ?— Over 40 year.^. I have now 900 goacs and 300 Cape sheep. 14871. Do you agree with Mr.Langeuli iverV — I cliffer here and there. My opinion is that scab is onl\- cau.sed by poverty and bad herds; and I wish to statr that in times of drought dipping never helps. 14872. Are your goats free of scab now V — No, they are not cle tn, I have lost about 900 the last two years from scab. 14873. Are your sheep clean at the present moment ? — Yes. 14874. When did you dip your goats last '/— AT)Out a week ago. 14875. And before that? — Fourteen days before. Tiiey are much improved, but they are not clean; they improve with tiie vel It, and I suppoie in another three weeks time, as the veldt improves, they will be all cle ai. 14876. If a practical farmer, farming with 4000 or 5000 goats, were 10 tell you that he dips his flock'' rogularh' and keeps them dean of scab, even in times of droiighf, as has been stated in evidence, would you believe him ? — It is impo.ssible. 14877. Mr. du Toit.l How long is it since your goats liad scab? — About two vr^ars. 14878. Was it very dry then ?— Y'es. ■ 14879. Have the goats been scabby ever since — More or less, and especially when the veldt was bad. 14880. Had you no good season during that time ? — Not long enough to cure them entirely. 14881. If a practical farmer stated that he had been able to cure his goats from scab, even in the drought, would you believe him .'' — No it is impossible. 14882. Do you dip twice within fourteen days? — Yes. 14883. Did you never try to keep them in the dip for at least a minute ? — No, that is not necessary. 14884. How do you know it is not necessary, if you have not made the experiment ,•' — If you keep them in too long, you will kill them. 642 14885. Don't you think it would be more efficacious if you could keep them in longer ? — y^. I don't think it would be good. 14886. Do you believe the insect which causes scab is different from the lice you have alluded to ? — No, I don't say that. 14887. Have you ever seen the insect which is supposed to be the cause of scab — ^No. M888. But have you been told that the insect which cause.s sjcab is quite different to the iaset^t j'ou have seen on the goats ? — I have read that the insect causes scab, but I don't believe it. 14889. 3fr. Soflh/.'] Do you think that those farmers who have told us that they have been able to keep their goats clean in time of drought have deliberately told us an untruth ? — I think tliey made a mistake. 14890. Do 3'ou think this applies to sheep as well as goats? — I don't know that; I don't know much about sheep. 14891. You say your goats have liad scab now for four years. When did you dip them before the last dipping? — During the two years I coutiauallj' dipped them, but they had scab all tlie time. It does no good to dip them in time of drought. 14892. Does the dipping kill the lice in the drought? — For a time, but in eight or ten days aftwwards, in consequence of the poverty of the animal, they re-appear. 14893. Wliere did you get your directions for dipping.^ — With the dip. 14894. But in buying arsenic, soap and soda, do youthen get directions? — Yes, the instructions were with the articles. 14895. Have j'Ou ever seen any directions yet for preparing stuff which did not state that the sheep or goats are to be kept in for one or two minutes ? — It said nothing about that. I tried to keep them in a little longer, but then I killed them. 14890. Did you not know that it was necessary, to destroy scab, that the animal should be kept in the dip for at least one or two minutes ? — No, I have never noticed that. By simply putting the goats in and taking them out, I kill the lice. 14897. Have not your directions said that, especially in the case of goats, it is neces- sary that the water should be of a certain temperature? — I boil it, and it never gets very cold, because the natural heat of the animal, and the constant addition of more hot stuff, keep it warm. 14898. 3{r. Botha.'] Has scab increased or decreased during the time you have bean farming here ? — I should say that scab is on the increase, because of the increased number of stock and the smaller holdings. 14899. Mr. Francis.] Considering the losses which you have sustained from scab, would you be prepared to go to a good deal of expense and trouble to get rid of it, if you were convinced that it could be cured and eradicated ? — -No, I should not. 14900. Not if 3'ou were convinced that you could eradicate scab? — From my own experience I know that I am doing all that can be done, consequently I don't believe that you could convince me of anything better. 14901. Do you give that answer because you are opposed to a scab act ? — I answer accord- ing to my experience, and because I am convinced it is the right answer. Mr. Gert Johannes van Wyh examined. 14902. Chairman.] You are a delegate appointed fcy the farmers in the Buffelsfontein ward of this division to give evidence to-day against a scab act ? — Yes, and I hand in a petition to that effect. 14903. How long have you been farming in Ladismith ? — I have lived here for twenty years, and have farmed for four years with 400 goats. At present I am not farming. 14904. Can you inform me who had this petition drawn out? — The farmers did it themselves ; they only asked me to represent them here. 14905. But is there anybody here present, or are you prepared to testify to the genuine- ness of the petition ? — Yes, I am willing to do so. 14906. Do you know who wrote the first part of the petition? — Yes, the .schoolmaster there. 14907. Will you kindly look over the petition [handing it to the witness] and refer to the names I have bracketted together in pencil, and teU aae whether you consider the names so bracketted have been signed by one person .- — I cannot say exactly as to this instance ; but I know that I have been present when, perhaps old people, wiU say to somebody else " just sign my name for me," 14908. Consequently, if a great similarity exists between some of these signatures, it is perfectly possible from what you state that someone may have written other persons' names on it t — That is exactly what I mean. It was written by one man, but with the authority of the others. 14909. But judging from your experience as a practical man, men who allow their names so be signed to petitions in a loose manner like that, are not very particular to read what they sign ? — I think not in this instance, because they are so much afraid of this particidar matter that when the petition was sent about and read to them tliey all paid close attention to it. 14910. And being so afraid of the words "scab act," are they opposed to it without even investigating the clauses of the act, or have they first thoroughly acquainted themselves with its provisions ? — They are not acquainted with the act. [G. 1— '94.] 1 1 1 J 6j;! 14911. Are you peraonully opposed to scnh legislation ? — Yes. 14912. Are you acquainted with the provisions of the present scab act .■' — I have read it, hut I don't say that I am well acquainted witli it. 14913. Will you state, as concisely as possible, what provisions in the scab act you are opposed to 't — I am opposed to the provision which prevents a man moving sheep when they are infected with scab, so that a man may not move his own sheep, in his own interests, but must keep them on the same spot on his own veldt. 14914. Is that your only objection to scab legislation ? — Yes 1491.5. Consequently if it could be proved to you that this provision is not in the scab act, your objection would be removed ? — I have more objections. I think the farmers ought to be entrusted with their own interests. H916. 'Ihen you wish your answer to be altered where j'ou stated what was your only objection to the scab act } — Yes. 14917. Have you had any personal experience of dipping goats ? — Yes. 14918. Do you find it efficacious ? — Yes. 14919. Do you con.sider that, even in times of drought, dipping is efficacious if it is properl}' done ? — Yes, provided yon remove them to clean and better veldt. 14920. Consequently, when witnesses state here to-day, positively, that dipping in time of drought is absolutely useless, in fact at times dangerous, ynur practical evidence does not coincide with that evidence ? — Yes, that is my experience. 14921. 3Ir. dii Toit.~\ Do you Tielieve that scab is contagious? — Yes 14922. Are you aware that some farmers are not so particular as others in trying to clean their flocks wlien they are scabb}' ? — Yes. 14923. If j'ou had a neighbour who took no trouble, and whose flocks consequently mntinued scabby and coming into contact with yours infected them, would you not con- sider it dangerous ? — Yes. 14924. Then don't you think it is necessary to have some measure to compel these people to take the same pains to clean their flocks as you do? — Yes ; I have admitted that toothers and have said myself that there is this difficulty, but still I think after all it is better to k ave every man alone to do the best he can for himself. 14925. Do j'ou think as a ride they keep their flocks on their own ground ? — No, they are scattered. 14926. Would you ratlier have your flocks infected fi-om time to time than vote for a measure to give you protection ?— I don't wish to answer that question. 14927. Mr. HocHy.'] Are you not a member of the divisional council.' — Yes. 14928. Do you think the Commission would be justified in concluding that the general run of farmers he^ are not acquainted with the provisions of the scab act if they find a gentleman occupjang the position of a member of the divisional council is unacquainted with them? — Yes ; you might come to that conclusion. 14929. After hearing from the chairman some of the provisions of the scab act [ex- plained at the conclusicm of the last witness' examination by the Chairman] have you not modified your views somewhat ? — I believe the act is not so stringent as people gener ally fancy it to be. 14930. Supposing j'ou were a large slioep farmer and nad a careless neighbour, and after you had taken the trouble to make and keep your sheep clean, this neighbour was so careless as to allow his scabby sheep to mix with your clean flocks and so cause j'ou great loss and trouble ; don't you think you would come to the conclusion that you were entitled to some protection against him?— 'That is just the question 1 don't want to answer. 14931. Are you satisfied with that condition of things ? —I would rather not answer. 14932. Chairman.l Are you well acquainted with the feeling of the farmers in this division ? — Yes. 14933. Do you think tliat an^- man who strongly expresses opinions in favour of scab legislation for this country would liave a chance of being returned as a member of the divisional council for this division ? — I must decline to answer that question. 14934. If you were to give evidence personally in favour of a scab act do j'OU expect that at the next election of members of the divisional council you would be again returned ? — I can only give the same answer. Mr. Gert Ilermanus Benjamin Bruwer examined. 14935. Chairmanr\ You are a farmer residing in the district of Ladi smith ? — Yes, for thirty years, during the last ten of which I have been a member of the divisional council. I have 1,000 goats and about 200 Cape sheep. 14936. Do you agree with the evidence of the last witness? — Not altogether. Scab is caused by poverty. During my thirty years' experience my stock has never had scab, but I have dipped to destroy the blue lice in the stock ; and the simple reason that my stock does mot get scab is because I have sufficient veldt to keep them on, and because I am care- ful with regard to the rams I put to them, and take care to provide for new blood. I remove sickly animals, and never allow old ewes to lamb. 14937. Have you ever slaughtered a goat on account of scab? — No, I never had a scabby goat. 14938. When you say that during the last thirty years j^ou have never had a scabby goat, do you wish me to understand that during that period not one single spot of scab has appeared among any of your goats ? — Not that I have seen. 644 14939. Mr. du Toil.'] Have 3 oiu- neighbours' flocks always been clean? — No, I liave had scab on each side. 14940. Did your goats never come into contact with them ? — No. 14941. How did you manage ? Is your farm enclosed ? — No. 14942. Were your neighbours so particular as to keep them alwaj's away from yours 'i — Mine were so situated that they did not mix. 14943. Do you believe that scab is contagious } — Yes. 14944. Did youi neighbours dip their flocks? — Yes. Mr. du Toit is a neighbour uT mine. 14945. You have no experience as to the efiicacy of dipping? — No experience of my owu. 14946. Since you are afraid that your flocks might be infected, would you not like to see your neighbours dip, and try to keep their tiooks clean ? — Y^es. 14947. And if they are slow in attending to and dipping their flocks, don't you think it would be advisable to have a measure compelling them ? — I think there ought to be a remedy. 14948. Mr. Eockly.'] You are opposed to the introduction of a scab act? — I cannot say I am altogether opposed to scab legislation. 14949. Do you then think it would be possible to devise some law which would do good, and yet not be too oppressive upon the farmer? — I think so. 14950. Supposing some measure were devised simply to protect the careful ag,.inst the careless fanner, would it not be a good thing? — Yes, provided it is not oppressi\e to the district. 14951. If a man tells you that within the last year or two he has lost 900 goats, don't you think it would have been to that man's benefit to have had a law to help h i m ? — It speaks for itself. 14952. Chairr)ian.'\ Do you wish to add anything ? — I should Uke to state that the great objection to an act here is the fear of fines, but I do consider it would be advisable to have some measure to protect the earefid farmers from those who are less careful ; and should it be proved that by his carelessness a man was a danger to his neighbour by allowing scabby stock to trespass on his neighbour's farm, then there should be a law to fine him. Mr. Reinrich Wilhelm Bekher examined. 14953. C/iainnan.'] You are a fanner residing in the district of Ladismith ? — Yes, and I am also secretary of the divisional council, but I speak as an iudepende,nt farmer. 14954. How many years have you been farming here y — For the last sixteen years, with cattle and small stock. My average number of small stock has been from 1200 to 1500, principally goats. I have Cape sheep, but have also tried merinos, and have some now, but they don't answer here. 14955. i)o you find scab prevalent in this division ? — To a very considerable extent. 14956. As a rule, do you find that the farmers here use all dUigent effort to cope with the spread of scab ? — They use efforts, but I don't think they treat the stock in a proper manner. 14957. If a law were introduced compelhng these people to dip their flocks, and at the .same time inspectors of dipping were appointed, who were responsible for pointing out to these men the most efficient way to 1 arry out such dipping, would such an act be of enormous benefit to the district ? — If such nn ct were passed, in le.-s than three years I should be in a position to eradicate scab altogether. 14958. And you believe that if such an act were efficiently worked, the men who to-day are strongly opposed to it might become its strongest supporters ? — The greatest portion of opposition to a law arises from ignorance of the present act and of the principles of dipping. I can cite particular cases. In 1878 I owned a farm, and had a fine troop of angoras and Cape goats, about 900, quite clean of scab. The whole of my neighbourhood was rotton with scab and amongst my neighbours were Mr. du Toit, Mr. Langenhover, Mr. Symon, and Mr. Nel, the first two of whom gave evidence to-day. The stock of those two gentlemen were herded together, and it was frightful to see them on accoimt of the scab. Seeing the danger my stock were in through these circimistances, I gave instructions to my servants to cut the throats of aU scabby animals straying on to my place, and they had to do it repeat- edly, because it is a fact that scabby stock will stray and get on other properties. At other times they had to remove with scabby flocks from one farm to another, and in order to do this they had to pass over my property. One day when they trekked over my place, some eight goats were left beliiud, badly infected with scab, but notwithstanding that my herd saw them and cut their throats, the next morning four others, also badly infected with scab, were found mixed with my goats, in spite of aU precautions. Shortly afterwards my own stock showed signs of scab, but I dipped at once, before it could spread, and in the proces.-* of dipping scab was actually found on my goats, but in that way the evil was at once checked. I applied the same dip as has been described here to-day, and as I had not a pro- per tank I had to use a tub, which caused a great deal of trouble. In 1883 I bought another farm, where I am still farming with stock. My goats are perfectly clean, but in the fii-st five years I had some trouble with scab because I now and then got goats from the Gouph. I then had a proper dipping tank constructed, and seeing the favourable results (ilitaiued in other countries from a lime and sulphur dip I applied that. I dipped the goats iiii 2 645 ujcurding to tlirections twice in about twelve daj's, and made them perfectly clean, and 8in((> that time I have not had a trace of scab amonf^st my goats, nor have I had occasion to dip at all. Mine was the only dipping arrangement in the whole district. An old fri-^nd of mine, a stock farmer, Mr. Nel, then spoke to nie about this dipping, as his stock were very scabby, and I gave hiiu the proper dimensions and description of the tank, went to his farm and marked them olf for him. I attended to the first dipping myself, which was also done with lime and sulphur, showing him how it should be done, and his flock was cured most effectually, and I believe he never had scab since. I know for certain that there is hardly any farm in this district upon which scab does not exist, though some farmers are more careful than others, and have a larger run, and therefore there is not so mu)y any means we could eradicate scab from our flocks ? — Yes, if it can bo done, but who can do it ? 1499o. Arc you aware of the fact that scab has been eradicated fi-om almost all the Australian colonies, and also from one district in the Capo Colony; that from the Australian colonics scab has been eradicated for about twenty years, and though millions of sheep have died from poverty there has not been one speck of scab .'' — Then I shall have to leuru that it is possible. 14994. Mr. Bot/ia '] Do you consider the sheep here are weU dipped? — Yes. 14995. But you dip them in a tub ? — Yes, because we don't know better. 14996. Then don't you think iu your case tliere is room for improvement ? — Ye», dipping tanks should be made, because they are quicker. 14997. Are the same difficulties, which you have experienced, also experienced by mauj other farmers in the district ? — Yes, the dipping tank is quicker. 14998. You will acknoifledge that with proper facilities and arrangements you can ilo better work than with bad ones ? — Yes, certainly. 14999. You have said that dipping does not helj) in bad seasons, but that in times of plenty it does, and that the good condition of the sheep helps to effect the cure ? — Yes. 15000. Do you not think that the insect is killed by the poisonous dip? — Yes, the in- sects are killed on the body of the animal, but they reappear, because they are produced by the earth. 15001. Mr. du Toil.'] When you dip your goats, do you dip both the healthy and the scabby, or only tlie scabby onvs ? — I liave dipped them all, but at the last dii)ping, as it isio difficult to got them into the tubs, I only dipped tho-^e which I saw were sick. When my dipping tank is finished I intend dipping them all, whether healthy or sick. 15002. You say the insect comes from the ground, and infects the sheep after they have been cured by dipping ? — Yes. 15003. But you say these are the insects the goats scratch off themselves before thoy are cured .'' — Yes. 15004. But how if tlio dipped goats go on to dean ground, where no scabby goats have run before ': — I don't know whore there is clean ground. 15005. Wore your goats ever clean for some years in succession 'i — They wore, but when the drought comes, scab breaks out. 150"T>. Then where did thoy get the insects from? — They stay on the goat. 15007. Chairman.^j Do you never dip your Cape sheep ? — No. 15008. Consequently you have no experience of dipping in cases of scab among sheep ? —No. 15009. Do j'our sheep ever get scab in this district ? — Perhaps a small place where they scratch, but I never dijj them. Mr. Petrus SUphnnw- lie WH examined. 15010. Cliitiimtn.'] Are you a delegate i" — i'es, from the public iu my field-cornotcy. I have Vieeu farming ten years in this district, and I have 500 Cape sheep and goats, princi- pally goats. 15011. Do you agree with the evidence given by the last witness ? — I don't believe that the iusect comes from the ground, but otherwise I agree with him. 15012. Mr. Francis.'] Why would you object to a scab act being put in force in this district ? — Because, as far as I know, the farmers here are careful enough. For the last eight or nine years we have had no scab, and consequently we do not require a scab act. 1501;}. Then how do you account for the fact that the previous witness said his goats have now got scab V — I mean on our farms. 15014. Then you give as your reason for being yourself opposed to a scab act that there is no scab ou the farm on whicli you reside ? — Yes. 15015. Is that the only reason .' — Yes. 15016. Mr. SocHi/.l Will you tell us what you mean by a scab act ? — I don't know anything about it. 15017. Then yuu are opposed to a thing which you admit you know nothing about ? — I understand that, if a scab act is put in force, and a single scabby animal of ycurs should mix with a neighbour's flocks, you are liable to a heav'j- fine. 15018. What are the other provisions of the act ? — I know nothing more about it. 15019. Then you say you un lorstaud an act to mean that you cannot allow your .scabby sheep, nor can any farmer, to go amongst his uoigJibour's, and you say you think it would be a bad law. Would you like to see a law introduced giving a man the right to allow his scabby sheep to mix with clean sheep belonging to another man ? — No. 618 15020. Then what is it that j-oii do want ? You don't want an act to do one thing, and you don't want an act to do the other thing '' — We Jinve aln-a_v8 done well, so far. 15021. Have you dipped your sheep or goats within the last eight or nine years } — We always dip regularly once a year, wheuever we think it is advantageous, and the veldt is not bad or the stock poor. 15022. Have you ever noticed any scab during that time? — No. 15023. Supposing your goats were perfectlj' clean, and you had a neighbour with scabby goats, do you think it would be advisable to have some machinery by which you could prevent that man mixing his scabby goats with your clean ones ? — That would certainly be good, but it is because I hear that the existing law is so stringent that I am afraid of it. 15024. If j'ou were told that the object of a scab act is to protect the careful against the careless fanner, would you have the same objection to it ? — I can only say that at our meeting we were opposed to a scab act. 15025. But what is your opinion 'r* — I am against it. 15026. Then am I to understand your opinion is that a man ought to be allowed to run his scabby sheep and let them mix with his neighbour's clean sheep without let or hin- drance? — ^No, I don't say that. At the present moment I cannot say anything on the subject. 15027. Would you be satisfied if j'ou went on to your place to-mon-ow, and found a number of scabby sheep or goats mixed with your clean flocks ? — No. 15028. Don't you think you ought to have it in your power to prohibit that man from allowing his goats to mix with yours ? — Yes, I think it would be a good thing, and I believe there is a law to that effect. Mr. Jan Abram Nel examined. 15029. Chairman.} Are you a delegate? — Yes, I was appointed at a public meeting. I liave farmed in Riversdale for one year and eight months, and before that for about eighteen years in Ladismith. I have now 2000 Cape sheep and goats, mostly goats. 15030. Are you opposed to scab legislation of any sort ? — Yes. 15031. Do you agree with the last witness .- — I flifler on some points. One point I especiallj- wisli to mention is that under the act an owner is prevented from moving scabby stock, even on his own ground, because he is prevented removing them from one farm to another. Anf)ther objection I have to a scab act is that in times of drouglit tliere are always some animals which cannot be cured of scab, on account of their sickly condition or their age. 15032. Are your flocks clean at present ? — I am busy uow, but my arraugements do not enable me to do the work in one day ; it has to lie taken by degrees, and so I have given instructions to put a few through every morning. .» 15033. Is that the principle on which you generally dip ? — No, I have a projier dip. 15034. Why don't you use it ? — Because there is only a dip on one place, and the stock are on several places, so I have to take them by turns. 15035. I presume the flock which was dip2)ed in a properly-constructed dipping tank was cleaned .' — Yes. 15036. And if the other flocks were dipped in the same way, they would naturally also be cleaned ? — Yes, except these whose throats I cut. 15037. Do you believe that scab is contagious ? — Yes. 15038. Do flocks, or individual animals never stray in rliis district .- — Certainly they do. 15039. As according to your own evidence there is scab amongst your flocks, the re.siilt of negligence, do j'Ou think you would be justified in allowing them to stray and mis with the stock of a neighbour who had perhaps spent a good deal of money in cleaning them? — No, that would not be right, but that is the custom of our farmers. At the same time, both my neighbour and mj'self when wp finif any scab>)y stock on our land, have the right to cut their throats and we do so. 15040. Do you consider that cutting the tliroat of a neighbour's scabby goat would recoup you for the damage wliich might accrue if a whide flock of 1,000 goats became con- taminated ^ — No, but the sacrifice in that case would be less than mv giving £40 000 or £50,000 for a scab act. 15041. Am I to understand from your answer that the expense of administering a scab act in this country would mean a tax of from £40,000 to £50,000 on every individual farmei in the Colony ? — I mean that would be the expense to the country. 15042. Have you any idea what is the loss to the Colony, more especially in conneetioL with the wool and angora liair industry, from the prevalence of scab amongst our flocks ?— I don't think it would be equal to the fines which are paid under the scab act. 15043. If you were told upon unimpeachable evidence, as we have it, that the yearly- loss to the Colony from the scab disease is at least £500.000, would your experience as a practical farmer allow you to contradict it ? — I am not prepared to say "it is not true, but taking into consideration the fines and all tlie expenses of administering a scab act, you wil) then find on which side the balance wiU tie. 15044. Do the majority of the farmers in this district dip in the careless manner in which you have stated that you dip ?— I think they mostly do it better than I do. 64t» 15045. Are there properly constructed dipping tanks on the majority of the farms in this district ?— As far as I know, I am certain there are. 15046. Will yi)u state, giving the names of the owners, how many properly constructed (lipping tanks there are in the district of Riversdale ? — At Laingshurg there are myself, .Mi's.srs. do Wet, van der Berg, Snyman and van Wyk. 1-5047. Are those all that you are personally acquainted with f — Yes. 15048. Do you think that your personal acquaintance with five dipping tanks justifies you in saying that the majority of farmers in this district have properly constructed dipping tanks? — i think every man ought to liave a properh- constructed dipping tank ou liis place. 15049. Consequently, according to your own showing, a law compelling every farmer to have a properly constructed dipping tank on his property, would he a very desirable measure ? — No, it would not he a good measure. 15050. Are there large hodies of farmers in this district who are not tliemselves land- owners, but who hold flocks of from 100 to 500? — I am not well enough acquainted with the district to say ; I have only been here for twenty months. 15051. Then huw can you speak with .such positivenoss with regard to the dipping tanks on all the farm.s in the district } — I am (^uite certain of the correctness of the evidence I gave, but I don't know tliat there are many owners of stock who are not landowners. 15052. If there are large numbers of the class I refer to, wotild it not bo in the interests of these people if tlie lando.vners upon whose ground their stock graze were compelled to have properly constructe 1 tanks, which they were obliged to place at the disposal of these poor people who are unable to build them for themselves ? — I don't know that there are such people. 15053. You have told us that for a large number of years you lived in the district of Ladismith. Are you well acquainted with that district ? — Yes. , 15054. We have it on evidence that a large class of those farmers live in the district of Ladismith. How cau you tlien state that you don't know of such a class? — There may be n few, but I don't believe that it is generally the case. 15055. Mr. Francis.^ Is it only lately that iseople have begun to build tanks in tliis district ? — I don't know the district well enough to say. 15056. But I think you said a little while ago that people are building tanks here? — Yes, they arc. 15057. Do 3'ou think the reason why people are now endeavouring to keep their flocks cleaner than they did, and building tanks, is because they think it is possible that a scab act may he put in force in this district .-' — No, people simply want to clean their flocks. 15058. You saj' it is the custom of the farmers, when a goat infected with scab tres- passes on their ground, to cut its throat. Don't you think that would be a far more strin- gent act or custom than any law which would be imposed by Parliament ? — No. 15059. Then if a neighbour were to cut the throats of a hundred of .your goats because they were scabby, you think you would suffer less than if you were fined £1 for a breach of the scab act ? — It would be to my interest to have that goat's throat cut. 15060. Then if it is to your interest to have the throats of a hundred goats cut because they are scabby, would it not be to your interest to have a law which would do away with scab out of tlie coimtry ? — If it could be done without expense to the general treasury I Aould have no objection to it. 15061. Is not the very fact that the farmers here have made it a law or custom amongst themselves to take such stringent measures a proof that they think some law is necessary to prevent the spread of scab ? — No, we can do without a law. 15062. Is it not possible that in some districts there may be a number of lazy farmers who will do nothing towards the cleansing of their flocks, and if so, should there not be a law to force them to clean their flocks? — Certainly, those who ask for it. 15063. Do jou think it would be the lazy farmer who would ask for a law for them- selves ? — No. 15064. Then if the careful farmers ask for a law to constrain the lazy ones, should that law be made ? — Yes. 15065. And they ought to have it ? — Yes. 15066. Then if the majority of the careful farmers in other districts think it necessary to have suih a law to protect them from districts where the farmers are careless, do you tliink they should get it ? — Under any circumstances I am opposed to a scab act. 15067. You have spoken about the fines imposed under the scab act. Can j-ou tell the Commission about the fines so imposed ? — Yes. A certain man told me that he knew of a ease where a person had to pay £25 in the form of fines. 15068. Would you be surprised to know that the highest possible fine which can be imposed \inder the present act is £20, and the liighest fine I have known to be imposed has been £5 ? — It may be true, but 1 know that the small area over which the scab act is pro- claimed costs the country some £12,000 a year. 15069. Do you know anything about the provisions of the present scab act .? — Not much, but I liave heard of several points. 15070. Are you aware of the fact tliat even if a flock is infected with scab, and the owner dips them properly he can obtain a permit to remove them ? — No. 15071. Do you believe that scab is caused by an insect ? — Yes. 15072. Tlien if you kill that insect, is it possible for it to come again and infect the goats, if they are kept away from contagion 'f — No, 650 15073. So that if goats are cleaned, and are not allowed to go anywhere where they lould get the contagion, they could never he infected even in the most sevpre clroughts ? — If they are dipped and q laraatined, and remain on tlie spot, thej" will be reinfected, because the place where they are is infected. I have already .said that some animals are not properlj- cui'ed. 1-5074. But still, you think the poison which would kill an insect when a slieep was fat would kill it when the sheep was poor ? — You can kiU the insect on every animal hut some of the poor goats will not recover. 15075. Then how do you account for the fact, if an insect is the sole cause of the disease, that after you have killed the insect the goat does not recover?— If you cut off a young man's arm, and he is attended to by a medical man, he maj- recover, but if you cut off an old man's arm he is much more liable to die. 15076. If 3-ou were convinced that by spending a good deal of money and taking a good deal of trouble we could altogether get rid of scab out of the country, would vou not then be prepared to spend the money and take that trouble? — I am convinced that it may be done, but not now. 15077. Mr. Botfia.'\ Are you an agricultural as well as a stock farmer ? — Yes. 15078. That is the case with most of the farmers in this district ?— Yes. 15079. Is it not the case that many farmers neglect their sheep for their agriculture ? — "We try to keep everything straight. 15080. Mr. Hoctily.'] Will you be good enough to tell us what are the dimensions of your tauk ? — It is 7 feet long, 4^ feet deep, and 2i feet wide, the usual length. 15081. Is it straight down, or are there steps in it .' — Yes, there are steps in it. 15082. You usuaUy build tanks that size. Have you built more than one ? — Yes, that is the second tank. 15083. What is the capacity of your tank ?— 400 to 450 gallons. 15084. What dip do you generally use? — Lime and sulphur, and arsenical dip. 15085. When you use lime and sulphur, how do j-ou prepare it ? — 100 lbs. of each to 400 gallons of water. 15086. How do you prepare it ? — I boil it about a quart '?r of an hour in a kind of tank, and put the contents into a flipping tank when sufficiently cool. 15087. Then how long do you keep the animals in the tank .^ — It takes them about a minute or a minute and a half. 15088. You throw them into the tank and they get out as they can ?— Yes. 1 5089. Do you do that with sheep too ? — Yes, the Cape sheep which I keep. 15090. Where did you get your instructions .' — In the Agricultural .TournaJ. 15091. In the dii-ections you saw there did it not state that you should keep the stock at least one or two minutes in the dip ? — I cannot remember so very well ; but I wrote once to the veterinary surgeon on the subject, but he has not answered me yet. 15092. Have you noticed in all cases that the directions on patent dips lay it down as of the utmost importance that the stock must be kept in at least one or two minutes ? — No ; I have not done it with a watch. 15093. You have said that a very large sum is paid in fines under the scab act. Will you give us some idea what the amount is ? — I have onlj- said what I am told. 15094. Will you tell us who told you ? — I don't know the nan(e of the man. 15095. Then it appears to be j'our custom to converse with men to obtain infonnation, and not to take the trouble to find out who you are talking with .^— Not in many instances ; and especially in this case, because I think very little about the scab act. 15096. You did not take the trouble to find out who your informant was ? — No. 15097. Will you tell us what he told you has been paid in fines '■: — He said it would cort the Colony about £140,000. 15098. You have told us it is the custom in your part of the country to destroy any infected animals that come on to your place. Do you mind telling us how many goats of 3'our own have been killed in that way ? — None j-et. 15099. And how many of your neighbours' goats have you destroyed in that way? — Possibly three, in all my life. 15100. Do you mean to say that stock is constantly mixing, and you always destroy any that are scabby ? — I said it happens, but not frequently, but if the other is recorded I wish to withdraw it. 15101. You have also told us you cut the throats of some of your own stock when they get scabby ? — Yes. 15102. How many have you killed in that way ? — I think about 25. 15103. Is there not a difference between the disease called scurf, and scab? — I take them all for scab. 15104. Don't you know that goats, especially angora goats, get a kind of scurf? — I don't farm with angora goats. 15105. Have you not seen goats get a skin disease, of which they get cured when they are in better condition, and another kind of which they wLU never be cured without dipping, no matter what may be th« condition of the veldt ? — No, if you don't dip them they don't get clean. 15106. Do you take that to be th« same disease ? — No, I have not seen them recover by themselves. 15107. Have vou never seen, in the case of Cape sheep, that they get a kind of scurf, I^G. 1— '94.] KKKK from which they recovsr directly the veldt improves ? — Yes, I have seen that in 'Cape sheep. 15108. — In that case you don't dip them ? — No. 15109. You said y.-o found that the whole flock was infected. I dipped them in an arsenical solution, twice within ten days, and cleaned them. For five years they remained clean, and then, lately, they got accidentally mixed with my neighbour's scabby stock, which were so bad that they wero djdng. Since then, many of mine have been infected with lice, and thoy are not quite clean yet. I dipped them once about a mqnth ago, and they are much better, but I cannot say they are perfectly clean. 15205. Do you consider as a careful farmer, that you are entitled to some protfciiou from the law, t i save your stock from being infected by such a neighbour as you have referred to ? —Yes. 15206. If your flocks were perfectly free of scab and lice, do you consider that the law should protect you by allowing you to prohibit scabby shoep passing over your property ? — I would rather not answer that. 15207. Do the farmers in this district, as a rule, dip their flocks regularly when they find them affected with scab '? — No, they seldom do it. 15208. In fact, judging by those you know in your portion of the district, are there not many farmers who never dip their flocks when tliey are affected with scab } — No, they all dip when the stock gets .■scabby, but it is only those which are scabby that are dippecl. They use tubs. 15209. If the Government supplied the dip at cost price, free of railway carriage, would j'ou be in favour of compulsory simultaneous dipping, the time being fixed by the inhabitants of the district, within a jDeriod of say three months ? — I think it would be good, but I am not prepared to make any suggestion as to how it should be done, and I don't wish to introduce the Government into the matter. 15210. Mr. Francis.] Are you of opinion that there may be a good many men in this district who really believe that a scab act would do good, and that it is necessary to have gome law with regard to dipping and the removal of stock, but they are afraid to express an opinion because the public idea is opposed to an act '?— Yes. Mr. Cornells Johannes Moelqfs examined. 15211. Chairman.] How long have you beeu farming iu this district ? — I have faruiod i\jr twenty years in this district, and tea at Jacobsdal in the Free State. At present my stock are nearly all dead. Shortly before leaving the Free State for the Colony I l>st over 4,000, and now have only about 150 which I bought here. I had merino sheep. 15212. How many stock did you take with 3-ou from this district to Jacobsdal ?— Not one. I started there with 500 sheep, and in four or five years I had 4,700. 15213. And you lost all those ? — With the exception of 900. 15214. What did they di4 of ? — I think it was partly on account of the operation of the scab act in those parts, which prevented me from trekking with my flocks from one place to another. 15215. Do you wish me to understand that iu the Free State, because your sheep had scab, you were prevented by inspectors from removing thom from one part of the Fro« State to another ? — It was not the inspectors. Nobody prevented me from trekking, because I regularly dipped them. 15216. But how do you reconcile your replies !' — It was caused by dipping, which caused all manner of sickness. 15217. Were your sh^ep ever iuspctt'd during the ten years you farmed in the Free State y — There was never an inspector all th'' time. 665 15218. Who then insisted upon your dipping your sheep to death? — My neighbours' who were afraid of the contagion. 15219. Do you wish me to understand that there were farmers in the Free State who, knowing according to your own showina: that dipping was useless, insisted upon your dip- ping your flocks to your own detriment ? — No, lay neighbours did not compel me to dip. 15220. Then you wish me to understand that, being entirely your own master, and seeing that your sheep were dying off day by day from dipping, you still continued dipping them until you had lost over 4,000 ? — I stopped when I had 900 left, and sold them for ivhat I could get, and came back to the Colony. 15221. Were your neighbours in much the .same position as you were yourself .' —Yes. 15222. Then I presume there are no sheep in tlie district of Jacobsdal at the present moment .-' — There are scarcely any left over now. I think the dipping was the cause of my loss, but I am not certain, because my sheep had wire worm. 15223. Mr. £otha.'\ Are not the law-makers in the Free State the farmers, and are not the laws passed in the interests of the farmers .'' — Yes. 15224. So that the scab act in the Free State to which you refer, you have to thank the farmers in the Free State for ? — Yes. 15225. Mr. Hockly.'] Have you heard of any other farmers in the Fres State losing heavily in sheep ? — Yes, my neighbours were nearly as heavy losers as myself. 15226. Did they attribute that to the dijjping V — Yes. 15227. Have you heard of sheep dyiag from the same cause in other districts of the Colon}' ? — Yes, in places. 15228. Was there a scab act there ? — 1 think it was in Colesberg. 15229. Is the scab act in force in Colesberg 'i — I think so. 15230. Did you hear that the scab act was the cause of the lo.ss of the sheep in Coles- berg too ? — No. 15231. Have you heard of heavy losses in the district of Hope Town ? — No, I even saw some very fine sheep coming from there. 15232. Have you never heard of the disease being in the Hope Town district .^ — No. 15233. Mr. Francis.'] Are you aware of the fact that hundreds of sheep died in the Cathcart district about two years ago from wire worm, but that those sheep were perfectly free of scab, and had not benn dipped for years ? — No. 15234. Chairman.] D) yo\i wish me to understand that you commenced farming in the Free State with 500 sheep, and that in a j)eriod of four years they increased to 4,700 ? — Yes. 15235. Do you wish me as a practical farmer to believe that, or do you wish any farmer in the room to believe it ? — Yes ; I sometimes added to them by buying. Mr. Wilhelm Smallberger examined. 15236. Chairman.] How long have you been farming in the Eiversdale division ? — On my own account n'^wut thirty years, and I have now 1,500 small stock, mostly merinos ; the others are Cape goats. 15237. AJe you opposed to scab legislation "f any sort, even if introduci d in the interests of tlie farming community of this divisii :! '1 — Most of the people here arc opposed to a scab act, and it is very difficult to answer that question ; but for my own part, if the act were workable, I am perfectly prepared to receive it. 15238. And you think it would be a benefit, even to the very people who are most opposed to it ? — If it is a reasonable law. Last year my sheep were clean, but as my out- station adjoins that of a neighbour who keeps scabby stock, the result was that eventually all mine got scabby too. 1 5239. Do you think that at any period in this district if sheep or goats were thoroughly dipjied twice, in a solution of recognised strength, they would be clean ? — Not quite, but after the second dipping you might effect it by continual hand dressing. 15240. As a rule, you have not been a heavy loser in times of drought? — No. 15241. We have it on evidence that in the district of Ladismith a farmer lost 900 goats out of 1,500 from scab. If that man had properly and thoroughly dressed those goats, do you think he would have lost such a great number ? — I certainly think that he would have lost less. 15212. Would it be advisable to have a compulsory simultaneous dipping in this division, if it were divided in accordance with the wishes of the people ?■ -Yes, provided you can divide the district into sections, according to the nature of the veldt, and arrange the time for dipping for each section, I think it would be a good thing. 15243 Under such an act, would it be advisable to have the sheep dipped under the inspection of practical f irmers, ejected by the local owners of stock ? — I think so. 15244. Do j'ou consider that would be better than subjecting a man to fines, for not perhaps fully understanding- the principles of dipping, and being consequently unable to clean his flocks ? — Yes. 15246, Ai'9 you convinced that thorough and efficient dipping under inspection in this 656 district should thoroughly cope with the spread of scab among the flofkn, and b« of enormous benefit, especially to the smaller farmers 'i — It was a blessing to me. 15246. Mr. Francis.~\ Do you think all the farmers in tliis district do their best, by dip- ping and otherwise, to cure their she 3p of scab ? — No, a graat m my are neglectful. 15217. Conseriuently, it would ba a benefit to th)rs in this division treat their flocks as you do > — It is my experience that the people here do more to try and keep their flocks clean than in other places in the eastern districts. 15271. Do you know of any farmers in this district who don't dip their flocks .'' — No, I cannot say I do. 15272. Are there any small holders in this division holding flocks of from 100 to 400, who are not landowuers ? — Yes, there are bijwonars. 15273. As a rule, are the flocks of these people in the same condition as the flocks of the larger farmers in regard to scab ? — I cannot aay, but I think they take care of their flocks like others. 15274. So that, as far as your experience goes, scab is of very little account in this division ? — I think there is very little loss caused by scab in this district. 15275. Do you think it possible by a simultaneous effort to stamp out scab in the division of Swellendam ? — I don't think so, because on account of the jackals we are obliged to kraal the sheep ; manure is of great value in this district, and consequently sheep have to stand in the kraal so that it can b« collected. 15276. You consider it impossible to keep kraaled sheep thoroughly free of scab? — I think it is very difficult to keep them clean if they are kraaled, for soonar or later they will become infected. 15277. Is scab contagious ? — Yes, certainlj' ; I am sure of it. 15278. If your .sheep were clean, do you consider it would be just that they should be liable to infection from the flocks of a careless neighbour } — No, but if my sheep are clean, and my neighbour's sheep trespass on my ground, I can send them to the pound, and bring an action for damages, and if he paid damages in that way once or twice he would soon build a tank himself, and keep his sheep clean. 15279. Do sheep ever stray in this division } — Yes, if you buy sheep from another place, then they will stray. 15280. From your experience of the farming population, do you think if a scabby sheep, whose ownership you would find it impossible to prove, got mixed with your flecks, and the owner knew that you were taking action against him for compensation, that he would come forward to claim that sheep ? — I should not be such a fool as to do such a thing. 15281. Consequently a scabby sheep mixing with and infecting your flocks would put you to a great deal of trouble, inconvenience and expense ? — -Yes. 15282. But the law to which you refer would give you no protection against cases of that sort ? — You could protect yourself, and cut the sheeps' throats. 15283. Would nitting the throats of one or more scabby sheep protect and compensate you sufficiently for your flocks having been infected with scab '? — No, certainly not. 15284. What protection for the careful farmer would j'ou suggest in cases of this sort } — Simply to kill the sheep. It is a thing which so seldom happens, and I have never had the experience myself at all. We cannot legislate for such isolated cases. 15285. If your flocks were perfectly free of scab, and it had been your custom con- stantly to A\Y> them, and you had a careless neighbour adjoining you who never dipped his flocks, and whose flocks were scabby, do you think the law shoilld protect you from rein- fection under such circumstances ? — Tlie pound law is sufficient protection. 15286. As all the farmers in the district of Swellendam, as far as you know, dip their sheep regularly, an act providing for the thorough and efficient dipping of all the flocks in the colony, after shearing, would not press injuriously upon the fanners here .' — I object to any compulsion being put upon the owner of the stock or the farm. It would cause a man pain to be compelled to do a thing which ought to be left to his own judgment, time and discretion. 15287. Would it not cause a carefid farmer jmin if his clean flocks were infected by cibby sheep straying from travelling flocks over his property ? — Yes, but it comes to the ame thing ; there is the pound ordinance. 658 loiSi. Hx7-; y)a ka)^va any cases m the district of Swellendam where one farmer has iiupjiaiel ti9 s*. );k of aaot'ier, aai has laid special claim for damages baeause the im- piuai^d st)3'c \rj.-9 iifectei Tith STib ? — I don't know oEsuch a ease, coase(|U9atly I don't think it is neeasiary. 15289. Dj y >a know of any case where scabby sheep from one flock have mixed with sheep belonging '( ) another flo'ik of a different owner ? — I know of a couple of rams that once came to my place scabby, but I did not know the owner, and I simply dipped them. 15290. So that in this case, the means which you say would be a protection to all the f irmers of this diTision, you did not use to protect yourself ? — No ; I think it is not generaUv known that such protection exists, and foosequently it is not made use of. 15291. Is it not a fact that the enforcing of tha*; jiortion of the pound law to which you refer would eau^e extremely bad feeling between neighbouring farmers ? — They might be angry but they would soon get over it, and would find out that they had been properly served, ani all the farmers would soon learn. 15292. Jfr. Hockly.^ You say j'ou believe that if one farmer were to take advantage of t'le pound law, and have the trespasser punished, it would be known throughout the whole 1' )untry, and that would then be cjuite sufficient .' — 1 think it would be a great remedy, and they would all strive to keep their sheep clean, and that it would pay them better. The 4' 3ry fa !t that an example had been made of one or two would serve for the whole country. 15293. Then how do you account for it, if the matter is so very easily decided, that n ibody has done it, or t'lat you yourself, as a farmer, have not taken that action in the i.iterests of the <^) dony, and if not, are you not wanting in 3'our duty in not liaving done s ) ? — I think I h ive already said that very little damage has been caused in that way, and therefore I have never done it. I don't see why I should he picked out in that way, as I have hal very little damage done to me. If a neighbour alongside of me constantly did me damag* I sh )uld bring him to book. 15294. Then according to your own evidence to-day, the pound law in that respect ia a dead letter? — Yes, and many other acts.* 15295. What reason have 3'ou for supposing that tlie people in this Colony are going to take .-advantage of this law which has been a dead letter, by your own confession, for so long, but are now going to wake up and take advantage of it '? — It became a dead letter simply because a good many of them did not know that they coidd get damages for losses sustained in that way. Now the opponents of the scab act wiU see that there is a strong feeling in the Colony working in favour of an act, but as we say we are sufficiently protected by the pound law, we must prove how we are protected, and rather than take the scab act they will have that. I think a g^eat deal of this becomes a dead letter because people are ignorant of the fact that they could make use of it in that way. 15296. Has it not been your experience as a farmer of forty years that farmers are very loth to take action against their neighbours, and would rather suffer loss than take action ? — Yes, and I hope it will long continue so. 1529". Then all laws which are left to the jieople to carry out in that way are likely to be inefficacious to a very considerable extent 'i — -Yes. 15298. After dipping j-our sheep twice effectually, as j-ou say, how long as a rule do they remain clean ? — My experience is that if they are thoroughly dipped twice they very seldom break out again. 15299. But I suppose you have sometimes had the experience that two or three months after dipping they have shown signs of scab ? — Not if they are properly dipped. 15.300. Not during your forty years experience as a farmer ? — When I have dipped twice they have kept in fairly good condition until the next shearing, and when once, within three months. 15301. How do you account for these sheep being infected again'/ — They must have nicked it up somewhere. Scab is an insect, and they must have picked it up somewhere. 15302. May thej- have been infected by stray sheep, or have mixed with a neighliour's sheep ? — They remain on the same gi-ound as they occupied before they were dipped. 15303. You have travelled over a good deal of the colony, and I suppose during your travels you have seen flocks of sheep which were very badly infected witli scab .' — Yes, especially in the eastern province and the Free State. 15304. And I suppose you have known farmers in the lower districts of the colony who are careful, and try to keep their tlocks clean ? — Yes. 15305. Don't you think it woidd be a very great hardship upon the farmer who kept his sheep clean that his neighbour should infect his flocks and give him all that trouble over again? — Yes. 15306. In that case, do you think the pound law is sufficient to protect him ? — Yes. 15307. D'> you think you are the onlj- man in South Africa who knows the provisions of the pound law, and that the farmers are so utterly iguorsnt of the laws of the country ? — I did not say I was the only one, but very few know of it. 15308. Don't you think that it is a law which farmers study above every other law ? — It may be, but it is not so much ignorance as their neighbourly inclination which prevents them from prosecutions. 15309. I understood you to say that if the prosecution to )k place the farmers would hunt ui) the act and become ac'Ip tliem to keep their flocks clean, don't you think it would be to the advantage of the farmers ? — I think the cure would be worse than the disease. The irritation and nnnf)yanco in consequence of the act, the payment of inspectors, and the interference with a farmer's rights on liis own property, would neutralise and more than neutralise atiy good the act might do in cleansing their flocks by act of Parliament. 15311. Then if some large sheep farmers in the proclaimed area were to tell you that the e-xpense now of keeping their sheep clean is very much less than it was before, in fact, that they have been able to keep them clean for years, and the increase is better and the wool also, and the weight of the wool too, would you say that what those men said, as they have given it to us in evidence, was untrue ? — I don't say that, but I should like to hear what they have to say themselves about other little matters. 15312. But I toll you it is, so how do you account for their condition being so totally different to the farmers here V— Because, as a rule, I have found the frontier farmers very much more negligent with their stock in regard to scab than the people here. 16al3. Then if your evidence is correct, it is more desirable to have the act here, bocause it would cost them even less than it would cost them there? — There are careful f.irmers there too. 15314. Has it not been your experience as a farmer that one very great complaint made hv farmers is the badness of their herds? — Yes, that is the general complaint. 1531.i. That the herds are constantly losing sheep, and allowing them to mix ? — Yes. 15316. So that if there aio flocks running on neighbouring farms, one clean and the other inft'cted, there is a very gi eat danger of the clean flack being infected ? — Decidedly. 15317. Don't you know from your own experience that that has very often happened ? — Not iu this district, but down country I know it ffas. 15318. In a case of that kind do you think it is absolutely unnecessary to have any provision to protect that farmer beyond the pound law? — I think it is quite unnecessary ; he can protect himself with the pound law. He is strong enough, and has law enough. 15319. Mr. (Iu Toit.^ What do you think is the cause of scab ?^— I think scab is caused by poverty, which is the result of (b-ought ; this produces the insect, and the insect produces scab. But if a sheep is in good condition, and the wool is full of yoke, the yoke kills the insect. 15320. You don't think it can come without an insect? — No, that I don't believe. I have seen very poor sheep properly handled become perfectly free of scab. 15321. In any case scab is caused by an insect? — Yes. 15322. Do 5'ou think herds have something to do with it? — It is said that over-driving will cause it, but 1 cannot oxpro.-jS an opinion upon that. I really don't think that would cause scab unless it caused the sheep to become poor, and scab would then have more effect upon them. 15323. Have you been abl.^ to cure your flocks fr.an scib at any season of the year, and in every condition of health? — Tliat is the very thinp: which S' ts me against the scab act, that if my sheep are very low in condition, the wool long, the ewes heav}' in lamb, or if. the weather is bad, and scab breaks out among my flocks, I must kill the scab, even if I kill the sheep at the same time. 15324. Apart from the question of the risk, do you thiolc you would be able to cure them? — Yes, you can always cure them ; b?it you may kill them in the process. 15325. What kind of dipping stuff do you generally use? — A patent dip, generally, but there are other good dips besides the one I use. ^ 15326. Have you tried lime and sulphur? — Yes. 16327. 3Ir. Botha.'] What class of people should be appointed as scab inspectors where a law is in force, and who should appoint thorn ? — I think that practical, respectable farmers should be appointed on the recommendation of the divisional council. 15328. Do you know the downs in this district, near the sea ? — Yes, I have one place there, and I know that sort of veldt. 15329. Is it possible to obtain water there by sinking wells ? — I can say neither yes nor no to that question, but I have seeu wells iu tSie downs, with water in them ; the wells were very deep, at least 40 feet. 15330. You say j'ou have had little loss from scab in this district ?— Yes. 15331. Is the loss from scab here less than it is in the district of Albert ? — Yes, a great deal ; but since the scab ace has been mooted, and so much has been done in the matter, people have taken more to hand dressing and dipping than they did formerly. 15332. Then can you conscientiously say that the scab act has not been instrumental in getting the farmers to take a greater interest in hand dressing or dipping scabby sheep, and by that means, or in any other way trying to keep their stock freer of scab than they did formerly ? — No, I cannot say so. Decidedly not in this part of the country. 15333. Mr Franci8.'\ Are you acquainted with the terms of the present scab act? — iNo, I cannot say I am ; it has not been in force in any district where I have been. 15334. Is it not possible that a great deal of opposition to the act in this district arises from the power which that act gives to inspectors ? — When I say I don't know about the act, 660 I mean I only know by reading how it works in the different districts. I have seen districts where it has been put in force and where they have worked to have it rejiealed : and of cours • all that naturally makes us very fhy of adopting a thing which we see has been tried by other districts, but has so militated against their interests that they have worked to get it repealed. 15335. Are you acquainted with the terms under which fines are imirosed under the act ? — No, I don't know exactly, but I have read that if a man receives notice, he must dip within a certain time, and if he fails to do so the first time he is not fiued, but the second time he is. 15336. Are yon aware that under the terms of the act no man can under any circum- stances be fined unless he has wilfully made a breach of the law ?— [the provisions of the law were here explained at some length] — If the law is as Inx as all that, I don't see hov.- it can eradicate scab ; it should be more striugent if it is to do any good at all. 15337. Supposing you had 5,000 clean sheep on your farm, aud they became infected by scab, would you have to dijj them twice to eradicate it? — Yes. 15338. What expense do you think that would entail upon you, even if you clean thein in two dippingps ? — Certainly £30. 15339. Are you aware of the terms of the pound act'P^No, I am sorry to say I have not read the now act, but I believe there is some ])rovision for scab. 15340. Consequent!}', you are not aware of the fact that that law repeals the old pouu I ordinance ? — But not that particular part about scabby sheep ; I believe it was only an amended act. 15341. If such is the case, and the pound ordinance is repealed, then that part of your evidence which is based on the fact that the pound ordinance is in force will be of no avail ? — If the terms of the old pound ordinance were not included in the law, then my assertions with regard to it would fall to the ground. 15342. Are you aware how much a man can charge when sending scabbj' sheep to the poimd under the present law ?^No, but I think he could not only lay a charge against him, but claim special damages. 15343. Are you aware that imder the present law, the onlv charge which a man can make for scabby sheep as distinguislied from otlier sheep is double the amount of trespass money — That in itself is good enough, but I don't believe it could prevent a man making a claim for special damages. 15344. If your 5,000 sheep became infected by two scabby sheep belonging to a neigh- bour, would the amount of trespass monej', which would amount to about 6d., compensate you for spending £30 on cleaning your sheep V — No, certainly not ; but the damages I could claim under the common law would, and would also be sufficient to check h'm. 15345. Do you think it is possible that in some districts people are opposed to a scab act because it is popular to oppose it ? — No, I don't think that is the case in this diitrict. 15346. Then the circumstances are not the same in this district as they were stated to be in another district where the Commission took evidence, and where it was said that the popular feeling being oi)f)osed to a scab act no man who expressed views in favour of it would have any chance of being elected to Parliament, the divisional council, or even to become an elder of his church ? — If the people were really opposed to a scab act, I should say it would serve them right. 15347. Then you would approve of a man opposing a thing for self-interest, even when he believes it is right in princip!'- ? — No, certainly not, biit he should not be elected to represent them. 15348. If you were convinced that scab could be eradicated from the flocks of the country, would you then bo in favour of stringent measures and an exjienditure of money. to get rid of it .-■ — If it wore duue in sucli a way as not to interfere with the rights of the farmers, and not to take tliem at inconvenient times, but by assisting them without incon- venience, there is no ouo who would bo more glad to see the country fiee of scab than myself, because I have liad enough trouble aud expense with it. 15349. Chairman.'\ Are you well aci^uaiuted with the condition of the flocks in the eastern districts ?— Yes, a good man}', mostly in Albert, Colesberg, and Queen's Town. 15350. When ynu stated in your evidence that as a rule the farmers in this division pay more attention to their flocks than farmers in the eastern province, and that their flocks are freer from scab, were you aware of the fact that the districts of Komgha, Stutterheim, and Cathcart have very few flocks affected with scab, aud tliat in several districts of the eastern province the improvement is enormous ? — I constantly hear and see people, but I don't know about Komgha ; I believe there is more scab there now than we have here. Mr. Jucohus Petrus Willem Jouhcrt examined. 15351. Are j-ou a delegate '•: — Yes, I was appointed by the branch of the Afrikander Bond in Swellendam. 15352. How long have you been fanning in this district? — For thirty years. I have about 1,200 small stock, mostly merinos. 15353. Do you agree with the evidence given by Mr. Hockly ( — Except that I think we LLLL 2 6(il oug-lit to havo legislation with regard to scab, but it should bo dijEEeront fiviu the existing act, which is vory inconvenient for the farmers. 15354. You arc in favour of legislation to protect the careful farmer? — Yes, but not according to the inesent act, which is too difficult, t-eiauso we arenotsimjily dependent upon sheep ; we have our farming interests to look after, and it is therefore impossible for a farmer always to have his sheep clean. I have cleaned my sheep so that there has been no scab amongst them, but then rains come, and I hare to plough, so that I cannot attend to my sheep, but must be busy ploughing. After I have been ploughing, and come again to my sheep, T find that they have got scab. Then the inspector might come and take charge of mj' ^lioep, and order me about, but I am in favour of a careful farmer being protected. A careless neiglibour's sheep might come nnd infect mine, and if I soud them to the pound it would create trouble between me and my neighbour. The police ought to have the power to impound such stock, and I should have nothing to do with it ; but of course if my own sheep were infected with scab I ought not to do anything. 15555. Do you consider that all the farmers in the district of Swellendam take the same pains to clean their flocks of scab as you do .?— No, I think there are a few who do not, and who are neglectful. 15.')56. In cases of that sort, you consider that a gross injustice is done to a careful farmer who dips his flocks regularly, and does his best to keep them free of scab when they are C(ms(antly subjected to infection from a neighbour who may be careless, and adjoins his projiorty ? — I simply say tliey ought to have protection on that point. 15357. Would you be in favour of Government supplying dip to the farmers of this Colony at cost price, free of railway carriage ? — Yes, it would helji the farmer. 15358. If that were done, would you be in favour of a dipping act, compelling all farmers in the Colony to dip their sheep twice after shearing, within tay three months .^— It might be inconvenient to dip them when they are scabby. 15359. If the farmers in this district were to dip their sheep within a period of three months, they arranging the most suitable period amongst themselves, would it not tend to cleanse the flocks from scab ? — It is difficult to answer that ; I should like to do it, but it is impossible. 15360. llr IIoclcly.'\ Supposing the farmers were allowed to divide the district into sections, suitable to the different circumstances, don't you think simultaneous dipping would be a good tiling ? — There are difficulties in the way. 15361. Don't you think in the interests of the farmer it would be desirable, eyen where there is no law, if they could arrange amongst themselves in certain localities to dip about the same time, as nearly as possible, after shearing ? — I certainly think that would be advantageous. 15362. Supposing there .were a section of the district where all except one or two farmers agreed, don't you think it would be desirable to devise some \)\a,a by which all coiild be made to come into the arrangement ? — If there wore only two or three, and they are obstinate, there should be some means to compel them to agree. 15363. 3[r. du Toit.'] Are you aware that the police have power to take scabby sheep and impound them ? — -The great majority of people know nothing about that. 153()4. How often do the police come to your farm .'' — Sometimes within fourteen days, and sometimes a month will elapse. 15365. If immediately after the police had visited youi- farm, scabby sheep can^- there, would it not be undesirable that they should remain until the police came back again .? — I would give the police notice that they were there. 15366. "Would tliey be able to come back, considering that they would have to complete their circuit ? — They should be wherever there is work for them. 15367. Even then the scabby sheep might have to remain on your place for some days ? — Yes, they might, but it would not be so always. Wiiat I mean is that if 1 dipped my sheep, but had a careless neighbour who, in spite of my warnings, allowed his scabby sheep to come on to my place, he ought to be puuished. 15368. Is scab carried by an insect ? — Yes. 15369. So if all the insects were killed, scab would be eradicated ? — Yes. 15370. Then do you think it is possible to eradicate scab fi'om the country? — If it could be done it would be a good thing, but I doubt whether it is possible. 15371. Does the insect live in the veldt? — Other animals get scab, but that depends on the time of the year, when the blood is not in a health}' condition. 15372. Mr. Botha.'] Have you a masoned dip on your place ? — No, I am busy building onNnow. 15373. Is that because you have heard something about a scab act ? — No, I was going to do it for a long time, but I could not get to work on it before. 15374. Are there any farmers in this district who are only sheep farmers, and have no other occupation ? — No ; sheej) farming here is only one among many occupations. 15375. Do you know the downs near the sea coast ? — No. 15376. 2Ir. Francis.'] Are you aware that a farmer will never complain of his neigh- bour and put the law in force against him if he can possibly help it? — Certainly. 15377. Are j'ou aware that the scab act in the Free State has to be carried out by the farmers themselves ? — Inspectors are appointed but they are sheeji farmers. 15378. Do you consider it "would be more difficult to eradicate scab from a large farm or froni a small cue ? — It would Ijg easier on a large one. 662 15379. Consequently, according to that, it would be easier to eradicate tcab in districts where the farms run from two to three thousand morgeu than from the farms in the eastern province where they are usually from a thousand to fifteen hundi-ed morgen ? — Yes. Mr Louis Knoblimch examined. 15380. Chairman.^ Are you a delegate ? — Yes, from the Swellondam branch of the Afrikander Bond I have farmed in this district for about twentj' years, and bave a little over 2,000 smnll stock, principally merino sheep. 15381. Du you agree with Mr. Hopley ? — I don't agree entirely with either Mr. Hopley or Mr. Joubert. 1.5.382. Will you state the points on which you disagree.' — I don't agree with Mr. Hopley that the pound act would be sufficient protection, but I think it might be altered so that with a little more stringency it might answer instead of a scab act. 1.5383. Then your great objection is not to legislative protection under the present scab act, but to the name given to that protection ? — That is why I state that the jjound act might be altered in such a way that it could take the place of a scab act. 15384. But you consider that it is absolutely necessary to protect the careful farmer? — Yes. 15385. Would you be opposed to a compulsory simultaneous dipping act, if the farmers iu each division were allowed to arrange the most suitable time for carrying it out ? — It would do a great deal to decrease scab among the flocks. 15386. Such an act would be of great benefit to the farmers of this division ? — Yes. 15387. Under such an act, would it be advisable to have inspectors of dipjjing in each field-cornetcy, who should themselves be farmers ?— I don't think it woidd be neeessaiy. 15388. Mr. Hockhj.~\ I suppose in the Swelleudam district, as iu every other district in the Colony, you have some progressive and careful farmers and some who are very lazy and iudifforent ? — -Yes. 15389. You think it is desirable that the careful farmer who looks after his stock and keeps it clean sliould have some protection ? — Yes. 15390. Then would not the only way to do that be to prevent owners of stock, whether they were farmers or not, moving about with scabby sheep ? — I think the jiound law would come to my rescue there, and I could impound them. 15391. But how would you do on a public road .'' — Every owner of laud would have it in his power to prevent any one moving over his farm with scabby sheep, and would be able to impound them. 15392. Mr. Botha.] Do you know the downs, near the sea coast ? — More or less. 15393. There is no natural water there ? — In some places there is, but in .some large sections there is none. 15394. Have efforts been made to obtain water in those jjlaces by digging wells ? — As far as I know nothing has been done yet to ascertain by digging wt-lls whether water could be obtained. 15395. Mr. Francis. ~\ Does the scab in your flocks cause you a good deal of trouble, inconvenience and loss ? — It causes expense and trouble and other losses besides. 15396. Then if you were convinced that you could get entirely rid of the scab within two years, would you be willing to submit to a very stringent scab act for that pci iod in order to attain such an end } — If I were convinced. Mr. Michael Ecksteen examined. 15397. Chairman.'] Are you a delegate ? — Yes, by the Swelleudam branch of the Afri- kander Bond. I have farmed here for thirty years, and have 1,000 small stock, mostly merinos. 15398. Do you agree with the last witness ? — Yos, with the last, but not the first two. 15399. Is there anything you would like to add to what the last witness said? — In regard to the downs, in some portions you can find water by means of wells, but there are portions on a higher plateau, an hour to two hours' ride away, where you cannot find water Mr. Hans Johannes Gddenhuis examined. 15400. Chairman.] Are you a delegate ? — Yes, also from the Swellendam branch of th Afrikander Bond. I have farmed here for twenty-four 3'ears, and there are on my plac about 5,500 merinos and nearly 1. 000 goats. 15401. With which of the witnesses do you agree ?— With none, entirelj-. I believ scab is contagious, ami I think we might have scab legisUtion in the way of granting pro- tection to farmers ; because we find some farmers who are very particular, sparing no trouble or e.tp^nso to have thinr slieep clean, and you find others just the reverse, and causing great trouble and exj)enso to the careful men. 15402. Mr. JIoc/cli/.] Do the farmers in your neighbourhood as a rule have tanks .'—Not all, but some have. 15403. Do they as rule dip their sheep ? — Not regularly. 663 15404. Arc there some who norer dilt their sheep ? — I know of some who hav» never dipped yet. 15405. Do you think it would bo to the interest of those farmers themselves if some arrangements were made by which they would hiive to dip and clean their sheep .'' — Certainly ; it is very necessary tliat some moans shouLl be found. 1540ti. Don't you think it would bo a very good thing if the farmers in a district could agree among themselves to give some time — the luiiist suitable time of the year — at which they should all arrange to dip their sheep within a given period, say two montiis? — That is a difficult question to answer. It is not impossible, but the question is whether they would all agree. 15407. If they would agree, don't you think it would be a good thing ? — Certainly. 15408. Supposing in any ward or section of the district a large proportion, say five- sixths, of the farmers agreed to it, and one-sixth of them would not. would it not be desir- able to put pressure on that small minority in their own interests and those of the district? — Yes, I think so. 15409. Mr Botha.'] Is it nut the case with many of our farmers that sheep farming forms only a small portion of thoir interests, and is only a secondary consideration with them ? — You don't find such a state of things among the real sheep farmers, but there are such cases. 15410. Are you acquainted with the downs? — Yes, at the seaside there is water close to the sea, in the lower portions. There is sufficient for dipping purposes if you had the necessary appliances. But that does not apply to all farms iu the downs. 15411. Mr. Jlockly.'] How l>ng are the slioop kept on the downs without water? — From April to October. 15412. Chairman] If a compulsory, simultaneous dipping act were introduced, would it be advisable iu the interests of a certain section of the farmers themselves to have the sheep dipped ut;der inspi^ction, the inspectors to he recommended for appointment by the sheep fatmers residing in the ward ? — I could not agree to that. I think that might be left in the hands of the field-cornet, and in case lie received any complaint it should be as secret and ccmfidential as iu tliecase of a tt-lcgraph iiffice. 15413. Mr. Botha.] Wliat is the greatiist distance from one permanent water to another in any part of the downs ? — About two hours on horseback. It is about a day's journey with sheep from the dry portions to where water could be found for dipping purposes. Mr. Dome Gerhrondt Steyn examined. 15414. Chairman.] Are you also a delegate? — Yes, from the Afrikander Bond in Swellendam. I have farmed here for thirty year.", and have 1,400 merinos. 15415. With which of the last witnesses d> you agree ? — The last. There is a great difference between the climate here and iu the eastern provinc? ; we get our rains in the winter, and are sometimes subject to summer droughts, and at such times, although the sheep may have been clean before, the scab developes no matter what you do. When I have a good shepherd, I nev< r have anj' trouble with scab, but when I have a bad shepherd 1 liive noticed that my sheej) are always badly affected with scab, and I can do what I like but it does not ina prove them, and then, when the shepherd i« changed, and a man is put iu charge who understands them, there is instantly a change. I have noticed that a ehepherd who drives his sheep, especially when they are going into the kraal, always has a scabby flock. In this way they sometimes get scab so badly that it is uncurable or very difiicult to cure, and when owes are in that condition, and lamb, the Iambs are born scabby. This is a proof that scab is in the blood, because the lamb develops the scab on exactly the same spot as the ewe. I have investigated chis subject sufficiently to state that I can tell on examining a troop of sheep whether they have contracted scab from being over-driven, or from a wet kraal, or from contagion. 15416. You have stated that sheep which are affected with a certain class of scab can never be cured, or are very difficult to cure. Have you ever tried dipping such plieep twice within fourteen days in a recognised solutiou of poper strength, and found it inefficacious ? —Yes. 15417. WiUyou state what dip you used, how j-ou prepared it, and how you dipped the sheep ? — The last dip I used was a patent dip, according to the directions. I have also used 20 lbs. each of lime and sulphur to a leaguer of water. 15418. How did 3'ou dip the sheep? — 1 dipped them in a tub. 15419. And do you state that those sheep were not even temporarily cured ? — Yes. 15420. Did you only dip the sheep affected with scab, or all the sheep on your property ? — All of them. 15421. Did you simply plunge the sheep in the solution, and then take them out again? — I kept them in until they were thoroughly wet, and then dried them. 15422. Mr. llockli/.] Wliat is the difference in the skin of the .shoep which has this infectious scab and the slieep wliirli lias what you call scab from over-driving .■' — The sheep which ratclies scab by contagion sciatcliet a good deal; with the other kind it hardly scratches at all, and a kind of sore or tumour is formed. |J64 15423. If you took a sheep which had this scab which you say is caused by over driving, and mixed it with a health}' flock, would they take it too ? — Yes. 1.5424. Have you ever seen the insect on scabby slieep ? — Yes. 1-5425. Have you ever found it on the shoep which scratched? — Yes. 15426. Have you ever found the insect on those sheep which you say get scab from being over-driven ? — No. 15427. Would you be surprised to hear that the scab act does not apply to sheep which you speak of as becoming scabby from being over-driven? — I did not know that, but if it is so the act is no good. My opinion is that the insects come from the scab, and not the scab fi'om the insects. 15428. Do you think there is any living animal that has no parents ? — I don't know. I believe they may be produced in all ways, by reproduction and spontaneous generation. I have experienced trouble from my neighbour.s' scabby sheep, and my neighbours have ex- perienced trouble from mine, and I think it is necessary to have some protective measure to prevent these things occurring. Mr. Corndif Janse BadenhorH examined. 15429. Chairman.^ Are you a delegate ? — Yes. I have farmed for fifteen years in Swellendam, and before that for twenty-five years elsewhere. With my children I have now 5,000 or 6,000 small stock, mostly merinos, and a few goats. 15430. With which of the last witnesses do you agree ? — With Mr. Steyn, but I do not agree that it is necessary to have some law, because in my neighbourhood the farmers are very particular. My principal business is with my sheep. I am chiefly dependent upon them, and I know that seal) has occasionally been a groat source of trjuble to me, so much so that it has been nearly impossible to eradicate it ; and I am also aware that it is brought on by many causes. At a certain time I had a very good shepherd, who looked after his sheep carefully, and whenever a spot of scab broke out he at once hand dressed the sheep with a tobacco solution, aud there was hardly any scab amougst my flocks. But when that man wont away, and the sheep were put under the car* of another man who was not nearly so careful, the scab got bad again, so bad that I was obliged to dip the sheejJ. 15431. Mr. Botha. ~\ Do you ascribe it to the herd, or to the infectious nature of scab that the disease spreads so rapidly ? — No, I don't think that is th« case ; it was simplj- due to bad herding, though I acknowledge that a bad luaster may have something to do with scab. 15432. Taking into consideration the fact that you derive such great benefits from having a good shepherd, what difference do you make in payment between a good and a bad one ? — Good and bad receive just the same treatment. 15433. Have you a properly constructed tank on your place ? — Yes. 15434. Is that the case with most of your neighbours .-' — I cannot say most of them. Most of them hand dress, and have no tanks. 15435. When you dip j^our sheep do you always cure them ? — No, I don't always succeed in cleaning them. 15436. Have you always dipped in the same way .'' — Ye.s. 15437. Mr. Francis.^ 1 understand that you and the other gentlemen who have given evidence to-day have been appointed for that purpose by tlie Afrikander Bond. Can you tell me the number of members belonging to this branch of that association ? — Over 100. 15438. About how many farmers do you think there are in the district of SweUendam ? — I don't know. 15439. Then all the evidence given this morning simply represents the opinions of a hundred persons?— Yes. 15440. You believe it would be a great advantage if we oould get rid of scab out of our flocks ? — Certainly. 15441. If you were convinced that, b\' taking a good deal of trouble, and sjiending some money, we could get rid of it in two years, would you be quite willing to do so ? — Yes, if I were convinced of it. 15442. Mr. Uockly.'] Supposing you iiave a careless shepherd, but there is no scab among the sheep which are put under his care, and the veldt where thoy graze and the kraals in which they are placed are clean, would thoso sheep gat scab } — Yes, certainly. 15443. Mr. du Toit.'\ Then you don't believe ttiat scab is caused by au insect alone ? —No. 15444. You attribute it chieflj- to bad treatment by the herds ? -Yes. 15445. Chairman.'] Do 3'ou consider tliat all tlie farmers in this district do their best to keep scab out of their flocks as much as possible ? — No. 15446. Then would not a measure compelling those who are not careful to treat their sheep properly be a benefit to those people themselves ? — I am afraid the law would prMs injuriously upon the careful farmer. Mr. Roger Sophy examined. 15447. Chairman. j How long have you been farming in this district? — About forty years. I have only about .500 goats now. T iiin a land surveyor. 665 15448. Are you in favour of scab legislation ? — Yes, decidedly. 15449. Do you think such an act would be a benefit to the district of Swellendam ? — Decidedly. 15450. ^fr. Hbckli/.] Do you agree witli the evidence of the witnesses who have come forward to-day ? — Not at all. 15451. Do you believe that all shoep can be cleaned of scab by proper dipping? — I believe tliat sheep are seldom dipped properly, but in this district it is hardly ever carried out. 15452. Do you know whether there are many tanks in this district ? — There are some, but very few. 15453. Do you know the district well"? — I have been surveying in this district for over forty-five j'ears, a«d I know every farm. 15454. What proportion of them do you think have tanks? — I believe if I counted them in this district there would not be twenty. 15455. Jfr. du Toit.'] For how many years have you dipped your flocks? — J have not a flock no(v ; I have been without shefep for years, but I am acquainted with every farmer'.s •heep in the country. 15456. Have you made many experiments in dipping? — Yes, and two dippings in five month* did it. 15457. Have you often tried ? — Yes, and cleaned them thoroughly in two dippings. 15458. How long did you manage to keep them clean? — It depends upon the kraals whetlier you keep them clean ; if you get them mixed up with scurvy animals they will soon require dipping again, but if you have them clean and the kraals are clean you will keep them clean for years. 15459. Mr. Botha.'] Do you know the downs, near the sea coast? — Ye.s ; water is .scarce there, but it is good for stock in winter. 15460. If the sheep got scabby in the downs, could you obtain sufficient water from wells to dip them ? — Yes, I think sufficient water could be obtained. There is no water on t he plateau of the downs, but you can alwaj's make wells just below, and there you can obtaiu sufficient svater for dipping purposes. 15461. Are not many farmers who have sheep also engaged in agriculture, and farm with other stock as well ? — Yes. 15462. Has it been your experience that, in consequence of being so much occupied with other matters, thej' neglect their sheep, and do not attend to the scab in their flocks } — I have heard a son tell his father that the sheep had become infected with scab, and his father has told him not to mind, as the sheep WDuld not die from scab, and the potatoes must be put in. Consequently the sheep were neglected. 15463. 3Ir. Francis.'] How do you account for the fact that people are opposed to a scab act in this district, seeing that in your opinion such an act would be of great benefit } — I can only say that there are such opposing interests in the districts. One great cause of their opposition is that most of the farmers do not wish to be dictated to, even by a Parliament or a Government. A second reason is that an inspector might greatly inconvenience a farmer when he was busy with other things which he considered more important. Then I don't tliink tliat at a rule the farmers appreciate tlie difference between good anj >iad wool delivered on the market. 15464. Do you think that one reason why the farmers here are opposed to a scab act is because they don't understand the nature of scab, or its cure ? — They do. but they neglect it. 15455 Do you think there are some people here \vh ) mar really be in favour of a scab act, but are afraid to express that opinion here on account of the papular feeling ? — I believe so. If they were properly informed of it they would bo in favour of it. Mr. Jan Gt/sbert Steyn examined. 15466. Chairman.] Are you a delegate ? — No. I have been farminjj in SweUendam for the last thirty-five years, and have between 3,000 and 4,000 small stock, principally merinos. 15467. Are j'ou in favour of general scab legislation? — Yes, but not the present act. 15468. Please state your reasons? — Because I think it would do a great deal of good to the district, and there are many people who will not take much trouble now who would then be obliged to, and who would try and eradicate scab. 15469. Are you in favour of a general compulsory dipping, done within two u aware of the fact that the only .'.cab recognised by the law is the one wliich is caused by an insect ? — I don't know. 1 5588. But if such is the case, and you kill that insect, would not the sheep then be fi-ee of scab ? — Yes. 15589. Then if your sheep become reinfected, where does the insect come from ? — I don't know. 1 5590. Do you think it would be an advantage to the farmers here if the Government were to sujijily dip at cost price free of railway carriage at the nearest station ? — Yes. 15591. Do you think a number of the fanners who dip their bhec'ii are well acquainted with the pr..p"r method of dipping? — I tliink so. 670 15592. All of them ?— Mostly. 15593. Would it not be an advantage for those who don't know how to dip their sheep properly if someone was allowed to show them how to do it ? — Yes ; even I might take lessons in that, like all sensible men would. 1559-1. You would not object at all to anyone being appointed to assist you to clean viiur flocks ? — No. I should be glad of such assistance. 15595. And you think the idea which is so prevalent among the farmers, that they object to any interference even for their own good, is an absurd one ? — I think it would be a good tiling. 1559(). Do j'ou think it is probable that some of tlie oppositi(jn to a scab act arises from the fact that many farmers don't understand the disease and its cure ? — It is difficult to answer that, because I think every farmer knows how to cure his sheep. 15597. If you were convinced that by an expenditure of money and some trouble scab could be eradicated completely from our flocks, do you think it would be advisable to have a scab act to attain that end .' — 1 should like to know how much money is to be expended. 15598. Cliairman.^ Is it not a fact that you and many careful farmers in this district simply dip with a view of keeping your sheep tolerably free from scab, knowing that you are constantly in danger of reinfection from careless neighbours, and that if you were protected by legislation you would do a great deal more to keep your flocks perfectly clean ? Yes. Mr. G you agi-ee witli Mr. Ecksteen that legislation is necessary to protect the caref-.il farmer 'i — Yes. 15634. If you had dipped your flocks and they were perfectly frco of scab, would you like to h.ive the power to prevent any person with scubby flocks passing over your property.'' — I don't Lke to have scubb}' sheep over my veldt, but I don't like to prevent people who must trek, because unless they were allowed to trek they could not live. 15635. Mr. llocl.ly.] Do you kraal your sheep ? — ^Yes. 15635. And in January, when you had dipped your sheep twice, did you put them back into the same kraals and on the same veldt as before? — Sometimes I put them into the same kraals, but sometimes I put them into others. 15637. Did it ever strike you that that might be the reason that your sheep became scabby again ? — The kraals are infected with scab, but I tried new kraals, and stiU the scab reappeared . 15638. You dipped tii-st in January. Do you remember when you first saw scab after the second dipping at that time ? — They got scabby again in February. 15639. Can you in any way account for it that every farmer who teUs us he has dipped his sheep twice says that for a time they have been perfectly cured ? — I think if you could make sure of a good herd, it would alwaj^s help, but you cannot always secure the services of a good herd. \--r 15640. Would you expiaid to me how a herd can g^ve a sheep scab after it has been dipped ? — He might ill-use theui, and that might produce scab. 15641. Ihen do you call the disease scab, which sheej) get when they have been driven hard, and the wool falls off ? — If they are driven too fast into the kraal at night that also causes scab. 15642. Do you think scab is caused by an insect .■' — Yes, and without the insect also. 15643. Do you know that scab legislation only deals with the disease which is caused by that particular iused ? — I don't know. 15644. Have yuu never seen the insect yet ' — No. 15615. Have you never lonked for it ?— No. • 672 15646. Then do you believe those people who tell you that it is caused by an insect ? — Yes. 15647. Suppcsing one of your flocks was infected, and you dipped it, would you dip the other sheep too ? — Yes. 1.5648. Did you dip every sheep and goat on your farm in January twice, in May twice, and in October once ? — Yes, I dipped them aU. 15649. How many sheep do you dip in the course of a day .■" — 500 or 600. 15650. How many hours do you work ? — From the morning until 2 p.m. 15651. Have you a gate to your tank, so as to be able to keep the sheep in the water for a certain time '? — Yes, I have a forked stick ; a piece of wood in the shape of a fork . 15652. I suppose .some sheep go out a little (quicker than otliers? — Yes; I have a man there, and I stand there myself. 15653. Is not your attention sometimes called away, so that there is nobody there ? — No, there is always somebody there. 15654. Do you think everj- sheep which comes through that tank is at least one minute in the dip ? — I could not say a minute ; I never timed them. I count twenty-five. 15655. Then is it not quite possible, if you only count twenty -five in j'our mind, that you cannot be sure you keep the sheep in as long as you think ? — Some would stay in twenty- five seconds, and some not so long. 15656. You know what the instructions say ? — Yes. 15657. Then dc you think you know better than the instructions 'i — I don't know, but I have plenty to do, not only sheep dipping, but many .tther things, so it is impossible for me to keep every sheep under the water so long. 15658. Then you consider the other work you have to do is of very much more import- ance than cleaning j'our sheep ? — I don't say that. My sheep are the principal consideration with me. I don't think the other work is more important than attending to my sheep, but when I dip my sheep in that waj' I think they ought to be cleaned. 15659. Then you think you know more about it than the people who have given you the instructions ? — No. 15660. But you don't foUow the instructions ; you follow your own idea .' — Sometimes it cleanses them. 15661. Have you seen other people cure sheep when rou could not do it yourself ? — I have done it myself. 15662. Mr. du loit.j How many kinds of scab are you acquainted with ? — Only one. 15663. You have not noticed any difference in the kind of scab which is caused by driving sheep hot to water, and that caused by infection ? — No. 15664. Are you sure that scab is caused by driving them hot to water ? — I am not sure, but I think so. If not, where does it come from ? 15665. May not the sheep possibly have been infected by others ? — I cannot say. Sometimes thej- do get infected by straying sheep. 15666. Mr. Botha.~\ Is your farm fenced '' — No. 15667. Do aU the sheep lie in one place ? — No ; there are 8,000 morgen of land, but it is in separate pieces. 15668. Are your neighbours' places fenced? — No. 15669. Then it is possible that their scabby sheep may come on your ground without your knowing it ? — Yes. 15670. And is it not possible that your sheep may be allowed to mix with scabby sheep without your knowledge ? — Yes, it is possible. 15671. Mr. Francis. \ If you were convinced that you could clean your sheep, and could keep them clean, would you tlien be in favour of an act to eradicate scab, and would you gnidge either expense or trouble to clean them ? — I shoidd not then be opposed to an act. Mr. Louw-renx Ut/s examined. 15672. Chairma?!.'] How long have you farmed in Bredasdorp ? — About twelve years. I have 800 merinos and 200 goats. 15673. Do you agree with tlie evidence given by Mr. Ecksteen .' — I differ on some points. I am in favour of a compidsory, simultaneous dipping act, but I am opposed to any law that imposes fines in cases of scab. 15674. Mr. Hockly.'] Supposing in one ward or section of the district that there were a large number of fanners who agreed to dip their sheep simultaneously, but one or two held out and woidd have nothing to do witli it, would you allow them to do as the}- liked, or would you bring pressure to bear upon them ';" — I should fay they must give in to the majority. Mr. Henry JTamil/tm van BnJa examined. 15675. Chairman.'] How long have you been farming in this district ? — For two and a h^lf years, twenty years ago, and now I have been farming here again for nearly two years. 15676. Were you farming in the interval } — Not all the time. 673 15677. How many small stock have you at present ? — About 4,000 merinos and 750 angoras. 15678. Are you in favour of a general scab act? — Decidedly. 15679. Will you state your reasons ? — In the first place I think if there were a general act, man}- farmers, and I am sure most of those who are present to-day, would be obliged to do tlieir best to keep their stock clean and to prevent them infecting others or getting infected themselves. 15680. Would you couple a compulsory dipping with the general scab act ? — Yes, I ^certainly would. 15681. What period of time would you allow for carrying out a compulsory simul- taneous dipping in this district ? — You could do it in a month. Allow six weeks from the first shearing, and give a month after that. 15682. If they get proper notice, you think that all the flocks in the district could be dipped twice in thirty days without injustice to anybody ? — Yes. 15683. Would it be advisable to have sucli dipping carried on under inspection? — Yes. 1568-4. Who would be the most suitable inspectors of dippilig ? — Men who thorouglily understood the working of the several dips, and liad had practice with them ; and of course they should be men who had no personal interests among the farmers over whom they were placed, and they should also understand how to construct the dipping tanks. 15685. Would it be advisable to appoint a practical farmer residing in the field- cometcy, who should be nominated by the sheep farmers there .■* — Yes, a suitable man. Of course you should get an experienced, intelligent man. 15686. Mr. Ilorklt/.j Have you dipped your sheep regularly '? — No, not regularly. 15687. Have j'ou made it a practice to dip everything after shearing? — I hare dipped some of my flocke twice, but not aU. 15688. With what effect ? — Last year my experience was that one flock particularly liad not been properly cleaned after the first dipping ; I dipped them a second time and f )und them almost entirely cleaned, but not (juite : therefore, I am trying it this j-ear again with three of my flocks which I found rather troubled with scab. I have dipped a couple I'f them twice, and I intend dipping the third flock twice. The others I have not dipped, because I found them quite clean. There is one flock I don't intend to dip just now. 15689. Do these flocks not come near each other, or cross the same runs? — Yes, they do. 15690. Is there not a feoUng of insecurity among the farmers without an act, the result being that they simply try to stave off scab as well as they can ? — Yes, I believe there is. 15691. If the farmers felt assured that they had some protection, do you think they would dip more regularly and systematically ? — I certainly think so. 15692. Do you think it is possible for any fanner in the unproclaimed area who has roads running over his farm to keep his sheep clean for twelve mouths at a time ?— Not if an}' sheep travelling along that road are infected with scab, or if his neighbours liad scab. 15693. Do you know how many dipping tanks there are in this district .' — No. 15694. How many are there in your ward ? — In my neighbourhood I know of five. 15695. How many farmers do you suppose there are in that area.? — Certainly about fifty. 15696. Then what do the other forty -five do?— Some hand dress, and some dip in tubs. 15697. Do you think that the majorit}' even of those forty-five dip in tubs, or are they content with hand dressing ? — I think the majovit}- onh' hand dress. 15698. Do you notice sny difference in regard to icab between the time when you were farming here before and now ? — As far ns I can judge from the property on wliich I am farming now. scab has increased, and I will give a reason for it. Twenty years ago, the farm being almost entirely enclosed, and so an entire camp, the slieep had not to be herded, but were allowed to run at large, and as they were in consequenje in better condition throughout the year, they were more easily kept clean, or if scab did break out it was more easily cured. But since then, on account of certain diseases among the .sheep, it has been found advisable to have them herded, and I regard thafas Jthe reason why they are more scabby. 15699. Mr. du To{t.'\ What do j-ou think is the cau.se of scab? — An insect. 15700. You don't think that poverty also brings it on? — It does not cause it, but it aggravates the scab. 15701. You are not aware that a kind of scab or skin disease is caused by over-driving sheep to the water, and by making them drink when hot ? — No, I have no experience i ; that ; I have heard farmers speak about it, but I have no reason to say I know of any such disease. 15702. Have you found by experience that scab is very contagious? — Yes. 15703. Would it infect clean flecks if they only grazed on the same ground as scabby sheep have been on, without coming in cf.ntact with them ?- — Sheep coming on that pasturage would certainly be infected. 15704. Have >ou any idea how long the insect can live en the veldt ?— I cannot speak from experience ; I can only be guided by the reports of professional men. 15705. Were you able to cure your sheep of scab whether they were in good or in poor condition ? — Yes. 15706. Mr. Francit.^ If your sheep were infected with scab, and were in low conditioii 674 would you consider it better to let the scab go on increasing, or to dip them at once ? — I should dip tliem at once. 1.5707. Have your y Mr. Breda, but I may say I dip all my sheep, twice, after they are sheared, those which are at all affected witli scab. I pick out those which are scabby, but I don't dip all the 8,000, and even if they have only a few spots I don't dip them T)ut hand dress. If there is any flock which is inclined to be scabby, I take all the flock, because they run on large tracts of country, and most of them don't come on to the same runs. My reason for doing that is because I don't think it is necessary to dip the sheep if they are tolerably clean, as I cannot get a clean bill of health whatever I do. I am obliged to trek across otlier people's vehlt, and tliere are public roads across mine, and the sheep would soon be infected again, so if they are tolerably clean I leave them as they are. 15722. So that it is really want of protection which prevents you thoroughly treating your flocks } — Entirely. 15723. From your knowledge of tlie tUvision of Bredasdorp, is it not perfectly possible, without injustice to any farmer in the division, to compel them to dip their flocks? — Yes, there is no leason why they should not dip them, and there would be no hardship to any- one if they were compelled to. 15724. Mr. nockly.'\ Generally speaking, do you think scab has increased in this dis- trict during the time you have been living here ? — I don't think so ; it is much the same as I foimd it. 15725. Don't you think the smaller farmers suffer more from it now than they did in those days ? — I can hardly say they do. 15726. Have you ever had occasion to dip your sheep in times of drought? — Frequently. 15727. What was the effect? — Tlie result was very good. 1572^'. Then do j-ou think it would be better in every case to dip sheep, even if they are in poor loudition? — Yes. [G. 1— '94.J NNKN ti75 \!>T29. Mr. Jiotha.'] You are well aoquainted with the downs? — Yes. I.')730. lu case there is a seal) act, do you think ninn can obtain wator there to dip ? — They could find water by means of wells. Whoro sheep run in our distri(^t they must have a shepherd, and where there are tloclts and shepherds there must be water for them to drink, especially for the sheplienl. I don't know a single place in this division without water. 15731. 3fr. Frant-ix.l At present yon only attempt to check scab in your flocks, and not to eradicate it, because there is no law to protect you from liaviug: vour tlocks reinfected ? — Yes. 15732. Consequently there are probably many other farmers who act similarly, and who don't now make an effort to eradicate scab, but only to check it ? — Decidedly. 15733. But if there were a general 80§b act, these farmers would make an effort to eradicate scab ? — Of course they would. JUr. Edward James Huflhei examined. 15734. Chairman.'] How long have you been farming in this division ? — For three and a half years. There are now 8,000 sheep under my care. For ten years before I came here I farmed in the Albert district. 15735. Do j'ou agree with Mr. Breda ?— Yes, entirely. 15736. Is there any thing you would like to add ? — I invariably dip everything, twice, after shearing. Last year I considered I had a clean bill of health, when I became re- infected by a travelling fiock. 15737. Could you give me any idea of the amount of loss and inconvenience you were put to by reason of being- reinfected in that way .'' — I had to sliear that flock of sheep in the middle of winter, and to dip them before I touched the others at all. Fortunately I did not have much loss, because I had a large shed in which to shelter them, but the inconvenience was very great. 15738. Were the other sheep infected? — Some, but only a few. My sheep were reinfected this year fi-om using an old kraal, whieh I know had not been used for a year previously. I am certain of that. They may have been infected in some other way, but that was the only reason I could attribute it to. 15739. Mr. du Toil. \ They did not come into contact with other sheep ? — Not so far as I know. 15740. Or did they run on the same veldt?— JJo. 15741. Chairman.^ It is not your practice to disinfect 3'our kraals? — Yes, those near the homestead that I cau get at, but for the others it is easier to build new ones. They are made entirely of bush. Mr. Pietfi- Snnrtz examined. 15742. Chairm(in.~\ How long have you been farming here ? — Thirty-four years. I have 2,000 merinos. 15743. Do you agree with the first witnesses? — Not altogether. 15744. Are you opposed to a scab act ? — Not so much (m my own account as for my neighbours, because tliere are many farmers near me who have very small holdings, and though when there has been rain they can keep their stock on their own ground, when tliere is a drought they have to remove them, and there are many places there where it does not rain for a long time. So if sheep become infected during a drought thoy ought to be removed, but under such a law it would be impossible to do it. There are no dips on these small farms. 15745. Would it be advisable to compel all owners of landed property in this country on whose places small stock ran, to construct proper dipping tanks which should be at the service of every one wlio had small stock there, free of charge ? — I don't think everybody should be compelled to do that. 15746. Is it not a fact that the smaller farmers to whom you refer are going backwards 3'ear by j'ear ? — I cannot express an opinion. 15747. Do you regularly dip your own tlocks ? — Yes. 15748. When did you dip them last ? — On Friday. 15749. In what, and how ? — I used one packet of a patent dip to sixteen gallons of water. 1 5750. How long have you been in the habit of using that dip ? — That was the first time. 16751. Did you dip your sheep twice or once ? — Once ; if necessary I shall dip them a second time. 15752. Do you believe that scab can be cured ? — Yes, I know by experience that it can. 15763. And if there are farmers who don't dip their sheep, and are a constant source of danger to their neighbours, should they be compelled to dip them ? — Yes. 15764. Mr. IIockly.~\ Do you dip your sheep every year, whether they are scabby or not ? — No, only when it is necessary. 15766. So that sometimes you don't dip them just after shearing, and don't see the scab 67f until just before the winter. What would you do iu that case? — I dij) them whenever scab makes its apjiearance. lo7o6. Have you ever dipped sheep with long wool in the winter ? — Yes. 15757. What was the result? — Grood. 15758. Did j-ou dip once or twice ? — Once. 15759. Have you ever had 3"our sheep clean for two or three .years in succession ? — No. 15760. Is that the general condition of the shetp in your neighbourhood ? — Yes. 15761. Sujiposiug you had three flocks on your farm, and one showed signs of scab, would you dip the one lloek and leave the other two ? — Yes. 15762. Do you think with that plan j-ou will ever have jour sheep quite clean, or that the district will ever be clean .'' — No, but they would be passably clean. 15763. Don't you think it is desirable to have the sheep iu the district entirely clean ? — Certainly, if it can be done. 15764. Supposing every farmer iu the district of Bredasdorp were to dip his sheep twice \vithin a given time, don't you think there woidd be a reasonable prospect of having j'our sheep in better condition than they are now ?— It is possible. 15765. Would you not be ia favour of an act which would make provision for that ? — Y^es. 15766. Mr. Botha.'] Do you think you know everything which it is necessary to know regarding sheep farming ? — Yes, of course. 15767. Do you think your opinion is also the opinion of almost every farmer .-^ — Yes. 15768. Is it not the case that most farmers treat their sheep as a secondary matter, and devote much of their time to their other business ? — Yes, it may possibly be the case. Mr. Jacobus Sicarts examined. 15769. Chairman.'] How long have you been farming in Bredasdorp? — For fifteen years. I have about 1,800 small stock, mostly merinos. 15770. Do you agree with the last witness? — Yes, more or less. I am opposed to any legislation regarding scab. 15771. Do vou dip your sheep regidarly V — Hardly ever. 15772. Have you ever dipped? — Last winter I dipped my lambs. 15773. You don't think that dipping is necessary .' — I don't say it is not necessary, but sometimes it is. 15774. Are your sheep-scabby at present ? — A little, here and there. 15775. Would not a law which compelled farmers to dip their flocks when scabby be a blessing even to you .■■ — It may be, but I am not going to vote for a law. 15776. Do you consider yini are thoroughly entitled to keep scabby sheep which may be a danger to your careful neighbour .' — No, but that is why I try to keep mine clean. 15777. Mr. Hockly.] Why did you dip yoiu- lambs last winter? — I saw they had lice. 15778. It was not for scab } — No. 15779. Don't you believe that dipping cures scab ? — Yes, I think so. 15780. Then you don't care to have your sheep clean? — No. I do all I can to keep them clean. 15781. Do you believe that scab is contagious ? — Yes. 15782. Then if your sheep are perfectly clean, would you object to anj- other scabby sheep getting mixed with them ? — Yes, scabby sheep. 15783. Do j-ou think it woidd be desirable that any farmer whose sheep are perfectlj' clean should be able to prevent anyone's scabby sheep coming on his groimd ? — Yes, but I think there is a law to that effect. 15784. Is there any law to preveut a man travelling along a public road with more or less scabby shocp ? — I don't kn-iw that there is such a law, but trekking along the road with scabbj' sheep woidd not do a maTi any harm. 15785. Then you think you could move scabby sheep along the roads over a farm where sheep belonging to th;it farm cross and graze without any danger of infecting them ? — So long as they don't mix. 15786. Do you thinli there woidd be any danger if they sleep on the same place? — Then there might be. 15787. Have you ever knowu a flock of sheep travel fora week without stopping on any one place ? — No. 15788. Then, by your own admission, wherever those sheep sleep for that night, the flocks belonging to that place are in danger ? — I don't believe they would get infected unless they slept on the same spoc. 15789. Supposing your sheep were perfectly clean, would you have no objection to half-a-dozen scabby flocks sleeping on different parts of it ? — Not so long as they did not sleep in my ki-aals. 15790. Do you know of any other farmers who hold the same view as you do t — I don't know. 15791. Mr. Botha.] What do you fai-m with besides sheep ?— I am also an agriculturist. 13792. And I suppose the agriculture occupies most of your time .^ — I cannot say-; I have people to do the work. KNNN 2 r,77 15793. So it does uot tiikc away your .lUcntiou from your Bhecp y — Notwithstanding my other occupations, I must say T never nj>;lect my shoej). I.i794. Mr. Franeis.'\ I suppose the fact that your sheep are scabliv causes you i good deal of trouble ? — If I see that they are stubby it takes some labour. l.')79'). Thi'u it does give you trouble ':' — Yes. 1579C. And I suppose tho J ip you use costs j'ou money y — Yes, but it does not take much. When it is necessary to dip I simply hand dress. This year it might cost uio £12 to £15. 15797. Does not scab cause you loss by the loss of weight in your wool, and the injury to the skins ? — Possibly it does a little, V)ut I don't notice it. 15798. If it cau-.es you such ver3' little loss that you hardl}' notice it, don't you think you are very foolish in taking any trouble to keep it down ? — No, because if I neglect it the scab will increa c. 15799. But if you could get rid of the scab altogether, would it not save you a groat deal of trouble and loss .'' — Yes. 1,).S()(I. Aud if other peojile have completely eradicated scab from the flocks, don't you think you toull do so also ? — I should consider it a wonder if it could be done in this country, but I cannot express an opinion upon whether it can be done. 15801. If \ on were couviuc(^d that it could be done, woidd you not thou bo agreeable to have a scab act, aud to go to some trouble to eradicate scab ? — Yes, if I could be convinced, but I don't believe it. Vatedon, Friday, '3rd November, 1893. TRESENT : Dr. Smartt (Chairman). Mr. Botha. ,, nu ToiT. Mr. HocKLY. ,, FkANC'IS. Mr Peter Johannes de Kock examined. 15802. Chairman.^ How long have you been farming in the district of Caledon 'i — Seven years. I have 4,000 or 5,000 merinos. 1580a. Are you in favour of scab legislation ? — No, I am opposed to it. 1580-i. Is scab prevalent in this district at present';' — Yes. 15805. Is there scab at j)resent among your own flocks ? — No, during seven years I have only had scab once, and that was some years ago. 1580!!. Do you dip your flocks regularly'? — I dip aud dress when necessary. 15S07. When did you last dip your flocks '? — Not for the last four years, and they are still (lean. 1 5808. When you say that your flocks are clean, do you wish me to understand that you have not dipped or hand dressed them for the last four }'ears, and there is absolutely not a spot of seal) amongst them at the present time ? — I have not di^jped for the last four years, but I have hand dressed. 15809. Then on reconsideiation you don't mean to maintain that your flocks have been absilutel}' clean for fjur years '? — I am particular, and as soon as there is a speck of sc ib I haml dross that particular spot at once. 15810. Do you maintain that it is possible to keep a flock fairly healthy as regards sc.ib, by simply hand dressing them, for a period of four years '? — As long as things go well, but there are times when it will break out with such force that, do what you will, we cannot keep the flocks clean, and that was my experience four years ago ; and I have also seen such times with my father and my neighbours. 15811. When scab broke out among your flocks four 3'ears ago, and you say it was impossible to cure it, what means did you use ? — An arsenical dip. First I hand dressed, and as that did not help I dipped them. 15812. Please explain shortly how you dipped your sheep, and in what solution.' — I put sixteen buckets of water to a pound of arsenic, aud when that would not help I tried fourteen buckets to the pound, but that made it .so strong that several died of it, and the othcr.s romiined scabby until they were shearetii I boiled the dip and put it into a tub the sheep wore put in by hand and the water drawn off from the animals l)y means of a hoop, stlier four or five times, at au iutervalof fo'irtf^on days. I was determined to clean them, even if 1 killed them, beuauwe I would not havj auy scab aiuougit my sheep. It was either four or five tinaes. I could not say positively. 15818. Was there no result ?— No, it did not help at all. l-OSig. How do you account for the fact that your sheep afterwards got clean of scab? — By being sheared. 15820. Since then you have had no necessity to treat them in any wa}' excepting slight hand dressing? — No, *nd then I used eight buckets af water to a pound of arsenic. 15821. Is that the onh' experience of dipping yon have had? — Yes, of my own. 15822. And yon consider those dippings which have been ur custom to hand over the treatment of your sheep to your shepherds ? — My oidors are that when a .slieep seratclies he is to be brought to the house, whore the dressing- material always is ; and if I niyself see a sheep scratch in tlie veldt I always biing him to the house, and if necessary I help the shepherd to dress them. Generally the sliejilierd does it liimself. 1.5851. Do you think the lime .and expense givi/n to cleaniim- sheep repays you? — As long as tlie scab is not vei'y .seveie it pays well. 15852. Mr. Francin.'] I understood you to say tlnit, altliough you could nt^it clean your slieep by dipping, still you coidd caire the spots by hand dressing, and the reason was because for hand dressing you made tlie solution stronger tlian for dipping? — Yes. 15853. Consequently, if you had made tlie solution in wliich you dipjiod the sheep of tlie same strength as jou made it when you liaud dressed them, would you not have cured them?— Tliey would all have been dead. If ycni jult iu (he whole body of tlio sheep, it will kill the animal as well as the insect. 15854. You say you think there should be some luleto prevent a man with infected flocks (-omiug into your farm. Do you think it would also be necessary to prevent a man driving scabby sheep across your farm on a public road .-' — No, I would not prevent people trekking on a road. 15855. Do most of the farmers in your neighbourhood dip their sheep? — When they are very bad thej' dip ; it not they hand dress. 15856. When your neighbours dip the sheep, do you think they cure them ? — When the sheep are shorn. 15857. I suppose that scab amongst j'our sheep causes you a great deal of trouble and loss, both in the actual dipping, and the cost of purchasing the dip ? — It was only the case one year. 15858. Then do you mean this Commission to understand that the scab does not cause you loss and trouble? — It does give a little trouble. 15859. And you would be very thankftd, and ready to go to a good deal of trouble and expense if you could got rid of it altogether ? — Certainly, but that you will never do. 15860. Chairman.] I presume you dip about 400 sheep a day iu a hand tank, if so many ? — When I use two tubs I can get through 600 or 700 in a day. 15861. Was the dipping you have referred to carried out in tubs? — Yes. 15862. Hal j'ou then as man}' sheep as you have at present? — Y(!S. 15863. Then, ttikiiig an average of 400 sheep a day, tub dipped, it would take you a period of 55 days out of a period of 6(1 daj's to dip those sheep five times ? — I don't know how long it took me, but I used two tulis. 15864. Then dipping even more than you said yourself, 600 or 700 a day, it would take you a period of 27 days absolute dipping ? — I kept on dip^nng, and I maintain I dipped all my sheeji. When the last was finished I started afresh, but how many we dipped at a time I cannot say. 15865. Would you kindly say what is the rainy season in this division ? — Generally from April to August. 15866. Within that period, do you not constantly get three, four, or five days of rain? —Yes. 15867. Do )ou consider that any practical farmer would attempt to dip sheep in rainy weather? — No, nor would I. 15868. Tlien having (carried out yimr five diji]iingft in thi? rainy sea- on, when ;. ou your- self say you sometimes have three, four, and five days continuous wet weather, and as you don't dip sheep in the rain, will you c-jplain how you possibly dipped 4,500 five times within a period of 60 days ?—l said about 60 days. ( Mr. Matthys Johannes de VilUers examined. 15869. C/im'rman.l You were formerly a member of the House of Assembly for the elet^toral division of Caledon, and subsequently a member of the Legislative Council for this circle .=_^Yes. 15870. How long have you. been farming in this division .'' — At least thirty-five years. I have now 5,000 merinos. 15871. Is scab prevalent here ? — Sometimes. 15872. From 3 our kntiwledge, do all fanners in the division thoroughly and efiiciently di}) their thx-ks ? — Some of them do not, but lately they have improved, and a good many who formerly had no dipping tanks have lately made them. 16873. Do you believe that dijiping is ofiicacious in curing scab imder all circum- stances .'' — That is my experience, if you get a good dip ; but I wish to observe that arsenic will not have the desired effect unless it is properly dissolved, and I think I might give my experience of it. I have used it for the last thirty years, and only once lest a few sheep, when, through the negligen^p of a servant the}" were dipped in wet weather. I have used arsoni(- dips with the wool on and after it has been shorn off. When I use it after shearing ii8() I generally make the solution much stronger, and as the staple of the wool increases, whether I use arsenic, some patent dip, or any other, I have reduced the strengtli of the dip accordingly ; because it must he home in mind that when a sheep has its tieece ou it retains a large portion of the dipping stuff in the wool for a considerably hmger time than il other- wise would. 15874. Consequently, you disagree with the last witness wlien Iv states that it is impossible to cure sheep with long wool 'f — My experience is quite the revei-se, but very much depends upon the way the solution is mixed. Aa'senic must be thoroughly well dissolved. 15875. I presume you dissolve your dip with soda and potash? — Yes, and I also use lime when the wool is off. 15876. Are you in favour of a compulsory simultaneous dipping'? — I am in favour of legislation in that direction. The dipping must be done after shearing, and I think it would answer if everyone were (ompelled to dip after shearing. We shear in October and November, and I think it would be a very good plan 15877. Do you think such an act would 'ut had no scab at all to attend to, would they not be better off, and have more time to d( vjte to their agriculture ? — But we have not so much scab here ; it is only here and there. 15993. Don't you think it is desirable to put the fanners in this district in the same position as those farmers where an act is in force ? — Yes. 15994. In those places, instead of having to spend as much as they formerly did on dress stuff, and having to give up a great deal of their time to hand dressing, they can now devote all their time and monej' to the improvement of their property. Is not that a desirable condition of things ? — I cannot say, because I am not acquainted with those parts. 15995. But if that condition of things could be obtained here, would it not be to the advantage of the district ? — Yes, but it is impossible to get it here. 15996. Do you think a farmer who has clean sheep ought to be protected against a neighbour who is careless and has scabby sheep ? — That is necessary, but we have a pound law which provides for it. 15997. Have you ever known of a case of prosecution under the pound law .^ — Not here, because every one keeps his sheep on his own propertj". The farms are so small that each man keeps his sheep on his own land, and it is only the big farmers who trek to other places. ^ 15998. Is ic a very uncommon thing in this district for sheep to stray and sheep to mix? — Sometimes they do, especially if sheep are bought at a sale ; but we are careful with our shepherds, and the flocks are not more than from 500 to 1000. 15999. WiU these straying sheep occasionally mis with other flocks ? — Yes. 16000. If these straying sheep have scab, and mix with clean flocks, are the}- not liable to infect the clean sheep ? — I don't think it is so contagious as that, because they only remain mixed for a short time. 0000 2 685 16001 . Wo\il(l it not 1)0 a great risk if a few ecabliy sheep got mixed, and you had drive tlie whole Hotk to the krnnl to got thoni out ? — No, hei-aiise I don't believe it is no fontagious. I hnvo two Hocks in adjoining kraiils, and one is scabby and the other is not. KidO'i. J/r. dii Tui/.l Don't you Ijplieve tliat by some workable moans scab ((udd be completely stam})0 settle properly, and I dip the shcejJ in clean water. 16016. Mr. Fru'icix.^ You tiiul that by dipping j-our sheep twice, properly, you can cure them of scab ? — Sometimes I can cure them in one dipping. 16017. Then if a farmer were to tell you that he had dijiped his sheep four times and did not cure them, what would you think ? — I should think that the dipping was not well done. 16018. Chairmrru.] Do you con.sider that any practical farmer in this district, who knew anytliing whatever about the treatment of merino sheep, would dip them in the winter months four or five times within a period of sixty days, or would you consider that such a man was utterly incapable of taking charge of any sheep whatever ? — I can scarcely believe it, because if he ilid it properly twice with lime and sulphur the sheep would be clean. Perhaps the slieep may have been neglected, and in that case they would be mm-e difficult to clean. Mr. Joshua Fick e.xamined. 16019. Cliiiiriiiaii.] Are you a delegate ''—Yes. I have farmed in Caledon for forty- five years. I don't keep on very many .sheep now, but I have 1,000 merinos. io,>on ])„ y,^^^ .^greo witli Mr Human ? — Yes, entirely, except that I use a patent dip 16020 10021. If you regubii-ly dijiped your sheep and kept them dean, and you had a neiglibuur win. iiixcr dipped liis and took no trouble with them, and whose flocks were a cnustant sourcrt of danger to your clean sheep, do you think you .should receive some prO cecticm from t! e law ?• — Yes, but I cannot say in what way. 16022. Le^islati n t» 8« whea it would be difficult to dip them 'i Would they not require special protection ? — Yes, certainly. What would you do if the sheep )iad to he ohanged ? 16077. So tliat very great care will have to be taken in making provision for that, and I think you will admit that people should not be allowed to move about with scabby sheep and endanger other's clean flocks ? — Quite so. 16078. Chairman.'] Tlie same provision which you would apply to slaughter stock could be apjilied to flocks being moved from farm to farm, and they could bi moved after one e6&cient dipping, provided tliey were dipped witliiii fourteen daj's at their destinatiim i* — Yes. 16079. Do you think one efl&eient dipping, properly carried out, wouhl do away with all possible chance of giving the contagion to other flocks .vliile travelling ? — Yes. 16080. Do you think that would meet all the requirements of the district of CaleJon? — I think so. 16081. Would you have such dipping carried out under proper supervision ? — Then he must have a proper certificate from the inspector that it has been properly done. Mr. Henry Metealf examined. 16982. Chairman.] How long have you been farming in this district ? — I have been four years on my own account. Before that, I had the management of .5,000 sheep in the district of Piquetburg for eight years. 16083. How many small stock have you now ? — 1,000 merinos. 16084. Do you agree with Mr. van der Byl ? — Yes, with a few exceptions. One is, he Is not so much against his neighbours as I am. I see a chance of keeping my sheep clean if my neighbours do the same, but if they are scabby I can't keep them clean, and at present I am very much subject to that danger. It is said that the small farmers are the backbone of the colony, but there are sime who have twentj' sheep, and ten always scratching at the same time, and they are always euci'oaching and coming over the line, and how can I keep mine clean if they come over and scratch on my ground ? If there is any scab I don't know how I am to keep out of it. They say you can send these sheep to the pound, but that does no good if I have to dip my sheep afterwards. Perhaps I find out in the morning that ten of these sheep have got mixed with mine the day before, and have been in the iiraal with mine. Of course I could send them to the pound, and get 2$. poundage, but I should have to dip my .sheep again with that. I can't dip many sheep for 2s. 1608.5. So from your experience of four years' farming in this district, it is impossible to carry on farming successfully, and with the return which you have a right to expect for your labour, without the jjrotection of a scab act ? — That is my opinion. In regard to com- pulsory, simultaneous dipping, I think every .sheep farmer who pretends to be one must dip his sheep twice after shearing, whether they are scabby or not, and that is the mistake which is made in this district. Here every farmer who intends to keep liis sheep clean does that. My other neighbour, Mr. Jan le Roux, is a good sheep farmer and he does so ; so do I, and I don't see how this compulsory, simultaneous dipping would do us any harm at all. It would do good, because some ai-e doing it already, and those who don't ought to be made to. 16086. You consider that in the interests of sheep farming in general, even tlie owners of clean stock should be obliged to come under the provisions of such an act ?— Most decidedly. 16087. Otherwise do you agree with Mr. van der Byl '?— Yes. 16088. Are the flocks in the I^quetberg division kept free of scab ? — No, when I was there they were very scabby. I was v, ith Mr. Vei-sfield, but he has no neighbours, and there we could keep the stock clean. 16089. As a rule, do these farmers dip regularly .^ — I think some of them have never heard of dipping. It is not a sheep district. 16090. There is nothing to prevent an act which would be useful in the division of Queen's Town being applied to the district of Picpietborg ? — I tliink it would be to their interest there. 16091. Mr. Francis.] Then you consider that however much opposed a man is to a scab act, still it would prove a benefit to him in the end if it was forced upon liim V— Most decidedly. 16092. And do you believe that if it were once put in force tlie people, finding the benefit derivoil from it, woidd soon change their ground and be in favour of it ? — Yes, I think they are only against it now, because it interferes with their independence, but they woidd get used to it. 16093. Mr. Botha.] Is sheep farming of great consequence to the district of Pifj^uetberg ? — No ; there are a few sheep farms there, but it is not a sheej) district. 16094. What number of sheep do those sheep farmers keep ? — Up to 5,000. but there are verj' few such farmers. They generally keep Cape sheep and goats. 1609.5. Do you call a district where farmers keep as many as 5,000 sheep a district where sheep farming is an enterprise of no conseciuence t — Not as a district. One or two men in the district may have 5,000 sheep, but I should not call it a sheep farming district. The other sheep farmers are not wool farmers ; they keep Cape sheep. 16096. Do you think it is necessary to keep Cape sheep fi'ee of scab '■! — Yes, it would do good. 689 16097. Still, you don't think sheep farming is of any consequenne to the district of Piquetherg ? — You would not call it a wool district. 16098. But if one farmer keeps as many as .5,000, whit number of sheep do you think there are in the district ? — I could not say. 16099. Notwithstanding there are fanners who have as man J' as 5,000 sheep, you say the}' have never even lieard of dipping there ? — I said there are farmers there who never heard of it. 11)100. So dipping is not in practise there? — No. 16101. In what state are the small stock ? — Very scabby. 16102. Chmnnan.'\ Do you wish to add anything ? — The delegates who gave evidence this morning on hehalf of the Afrikander Bond were nominated by the local chairman of the Bond, but the Bond does nut represent the district ; it may represent one-tenth part of it, but I don't see any reason why the chairman of tlie Bond should put in his delegates and we should 1)e kejit out of it. You might have gone away with the ide.'i that the delegates represented the views of the whole district. 16103. Mr. Francis.^ Tlien you consider that those gentlemen represented tlie Afrikander Bond, but not the public opinion in the district ? — No, but I mean to say that the delegates should be appointed at a public meeting. Mr. Carl John Pet/rwt van der Merwe examined. 16104. Chairman.'] Are you farming in Caledon '? — I was formerly farming in Ceres with about 4,000 stock, for about eight years. 16105. Do you agree with the evidence given by Mr. van der Byl ? — Yes. 16106. You are chairman of the Afrikander Bond in this division ? — I am. 16107. I understand that those gentlemen who were appointed at the meeting of the Afrikander Bond received no instructions. They were allowed simply to express their own opinions ? — The.y had no instructions whatever. 16108. Mr. Botha.'] Do you think tliat the farmers in the district of Ceres would be able to keep their flocks clean just as easily as the Caledon farmers with the assistance of a scab act ■? — Yes. 16109. There is no exceptional obstacle which applies more to the district of Ceres than to any other district in the Colony that you kuow of ? — It varies from this district ; the farmers there have to leave tlie Bokveldt to go into the Karoo for three or four montlis, notwithstanding tliat they trek from one farm to another ; but liere they don't trek so far, nor so often, nor so systematically. Tliere tliey have to do it every winter. 161 10. So trekking is going on there on a larger scale than in the district of Caledon ? —Yes. 1611 1. In wliat way would tlie scab act interfere witli sheep farming in the Bokveldt ? — I have not made a study of the present act, but I understand that if an act were put in furce the farmers would be debarred from trekking from their farms to the Karoo unless the stock were clean. 16112. What provision would you suggest, in case they have to trek and their sheep are scabby ? — I don't see how tliey could act otherwise than to have a general dipping act so many times a 3'ear ; in accordance with the nature of the district. They cannot di]) at the same time all through the country. leil.'J. Do you think a general, simultaneous dipping act would be less objectionable tlian a scab act ? — Certainly ; it would do away with iH^venting people from trekking. 16114. But what would you think of a clause in the scab act that incase scabby sheep have to be removed they should be proj.erly dipped, and tlicn permission granted for their removal ? — Supposing scab has broken out in the middle of winter in Ceres, in the cold Bokveldt it is very cold in the winter, and if scab broke out in the beginning or the middle of winter you might injure the sheep if you dipped them. Snow falls there in the winter, and if you dipjjed them then you would kill them. 16115. Chairman.] Is there anything you wish to add .? — No ; a general dipping act is the only thing to meet the wants of the farmers instead of the present scab act. Worcester, Monday, 6th November, 1893. PRESENT : Db. Smartt, Chairman. Mr. Botha. I Mr. Hocklt. ,, Du ToiT. I :, Francis. 3fr. Tf^outer dc Von Meiring examined. 16116. Chairman.] How long have you been farming in this district ? — For the last twelve years. I have 3,000 sheep, principally merinos.' 16117. Is scab prevalent amongst the flocks in this district? — Very. 16118. Do the farmers as a rule use all diligent effort to cope with the spread of the (iiaease ? — Speaking generally, they are most of them very negligent. 690 16119. Are you in favour of scab legislation ? — Not in the way they have it now in the eastern |irovin(^o, but I am in favour of legislation of some sort to protect the careful farmer, and to olilige those who are negligent to dip cheir sheep properly twice a year. 16120. Would you be in favour of compulsory, simultaneous dipping ? — Yes, within, say, six months. 16121. Do the majority of the farmers in this district dip their sheep ? — Most of the wealthy farmers, and tliose who can afford it, do ; but the small farmers don't. 16122. Consequently these men are always a danger to their more c ireful neighbours ? — Yes, you are never safe, because scab may at any time be brought on to your farm by sheep which are being moved. That is why we shall be better off if they are forced to dip their sheep twice a year. 16123. Can you account for the fact that the smaller farmers don't dip ? — It i« because they have uot the proper means, the dips, and appliances. Most of them have no farms, but the}' hire a .strip of g^-ound hers and another there, .and alwaj-s trek about. 1612-1. Sucli being the case, would it lie advisable to compel all owners of landed property on which small stock graze to have properly constructed dipping tanks on those places ? — Farmers might be prohibited letting the ground to any of those trek-boers unless their iheep have been properly dipped, and that would, I think, be about the best way to solve the difficulty. 1612.5. What provision would you make for travelling stock in this district ? — That is just why I say we don't want an act here such as thej- have in the eastern province, because you very often cannot lielj) scab getting amongst your flocks, and in this district you are obliged to trek. 16126. Would you insist upon scabby stock being dipped before they are removed ?— Yes, tliat would be a good thing. • 16127. Would you be in favour of that '? — Yes; but supposing you are in the Karoo, and have to trek to j'our farm how could you dip the sheep before moving them ? If your own Karoo place is bare you have often to hire one, and it would not pay to build dips there. It is a difficult question. 16128. Is it not an injustice to a man whose flocks are clean to hare other peoples' sheep passing over his property affected with scab ? — Yes that is very hard, but very often it cannot be helj^ed. In such cases as I referred to, when your sheep get infected with scab while you are on your Karoo place, how would you be able to dip them in order to get home ? This country is not like the eastern province, because here you have to leave your farm in the winter, whether the sheep are scabby or not, if you don't want to lose them all ; .ind very often after being twice dipped the scab might break out again, and then you would be tied to your farm, and would lose all your sheep through not being able to trek. Scab often breaks out just before the lambing season, and under those circumstances you would also be prevented from trekking. 16129. Would not that difficulty be met by a provision allowing for the removal of stock after one dipping? — I don't think one dipping is sufficient; there must be two dippings. 16130. But if you have move sheep from a farm, and they are scabby, would it not be right to protect others b}' dipping these sheep before starting ? — Supposing your sheep are heavy in lamb, and you have to go to the Karoo place, and scab breaks out shortly before lambing season, it would be a great loss to the owner to dip the ewes. It would do a great deal of hanu. Now we clip them properly, but what I object to is forcing people to dip them under all circumstances. We generally dip them a couple of months after shearing, and then we hand dress them. 16131. Mr. Hockly.'] As a rule, do the sheep farmers in this district have tanks on their places ? — No. 16132. What do those people do who have no tanks } Do they dip at all .^ — If a man has none he tries to use his neighbour's. 16133. They don't dip in tubs or boxes ■' — No, in cement tanks ; but if a man has not a proper dip, he dips in a tub, a barrel or something. 16134. What is the dip generallj' used in this district ? — As far as I have seen, it is one of the patent dips. 1613.5 As a rule, do the farmers recognise that the dipping does good ? — Of course, they can see it ; because we have farmers here who never have scab among their sheep, but dip properly or if scab does break out it is a very rare occurrence. 16136. Do they follow the instructions, and mix the stuff' at the right strength } — Yes, according to instructions. We even make it a little stronger than the instructions. 16137. But generally how is it done ? — -That I don't know ; I have not had an oppor- tunity of j udging. 16138. Generally, do you know what time the farmers keep the sheep in the dip ? — We throw theni in, and they have to swim tea or twelve yards, and then they get out. We push their heads under the water. 16139. When dipping in that way, have you ever counted to see about how long tho sheep remained in the water ? — I cannot say I have. 16140. Would jou be surprised to find, if you did, that the majority of them were not a quarter of a minute in the water ? — I don't think they can be so short a time as that, I should be surprised if they were. 16141. Do not aU the instructions on the subject which you have seen sav that the [G. 1— '94.] PPPP 691 sheep must he kept in from one to two minutes ? — I cannot say that the instructions mention that. 16142. From what you have hcen able to observe, do you think the farmers in this district aro in favour of some protection ? — Tliey are. 16143. With reference to these'placps to which you have to trek, supposing scab were to break out there, have you* any facilities on the spot for dipping ? —There we generally mix it in a tub, and hand dress. 16144. But supposing that there were an act, it would not be a very difficult matter to bui'd tanks in that locality too ? — But even there we often have no water. It is perhaps about two hours from the place where your sheep are in the mountains, and you cannot get the water there. 1614.5. Could it not be arranged that you could take the sheep to places where there were the necessary facilities for dipping ? — Yes, 3'ou could always have the water there. 16146. Taking the country' through, could it not be so arranged that there .should be dipping places at convenient, selected spots for that purpose? — That might be done, but it would be hard, because you have a Karoo place in the mountains. 16147. But you recognise that if there is any act at all, the clean sheep ought to be pro- tected as far as possible from reinfection ? — Tes. 16148. Then supposing these sheep are allowed to trek without any hindrance from the Karoo farm to the homestead, and travel over the farms of men whose sheep are clean, don't you think it would be a great injustice to them ? — Of course. 16149. Do you think that every effort ought to. be made to prevent sheep travelling when they are scabby ? — Yes, but that is just the difficulty we have. 161.50. I moan every reasonable effort ? — That is just the difficulty the farmers liave ab'jut trekking with scabby sheep. It is only by trekking that many farmers' sheep pick up the scab along the road. 16151. Do }-ou think the poorer farmers in this district would be very much benefited by an act which would compel them to keep their sheep clean ? — Yes, compel them to dip the sheep twice. 161.52. Do you think scab is to a very great extent the cause of the poverty of these people, because their sheep don't increase as they ought to, and they make no headway at all ?— That I cannot exactly say. 16153. Do they lose heavily ?— They do lose, but I cannot exactly say it is the cause of the poverty amongst the poor sheep farmers. 16154. Still, you are satisfied that it they dipped their sheep and keep them clean and in healthy condition their flocks would increase, and they would be better off then tliey are at present ? — Yes. The cause of an enormous number of poor farmers here is the class of men who have a couple of humlred sheep and go trekking about with them, here and there, but won't work for anj'one else. They are quite satisfied to go trekking about with two hundred sheep. 16155. When you say people should dip twice a year, do you mean twice within a few ^ays ? — Yes, otherwise it does not help. I think they must have at least a fortnight's interval. 16156. After you have dipped your sheep twice, how long as a rule have they remained clean ?■ — We generally clip once a year, and they usually keep clean until close to the shear- ing season. 16157. How do you account for their getting scab just about then? — I have not con- sidered the subject. 16158. I suppose your farms are ojien, and subject to having stock mixed at times ? — No, but thousands of sheep go over my farm every year when the trekking goes on. 16159. If there are any scabby sheep, I suppose you often find one left behind? — Yes, but you find scabby sheep on almost every farm down there. 16160. But when sheep are trekking, is it not invariably the poor ones which ar.e left behind ? — Yes, often. 16161. And you find them amongst your sheep ? — They come amongst them, and stray off again. 161 62. Do you not think that it is quite enough to account for your sheep breaking out after keeping clean for a time .' — Of course. 16163. Do you think, if these scabby sheep did not trek over your farm, and there was no danger of infection from your neighbour's sheep, that when you had once got yours clean you would have no difficult}' in keeping ^hem so ? — Yes. There is a model farmer in this district. Mr. Dirk de Vos, who has 5,000 sheep, and he never has scab amongst them, unless they get it while trekking. 16164. Do you believe that .scab is caused by an insect? — Yes. 16165. And that it can only be conveyed to a sheep by contagion, and cannot come from spontaneous generation ? — No ; it is only an insect. 16166. Mr. du Toil.'] Have you always succeeded in curing your sheep, when scabby, by two proper dippings .'' — I think that is sufficient after shearing, and you cure them. 16167. Even when they were in poor condition ? — That I cannot say, because oursheep have never been in such poor condition ; but, as I mentioned, Mr, Dirk de Vos has never dipped more than twice, and his sheep are always clean. 16168. Do you think that poverty has anything to do with scab? — No, I don't think so. 692 because a sheep can be poor and still clean. If a sheej} is properly dipjied yon will find no insect on him. 16169. You think the only objection the fanners here would have to an act is that they are always obliged to trek ? — Yes, they are obliged to trek about, and so even if your flocks are clean the others infect tliem. That is why I say that a general act sliould be passed to force them to dip, and that would be sufficient for our district. 16170. Do you think it would tend to the eradication of scab, or keep it down, if Government supplied the farmei-s with dip at cost price, free of railway carriage? — I think it would do a great deal towards it, because then every poor man woidd be able to dip his sheep, and at the present moment it is very expensive. 16171. Do the farmers here use lime and sulphur also? — No, very little. 16172. Have 3'ou ever used it .' — No. 16173. Does not Mr. de Vos use it ? — No, he uses a patent dip. 16174. As a rule, you don't dip youi' ewes when they are heavy in lamb ? — Never. 16175. Would you do that in case of an outbreak of scab? — I should hand dress them. 16176. Mr. Bot}m.~\ Do you know that lime and sulphur is a very inexpensive dip ? — I believe it is. 16177. Don't you think it is necessary to have dipping appliances on every farm where sheep are run ? — Yes, but many people are so poor that thej- can hardly pay the interest on their farms, and even dipping appliances cost a lot of money. That is why most of them use tubs. 16178. Then you consider that the outlay for dipping appliances, and the cost of dipping the stock, is a tax upon the farmer, and is not a good outlay with a prospect of a good return .' — It gives a good return, hut many a farmer cannot even pay his interest, so Sow can they get a start to reap the benefit afterwards ? They cannot get so far. 16179. Then you don't agree that it would be in the interest of the poor man, who is heavily handicapped by having to pay interest on heavy mortgages, and that it would improve his circumstances if he procured proper dipping appliances and kept his sheep clean from scab ? — I have said it would be, but how many of them are there who can make the outlay ? If a man can hardly pay his annual interest he will not be able to dip his sheep. How can he procure the appliances .-' 16180. You said that landowners should not be allowed to let their lands to these trekkers with scabby sheep. Don't you think that would be very arbitrary, to teU the owner of land to whom he may let his ground, and to whom he may not ? — I said he must ncjt be allowed to let his land to trek farmers unless theii- sheep are properly dipped, and the scab is out of them, because otherwise I may let him a j^i^ce of land that I don't use myself at present, and he will go there with scab, 16181. Do you think the owner of land will always be in a position, when a man comes to ask him to let land, to know whether that man's sheep are clean or not ? — If he has dipped them properly they will be clean. 16182. But how wUl the owner of the land know that? — If there is no scab amongst sheep you can easily see it. 16183. But he does not bring his sheep with him ; he comes on horseback, on foot, or in a cart, and asks for land, and tells the best story he can ? — Then he should simply get a note from the field-comet where he lives, and the field-cornet can state that the sheep have been properly dipped, and then you will know it. 16184. Then you admit tha' the owner of land is not in a position to know whose sheep in the district are scabby or not ''. -No, he will not ; that is why I say that the best way would be for the field-comet to yive proper notice. 1618.5. Mr. Francis.^] Did I understand you to say that there is one farmer in the district who keeps his sheep clean, and they never have scab again unless they are reinfected ? — Yes. 16186. If one man can do that, cannot aU do it ? — Yes, but that man is out of the way ; he is an energetic man, and does his best to keep his sheep clean. Now and then when they come from the Karoo tliej' will pick it up on the road. 16187. But when they become reinfected he cures them again, and they remain clean ? — After shearing he dips them again, and they remain clean, but he is not in the track of the main road ; he is in an out of the way place, and no strange sheep go on his farm. 16188. Still you are of opinion that M other people took the same pains, they would be able to keep their flocks as clean ? — Yes. 16189. And considering the great loss which the country and sheep farmers sustain from the scab being amongst their flocks, do you not think it would be good for the people generall}' if they were compelled for their own good to eradicate scab within a few years ? — Yes, of course. 16190. Chairman^ Do all the farmers here thoroughly understand the principles of dipping ?— I don't believe they do. 16191. Such being the case, would it be advisable to have their flocks dipped under the inspection of a man chosen from among themselves ? — I think that would be the proper way to do it, because otherwise the sheep might not be dipped properlj- ; a man might take twice the quantity of water, or run the sheep through too quickly, and then they woixld remain the same. 16192. Unless the flocks in this district are dipped under inspection, you arc convinced rrpr 2 693 ttat there is a class of farmers here who will never clean their sheep ? — Yes, there is many n man who does not care. But if I had l»een dipping my sheep properly under an act, and my neighbour did not, I «liouW soon report him. 10J!).'5. Whom do you consider woiild l>e tho most fitted to he supervisors of dipping? — I would sooner hive a man wlio had experience of it — a practical farmer. In our district I should propose Mr. Dirk de Vos, Tmcause ho is the only man who keeps his sheep clnan. 16194. In what hands would you place the appointing of this man ? — I think the majority of the farmers in each field-cornetcy. Mr. J'ieter IVoiUer Clock examined. 16196. Chuirman.'] How long have you heen farming in this district ?— For .seven years. I have now aliout 3, .500 sheep, principally merinos, and a few Oapp sheop. 1619t> Are you in favour of affording protection to tho careful sheep farmers in Worcester, to prevent their Hocks being contaminated by those of careless neighbours ? — Yes. 16197. Do you ag^ee with the evidence given by Mr. Meiriag ? — Yes, more or less. In the branch of the Afrikander Bond in my field-cornetcy, of which T am a member, we dis- cussed the scab act at the time wlien it was before Parliament, and it was then the opinion of the members that a compulsory, simultaneous dipping would answer tho requirements of this division ; and it was also the opinion of the meeting that uo one should bo appointed an inspector who was not a sheep fanner 16198. Mr. Sockly.\. In what [lart of the district do you farm ? — In Achter Hex river, one and a half hours fi-om Triangle station. ' 16199. Are they mostly sheep farmers in that neighbourhood ? — Yes, 1 6200. Have they tanks as a rule ?^Not all ; there are five or six who have cement tanks, but tiie others dip in tubs. 16201. Have you noticed any difference between the general condition of the sheep belonging to the large and small farmers ? — Yes, there is a difference in favour of the large sheep farmers, and it means that the smaller ones are more negligent. 16202. Do you think it would be a good thing for these poorer men if some plan could be devised to clean their sheep ? — Yes, naturally. 16203. Then you don't agree with those people who say that the scab act would be too oppressive upon the poor man ? — No, because I think in the majority of cases the poor man is a source of trouble to the more careful farmer. Several farmers in Worcester have had their flocks clean for four or five years in succession, but my own flocks were not so clean because parts of my farm are crossed by roads which are used by pedlars and traders, where their sheep are sometimes driven with .scab. 16204. In trekking from the north, do these traders as a rule take about the same road ? — Yes. 1 6205 There are recognised trek paths .'' — Yes. 16206. Would it not be a good plan if some public dipping tanks could be erected in these trek paths to afford facilities for dipping in case of scab breaking out among these travelling sheop V — Yes, I think it wonld be a good thing. Some of my neighbours have already discussed the matter, and I think there ought to be tanks on all Government land which is let for grazing purp4 time : in case the eggs hatched out, the effect of the dip on the sheep would kill them ; and if the rain has not washed the dip out of the points of the wool, I believe it is possible for a slipt 11 not to be thoroughly cured by one dipping, and still not to be a danger to other sheep when trekking. I make my tobacco dip so strong that if a sheep is at all weak he dies in it, liecause I would sooner that a few died and be certain that the others are cured. My tauk is much longer than ordinary tanks in tliis district, and I always liave a man stationed at the head of the dip tank whose duty it is to call out " scab " if he sees any sheep plunged into the dip with a spot of scab on its body, and when this sheep arrives at the end of the tank it is turned back and has lo swim to the other end, when ho is again turned ami has to swim out. If my sheep have visible scabby places on them I make a strong extract of tobacco and have it rubbed into the places before tliey are put into the tank. 16216. C/i»ir)iian. | Is there anytliing else you wish to say? — The farmers in my ward luid no regular meeting to discuss the matter, but they requested me to represent them. My farms are on the boundary, one being in Worcester and one in Eobertson, and my evidence applies equally to each division. Mr. John George Meiring examined. 16217. Chairman.] How long have you farmed in Worcester? — About eight years. I have about 2, -500 small stock, mostly merinos, and about 500 or 600 Cape sheep. 16218. Di) you agree with the first witness y — Yes, I think he said enough on the subject, and I think it would be a good thing if Government would provide us with dipping t-tufi at cost price, carriage fi-ee on the railway. Ruhertson, Wtdnesiay, Ht/i November, 1893. PRBSINT : D». Smartt, Chairman. Mu. BOTKA. ,, DU ToiT. Mk. Hocxlt. ,, Francis. Mr. Johannes Friederik Wcsiels examined. 16219. Chairman.'] Are you a delegate ? — Tliere have been no delegates appointed in this district ; but I hare come up because the meeting of the Commission has been announced to us. 16220. How long have you been farming in this division, and with how many small stock ? — For forty years. I have 2,000 Cape goats and sheep, mo.stly goats. 16221. Are your flocks absolutely free of scab at the present moment ? — Yes. 16222. To the best of your knowledge, are all the flock.s in the division clean ? — I think so. All mj' iieighbour.s are careful. 16223. Do you dip regularly? — I dip whenever it is necessary. 16224. When did you dip last ? — In September. I used a barrel. 16225. When was scab last among your flocks ? — It was not very bad last yenr. A few of the ewes and lambs had it. 16226. Do yoii know of any cases in this district where farmers are noted for alwavs liHviiig scab among their flocks, and other farmers are almost always noted for having their llocks clean ?— Yes, I know of such cases. 16227. In such cases, would it be necessary to have legislation to deal with those people who don't keep their flocks clean ? — If I were con^^nced that there were cases wliich rendered legislation in that direction necessary, I should not be afraid to say .so, but I don't feel able to say that it is the case. 1 6228. Do you mean b,y that answer that even if there were cases here of men who were entirely careless as regards the condition of scab amongst their flocks, and who were conse- quently not only a danger to themselves but also to their neighbours, that you would not recommend some legislative measure to meet such cases ? — If I saw such negligence I should consider legislation necessary. 16229. Cousequentlj-, having stated that such cases exist in the division of Robertson, from your own evidence legislation is necessary for this division? — You nmst Iiave mis- understood me ; I don't know of such negligence in my neighbourhood, therefore I cannot say that legislation on that point is necessary. 16230. Then you wish to alter your statement, iu whidi you say that careless farmers exist in this district ? — Yes, I wish to alter it, and to say that I don't know of anv such persons. A farmer's own interest is the cause of that good state of affairs. 16231. Mr. JTockh/.] Do you remember when you dipped before la.st Sei)tember ? I think in April of tJie same year. 16232. Is it then your custom to dip every six months? — I dip whenever it is necessary. 10233. Do you believe tliat scab is caused by an in.secf ? — No, I tliink it is caused by droUKlit aud bad pasturage, and then nothing helps. 16234. Do you think it is contagious ? — Yes, 695 162.35. Have you ever known of anj' case where farmers have had their flocks infected by another man's ? — I don't know.'' 16236. In all your forty years' experience, have you never heard of any farmer who ha.s had his flocks infected by coming into contact with diseased stock ? — No. 16237. How have you come to the conclusion that it is infectious if in forty years' ex- perience you have never hoard of such a case? — I don't remember a single instance. 16238. Now do you tell this Commission, upon your honour, that during the forty years you have farmed in this division you have never seen a scabby sheep or goat (ju your veldt that did not belong to you, but which mi.xed with your slioep ? — Yes, it has happened. 16239. You stated that the disease is contagious. So I suppose in that instance your stock suffered ? — I don't know. 16240. You don't say that they did not ?— No. 16241. Have you ever charged any of your neighbours with having caused your goats to get scab ? — No, because we keep them separate. 16242. Mr. Francis.^ Wlien you say that you dip your sheep whenever it is necessary, I presume you mean that you dip them as soon as they get scab ? — Yes, when they begin scratching. 16243. Then when you dipped your goats in September, I presume they were scabby ? — No, they were not scabby. 16244. Then did you simply dip them for the pleasure of it? — No, but as a preventive. 16245. Then your first answer to my question, that you dipped the goats when tney got scabby, and that that was when you considered it necessary, was not correct, because you say now you dip them before they get scabliy } — No, I dip as a preventive. 16246. Do all the other farmers in the district also dip as a preventive ? — I tliink so ; it is natural. Mr. Michiel Josias de Kock examined. *16247. Chairman.} How long have you been farming in the division of Robertson? — About fifteen years. I liave about 5,000 small stock, mostly merinos. 16248. Is scab prevalent in this division ?— Yes, to the best of my knowledge it is very prevalent. 16249. Do the fanners hero as a rule dip regularly and systematic^ally ? — No. 16250. Do cases constantly occur in this division where clean flocks of careful farmers are infected bv the flocks of careless neighbours ? — Yes. 16251. In such cases, is it not right that the careful farmer should be protected ? — Yes. 16252. Would yen be in favour of leg-islatiou compelling all flocks in tliis district to be dipped, and prohibiting the owner of .scabby flocks bringing them over the ground of an owner of clean flocks against that man's wisli ? — Yes. 16253. Are j'ou in favour of compulsory, siumltaneous dipping for a year or two, in conjimction with the legislation to which you refer ? — Yes. 16254. It would cause no loss or inconvenience to the farmers in this division ? — No. 16255. Do you dip 3'our flocks regularl}' ? — Yes. 16256. But under the circumstances existing in the district of Robertson, j'OU find it impossible as a careful farmer to derive thnt benefit from your sheep farming which you would do if you were protected from infectioii by tlie law ? — Oertai:d)'. 162.37. Mr Ifockfi/.} Have you ever di[p I'd your sheep in a tiiuo of drought '? — Yes. 16258. What was tbe effect ?— Good. 1 6259. Wliat dip did you use ? — Tobacco. 16260. Do you know what directions you followed ? — About 25 lbs. of good tobacco to 1 00 gallons of water. 16261 . Have you not heard some farmers complain that they dip their sheep and it has no effect at all ? — Yes. 16262. How do you account for the fact that yours have benefitted and the others have not ? — They don't prepare the dij) ])roperly ; they make it too weak. 16263. In your travels, have you often been at places where they wore dipping the sheep y — Yes. 16264. Do you think as a rule it was done properly? — I cannot say it was as a rule. 16265. You have seen cases where it lias been done very imperfectly? — Yes. 16266. Do you think the sheep were kept in a full minute? — No, I think they jmssed tlirough too quickly. 16267. Don't you think that is also the reason why the dipping is not efficacious? — That is possible. 16268. Mr. du Toil,'] Are you acqainted with the working of the present act ? — No. 16269. You have not heard of any grievances in connection with its administration ? — I have read about them. 16270. Would you be in favour of having that act in operation hero ? — From what I Lave read, I would not .say I should like to liave it here. 16271. Mr. liotha.'l In casu there is an act, would you wish provision to be made 696 allowing sheep which had to be moved to be moved even if they had scab ? — I think pro- vision should be made that even scabby sheep miglit be moved, if necessary. 16272. What provision would you make in such a case? How should it be done ? — Before they are allowed to be moved I would have them dipped, and if they had been pro- perly dipped I would allow them to be moved shortly afterwards. 16273. Do you think it is the general opinion among the farmers that something ought to be done to eradicate or check tlie scab ?-r-Yes. 16274. Is is not the fact that many of those who are opposed to legislation are so because they don't understand the proper method of dipping, and how easily scab can be cured 'i — I think so. 16275. Are there many dipping tanks in Eobertson, or in your neighbourhood ? — My neighbours have all dipping tanks. 16276. Do you think it would be an advantage, and encourage the dipping of sheep if Government were to obtain dip at cost price and deliver it carriage free at railway stations? —Yes. 16277. You find no difficulty whatever in cleaning your sheep with two proper dip- pings .? — I did not clean them quite when they were dipped in November, but in May they were cleaned after being dipped twice. 16278. But still, by proper dipping you could clean your sheep ? — Certainly. 16279. Then if you can do it, is there any reason why the rest of the farmers cannot do it ? — There may be a reason ; they may not be in such favourable circumstances as myself. 16280. Still, do you think it would be to th» advantage of that man if he were made to do it } — Yes, if the stock were scabby. 16281. Chairman?^ When you state that you would allow scabby sheep to be moved in times of necessity after one dipping, would you insist upon it that when these sheep arrived at their destination any of them alive at the expiration of fourteen days from the first dip- ping should be -dipped again ? — Yes. 16282. Otherwise, might not the removal of sueli sheep be the means of infecting the flocks of another farmer, and do him a great injustice ? — Yes. 16283. Mr. du Toit.~\ How many kinds of scab are you aware of? — Only one, and all scab is due to the one cause. 16284. As a rule, goats are not so liable to become scabby as sheep ? — I cannot say, but my goats never have a chance of becoming infected, because my place is separated fi-om others, so that the flocks cannot mix. 16285. Have you never dipped your goats as a preventive ? — Yes. 16286. Have you any idea how long it is possible for a krail to remain infectious in which there have been scabby sheep ? — As far as scab in sheep is concerned, I think three months. I cannot say about goats. 16287. Where do you Live ? — On the line dividing Robertson from Worcester. 16288. Are there many sheep in that neighbourhood ? — No. 16289. Are the farms large there ?— Yes. 16290. Would the same circumstances which apply to you apply to nil the district? — I think so. 16291. Chair mam,. ~\ Is there anything you wish to add? — In 1886 we cleaned the sheep, and with an average of 5,000 we kept them dean until June, 1892, when they became in- fected ; but during the time they were kept clean we dipped as a preventive, because our Karoo farms are about a hundred miles distant, ami we dipped the slieep before sending them away to those farms. After they became reinfected we dipped them again ; they are not clean yet, but I believe they will be cleaned when we carry out the dipping properly. Mr. Pieter Willem Marais examined. 16292. Chairman.'] How long have you farmed in Eobertson? — For twent3'-one years I have now 700 Persian sheep and Cape goats, mostly goats. 16293. Have you heard the evidence of Mr. de Kock ? — Yes. 16294. Do you agree with him ? — More or less. 16295. Where do you disagree ? — He said that if he could clean his sheep others could do so too ; but if he kept his sheep clean from •1886 to 1892, and then they became rein- fected, I don't believe that even with an act we could thoroughly eradicate the disease. I don't think scab can be entirely eradicated, on account of the droughts, because at such times, and with bad herds, it is bound to break out. At the same time it is also con- tagious, and if scabby sheep mix with clean sheep they will infect them. 16296. 3Ir du Toit.~\ Do you dip your goats regularly ? — Yes. 162S7. And the .sheep ? — No, they have never had scab. 16298. You are always able to cure your goats from scab whenever you dip them ' —Yes. 16299. Do you dip once, or more ? — No, twice or three times. That is when the veldt is good, but when the veldt is bad it onlj' helps a little ; you cannot get them quite clean, and you must keep on dipping until the veldt imjuoves. They don't recover so sooij because there are hard places. 16300. Then were you able to put them into a clean ki-aal after dipping? — Yes, 16301. Do they run on the same veldt ? — Yes. 16302. You are in favour of a general dipping act .'' — Yes. 697 16303. Mr. Bntha.'\ Tou would protect the careful furmer against the careless farmer in some manner, hut how ? — There should he a law to provide for the case of scahby stock trespassing on people's veldt, hut I am not in a position to state how the law should he, only that if there is a law there ought also to he irrigation. Mr. Jacohis Daniel Stemmttt examined. 16304. Chairman.'] How long haTe you been farming in Robertson? — For forty-five years. 1 live on the otli^r side ot' Montagu, and have 900 Cape goats. 16305. Are you opposed to scab legislation of any .sort? — I think the pound law is sufficient, and in my neighhourliood, as far as I know, everybody does his best. 16306. 3Ir. Botha.] When there are only stock farms, is tho stock always hether there was any scab on them or not .■' — Yes, the whole flock. 16347. Mr. du Toil.'] Do you make a stronger solution to dip the scabby goats than the others ? — Yes. 16348. In doing so, was the solution you made for the scabby goats of the strength laid down in the rules, and was it of less than that streneth for the goats which were not scabby ? — For those affected ^ ith scab T think the solution was made above the proper strength, and for those not affected it was made at the proper strength. 16349. Do you know whether he built ii-^w kraals for the g"ats after they had been dipped .'' — On two occasions he moved them from their usual place.i, and put them on others. 16350. Did you always continue them on the same veldt ? — Yes. 16351. If you were able to put them on clean veldt, and in thoroughly clean krnals, don't vou think they would have been successfully cured ? — Yes, if the veldt w.ts in poor condition, but if not I don't think it would help. 16352. Have you heard of other cases where thev were not able to cure goats with [G. 1— '94.] ■ QQQQ 699 Bcab ? — Yes, a man named Ooetzee was continually dipping, and could not clean hie goats of scab ; but I don't know how he prepared or applied it. 16353. How did your brother dip some in stronger and some in a weaker solution in the same tank .' — After he had dipped the whole flock, he caught out those which were affected with scab and dipped theui in a stronger solution. 16354. Chairman.^ Would you like to add anything? — I can see a chance of keeping my merino sheep clean if I had sour veldt. On the farm of Mr. de Kock, who gave efidence, very good tobacco is grown, and they make the dip veiy strong and apply it p roperly. Jfr. Jbhannei Stephantis Cilliert examined. 16355. Chairman.'] How long have you been farming in the Eobertson division ? — For thirty-four years. I have now abi.ut 900 small stock, mostly Cape goats, and a few angoras. 16356. Do you agree with the last witness -* — I agree mostly with Mr. de Kock. 16357. Do you think it is possible to thoroughly and efficiently dip jjoats seven times, three dippings taking place within the recognized period of ten daj's each, and not to clean them ? — Yes, certaiuly ; because if you wish to cure thsm it is necessary to have good veldt for them as well. 16358. How long has the veldt in this district been good enough to cure goats of scab after they have been dipped ? — Since May ; but not where the last witness was. 16359. For the last two months, as far as you are aware, has there been a drought in any portion of this district? — Yes, but not where I live. 16360. Do j'ou consider it still dry in Montagu ? — It is better, but it is not good yet. You can't cure goats from scab in times of drought. 16361. Mr. du Toit.l Do you know that bj' experience ? — On reconsideration I would say that scab can be cured in times of drought, but the goats will not recover in condition until they get good veldt. 16362. Then how is it possible to have dipped those goats seven times without curing them ? — The scab must be cured, but the gofvts would remain in poor condition. I should think they must be cleaned, but as I have never dipped any myself I have no experience of it. 16363. Chairman.'] Is there anything you wish to add? — Even if there should be a law, I don't see why a man whose stock is clean should be obliged to dip them. Mr. Arnoldui Johannet Schoonwinkel examined. 16364. Chairman.'] How long have you been farming in Robertson? — For forty-five years. I have now about 500 Cape sheep and goats. 16365. "With which of the witnesses do you mainly agree? — With Mr. Weesels. 16366. Then during your forty-five years' experience, you know of no cases where any flocks in this division have been infec'ted by getting mixed with scabby sheep ? — Oh yes, I do. I know that my own sheep have been infected in my own kraal. 16367. In such cases, don't you consider it advisable to protect farmers from infection .-' — No, I don't think so, because in my neighbourhood they do their utmost to eradicate scab. I have dipped eight or nine times without curing my stock. Mr. Paul Viljeon examined. 16368. Chairman. \ How long have you farmed here ? — About thirty-five years. I have now about 800 or 900 sheep and goats. 16369. With whom do you agree ? — Mr. Marais. 16370. Is there anything else 3-ou would like to state? — No. I cannot say I am very strongly in favour of an act, but without legislation I don't know what can be done. If my stock were ilean, I should certainly demand protection against their reinfection by scabby stock ; otherwise one man could be a source of danger to all his neighbours, because I am convinced that scab is exceedingly contagious. Cape Town. Idth November, 1893. PRESENT : Dr. Smartt (Chairman), Mr. Botha, | Mr. Hockly, „ DU ToiT, I „ Francis. Mr. Ludwig Wiener, M.L.A., examined. 16371. ChuirmaH.I You are a member of the House of Assembly for the electoral divi- sion of Cape Town, and have been Cape commissioner to the World's Fair at Chicago ? Yee. 700 16372. You have been appointed to give evidence before the ConunisBion by the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce ? — Yes. 16373. During your recent visit to the Chicago exhibition you have had an opportunity of Rtudyiug the wool trade, especially with regard to the Cape Colony, the Australian colonies, and the Argentine Republic .' — Ye8. 16374. Will YOU kindly state what opinion you have formed of the wools produced bj' the different countries referred to ? — Of cjurse the Australian wools which were sent to Chicago are very choice and of excellent quality, and taking them all round they are supe- rior to our own. Coming to the Argentine wools, although the}' show wools in many respects perhaps equal to our own, still I don't thiuk the get up is as nice as ours, and I consider the Cape ranks almost immediately after Australia. 16375. Judging fi-om that, do you think that if scab could be eradicated from the flocks o" the Colony we should be placed in a voiy favourable position to compete with other wools, and perhaps take away a good dnul of the wool trade which now goes to the Argen- tine?— I would not exactly say that V'ec- luse the Argentine wools have been gradually and steadily improving in quality fur many jears, and are extensively used ou the continent, and they have an excellent sheep country ; so that if the farmers there were to bestow as much care and attention on the growing of their wool and the bree^iing of their sheep as is done in Australia, I think the Argentine Republic would produce even as good wool as we can, or Australia. 16376. Then, I take it your experience is that the Argentine Republic is making such rapid strides in the development of their wool industry that it behoves the farmers in this Colony, if they wish to maintain their wool trade, to do all they possibly can, not alone to improve the staple of their wool but also to eradicate scab from their flocks ? — Certainly, because the Argentine Republic is a very powerful competitor in the world's wool market ; it is reall}% I am convinced, our strongest competitor, and every farmer who has the welfare of this countrj' at heart, and I may say who studies his own interest as well, .should endeavour to produce as sound a staple and as clean a wool as possible. Judging from the beautiful samples of fleeces with which the farmers of this country sujiplied me, and which I exhibited at '"Chicago, nearly 500 in number, I don't see for one single momeut whj', if we can supply 500 such fleeces, the bulk of our wool should not be equal to them in quality. 16377. But it is absolutely necessary to have these flocks free of scab ? — Decidedly. I have lately come into contact with many people interested in the wool trade, in Germany and other places, and not long ago I went through the wool-k nomerei at Hamburg and also at Leipzig, large establishments, nearly the largest iu ttie world, where our wool is used to a moderate extent, and where it is combed into trade tops. Whenever you get what I may call tender wool, it always jiroduces in combing a great deal less tops and a great deal more noils, because all the short wool becomes noils, and the difference in value between one and the other is very great. Suppose the tops are worth perhaps 38. 9d. per kilo, noils could only fetch 2s. 6d. ; I mention this fact to show how desirable it is to have a strong and long staple, because when the bulk of the wool is combed, a strong staple pro- duces very little noils, and the purchaser who buys the wool can pay much more for it than he can for a tender wool which produces a large quantity of noils. 16378. Is there a possibility of a large trade of wool developing between the Cape and America? — If the tariff is really dealt with, as we hopj it will be, now that the silver ques- tion is out of the road, and if wool is made free. I had it from some of the best authorities during my sojourn in America that both political parties, if they dont agree upon anj'thing else ae agreed upon that great point, that wool should be made free, and that would cer- tainly give a great impetus to the wool trade in America, the raw product, because the consumption would increase very largely. America, instead of supph-ing their own manu- factures as they do now, simply for their own consumption, will be able to manufacture for the world's market as well ; and with the improved machinery and arrangements which exist in America thej' will become very laryp competitors, and no doubt the Cape as well as other wool producing countries will greatly l> nefit by hnving wool made free in America. 16379. We have it on evidence that owing principally to the high tiriff on wools enter- ing the United States at the present time, scabby wools are almost debarred from the Ameri- can market. Is that your experience? — It is in this way. The duty is of course based upon grease-wool of a certain class, and you pay the same duty whether the wool is of good or bad quality. Hence everybody who ships wool to America for consumption within the United States generallj' selects it as light and clean as possible ; on the other hand a good deal of wool not as good in quality, and perhaps heavier, producing less clean wool when washed, is shipped to America, not for consumptiim there, but simply to be passed through in bond for Canada, where there is no duty on wool, the United States allowing it to pass through without any charge whatever, simply in transit. The wool which is consumed in the United States has to pay perhaps 100 per cent, duty on the fir.-it cost here, so that it is natural for them to wish to buy a wool as clean and light in grease, and as free from dirt and sound in staple as possible. They di-a w their supplies of certain qualities which the country does not produce but which are needed to manufacture certain class of goods from Australia and to a moderate extent also from South Australia and the Cape. 16380. I believe you have for a series of years bought produce largely ? — Yes. 16381. Would you kindly state from which districts you have brought wool and skins ? — We have purchased from the whole of the western province, including Carnarvon and Victoria West, Prieska and Hope Town, 701 16382. Would you tell us what has been the condition of the wool and skins cjming from these districts, and if there has been any improvements in them as regards scab during the last five j-ears ? — It varies. When a .season is very good, and the sheep are very fat, scab is less ; and when there is dry weather and poverty, scab is more. We know, that when the slieep are in poor condition they are much more susceptible to catch scab than when they are in good condition, and that when they are fat they get rid of the disease much more easily. I6'<83. But I take it from j'our evidence that the bulk of the produce from those districts is always more or less scabby ? — Yes, some years more, and some less. There is a considerable amount of scab in most wools, and in a great many skins. 16384. So that tlie produce buyers in those districts are enormously handicapped by scab amongst their flocks .''—Decidedly. 16385. Would you say, roughly, what you consider to be the difference in value between clips or skins otherwise alike except for the presence of scab in one and not in another? — All things being equal in other respects, you may take scabby skins and wool all round at from a halfpenny to a penny a pound lower. It depends entirely >ipon the quantity of scab. 16386. In the case of Uape goat skins, would the difference be even greater ? — Very much greater, for if the animiil is seabliy, the skin passing into the tanners hands, all the scabby parts show large holes when the skin is put into lime which depreciates its value very materially, and iho same remarks apply to sheep skins. I may state that the price of sheep skins is si^metimes in excess of the wool, because there is occasionally a great demand at home for the pelt, and they are able t > give more per pound weight for the pelt than thej' can for ihc wool on it ; hence you get more right through, for pelt and wool, than you do for the wool by itself, but if you have a scabby skin, its value is depreciated so considerably on account of the holes which appear on it during the tanning process, as I have already mentioned. 16387. Do you purchase a large number of boer goat skins from these districts ? — Yes. 16388. Such being your opinion, do you think these districts in particular would benefit enormouslj- by a scab act ? — I think so ; I think these districts would benefit very greatly. I have advocated a scab act for years mj'self, and have broached it to the farmers, and tried to convert them ; and my experience in traveUing about the country has been that the farmer who tak' s a pride in his work, who looks after his animals and likes to make the most of his produce, generally takes care of his sheep, and is in favour of a scab act, but the indolent and careless mun is strongly opposed to a scab act. 16389. Mr. Sockly'] I suppose you have made some calculation of the annual loss to the colony from the presence of scab in our wool and skins ? — Of course we have made calculations, and I have seen it stated variously at verj' large amounts, but I think they were exaggerated, myself, and when you are dealing with business matters there should be no sort of exaggeration. Theie has been an improvement in some districts since a few years ago, because I saw by an iuspector's report published the other day, that out of 5,000,000 sheep only 72,000 were found to be scabby, in the proclaimed area, or about 1 J per cent, and you must bear in mind that the bulk of the wool comes from the proclaimed area. Speaking more of the western province, our export of wool is not very great compared with the rest of the Colony, the annual export through Cape Town is about 26,000 bales. 16390. To what extent do you think that is dejiri-ciated, owing to scab ? — Roughly speakmg, it may perhaps be depreciated about £15,000 to £20,000 in wool value. 16391. And of course the farmer loses that .^ — Certainly, that is entirely the farmer's loss. That, however, is the loss in the value of the wool he brings to market, but there is another and a very much greater loss which it is difficult to estimate, and that is the loss of weight, because the fleece is so much poorer and weighs so much less. That is a most difficult thing to estimate, ind might be another £10,000. 16392. Have you made a >\ estimate of the loss in the sheep and goat skins ? — Yes The total skins exported from the Colony in 1 892 was : — Goats 1,726,528 skins. Value £132,717 Sheep 3,459,415 ,, „ 271,689 and I estimate tlie loss at about 10 per cent. 16393. In addition to that I suppose you are aware that a good deal of stock is lost too ? — Yes, that is another loss : animals get poor and die. 16394. You h iV'3 travelled a great daal iu the western province ? — Yes. 16395. Have you not found that the progressive and industrious farmers are in favour of an act, whereas, the indolent and non-progressive farmers are opposed to it ? — Yes, that has been m\' experience. I remember some years ago I was in the Victoria West district, and stayeii at SchUderspan, vhere a progressive and enterprising farmer lives, who looked after his sheep very well, dipping them and keeping them as clean as possible. I slept at his house, and the next morning I got up early and was told by the farmer that a trekker had just come tkrough from the achttr veldt with a thoroughly scabby troop of sheep, which he drove over his veldt ; but, there being a right of way over the farm, he could not stop him. He said he had spent £30 or £40 on dipping his flocks, and now all the bushes were infected again. 16396. Then do you not think that unless scab is eradicated from the Colony, our losses in the future will be even greater than they have been in the past ? — Yes. On the continent there are a certain number of manufacturers who would use our wools more extensively, and become competitors for them, provided they could depend on the soundness 703 of the staple, and rely upon the wool they purchased j-ielding a certain qnantity of tops ; but finding that the quality varies cuntinuallj-, and that they are unable to estimate correctly, trie^" eith'^r when they compete bid a very low price or else taboo it altogether. 16397. And the result is that the Cape wools get a bad name, and the careful farmer suffers in conseqneuce ? — Tes. 16398. Do you know whether, wlieii dist>a8ed wool of that kind is put through the process of combing, the weight in topn iiud noils would be coi sidernblv less : that there is an absolute loss in weight ? — Yes. I tLink it wouhl be a grcut benefit to surae of the wool farmers if they could go to sume plaie wlier.^ ih ■ wools are combed and dealt with, and see the process. There is a ceiiaiii amouat of dust and stuff, and particles of dead wool flying about the rooms when it is being combed, . iid of iiuirse th it i* all dead loss, and amounts in some in^tance.s to a considerable per cent ige, the nelt }'ield from scabby wool in comparison with souud noul, all other things being equal, is con- siderably less. I may also mention that we Lave now two classes of purchasers for wools, one being that class who niake trade tops which are sold at terminal sales, that is, for delivery months ahead, and the others the manufacturers who buy for their own cousumptio . The m-inufacturer who has a particular class of stuff to make, and who buj's for his own consumption, w.iuts a sound wool, for which he is always willing to pay a much higher price, :iiid he i* more particular in his selection than the man'who is simply a top-maker, and \vt:o produces trade tops vhich he sells to otner manufacturers who do.i't buy wool, but only tops ; so that if you have a really gool s )und wool, and get up a reputation lor it, you would find the manufiicturer.i bidding for it and pajdnga higher price than the top-makers. The top-makers will take an\-thing, and boil it all down, combing the whole lot, and making a sort of average price for it. I don't know whether you are aware that this trade in " futures " is a vory large and increasing trade on the continent, and I may perhaps tell you how it is done. In Belguim, France, and Germany, but more particularly I think in Germanj-, there are a large number of the combing establishments I spoke of just now. They comb for anybody, that is you send your grease wool, and the}- turn it out combed into tops and noUs. By arraug- ment or agreement with seller f.nd buyer the wool-kammerei give a standard quality to these tops and noils, and that standard is accepted by aU people who deal in them, so that you can buy wool at a fixed price to-day deliverable three or four months hence. It sometimes happens tliat a man in Germany will seU tops deliverable, for instance, four months later ; not having an ounce of wool in hand, he cables out an order for oOO or 1,000 bales in order to cover his contract. He has plenty of time in which to deliver ir and to get it from the Cape or Australia as the case ma}' be, and a particular class of wool. But these orders whii^h come here do not bind you strictly to quality, you have to look more to shrinkage, and you don't buy too particu- larly, but would rather stretch a point or two, and take in other wools which are not quite so good, so as to complete your order. That wool is shipped home, sent to these large wool-washing establishments, and combed into tops ready for delivery. That is one reason why you sometimes find peopl-" complain that they get no better price for a good qualitj- of wool than they do for an inferior quality. An order comes fi)r 2 00 or 3000 bales and it has to be fiUed in a hurry, so that if a man can buy a better class wr>ol at a reasonable price he wiU then stretch a point and buy an inferior lot a little above its value, as long as the average comes out. This business has only sprang up within the last few years. 16399. Do you think that discretion is shown in the purchase of wools in the up-country towns which ought to be? — If it is not shown in the up-country towns, I am sure the people at the ports will value the wool according to its condition. 1 6400. But is it not a fact that the storekeepers who purchase most of the clips in the country give the same price almost irrespective of quality? — I would not say that, but they very often buy customers instead of wool. 16401. If that system could be done away with, do you think it would make farmers more careful as a rule ? — The farmer has the matter in his own hands ; there is the market, and there are the railways. 16402. 2fr. da Toit.'\ Speaking of the deterioration of skins by scab, I understood you to say that as a rule scab damages goat skins much more than sheep skins ? — As soon as a scabby skin is tanned, holes come in it, and goat skins depreciate more in value than sheep skins because the goat skin is of greater value. 16403. Does not scab usually come aU over a goat skinatonce, while it only appears on the sheep skin in spots ? — -I have seen plenty of goat skins where you could see scab on the sides only, but in goat skins if any part is affected the whole skin suffers in value. When you buy a goat skin the only value you have is in the skin itself, but when you buy a merino skin you have thw wool as well as the pelt. 16404. Is there a prejudice against wool from South Afrioa? — I don't say that, but people who use Cape wool find that the bulk is so very mixed and irregular, it is not pro- perly skirted — though there are many exceptions — but as a rule skirting is not reliable, and people place scabby wool in the same bale with sound. A buyer cuts open a bale which is on view at the London wool warehouse, on exHmination; he finds the wool runs fairly well, buys the lot. He aft'^rwards finds there is a good deal of scabby wool amongst it, he is very dis- appointed at the result, and in future he taboos the mark ; if it occurs a second time, he taboos the country, and buys Australian wools. In that way the Cape loses g' od competi- tion, and, as the Chairman remarked, the careful farmer suffers for the negligent. 16405. Then in buying wool they don't trust to their own inspection of it, and judge 703 it by its appearance, but if tbey name to a clip of wool, and upon cutting it open found it to be a good, well-sorted, sound wool, would they still give less ? — They would not give le~8 : they would no doubt buy it at its full value ; but when a man lias been twice bitten by finding he has bought scabby wool, ho will not look at it again, even the sound parcels. I may mention that London wool sales comprise about 200,000 bales, so it means something for a man to run through that; he has such a large S'dection. As regards skins, our firm has been very particular for many yenrs in sorting them for shipment, and wo have a reputation at home so that our skins are taken entirely on the mark, and in that way we perhaps secure a farthing more than any of our neighbours, simply because we exercise groat care, and scrupulously pick out only the sound and good skins. We carefully classify them. 16406. As * rule, longanft well sorted wool fetches a highor price than short and sound wool ? — That depends on the shrinkage. You might have a long wool very heavy in grease and a good deal of sand in the wool, though sound and good ; and you might have a short wool very light which would fetch a great deal morf money. 16407. There are so many farmers who shear every six months, and say that they get the same price for six months as others do for twelve month's wool. Is it a tact that, other things being equal, short, sound wool fetches the same price as long wool? — All other things being equal long wool will fetch a higher price per pound. A farmer is often dis- satisfied when he brings in his long wool and sees his neighbour get as much for his short wool, but the question is how much do each shear from their sheep. The. short wool will perhaps shrink 55 per gent, if y u have lOOlbs. of short wool, in the grease, you may get •iSlbs. snow white, and if it runs for nine months or a year the shrinkage will be 60 or 65 per cent, according to the district the wool comes from, but then, of course, a man gets so many more pounds on each fleece. 16408. Will scab cause the same damage to mohair as to merino wool ? — Not as far as T know. 16409. But the skins are equally damaged ? — Yes. 16410. Mr. Botha.^ Knowing as you do what important interests the Cape Colony has in the wool trade, and having reprf^sented the colony at the Chicago Exhibition, you gave the closest attention to all thu wools which were exhibited there ? — Yes. 1641 ' . Could you detect from the wools you saw ther-i which countries suffer most from scab ? — I don't think so, because you may be sure that all the fleeces exhibited there were picked and chosen from the respective countries nearly free f r im all defects. 16412. So that your mission there did not enable you to profit in that way as regards scab, because there was none to be seen ? — No, in Australia there is no scab. I entered into arrangements at Chicago with a gentleman who for m'lny years edited an agricultural paper in Australia, Mr. Edmund Mitchell, M.A , a highl3' intelligent and qualified gentle- man, who had been sent from Australia to represent six pipers at Chicago. I entered into an agreement with him to write a series of articles touching (m certain products, as the infor- mation would be instructive to the Cape farmer and would be of use to him in his farming operations. We made a selection of the subjects to be dealt with, and before I left he had written twelve articles, which after corrections, I sent to the Cape, and I think the articles on wool and mohair might be republished, — the information thoy contain is of great value. The article on wool deals exhaustively with all the wools exhibited at Chicago, and before it was published it was revised by one of the best experts who are also one of the largest firms of wool importers in the United States, a Philadolphian firm. This was done with the object of ensuring the complete accuracy of all the facts, figures and data in connec- tion with the subject. 16413. As regards the production of heavy wools, you know that you can breed for weight without increasing the qualify, and I believe that is done hero in the Colony ? — Yes, but it does not alwaj's follow because wool is heavj' in weight that the quality is bad. 16414. As a wool buyer, you say that wool can be produced for weight instead of for quality ? — Yes. 16415. Yo\i find sheep breeders who make a selection of rams for the sake of the yolk in the wool, and that means increase in weight? — Yes, but I don't think it benefits him. As wool buyers, we buy heavy as well as light wools, and I have handled heavy wods which have yielded splendid, snow whites, but of course the value put on it is according to how much washed wool we get out of it. To illustrate this, I may say that at the present market value, wool, shrinking 05 per cent, would be worth 4J-d. alb., while wool, shrinking 58 per cent, would bo worth 6d. a lb. 16416. Would your experience as a wool buyer lead you to advise farmers to produce wool as light as possible, with sufficient yolk to keep the fibre in healthy eondition ? — By pro lucing as light a wool as possible the farmer would reap the benefit in every way, because it saves freight when sending it by rail ; it saves freiglit when sending it for scouring purposes. Of course the heavier ttie wool is, the more freight it has to pay. 16417. Mr. Francis.'\ If the duty on wool in America were removed, would not the fact that there was scab in our flocks still be a great disadvantage to us ? — Yes. America, of course, proiluces a grreat deal of wool itself, and they only require a certain quantity of foreign wool for particular purposes, for a particular class of manufactured goods for which their own wools are not suitable, so whether there is any duty or no duty they will always take only the very best merino wool, and if the American duty is removed, the breeders who produce the best merino wool in this country, and whose wool is cleanest from scab, will reap the greatest benefit. 704 16418. Is it not a fact that it is not only the part of the fleece which is affected with scab, but that the whole fleece suffers when sheep are infected ? — Yes, the whole fleoco becomes tender and light, and there is no life in it ; it is a lifeless wool. 16419. Then the farmi-rs and the Colony lose : in the first place by the wool which a scabby sheep actually throws off ; next by the whole fleece being infected ; by the sheep being in poor condition, and consequnntly more subject to other diseases, and more likely to die in cold rains ; in the next place it deteriorates the price of wool in the home market, and causes a great deal of waste ; the fleeces are also lighter in weight ; and an enormous amount of money is spent in the Colony yearly in buying dips, besides all the expense and trouble to which the farmer is put in lighting with scab. Taking all these things into consideration, do you think the evidence we have received, stating that the Colony loses at the rate of £500,000 per annum through the prevalence of scab among the flocks is exaggerated ? — No, I think that figure would, roughly speaking, be rearer the mark than the other figures I have seen stated in various documents. 16420. Then considering that we are losing this enormous amount of money annually from this cause, do you think it would be advis ible to sp-^nd money liberally for the pur- pose of eradicating scab from the flocks .'' — WJiou you say spend money libendly it is a ques- tion for the country. If by spending £50,!H)0 we s ive the country £.500,000, it is good business. I have always been of opinion that if the Government of the country does some- thing for one section of the community, which produces a staple product, and money is spent in ordnr to improve the quality of that product, there is no class which can say that the money spent was only for the benefit of that particular section. If an article produced by the farmers is improved, and its money value increased, there is no single individual in the whole Colony wlio does not participate in the advantage obtained, either directly or indirectlj'. 16421. You consider that the prosperity of the farmers would be the prosperity of the whole country ? — Yes. 16422. Chairman.'] Besides the depreoa'ion in value of scabby wool, referred to by you, is it a fact that a certain class of yarn maker.s make yarn which they guarantee to sell to manufacturers as sound, and that the fear of '.vools being infected with 8C>«>p prevents them from competing for any wool with which they have no guarant'je of freedom from scab? — Certainly ; a party who makes tops for particular customers will always taboo the wools from a country where he knows scab exists, becau.se having to guarantee the article he will naturally go to those wool producing countries where there is no scab. As he has to guarantee the quality of the tops he cannot afford to run ri.sk. 16423. Mr. Botha] This country being known as one where there is scab, the wool producer suffers, but how will you deal with the Free State wool ? — If we clear the scab out of this country, and the merchants are nUowed to trade with Free State wool through the sea-ports of the Colony, will it not affect the good name of our colonial wool all the same ? — Yes, decidedly. 16424. Mr. Franeis.] But if this Colony were free of scab, co ild not some means be adopted whereby the wool coming from the Transvaal or Free State might be distinguished from that grown in the Colony ? — Of course ; all you have to do is to pass an act that all wools coming into the coimtry should be marked with a Free State or Transvaal mark. 16425. Chainnan,.~] Are there any other statements you would like to make ? — I think we have touched upon all ithe points of which I have made notes. I myself should like to see the introduction of a general scab act. 16426. Have you read the offer made by Messrs. Cooper and Nephews ? — Yes. 16427. Do you think it is a sound principle to place the administrative work of the Government in the h.inds of a private firm ? — No. 16428. Mr. Friible, as it is too mucti trouble to be bothered and worried with the scabby Cape skins. They furth'-r said the}' were making all sorts of imitations for the purpose of taking the place of the Cape sheepskins. If that is not sufiicient evidence to show that the Cape sheep are affected by scab, and that this colony loses a vast amount of revenue in consequence of scab on Cape sheepskins alone, and that a very profitable industry might be pu.shed considerably further if it were not for tne scab, then I don't know what other evidence you could want. 1 would gladly show you a few cured Cape sheepskins which have had scab, and show you that the skin is practically valueless, the grain having been damaged by the scab. 16463. Given the desirable condition of affairs to which you look, I take it that in the ordinary course of business competition your firm would have under such circumstances to pay much more for the Cape sheepskins than you do now ? — Beyoad a doubt ; if an increased revenue were derived from the skins it would not come to us alone, but to every farmer in the country ; every farmer would get his pro rata sh>.re of benefit from either Cape or merino skins. But the Cape sheepskins are at present so unreliable that j'ou cannot push the trade, or command a better price for them than is being obtained at present. 16464. So that when we are told by farmer.s whose flocks consist entirely of Cape sheep that the operations of a scab act would be of no benefit to chem whatever, such cannot possibly be the fact ? — I am quite convinced in my own mind that such is not the case. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying si. , 16465. Mr. HocMy.^ What do you think is their loss? — I am taking the market price which I get for the best class of Cape sheepskins at present in London for a private contract, and I know that many thousands of Cape sheepskins are being shipped to that market and fetch no more than 15s. or 18s. against my oOs. a dozen, and what possible reason is there that one Capo sheepskin should be ivorth more than another as long as it is properly treated and free from scab ? 16466. Are the skins you refer to from animals your firm has slaughtered themseUes, or are they purchased ? — We purchase much more than we .slaughter. 16467. The sheep you slaughter are of cours.* generally in good condition ? — Yes. [G. 1— '94.] ' KREE 707 16468. Do you not 8u£Eer in other ways from sheep brought down here scabby, and do you not find they lose in condition sooner than healthy sheep ? — Undoubtedly they do. 16469. Does it not also hamper your buyers very much in going about the country ? — Certainly, if they can possibly avoid it our buyers don't like to buy scabby sheep. 16470. If a buyer had two flocks of sheep before him, equal in all other respects, but one scabby and one clean, would lie pay more for the clean sheep ? — Yes. 16471. How much more, on an average, things in other respects being equal? — Our buyer would consider exactly thn difference in price we should get for the scabby skin as against the healthy one. We would rather pay a sliilling to one and sixpence more for the clean sheep, plus what we ?hould get for the healthy as against the scabby skin. 16472. So the difference in value would be at least 2s.? — You would be quite safe in saying that, and in many cases much more. 16473. And that is a direct loss to the farmer ? — Yes, beyond a doubt. 16474. You have no hesitation in saying it would be better for that farmer if he were able to do it to clean his sheep than to submit to that loss ? — It would be to hi« own interest and profit, as well as the benefit of the colony generally. 16475. In travelling about, have j'ou found that there is verj- much opposition to the introduction of a general act ? — I don't think the opposition is so serious as people would make it appear. 16476. Is it the better or the inferior class of farmers who most strongly oppose it ? — The inferior class. 16477. You find that the more intelligent and progressive are in favour of it .' — Yes, absolutely so. 16478. Mr. du Toit.'\ If tht»re were only four or five per cent, scabby sheep amongst a flock, would you say that every sheep in the flock would be 2s. less in value ? — Wliy I say we would pay more for a flock of healthy sheep than a flock of sheep infected A'ith scab is because, first, we don't kill a flock of sheep right off immediately we buy them ; we have very often to keep them a fortnight, a mor.th, or longer, and scabb}' sheep fall off in con- dition very much more quickly than healthy ones. This we have to take into consideration, and it is a serious consideration. Secondly, we look to the pelt, and it makes a great difference to us whether we have a healthy skin or not. A healthy pelt is worth more in itself, and you also get very much more for the wool when there is no scab in it. 16479. But if there are only three or four infected sheep in a flock of a thousand, would that reduce the value of the whole flock ? — Decidedly yes, because if you can observe three or four scabby sheep amongst a flock, you have no idea how soon the whole flock will become infected, nor how great the damage has been done to the .skins of the whole flock, but the difference between a healtliy sheep out of a clean flock and an apparently healthy sheep out of a scabby flock might not be so much as 28., although there would be a difference on account of the risk. 16480. Mr. Botha.^ You are acquainted with the dealing and customs of Cape butchers in regard to their .stock. Where do they keep their slaughter stock, and kill it Z — The majority of the Cape Town meat purvej'ors kill three or four miles from the town. The stock is brought down in so many truck loads at a time, perhaps a week's supply, but bj- far the major portion of the stock is kept all over the country, in all parts, but mostly in the localities where they are bought. It may be in the eastern province, wliere stock is bought and allowed to run for some time ; it may be in Beaufort West, where the stock market is for five months in the )'ear, and for some months in the district of Piquetberg ; but practic- ally it in all over the country. It depends upon the place where they are bought. 16481. The meat purveyors must of course always have stock ready, but they reguiate to a certain extent how much they require per month, and I want to know where you keep those animals before they are killed ? — It is done in this way. A number of people who slaughter a few mile* from the town invariably buy their stock fi'om cattle dealers, men who lay themselves out to buy stock from farmers, and thej' keep them all over the country, practically more or less in the vicinity where they are bought, but often they are moved to different districts. The smaller men, who are the customers of these cattle dealers, telegraph perhaps twice or three times a week, for so many trucks of sheep to be sent down. Some men receive a truck daily, others get two or three days' supply at a time, and others a week's supply ; this stock is delivered at Maitland station, where it is killed. 16482. Are there any sheep farmers, or are any sheep kept for breeding purposes in the neighbourhood where this stock is delivered and kiUed ? — No. 16483. If slaughter stock before being .sent down uy truck in that way to be kiUed, were to be dipped jjroperly, would it affect the condition of the anin'als for slaughtering purposes ? — It is difficult to say ac^tually whether it affects the condition of the sheep. In some cases it will, and in other cases not. For instance, I don't think a farmer would,, like to dip a sheep that is going to be sold a few in existence. 16501. Do you know how it worked, and whether the farmers generally in the neigh- bourhood i iuud the association ? — I could not tell. 16502. Chairman.^ Do you wish to make any other statement ? — With regard to the scouring of wools, we find that wools treated with, sulphur dips are very difficult to icour ; they can be cleaned, but only by scouring them twice, which means an additional loss in the weight, and a good deal of extra expense. It costs us more, and the advance in price is not made up by what we get for them in Europe. 16503. Do you find the same difficulty in regard to tobacco dips? — No. I have always opposed the use by farmers df sulphur dips, either for dipping or dressing, when the sheep have been sheared for any length of time. Directly after they are sheared it does not matter what dip is used, so long as the scab is cured ; but after a certain time they should neither be dipped nor hand dressed in anything but a tobacco dip, because I believe that all the existing dips which cure scab, except tobacco, prevent the wool from being scoured easily. 16504. Mr. HocMy.'] Do you know how the farmers prepare the sulphur and lime dip of which you complain ? — No, I know nothing about that. I only know the effect in the scouring of the wool. Mr. John Hendrik Rutiouw examined. 16505. Chainnan.'] Are you appointed to give evidence by the Chamber of Commerce? Tes. I represent the firm of Messrs. Poppe Schunoff and Guttery. 16506. Are you a buyer of produce ? — Tes. 16507. Do you find the produce as a rule more or less affected with scab ? — Yes, it is too numerous to particularise. 16508. To cope with this, are you in favour of a general compulsory scab act } — By all means ; we ought to have had one long ago. 16509. Have you been long engaged in buying produce? — For 35 years. 16510. Have ■; ou noticed any change during that time in regard to scab ? — In some parts, but they have gone back again. I have taken a great deal of trouble in this busi- ness, and formerly I wasted a good deal of time and money on it. When I took it up 15 years ago, our Cape wool was slinking in the nostrils of the people in Europe, and I said it was time that somebody went round and spoke to the farmers. Just at that time I happened to get some wool from Calvinia scoured at the Waverley mills, and I found in it lumps of dung, half a cannon ball, half a brick, a flat iron and shank bones and stones. I put that into a bag and took it with me from Caledon to Mossel Bay, and at every wool sale I lectured the farmers. At Mossel Bay one farmer told me he used to take care of his sheep, but afterwards neglected them because he found it useless. At that time Caledon wool fetched 1/- a lb., and Mossel Bay 8d. or 9d.. Since then the farmers have improved, and the fourth year after the time referred to they topped the market, and now Mossel Bay is first on the list and Caledon is at the bottom. But I hear that the farmers there have gone back now very much. During that time there was a great change, especially in those parts. 16511. Knowing these districts well, as I understand you do, do you consider that there are no circumstances which would prevent a scab act working well there } — No, of course not. There are farmers who are opposed to it, but all the enlightened farmers are in favour of it. 16512. Mr. Botha.^ In case sheep get scab when they have long wool, would you recommend that they should be dipped, or dressed with tobacco dip ? — Certainly it is the best dip ; it does not discolour the wool. 16513. And it does not otherwise injuriously affect the wool? — No. I produce some washed wool which has been dipped in lime and sulphur, and you can see how discoloured it r 710 is. I also produce a sample of the same wool after it has been washed a second time, and that, as you see, is quite clean. 16514. C/iairman.'\ Do you wish to add anything? — You will never get a gener.il scab act, and the next bfst thing is to pass an act forcing all farmers to dip their sheep fourteen days after shearing ; only, when the wool if; six months' long, they must uee no dip but tobacco, which can be grown in any quantity in our coimtry. Mr. Henri/ fFilliam Chicken examined. 16515. Chairman.'\ You Wtjro appointed to g've I'vidouco by the chamb r of commerce ? —Yes. 16516. What is your occupaiiou ? — I am a produce buyer for Messrs. Thompson, Watson 9l Co. 16517. Do you find the produce which passes through j'oiir hands is generally affected with scab ? — Yes. 16518. To a largo extent ?— Y- s. 16519. Have you noticed any iniproyemciit during the last five years? — No. I have gone back ten years in the matter of skins, which is my principal business, and I think during that time scab has incre.is d by about 3 per cent. 16520. From what portions of the colony does the produce generally come to which you refer } — Prince Albert, Malmesbury, Stellenbosoh, Worcester, Ceres and Beaufort West. 16521. Are you in favour of a general scab act .'' — Yes. 16522. Mr. Hockly.'\ To w-hat extent do you think skins are depreciated owing to scab ? — I reckon it about 20 to 25 per cent. ; in fact, you can hardly tell the depreciation until the manufacturers get them. We don't really know here what the extent of the depreciation is through scab, because there are thousands of scabby skins which go away from here in which we don't notice it at all. 16523. Supposing you had a parcel which was absolutely clean as far as you could judge, and another scabby parcel, what difference would you make per pound ? — About a penny. 16524. Have you had any experience with Cape sheepskins? — Yes, thousands. 16525. Are they at all affected with scab .? — Yes. 16526. Does it depreciate their value much? — To about the same extent. Generally about 15 per cent. 16527. But don't you pay more per pound for the Cape sheepskin than for the merino ? — Yes, a trifle. 16528. What difference per pound do you make in the value of scabby Cape sheepskin and a clean one ? — The same percentage. We don't buy by the pound ; we buy by the dozen. We make a difference of about twenty per cent, but there is more depreciation than that. 16529. Do you buy from the butchers ? — Yes. 16530. Do you find any difference in the skins you buy from them ? — A little ; not very much. 16531. But still you find scab even amongst those ? — Yes ; merinos are the worst. 16532. Mr. FranciB.'] I suppose the skins you buy infected with scab are useless for tanning purposes ? — Some are quite useless ; some are so bad that it would not pay to put them into the tanks. 16533. Chairmari.l Would you like to make any further statement ? — I am in favour of a general scab act, and of irrigation, and of feeding the flocks. Cape Town, Saturday, Wth Novtmher, 1893. PEESBNT : D*. Smabtt, Chairman. Mb. Botha. I Mr. Hocklt. „ DU ToiT. I ,, Fkanois. Mr. Samuel Rowland Timton examined. 16534. Chairman.'] You are the representative of Messrs. Cooper and Nephews .' — That is my position. 16535. Messrs. Cooper and Nephews have submitted a formal offer to the Government of the Cape Colony for the eradication of the scab disease from the sheep and goats in this country } — That is so. I would like to state that I have spent my whole life in connection with the business of Messrs. Cooper and Nephews, and during the last twenty-four vears have visited every large sheep country in the wnrld, sm that I may claim to have some knowledge of the matter with regard to which this Commission has been appointed to inquire. 16536. Besides the detailed scheme which has already been submitted to the Qovem- 711 ment, and by them referred to the OommiBBion, are there any further matters in connection with it which you wfmld like to mention V — As you are aware, I sent to tlie meinl)ers of the CommiHsiou a statoment, in the form of questions and answers, which I tliink each member has probably seen, and tliis includes very largely, indewl I think I may say almost entirely, any otlier matters wo desire to put before the Commission in connection with the scliemo, and especially with reference to all objections and criticisms which have })een raised in the course of the public discussions of it. As you know, it has been discussc-d very freely all through the country. With the consent and approval of the Government, who were con- sulted in the matter, it was agreed that it should go before the country for discussion, and the objections so raised are met in the statement I have referred to. I(>537. I believe you state, as one of the conditions of your scheme being accepted bj* the Government, that certain rules and regulations should be made and should meet with the approval of your fimi ? — Assuredly. 16538. Such rules and regulations, I take it, would be equivalent to a compulsory, simultaneous dipping act for the colony ? — That is so. 16539. With regard to the appointment of inspectors, and the instructions which should be issued to them, could you roughly state to the Commission what your views would be upon the subject? — Our views are that we should bo appointed administrators of any si^ab act which the Government may pass, and that the appointment of inspectors should undoubtedly be in our hands. I think we state that clearly in our scheme, and I trust tiera may be no mistake on that head, because, on account of the very heavy responsibility we should have in carrying out the scheme, we must have the selection of the men upon whom we depend to make the thing a great success. We should propose to select the inspectors from residents in the colony, and residents in the districts to which tliey would be appointed, and should probably bring out only quite a few of our own experienced men to take the general control of the matter and to conduct it. 16540. I take it that the first portion of the scheme, extending to the colony, is for a period of 3 J years ? — Yes, but it is extendable. 16541. I presume the regulations you refer to, under which inspectors would be appointed, and under which the scab act would be worked during that period, would be unalterable within the said period ; and should they be altered during that time by an act of Parliament, it would naturally absolve you from the responsibility of fulfilling your portion of the contract? — All vital points must be unalterable, but any comparatively unimportant points might be altered by agreement between us and the Government ; but if any act of Parliament were passed which would in any shape or way regulate our proceedings without our consent, assuredly that would absolve us from the contract. 16542. What conditions would you consider as absolutely vital .and unalterable, and not subject to alteration ? — As vi^al to our scheme we view : — 1 . The general dipping within a fixed period, under supervision. 2. The disinfection of kraals, railway trucks, etc. 3. The control of the importation of sheep, and of the movements of scabby sheep, wool and skins ; the appointment of inspectors and other officers connected with the carrying out of the scheme, together with, of course, the subject of payment, and of the compulsory character of the regulations. 16543. I presume that after quarantine for a period of fourteen days, and two dippings under inspection, all stock would be allowed free entrance into the country ? — With. I think this exception, that the period of fourteen days appears rather short. 16544. What period of quarantine would you suggest for allowing importations of stock into the colony ? — I would say, with regard to this matter generally, that the regulations controlling the importation of sheep would be settled between us and the Government before- hand, and that we should not be free to do just whatever we pleased with regard to the im- portation of sheep supposing our scheme were accepted. The regulations, whether by act of Parliament, or whether issued b^' the Government after consultation with us, shouli not leave us arbitrary power to deal with the importation of sheep in any way we chose from time to time. 16545. But 1 should like to know what you consider would be vital in the importation of stock : wliether you would allow them to come in after two or three dippings, or longer, with an interval of fourteen days, under inspection, or whether there should be ports of entry between border states, and so on ? — Undoubtedly, sheep from outside countries could only be allowed to enter at certain points where they could be dipped twice and placed under quarantine for, say, a month. But I would like to add, not only with regard to these regulations relating to the control of sheep, but also with reference to the minor and less important points which we do not consider vital, that we should be ready to meet the views of the Government upon the matter, and as far as it would not imperil the ultimate success of the scheme, in which the country would be just as much interested as ourselves, we should be willing to meet the views and convenience of the colony. 16546. You say that matters which are not of vital importance could be submitted for arbitration between the Government and yourselves ? — I should say the better plan would be for the Government to appoint a departmental committee or some body to discuss and arrange all these matters with us beforehand, and I have not a doubt that the Government and ourselves would find no difficulty in agreeing upon these regulations. 16547. To what arbitration do you refer ? Who would be the supreme judges between yourselves and the Government ? — We contemplate that all these matters will be settled 712 before we commence working the scheme, but if at any time it is desired that there should be some alteration in tliese minor regulations, we should be read}' to meet the Government. 16548. And in case tlio froverumeut for the time bfiiig and the representatives of j'our firm could not agreo upon these alterations, to what arbitration would you submit them ? — I take it that the usual course of procedure would be followed, the Government appointing one arbitrator, we appointing one, and those two appointing a third ; but I may say that our scheme was framed under the idea that all thfso regulations, whethfr vital or minor, would be settled beforehand between us and tin' Government, and thoroughly thrashed out. We did not contemplate that they would be liable to variation as we wt^nt along. When I say some points are vital and some minor, I mean by vital those points upon which we insist from the ver}' beginning, and the others, although minor, should be discussed beforehand between us and the Government, but settled finall}' for the term of 3J years, because the subject of scab is well known, and how to master it, and we know our own minds. So that, while we should be willing to discuss them as freely as possible, I think they should be settled beforehand. 16549. The reason why I put the question so freely was because, in case a scab act is formidated, and the rules and regulations agreed to between the Government ..n the one part and your firm on the other, if at any time duiing the period of 3J years this act were found to press injuriously on the farming population of the colony, and Parliament found it ex- pedient, in the interests of that class, to repeal the act, I shoidd wish to know whether, in that case, your firm would be entitled to the fuU amount of the contract money ? — We should undoubtedly be entitled to compensation. 16550. You have stated fully your opinion as to the importation of stock into the colony. Have you considered whether, in the removal of slaughter stock, the regulations might be less irksome .'' — In the case of slaughter stock we should be satisfied with one dip- ping before removal, accompanied by the obligation of a special brand, provided the animals were slaughtered within a short period afterwards. ^ 16551. And if the stock were not slaughtered within a period of fourteen days, would you then make provision for having them re-dipped under inspection ? — The permit for removal would state the point to which the stock were to be taken for .slaughter, and they certainly would not be allowed to be removed from that point except under the regulations of the act, which would involve dipping; and if they were going to be removed to another point for slaughter they would be subject to the regidations fur slaughter stock. 16552. Have you taken into consideration the fact that a large portion of this cotuitry is subject to severe periodical droughts ? — We have. 16553. In cases of this sort, have you thought of any regulations which could be en- forced in those districts during such periods of drought, and which woiild allow of stock being removed ? — We know that in this country it does happen that in times of drought both veldt and water fail, and sheep must be moved to keep them alive. If in such a case the sheep were s<'abby, the inspector would have directions to order them to be hand dressed or dipped at the first point at which water was available, and of course if water were available on the farm, the stock must be dipped before removal. Then farmers over whose farms these sheep travel must be notified that they are corning, so that they can remove their own stock out of the way and take precautions to avoid infection. 16554. Would you remove them after one dipping? — It would be at the discretion of the inspector to dip or hand dress. * 16555. But if sheej) are moved after one dipping they should be dipped again within a certain time in transit .''—Quite so. 16556. In periods of drought or in portions of the colony where it is necessary to remove sheep from summer or winter veldt, what would you do, especially where a large number of sheejj havu all lu be moved at the same time ? — I take it that the farmers al« ays know some little time beforehand when they will be moving, and they would have to give notice to the inspector ; the inspector wcmid then inspect the sheep, and if they were found to be scabby it would be at his discretion, according to the circuuistances of the case, to order them to be dipped there and then, or liand dressed, before they were removed. I think there would be plenty of inspectors to inspect quite a large number of flocks ; we should propose that every superintending dipper shotdd have the power to inspect slieep, and issue permits for their removal, and of course every man who held a clean bill of health could move his sheep on his personal permit. 1H557. In your formal offer you state that your firm would be responsible for aU casualties., over and above a certain amount, occurring from dipping. Will you roughly state what you consider to be ordinary casualties under ordinary circumstances? — With regard to the question of compensation, nf course the value of the sheep varies very much in different parts of the coimtry, and I take it the first thing to do would be for us to settle with the Government a fair basiK of valuation of each kind, age, and condition of .shci.p in each area of tho country. That done, we should be willing to pay for all hisses should any directly result from the use of our powder, when the dipping is supervised, within a fixed period after the dipping, less a reasonable percentage. You ask what I should consider a reasonable percentage for ordinar}- casualties, and I say for ordinary casualties, taking the country through, one per cent. ; but it must of course vary very considerably according to the condition of the sheep at the time when they are dipped, and so on ; and I may say further, that if sheep were brought to an Inspector to be dipped in an absolutely unfit condition for it, so that a bath of cold water 71S would kill them, he would have the power to say beforehand that the sheep were not fit to be dipped, and that we could not take any responsibility for thorn. 16558. But all sheep affected with scab would have to be dipped, and in such cases as you refer to, the inspectoi would be the sole arbiter as to what would be a reasonable amouut of casualties under the circumstances ? — The percentago would be fixed beforehand, and would regulate all cases, but if sheep are brought to an inspector to be dipped in such a con- dition that they would not stand a bath of cold water, then he should have the power to say that they could not possibly live through the dip, and that he could not taka the responsi- bility i)f their lives. In such cases he may, at his discretion, order them to be hand dressed. 16559. So that, in cases of this sort, if the inspector insisted upon the sheep being dipped instead of being hand dressed, the firm would be responsible for tho ordinary casual- ties laid down in the act ? — Yes, if he insisted upon their being dipped, W" would take the responsibility. 16560. One of the great inducements held out in your scheme is, I believe, that the flocks of the farmers in this colony are to be dipped free of expense to tho farmer ? — That is so. 16561. When you state free of expense, do you mean that the dipping material is to be supplied free of charge, and that your firm will dip the farmers' flocks, or must the farmers themselves supply the necessary labour ? — The farmer supplies the labour, and we afford the supervision and provide the dip. 16562. In such cases, who is to decide what is the most convenient time for the flocks of the farmer to be dipped .? — We propose to have a general, simultaneous dipping of all the sheep in the colony within a certain fixed period, which period would be fixed by act of Parliament or regulation before we start. 16563. But in case scab broke out afterwards ? — Every outbreak of scab subsequent to the general dipping must be reported by the farmer to the inspector, and the sheep must be dipped within a certain short period afterwards ; the time of dipping must, I think, be at the discretion of the inspector, but he would of course in every case consult the con- veniencii of the farmer as long as there was no great delay in the matter. 16564. But nevertheless, iu aU cases of dispute, the inspector would be the sole arbiter? — Certainly, that must be so, subject to the regulations and the act of Parliament. Such powers lire given in Australia. Wo should be quite willing to consent to the inspector giving a certain not ce, but if every farmer is to choose his own time it would be impossible to carry out the scheme. I am quite .sure that, with regard to all these matters, if we come to arrange them with the Government, they can be so settled as to be reasonable between us and the farmers. As long as the su&ess of the scheme is not imperilled, we shall be quite willing to meet their convenience iu any direction we can. 1 6565. What period of licence wouM you suggest for flocks in which an outbreak of scab had taken place for cleaning them ? — We don't propose to issue any licences except clean bills. We pxpoit to clean the flocks, and when the inspector certifies that they are clean, then a man is free to remove them. 16566. Consequently, in all cases of i utbreaks of this kind, the inspector would insist upon the flocks being dipped as quickly as possible, and if clean after the second dipping, the owner, I presume, would be entitled to a renewal of his clean bill of health ? —After a sufficient period had elapsed to ensure that the flocks were absolutely clean. 16567. What period do you think it would be safe to fix ? — With regard to all these details, I believe it is impossible for us to talk tliem over here in this disjointed way, one by one. If the Government accept this scheme of ours, we shall have to sit down and pre- pare in conjunction with them a complete detailed set of regulations, but I think it is im- possible for us to go fully into them in this way. I think the Commission may rely that the Government would see that the farmers' interests were protected, and on our side we should of cour.^e take care to see that the regulations were such as would not make it im- possible tor us to carry out th» scheme. I can only give you here general replies, but everything must be subject to that consultation between us and the Government, if we do come to settle up n it. 16568. Mr. Hockly.'\ How would you arrange in parts of the country where labour is very scarce, and where the farmers are known not to keep a sufficient staff for dipping purposes ? — The farmers would know far better than ours. Ives, and could arrange in con- junction with the inspectors. They must have labour there sometime^, and three men can dip sheep any day. There would he the farmer, one man of his and our superintending inspector, who would be ready to give any assistance he could, and three men can dip sheep at any time. With the travelling dipping tank of which I show you a photograph [pro- duced] I would undertake to dip sheep myself without any assistance whatever. This tank is sunk in the ground, and one man has dipped sheep in such a tank. 16569. Mr. du Toit.'] Are you quite sure that scab in sheep is caused solely by the affarui insect? — There is no doubt whatever about it, I never heard any man wuo thoroughly ^nder^tood the subject, and had studied it, who expressed any opinion to the c mtrary. 16570. And the aean country, and that being so, we think two months aftor may be relied upon as long enough to reveal infection should any be still lurking about either in sheep or kraals. Evory farmer would in this case be really a Government detective for tlie purpose, so that it might be said to be impossi1)le for any remnant "bf infection to remain concealed. The regu- lations under the scab acts in Australia and Tasmania fix the period of quarantine at sixty days, so we have there good warrant for the period wc have stipulated. We shall be ready to consider any suggestions the Government may make with a view to affording the country still further protection against relaj)se should our suggested two months bo deemed insuffi- cient. 16589. But you are not prepared to state at the present moment what extension over and above that time your firm would be prepared to agree to '? — I think it would be better to leave that point to be discussed in tlie conversation between us and the Government upon the final settlement. Cape Town, Monday, 1.3 agricultural dei)artmerit, where they come before tht? ministerial head of the department, who takes the opinion of the veterinary surgeon and the superin- tending scab inspector. If there is then any doubt about the recommendation of the divisional coimcil further reference is made to the civil commissioner, and very often to the local members of Parliament, or anj- one who is in a position to give an opinion upon the qualifications of these men, and in every case, as far as I am aware, the department appoints the man they consider to be the most efficient for the post. In several instances we have refused to appoint men recommended by the divisional council, and have been led to consider others more suitable, but still we have always been guided by the views of those who know the people, and taking everything into consideration we have always appointed, as far as we were aware, the best men. A great deal of blame has been attached to the department with regard to the inefficiency of* seal) inspectors, but, as the Commission must be aware, when once a man has been ajipointed you cannot dismiss him unless some specific charge is brought against him. There may be some grumbling, as there will be in nearly aU services, but unless some specific charge is brought against a man, which can be gone into, it would be unfair to, and we cannot, dismiss him simply upon rumour. Not only that, but in every case in which we have dismissed a man it has been necessary for us to be in possession of sufficient evidence to warrant our action in case Parliament should require an explanation, which is sometimes the case. As soon as a man is shown to be thoroughly inefficient, and we have any good grounds to go upon to satisfy uS that he deserves to be dismissed, he is dismissed. 16599. From your knowledge of the condition of the flocks in the scab areas, do you consider that the half-yeai-ly returns of the scab inspectors, stating the percentage of scab among their flocks, is approximately correct ? — I think it is, approximately, but not abso- lutely. When an inspector is estimating the number of infected animals in a flock which is considerably scabbj', he has to form a rough estimate, and the whole retm-n is based upon these rough estimates. There is no doubt an inspector would have a tendency to show as little scab in his area as.possible, and therefore there may be a little to be added to the number of scabby sheep rather than a little to be subtracted ; but I should not say that an inspector had failed in his duty if he had only put it down a little on his own side. IfieOO. Are you in favour of compulsory simultaneous dipping ?■ — I think in this country it would be the most effective plan of doing away with scab. 16601. Would it be advisable to carry out that dipping in all cases, where inspectors considered it necessary, under sujiervision ? — Of course it would need an army to do it, but if it could be carried out under supervision there is no doubt about it being the most econo- mical plan in the end, even if a sufficient number of men have to be appointed to do it. 16602. Would you be in favour of supervisors of dipping being appointed in every field-cornetcy by the farmers residing in the ward, these supervisors to have written in- structions as to the proper way of preparing the different dips which could be used '? — If j'ou had a law enabling you to enforce compulsory dipping, there is no doubt that au arrangement of that kind would be very satisfactorj-, in fact the most satisfactory. 16603. In caiTying out compulsory, simultaneous dipping, do you consider the interests of the country would demand that even the clean flocks should be dipped as well as the scabby .' — Every single sheep and goat should be dipped ; not one should be missed. 16604. Do you consider, fro! i your knowledge of the farming population, that even if fines and penalties were imposei". .ill the farmers in this country are sufficient!}" acquainted with the principles of dipping to be able to reap the same benefit from a compulsory, simultaneous dipping as they woidd do if their flocks were dipped under inspection ? — No. there are a great number of men who, from one cause or another, would not carry out what you would call efficient dipping. In the first place, there are a number of men who would not have the money to purchase the necessary quantity of dip. There are many other reasons, but that is one I have often noticed myself , that just at the particular time they might not be in a position to buy the dip. There would be various other reasons why an efficient dipping would not be carried out, and the sheep would not be properly and efficiently dipped, and of course it would be a loss to the man himself, as well as a disad- vantage to the whole country. I am satisfied that if you could carry out simultaneous dip- ping within the summer months, which should be applicable to the whole colony within, say, four months, it would be better and safer to have it extend into the autumn than to begin too early in the spring ; but during four months of the summer and early autunin I a m satisfied we could carry out a uniform dipping throughout the whole extent of the colon}-, without any serious detriment to the farmers 'or any hindrance in any other waj'. 16605. In j'our professional capacity, would you advise the recommendation of any particular material for this simultaneous dipping of the flocks ? — I have, of course, always advocated a lime and sidphur dip, but there are comparatively few farmers who can make it properly. I should say there is only a very small percentage who can do it, so that, if there had to be a imiversal dip, much as I admire lime and sulphur, I could not, for the reason stated, recommend it. But I would certainly recommend a dip containing sulphur, because I believe that while any of the patent dips will effectually cure scab when properly used, there is no dip which will act as a preventive so long as a dip containing sulphur, as it SSSS 2 717 tomains for months on the •kin and in the fleece, and combining as it does with the cxhala- tions from the skin, it really acts a^* a permanent preventive. For that reason I think it is the most efficient dip you can use. 16606. You consider, then, I take it t'roiii your evidence, that in ijnU'v to derive the benefit which should be derived t'rouj a compulsory, simultaneous dipping it would be abs(dutcl}- essential to insist upon a dip being used containing sidphur .- — That is my opinion. 16607. Do you consider that such a dipping would deal a great blow nt scab auiongsl our flocks ? — I am satisfied that if we could get a simultaneous dipping ciVcctually carried out, the stock lieing dipped a second time and, if neicsnary, a thiiil lime, we should prac- tically liave scab in haud within two years. I mean it is very likely I'niit aft'T the first year we .should have outbreaks, but if the simultaneous dipping were th(ir(mglily carried out for two yenrs we should practically eradicate scab ; there woidd only bo very isolated cases of reinfection from kraals which would conje subsequently. 1 6()()8. Have you travelled over a large portion, of the iiorth- western [larts of the colony V —Yes. 16609. Could such an act be carried out in those districts also ? — 1 think so ; I see uo reason wliy it should not. The only difiiculty at the present time would bo tlie want of dip- ]iing tanks. Now thfit is a very important point, and if you are going in for siiuuitaueous (lipping, the Government would have to adopt measures to ensu/'e tlio construrtion of ])ioper dipping tanks, without which no simultaneous dipping could be effected. But in tliose very sparsely populated districts, where the farms are of such great extent, they have a nun^li larger area for placing the flocks on clean ground than they have on many farms in the [rentier districts where the farms are couipar/itively small ; and although they may liave old kraals there shoidd be no practical difficulty in constructing new ones and in getting fresh veldj; for the clean flocks. 16610. When you say there should be no practical difficulty in erecting fresh kraals, I ]ire8ume you refer to places in which bush is plentiful, and the kraals are generally made of i)ush, and not to those districts which are devoid of bush, and where the kraals must be constructed either of stone, brick or manure ? — There is no doubt it would be more expensive in districts where there was neither bush nor stones very handy, but if the thing had to be carried out it would be economy for the colony, even if the Government were to stop in and nuike the necessary provisioTi, Isoth for dips and kraals wliere neither existed. 16611. In conjunction with a compulsory, simultaneous dipping, would it be advisable to make provision for a thorough disinfection of all kraals?--! think that would be absolutoh' necessary, and tiiat it could be efficiently carried out. 166 12. From your professional experience, do you think prochloride of mercury would be tho cheapest, and as suitable a medium as could possibly be got for disinfecting kraals ? — 1 think it is tlie most efficient germicide and vermicide that we have, and 1 don't think there would be any serious danger from its poisonous properties if it were used simply in kraals. I am not sure of the relative price, but it is certainly the most powerful disinfectant we possess ; it is a very strong poison, and would have to be used imder careful superin- tendence. As II rule, in jwoper dipping, there is always a considerable quantity of the dip left over, and this would go a long way towards disinfeciting kraals, and if a remedy is used as a dip I think it would be equally efficient as a disinfectant. There might be more than a hundred gallons left over after the dipping had been completed. 16613. Would you be in favour of the establishment of a Government dip depot, from which department the farmers of this country could be supplied with suitablr :ind efficient dipping materials for dipping their flocks, and also materiiil for dis- inlecting their kraals, with distinct instructions a« to how the material was to he used, the material to be supplied at cost price and free of railway carriage ? — Notwithstanding that, I think the Government would have to decide upon one, two or thi'ee dips, that is, to define the dips to be used, and compel the people to use one of those dips. I don't think we should gain any advantage by allowing a man to use any dip. At the present time, a man may use kraal manure for the first dipping, but Jie is obliged to use one of the recognized dips at subsequent dippings, though even then we have no power to make him use it in a given manner. I am in favour of the Government deciding upon one, two, or more dips as the dips to be used, and that no other should be used, if we propose to carry out an efficient simultaneous dippiug. Parliament should decide the question, and it should be embraced in the act. This I consider to be absolutely necessary. As I said, the principle of Govern- ment supplying dip to the farmers at cost price, free of railway carriage, is right enough, but there is another reason why Government should define the dips, and that is because if we are to enforce a simultaneous dipping it will be necessary to liave an enormotis quantity of material here, and that could not be done if you were to leave it an open question for the farmers to make their own selection. You must decide upon one or two particNlar dips, and I don't think you can very well go beyond two, considering the enormous quantity of dip material which simultaneous dipping throughout the colony means If such a dipjiing were decided upon, and there were an efficient staff to carry it out, the Government supplying the dip material, I think there would be no doubt about its efficacy, but it would mean a great deal of preparation, and having your forces all ready. If \re take all the districts of the colony and multiply them by ten, that is about the number of men you would want to snperiutend a simultaneous dipping within a period of, say of foui- months. Taking tho 718 Transkei, Qriqualand East, and the whole of the outside territories as well as the colony, it would mean at least 800 men to < arry out simultaneous dipping. They would only bo tem- porarily employed, hut they would have to understand what they were about, and be instructed in their duties if they did not already know them. 16614. What provision would you make for dealing with outbreaks of seal) after thi.s dipping ? — We must deal with it very much on the same lines as now. It must be reported at once, and upon any such outbreak the stock woidd have to l)e dipped under supervision. 16615. Would you issue a licence for a certain period of time, and if so what period, subjecting the owner to a penalty if scab existed among his tiocks upon its expiration, or would you have the stock dipped again uuder inspection ? — If we are to have a universal dipping, I would do away with all quarantine of stock, except during the time when they were being dipj^ed. You need not put all the colony under quarantine at one time, but take certain circles, and while the operation of dipping was going on in that circle no move- ment of stock should take place in it, but immediately after all had been dipped I would completely remove the restrictions and trust to careful inspection, and deal with any out- break of scab the moment it is reported. But you cannot quarantine the whole colony. 16616. When such an outbreak of scab is reported, what provision would you make in each individual case for dealing with it ? — The flock or flocks should be placed under quarantine, and dipped immediately, under sui)ervision. 16617. You consider the principle of dipping under sujiervision would work better in this country than the principle of fining a man for not cleaning his flocks ? — Certainly, with a compulsory, simultaneous dipj)ing. 16618. Would it be necessary to have a clause in th^act allowing a greater extension of time during which dipping could take place in the winter months, especially if the sheep had long wool .'' — I would not have any sheep dipped in the winter except under a responsible officer, who woidd select the best time for doing it. I would have the simultaneous dipping carried out in the summer mouths, and .iny outbreaks occur- ring in the winter the stock should lie dipped under careful 8upervisi(m at the most advan- tageous time, and kept of course in quarantine in the mean while. 16619. In order to prevent friction arising between the farmers and the scab inspector, or inspectors of dipping, when there was a difference of opinion as to which was the most suitable time, do you think a clause should be put in the act giving a man a licence for a certain time in the winter months, under quarantine ? — It would be necessary to give him a licence, but I think there should be a responsible in.spoctor, a special man, for dealing with these individual outbreaks in the winter— a man in whom the Government had confidence, as well as the farmers. I would not allow an ordinary sheep dipjier to deal with outbreaks of scab in the winter ; they should be dealt with specially, and under a certain amount of responsibility. 16620. I take it that in cases of this sort you would allow the farmer an appeal to somebody who would be placed over the ordinary insjiector of dipjung, if the farmer con- sidered that the inspector of dipping insisted upon his flocks being dipped at a time when it would in his opinion be injurious to them ? — Yes. I rely more upon the jii'ovision for com- pulsory, simultaneous dipping than I do upon any other regulations, fines, certificates or permits. 16621. Mr. IIockly.~\ Do you mean that the four months during which the compulsory, simultaneous dippings to be done is to apply to the whole colony ? — Yes. 16622. Would you fix any particiilar four months by act of Parliament? — Yes, tho summer months. We could begin earlier on the coast line, and in the warm parts of the colcny, but I would run no risk by dipping too early in the spring. 16623. Don't you think four months would be too long a period for any particular ward or district ? — I mean the whole colony should be dipped within the four mon'hs, but that each individual area might be dipped in, say, two months, the whole thing to be finished within the four months. We might commence with the warmer districts, take the central and higher districts afterwards, and so on. 16624. Leaving each ward or district to elect its own time within that two months ? — I woTild not leave it to individual wards, but I would let a certain area choose its period of, say, six weeks. 16625. How would you define the areas? — I think according to the altitude, and the general conditions of the country. 16626. In addition to the appointment of these dippers to superintend the simultaneous dipping, would it not be advisable to have inspectors-general over certain aieas ? — Yes, we should require good men to superintend the dippers, and to be appealed to in any case where the farmer considered he was being badly or unfairly treated. The expenditure, though large in the first instance, would ultimately prove to bo economy, because, although it would undoubtedly amount to a large sum, especially the fir.st year, and to a good deal the second year, the work would be eflicieutly done, and the expenditure would only con- tinue for a limited time ; whereas, if we go on as we are doing now, we interfere with the trade of the country, we annoy the merchants as well as the farmers, and every year we have a cry for a more lenient instead of for a more stringent act, not alone from the farmers but also from the commercial men whose trade is interfered with. By thoroughly dipping the flocks you are really only two months in quarantine in each area, because I would remove the quarantine after tho dipping had been thoroughly done, as being quit© 719 unnecessary ; it -winild only be for districts which were not dipped, and thoy would not bo ablo to move any stock to butchers outside the district, such stock could be drawn during the short period of quarantine from one of the otlicr areas. 16(127. Would you do away witli the inspectors altogether ?— After scab has been thorougldy eradicated, but we would remove the quarantine after the first dipping. 16628. Then what would the inspectors have to do ? — They would be there to deal with individual Hocks should scab reappear afterwards. It would be false economy to spoil it. We could employ them to go round and iiisj)ect. It would bo true economy to do the thing etKciently, thoroughly and well, and that can only be effected by employing a very large staff of men. It would be only a matter of keeping them on for two years. I(!629. Their duties would be to qu.'irautino any flock in which an outbreak occurred, and to give directions for having them dipped ? — Yes, and if it occurred in the winter, the superintendent slujuld see that nothing was done calculated to endanger the flock. 16630. How often would you provide in the act for this compulsory simultaneous dipping i* — In every case the Hock should be dipped twice, and there should be power to dip them a third or fourth time if necessary. 16631. How many years would you i)ropose the simultaneous dipping should be con- tinued ? — My own opinion is that if it were properly done it could be carried out in two years. 16632. Supposing that the inspectors in any area could certify tliat there were flocks under their charge which had no scab when they wore dipped the first time of the simul- taneous dipping, and that no scab has appeared among them subsequently, would you insist upon their being dipped again when the time came round next year ?■ — If scab reappeared in any district, I think the whole of the flocks in the district should be dij)ped once, and the scabby flocks dipped as often as necessary, because you cannot tell where it may have ex- tended to, or what may have happened. That might bo somewhat a matter of detail, de- pending on what we might know of the origin of the outbreak ; but I think we should always insist on dipping all the flocks once. In fact, I think all the flocks in the colony should be dipped the second 3'ear, whether scab is amongst them or not. 16633. Do you think farmers whu keep their sheep perfectly clean would object to that ? — I don't think so, and notwithstanding the success of the fii'st year's dipping, I really think we should insist on a universal dipping for one more year, whether scab was there or not, and that individual outbreaks should be dealt with as circumstances might require. 16(;34. If a simidtaneous dipping had been carried out, would you keep any flocks which had been badly infected in quarantine for any longer time ? — No, not before giving them the first dipping ; it would be in the interests both of the individual farmer and the country that the restrictions should be removed at as early a date as possible, and I think the simpler plan would be to dip them a third time rather than put them for three months iu quarantine. 16635. In the event of an outbreak of scab after the simultaneous dijjiiiug, how long after dipping them would you keep the sheep in quarantine ?— If they were thoroughlj' dipped, and dipped immediately, I don't think I would deal with them differently; but if there were any particular reason why they could not be attended to at once, I would simply re-dip them, and repeat the dipping, and deal with them on the same lines, because even if scab did break out in the flock there is no difference between that and any other outbreak. I would quarantine them until I had finished dipping them. It is our quarantining arrange- ments iu this coimtiy which cause most irritation to the farmers. 16636. How would you propose to appoint the inspectors of dipping? — The men who were superintendents of dipping would naturally be selected fi-om eacii distric*-. because they could live there without any extra expenditure, whereas if they had (o go a\\;i , from their liouses it would be a serious matter. But I lliiiik all the superintendents of dipping should be imder the men nppoiuled by the Government, and should have authority to enforce all the regulations regarding it. I would not have the farmers interfere in the matter at all. but the responsibility of dipping should rest upon the supervisors, who could be recommen- ded by the farmers of the district, but they must all receive instruction respecting dij)piug, aud must be intelligent, trustworthy men who would see the thing properly carried out. 16637. Who would you get as superintendents of the inspectors .-' — We should natuiallj' have to fall back upon our best scab inspectors. 16638. Do you think the suparintendent-inspector should have some say? — Un- doubtedly the thing could of course be worked on very much the same lines as at present, with a ministerial head and officers imder him, and everything of that kind would have to be referred to thu superintendent-inspector as well. 16639. Don't you think he should have power to suspend an inspector under him when he thinks ho has good reason for doing so ? — That would necessarily involve the putting of another man in his place You could do it if you were dealing with a private firm, but in a (Tove'.ument service the man who is responsible for such dismissal occupies a seat in Parliament, and if he delegates his power to any one else he may tnd himself in a difficulty, aud may not be stble on every occasion to support the action of his subordinate. 16640. But supposing he finds an officer uuder him guilty of some dereliction oi duty, or some grave offence, should he not have power to suspend the man pending an inveistiga- tiou ? — I don't tliiuk it would be auy advantage, Itecause you would have to go through the whole process either after suspension or before dismissal : you have the same process of reference, and sending in the evidence against a man, and if ho were reinstated after being 720 suspended by the superintendent, it would weaken the superintendent a good deal. If a Government offioial suspends a man, and the Government takes a different view of the case and reinstates him, the position of the first official is coasiderably weakenerl. I think the superintendent should report a man at once, and let the responsible minister, or whoever may be in charge, dismiss him or not. 16641. I suppose you have seen the reports of the superintending inspector .-' — Yes. 16642. Do his reports indicate that there is more scab than you woidd infer from the rejjoits of the inspectors ? — Yes, in a good number of cases. Of course, there is something to be said by way of explanation in this way, that the superintending inspector maj' have visited the flocks two months after the report has been made out for that particidar ward, and there may have been an alteration in the circumstances ; but, on the whole, the super- intending inspector's reports indicate a little more scab than the reports of the inspectors. I should like to give an explanation upon certain points which were made a great deal of, with respect to certain inspectors being retained after being reported. There were certain areas in which the scab inspectors were regarded as being inefficient and the Government intended to dismiss them, but at the particular time referred to there was an agitation in these districts to get rid of the scab act, and it was considered bythe Government judicious to hold the dismissal of these men in abeyance until the districts had decided what they were going to do. There were about three district-s in which this took place, and as these men were not dismissed at the time we could not dismiss them for the same offences sis months afterwards ; we had to get fresh evidence against them, only reprimanding them at tlie time. These are cases of which a good deal has been made, but that is really the position. 16643. Have you not known a good many cases where the inspector has reported that he has visited certain flocks, and it has come to the knowledge of the Government after- wards that he never did so ? — Yes, we have had instances of that, and among a great many inspectors who are fairly efficient, to a certain extent ; and the thing is that in the changes we have made we sometimes get no better men in thau those we have dismissed. 16644. Don't you think it would have been better, and that the act would have worked more satisfactorily, if the inspectors had had instructions to watch the flocks of tlie farmers whom they knew to be more careless than others, and to leave the periodical inspection of tlie farmers whom they could trust, instead of making periodical tliree or six months visits all round ? — -They are obliged by the act to make these periodical inspections, but there is no doubt that a good many of the efficient scab inspectors do as you indicate. The greater part, however, of the inspectors' time is taken up by the issue of these permits, and that is what interferes most with their work. Half of their time is taken up with insjjecting flocks iu order to grant permits for removal, and that takes more time thau any other one part of their duties, so that the permit system is the bane of our whole act. 1664.5, Don't you think it was a very great mistake to appoint certain daj's upon which the insjjectora were to be in the towns .-' — On the other hand, unless a man makes some arrangement of that kind, he has to be at all parts of the district ; a man may write to him the day before, wanting a permit to remove sheep, and witliout some such arrangement the inspector cannot comply with those recpiests. 16646. But if he is in the district town on a certain day, would not the same difficultj' apply, because he may be asked to come to tlie four points of the compass ? — He is there at certain times, and any letter would find him. There is great complaint amongst tlie fanners tliat they cannot get the inspectors to come and inspect their flocks to give permits for removal, and if we have to fall back on the field-cornets, they may not take a sufficiently serious view of the re.sponsibility, and may grant a permit after a somewhat indifferent inspection of the flocks. We have had to appoint field-cornets in almost every ward to give these permits, as we found it impossible foi ihe inspectors to attend to them. 16647. "Would j'ou pay the superintending dippers a salary, or would you pay them for work actually done .' — A salary, as you have to keep them constantly employed. I would give them so mucli a day, and they would have to be emjiloyed all the time the dipping was going on. Or 3'ou could pay them at a certain late per thousand sheep dipped, only against that there would be the objection that the di2i])ing might be too hurried, and if we are going to all this expenditure iu simultaneous dipping- our great object is efficiency. 16648. Mr.dtiToit.^ What salary, more or less, would you sugge.st f()r the dipping inspectors .'' — You could not give them less than 7s. 6d. a da}'. 16649. What do you think it would amount to in a year r — A gr(>at deal. You could not do it with less than about 800 dipping inspectors, and in any case they would have to receive about 7s. 6d. a day. They could be used after tor inspecting flocks, but thei'e is no use in spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar, and you would requir(> very close inspection to prevent a scabby flock doing damage before the outbreak was known. I am inclined to carry out the two years" scheme efRcientlv, whatever the cost. If it were considered desirable to suspend one-half of them it might be done, but I don't think you could pay less than "s. 6d. a daj' for actual work. 16650. Theu what shouhl the supervising inspectors get? — They would have to keep a horse, and you would have to about dcnible the payment. They would have to ride about from ward to ward, and have several districts to go through, and you could not get good efficient men at an annual salary of less than los. a day. 16661. How many would j-ou suggest for each fiscal division.' — If the districts are a' good .size, I think the superintendents might take two. or if small three, but not more, and that woidd come to about thirty men. 721 16652. Would you suggest that theyalijull be paid at a salary? — Tbey should be permanent officers, at so much per nnnum. I look upon it as essential that there should be constant and dose inspection after dipping, in order ttiat if scab reappears in a flock it should r-ie dealt with immediately, for it would be a pity after all our expenditure not to maintain our advantage and prevent any damage spreading beyond tlie particular Hock whi(^h might happen to be reinfected. 16653. What do you think would be the best way of disinfecting kraals? — I think it would lie enough to take the whole of the loose surface of the kraal and burn it, disinfecting the rest. A foot of the surface of the kraal should be taken away and burned, and the rest of the floor, and all round the sides, would be disinfecteil. 16654. The acarus which causes scab in sheep is not the same as that which causes scab in goats ? — No. I have had one case from Ilumansdorp. aud another from elsewhere, in which sheep had contracted scab from goats, but it is very rare, and it is a special form of scab. The boer go it is an animal without wool, a hairy goat, and if the sheep becomes in- fected from a goat it is invariably in the bare parts, the head, ears and legs, where tliero is no wool, but it is very rare. It is the boer goat scab, aud not the angora goat scab. 16655. Is the scab on springbok caused by the same insect as that on goats ? — I think it is practically the same as that on boer goats, but* my evidence is not very conclusive on that point, and I should not like to give an authoritative opinion without having had suffi- cient opportunity to examine them. I have only seen skins after removal from the carcase. 16656. Have you not heard it from farmers in the north-western districts, who have had experience on the subject V — I have heard it reported, but I have not come into contact with it. 16657. Mr. Botha. ~\ As a professional man, can you say whether it is possible, at all times and under all circumstances, to free any particular flock of sh»ep or goats of scab ? — I tliink it is. At least, I have seen no case in which it (tould not be done. 16658. Are you quite certain that scab cannof. be produced except by infection ? — I am almost as certain of it as I am of anything, but of course it is very difficult to prove a nega- tive. You can hardly prove that something cannot jiossibly take place, but as far as all the evidence goes we are as certain that scab does not originate except b)' contagion as we are of anything we know. 16659. So that the condition of the animal cannot produce scab .'' — No; the condition of the animal is only favourable to the dsvelopment of the disease when the insects are there. 16660. Can you account in any waj' how it is that in certain^ seasons] springbok get scab, and not in others, if the condition of the animal does not produce scab ? — It is very difficult for m« to give an authoritative answer to that particular question, and to explain all the conditions under which scab ai^peajs amongst the springbok ; but wo know from our experience with regard to scab amongst boer goats that, in places where scab is found, in the north-western districts and to a large extent in Namaqualand, in some years there is hardly any scab amongst them at all, and the ii«xt year they may lose half their flocks from scab. That is only because scab is still lurking there. There are many other parts of the colony where there are beer p-oats. and where although they became as poor as rats, and here is i-cnb aunug.'-t the sheep, yet the goats don't ge two t'Hrmers' associations in a district, or only one, representing only one section of the community, so hitherto I have always thought it best to refer the matter to the electeil body. Sometimes we have differed, but only when we thought we had sufficient grounds for not agreeing to the nomination of the divisional council. 16662. Then you don't consider it unfair treatment to a divisional council to set aside its recomnumdatiims ? — I would hardly say ihat, because they are not the responsible party, the minister is responsible. When you take into consideration the fact that nil tlie scab in- spectors were first, without a single exception, placed and appointed on the leconmiendation of the divisi(mal councils, and that with very few exceptions the same men condemned every one of their nominees, the Government was placed in this position, that they must consider that the divisional councils had failed to nominate efficient men before, and the Government was blamed for appointing them. As being the responsible party the Government must have discretionary jiower, and I don't think it would be considered any slight on the divisional councils if such discretionary power were exercised. 1666;5. Do you think the duties of superintending scab inspectors might be performed by our colonial veterinary surgeons, of whom I believe we have about twelve or more .' — 722 Ai regards iny«elf, of course, besides possessing some knowledge of scab before coming here, ihave acquired a gfreat deal since, but I must tell you that many veterinary surgeons coming out from England may never have seen a case of scab. I don't say it dixparagingly of them ; there is no seal) there for them to examine, and I don't think they would be the beet men, or so tit for the position as those who have had a real, practical acquaintance not merely with the Hcab disease but also with the process of dipping, and everything else connected with its cure. I don't think veterinary surgeons should be appointed to that office. 1()664. Would not the very fact that they possessed professional knowledge enable them to pick up the necessary practical knowledge better than any other class of men ? — Yes, but on the other hand 1 don't think they would care to have that superintendence, because it would break a man away from professional work, especially in the case of young men ; you would not get any young men to take that position. I would not recommend the appointment of veterinary surgeons, except of men who like myself have both a practical and a professional knowledge of the subject of scab. 16665. Would it not be a gain to these men themselves to be brought in contact with every part of the colony, and with everything that is going on in connection with stock ? — Yes, but I think you could employ them more profitably in doing something else. You would want about thirty of these superintending inspectors, and if they were all to be Teterinary surgeons you would have to bring them out on a three or four years' agreement, and I don't think they woidd come out here specially to be scab inspectors. We have four now, and there are four more to be appointed. 16666. Would it not be practicable to give these gentlemen instructions to travel over the country. Government paying their expenses, and attending to all these things ? — I hope the Government intends giving them a better job ; I hope that next session the Parliament will pass a thoroughly efficient act to deal with lung sickness, and I believe we shall be able to get the veterinary surgeons to teach them how to deal with that, and so get rid of both these diseases at the same time. 16667. Is not scab much more serious to the country than lung sickness ? — I think it is relatively of more importance ; on the other hand, I consider they are both very important, and I look upon lung sickness as one of the great hindrances to our improving the cattle of the coimtry. 16668. Mr. Francis.'] Are you aware of the manner in which scab inspectors are appointed iu the Transkeian territories ?— Until quite recently it was not under the agricul- tural department, but was managed entirely by the native affairs office, and I am not very conversant either with the manner of the working of the act there, or the manner in which appointments were made. 16669. At present, all the inspectors, with the exception of the superintendent inspector, are exactly on the same level ? — Yes. 16670. Don't you think it would be advisable in a future act to classify them, and thus hold out an inducement to the energetic man ?— It is very difficult to do that in a Govern- ment service, but I think if the staff was kept up for a certain number of years the men should have a prospect of getting an increase of salary. I don't know about gra^s ; it would be a mere matter of an increase in salary if a man had been proved to be efficient after a certain period of time. ^ :, ■ ■ i a ^ 16671. Woidd you consider that an inspector who reported that he had visited flocks on a certain day, and had not done so, or one who made a false report, had laid himself open to a specific charge ?— Yes, of course ; that is a very serious offence, because you could have no contiaence in a man who would do that, and it would make his reports valueless. 16672. You would consider a man who reported that he had inspected certain flocks ot sheep and foimd them dean when he had never seen them at all, unworthy ot trust .-•— \es, I would have him dismissed. . • * u •> 16673. What arrangements would you make with regard to the importation ot sheep r —All sheep imported by sea should be dipped as soon as landed at the port, and 1 would absolutely prohibit any sheep being brought from any pert except those where they had the same conditions as ourselves. You could not carry it out in any other way. 16074. Ai regards the importation of sheep from other parts of South Africa, do you think it would be possible to have one or two ports of entry, and have the animals properly dipijed there under inspection, quarantined and dipped a second time ?— I don t think we should run the risk; if we are going to undertake this, and carry it out, absolute prohibition outside the boundaries of the colony would be the only way. i j v * 16675 By vrohibitiug the importation of stock fiom neighbouring states would it not be an inducement to them to have a good act of their owti ?-No doubt. PracticaUy we don't want slaughter stock from outside the colony. Take the Free State and the Transvaal, where at centres like Johannesburg they require more stock than those countries can produce The current of stock is fiom this colony northwards, not from the nortli here, and 1 don't think we are likely to want anything like breeding stock fiom there. iheUree State and Transvaal are more likely to waut from us than we from them. 16676 Even if our flocks were clean, don't you think there would be a danger of reinfection from skins and wool carried on our railways .'-Yes that is a very important point, because our principal difficulty here with regard to all kinds of diseases in .tock is S^ the railway demrtment has never taken what I call any action to disiufec't trucks such ae they do in other European countries, especiaUy in England. It is more than twenty-fave [a 1— '94.] "^^^ 723 yeai-8 since in England, no matter what Btock is carried, the truck is cleaned and dis- infected immediately stock is taken out. That is absolutely necessary in the first place, and in the next place I would have all wool and skins can-ied in bales, closed, until we haye finished with scab. They should be fastened up in regular sacks, and the trucks always dis- infected afterwards. There is no doubt a difficulty about our railways in the Free State, but there should be no doubt about the disinfecting of all trucks that have carried wool, skins, sheep or goats. The railway department say it is impossible to do it at the side- stations, but it is principally at the slde-statiuns that stock is loaded up, comparatively few are off-loaded there, consecj^ubntly there would be comparatively few such stations to deal witli, and iu those cases the trucks could easily be run on to the nearest station where there was a sufficieut staff for the disinfection, because they don't keep the trucks waiting at these •ide-stations. I see no difficulty in the railway department being compelled to clean every truck after the truck has been off-loaded of wool, skins, sheep or goats. That is a point which must be insisted upon. 16677. Do you think it would be a great advantage to farmers, in the event of thix simultaneous dipping being carried out, if portable tanks were supplied to facilitate the work, and to help men who perhaps were not in a position to construct tanks on their own farms"? — I think it is amatter of calculating the expense, whether it would be less expensiva to provide a certain number of portable tanks, and take them to the respective farms, or to construct dips. I suppose, if properly constructed, the portable tanks would be the cheap- est ; a man could then iuspan his oxen and take it on to the next farm. The tanks would have to be provided in some way or other by Government, if there were none already con- structed. It is a matter of national importance, aud the Government should step in, and where a man is unable to build a tank, it is in the interest of every farmer that the Govern- ment slioidd do it. 16678. You consider it would be such an advantage to the whole of the tax-payers of the countiy to eradicate scab from our flocks that the Government would be quite justified in assisting the farmers as far as possible to effect that object.'' — Decidedly. I think it is in their interest, because in the first place they have to go on dipping, and they incur a great deal more expense for their own flocks at the present time than they would do if they con- tributed a little towariis the eradication of scab amongst their neighbours' flocks. 16679. And not only the farmer himself, but the general tax-payer of the country? — Yes, for the mercantile community and every taxpayer. 16680. With regard to the fines which have been inflicted for breaches of the present act, do you think they have been sufficiently adequate to cause the law to be respected ? — No, and there is a point I should like to refer to. I think you will find as a rule that where you have an efficient magistrate you have a good scab inspector. I don't mean that a good magistrate will make a good inspector, but it has a great deal to do with the efficient working of the act in his area, if he supports the inspector in the administration of the act. 16681. It a man failed to report an outbreak of scab, as you suggest he should do, what method would you adopt to punish him ? — There must no doubt b a some provision for it, and a penalty attached to any breach of the act. I would have the inspectors constantly at work, but that would not take away the responsibility from the owner of the stock. 16682. Do you think that the penalties for breaches of the act should be more seyere than they are at present? — I think so. If the country is going to all this expense, we should punish the man who in any way infringe! the act, especially as it would be to his own advantage to report scab immediately, and would not in any way interfere with him. 16683. Can you give us an opinion bow long the scab insect will live after it is removed from a sheep or goat ? — I can only go by the exj)eriments I have made. I have kept them alive for three weeks, and very nearly a month, but that can only be done by keeping them in the wool, on the scab, and keeping them moist and at a certain tumperature. There is another point which I referred to recently in the Agricultural Journal. It is a curious faet that if you keep the insects moist and C'dd they get into a sort of dormant i-oniition, im which they remain asleep, without any chang- of tissue taking place ; and you can revive them oven after a considerable time by the application of warmth. Supposing thero is some moist, shady place where some scab inserts have got in, where they are not likely to get dried up, and where the temperHture is rather cool, you may possibly find that these insects are capable of reviving again should the sheep chance to lie down in that spot the whole night, ;!S the heat from the sheep's body would come into contact with the insects and revive theui. I have carried them about with me for days, and oould detect no sign of life in them, but if you get them warm they begin to move, and you can see that they become quite lively. They nerer entirely regain their former vitality, but they can live under those tjonditions. 16684. U the insects when in that condition were put on a live sheep "gain, I presume they would breed ? — Yes, I am quite satisfind of that. There is one important \>ou\l upon which I am not very clear. There is no doubt that the scab insects breed : you may take them off sheep, and especially goats. /I'l I davs afterwards you may see them pairing, but it is a question how long and under what conditions they are able to infect. It may be more than a month, The insects might die within a month, but I think it very likely that the infection would be perpetuated. 16685. Under favourable circumstances, how long do you think the egg would retait its vitality in an old kraal, before hatching? — It is practically impo^bible to say, hut there is no doubt it remains an indefinite time, not less than two years, and perhaps longer. 724 16686. Have you ever tried aily experiments of hatching; eggs under certain conditions of moisture and heat? — I have carried them about myself rolled up in flannel, putfing them iiL my pockets during the day and under my pillow at night, to keep them warm, and I found that they would hatch out for days. But you must keep the ecah moist aa well as warm. 16687. Is it not probable that if there were very heavy rains it would either destroy the eggs iu a kraal or hatch them out ? — Yes, a good soaking rain is the best thing, because it will hatch out those which are ready, and then they will be killed by the cold when newly hatched. 16688. With regard to your report on Messrs. Cooper and Nephews' offer, is there any- thing j-ou would like to say on the subject 'f — My first impression with regard to that offer, as expressed in the report I madef was very unfavourable. I looked at it, not from the point of view of eradicating scab, but from a commercial point of view, but having to report on it immediately, I was rather inclined to tliink that some such scheme, supplying the dip and obtaining uniform action, could be carried out provided the necessary powers and authority were granted. The weakest point in the scheme proposed would be the tendency to friction between the administrators, who would have to be Government officers, and the firm, who WDuld rr-ally be the responsible party to see the scheme properlj- carried out. It is exactly on the same lines as if the Government took the matter up ; there is no practical difference, and I think I remarked in my report that this was the only chance the farmers had to get their dip for nothing, and that is a point in favour of the scheme. If the poor farmers, and those who have no dip, could be induced to consent to the efficient carrying out of uniform dipping by this gift of the dip, I should be inclined to sacrifice any commercial objections I oiigLt entertain to such an arrangement for the sake of getting the work done. Commercial men and the general taxpayer would probably be opposed to the scheme, but on the other hand it is in the general interests of the colony that a small sum should he con- tributed by each to benefit the whole. 16689. You think it would be a great inducement to the poor farmers if the firm sup- plied tlie dip free of cost, and by that means many of them would support an act who now oppose it ? — I think so. 16690. Don't you think that such a fina contracting to eradicate scab would be in a. better condition to see the work thoroughly done than any Government department would be ? — There is of coui-se the one great inducement to them to succeed, but I don't see that the efficiency in working would lie any better under the firm than under the Government, because the administrators must all be Government officers, to whom po^er is given by the Government to carry the matter out. The only point in their favour is that they propose to distribute an amount of money in the shape of bonuses to the officers who would administer the scheme, otherwise the admiriistr itiou of the act by the firm would be the same as by the Government. 16691. Chairman.'] Is it not constantly the fact that rules and regulations which maybe theoretically con-ect are often found when brought into absolute practice not to work well, owisg to Gome circumstances or other not having been taken into considerati-m when they were drawn up ? — That is a very common experiance in working all acts of Parliament. 16692 Consequently, a general scab act ajiplying to the peculiar circumstances of i country like this, where there is such a great difference in climate in the different areas, might eventually be foimd to reqmre alteration in certain clauses, or in regard to certain particulars ? — Yes, such a possibihty no doubt exists, and would very likely o ;cur. 16693. If such a thing occurred, would not the interests of the fai-miug population demand the amendment or repeal of any portion of the act which did not work well ? — Decidedly. 16694. Would not that be a tremendous objection to the acceptance of any proposal from a firm, because the firm would naturally enter into a definite agreement, and base that ag^reemcnt upon definite rules and regulations, but if these rules and regulations were subsequently altered the firm would naturalh consider themselves entitled to damages ? — • Of coui'su the firm would only enter upon the agreement on condition that a f-ertain act was passed, comaining certain provisions. As you say, there would be a mutual agreement betwoeu liiw ijrovcinuieiii, auu iho film, that an act should be passed uuu efficiently adininisterfd, the firm undertaking certain responsibilities under those conditions, and if those conditions were found inoperative it would be necessary to alter them, and then there wov.'.l > : .I hitch. Of course an alteration might be made with the consent of the firm. 16695. But if the firm did not consent, the Government would be mulcted in damages ? — You can legislate yourself out of that. 16696. After a simultaneous dipping has been carried out, would it b' advisable to allow the removal of all stock on the personal permit of the owner, subject li'jwover to a heavy penalty if he moves scabby sheep knowing them to be scabby ? — Yes ; a certain num- ber of days after .sheep had been thoroughly dipped, to the satisfaction of the inspector, I would give the owner liberty to grant his own permit, subject to a severe penalty provided he either neglected to report a subsequent outbreak of scab, or moved the stock knowing that scab existed among them. 16697. During the first year of the operation of this act, would you object to provieioa being made for the removal of slaughter stock, even although scabby, by givi ig them one thorough and efficient dipping in a recognised dip, under inspection, provided they were removed to their destination and slaughtered within fourteen days, or, if suci were not th« TTTT 2 725 case, that they would be subjected to a second dipping, under inspection, and kept under Buporvision ? — I don't know ; it would leave a loophole. I would prefer that for a certain specified time no stock at all should be allowed out of the area which was undergoing dip- ping. Let the time be as short as possible, and let the slaughter stock meanwhile be drawn from arras which have completed the dipping, or have not yet begun. 1G698. Mr. Botha.] Don't you think that efficient dipping will affect the condition of such stock, and make them less valuable for the butcher's purpose ? — I don't think it would, if certain dips were used. For instance, if you dip in a tar dip a week or ten days before slaughtering, the meat woxdd taste of the carbolic ; but I am supposing we are going to use a dip containing sulphur, which would leave uo taste iu the meat, and would not, I think, seriouslj' affect the condition of the animal. 16699. Chairman.] Would you insist upon skins which were tanned in a district by private ' difficulty in aiicepting my statement I a-sked him if he would believe that scab wa» due to an insect if I took insects in his presence from an infected sheep and put thdn on. 726 to a clean one. So lie said that if I could infect his pet sheep with the insect, he would believe me. I then took a number of insects off, put them on a slide and showed them to him through a microscope. We opened the wool on the top of the shoulders of the pet sheep, and put the insects in, and it was agreed that if scab came there it would be sufficient evidence. I asked him to communicate with Mr. Honey and tell me if scab appeared, and ten days later at Fraserburg I received a telegram to say that the sheep had got scab and Mr. de Vos was quite satisfied. About the same time, Mr. Nigrini, of Fraserburg, publishei a challenge in the Wi/nherg Times in which he offered to pay me £.50 if I could infect fifty sheep out a hundred with the insect, and I was to pay him £-50 if I failed. I accepted this challenge, and was prepired to carry it out, and he was to offer no objection to my putting any number of insects on the sheep. Howe/er, whei he heard that this experiment at Carnarvon was a success, he came to me and made som3 excuse, and did not want this wa«er to go on in any way as his friends were unwUling that he should enter upon it. I told hii« I did not want anything in the nature of a wager, and would not have taken his money if T had won, but that I was willing to carry out the experiment. It was then arrancel that I should, and the e-speriment was so far all right that T tiok the insects off the infected she«p overnight; but the nex' lUJroing when I couacnenced the operation of putting them on the clean sheep, Mr. le R3ex, M.L..\.., came and told Mr. Nigrini that if I were allowed to pat a certain number of insects on they would make a hole in the skin which would look like scab, and that T must only put on two, a mile and a female. lobjested that an experiment conducted in thit way would be no go>d ; that I should probably injure a number in catch- ing them, or the one caught might be too young, and I protested that that was not the agreement. The only mistake T made was submitting to oirry out the experiment under such conditions, and the result of course was nQ, and they have made a great deal of that. But I have successfully performed the expariment elsewhere, and I am quite prepared to do it again on Mr. le Roex' farm. 16710. Mr. PraMckr\ If an agreemeat were made with Messrs. Cjoper aal Nepliaw* according to their offer, could it not be so drawn up that it it were afterwards found necas- sary to amend the act, any dispute arising between the firm and the Government could b« decided under a clause in the contract providing for the settlement of such matters by arbitration ? — I think it would be simpler in this way, that it would be a change in favour of the efficiency of the act, and not only in their own interest. There should be a provisioa that if it was found either not to work satisfaitorily, or for any reason an amenimeut was desirable, it would be certain to be in the direction of iilfineacy, and that provision could be made for it and the Government be iu no way responsible. 16711. Mr. dix Toil.l Do you know of a kind of skin disease caused by internal fever, or sickness, which might easily be mistaken for scab ? — In the first place we have what is generally called fever, or mxliriil fever, " bek ziekte " and " blaaw-tong," whea the fleese faUs off, but the skin is clean. There is another disease where the sheep get a kind of boil on the skin but that is also distinct. There is nothing which could, I think, be misfcakea for scab by anyone of experience, except perhaps in case of steekgras, but then you get the grass. 16712. You are quite sure that the tape-worms in young sheep don't cause any scurvy on the sides and in the joints of the legs, where the skin cracks? — No, that is debility ; and when they have worms the animal is mjre likely to get into a kind of dropsical condition, and the skia would be moist. There is nothing then like a dry, scurvy skin, which is essentially the case with parasites. I think it was in the Hope Town district I observed the little nodules on the iatestines, and you may get, in very bad cases, a tendency to the formation of little abcesses on the skin ; but that is quite distinct from scurf. 16713. In cases where there might be some doubt, don't you think it would be advisable for the inspector to satisfy himself and the farmer by fiading the insect and showing it to the farmer ? — They do ; the Goverumeut supplies each inspector with a magnifying glass, which is handier than a microscope, and as a rule they do demonstrate the existence of the insects to the farmer. 16714. You are quite sure that there can be no scab where the aeari are not found ? — - Yes, as certain as I caa be. It is inposnble to prove a negative, bat I feel quite sure of it. 16715. What do you think of enforcing compulsory, simultaneous dipping over a part of the colony, and putting the rest under the present scib act ? — I would not recommenl that at all, because the expense of putting the simultaneous dipping in force would be very great, and you would be constantly liable to reinfection fro-n other places, so rendering' this expsnditui-e useless. If you are to have simultaneous dioping cirried out, it would be the simplest plan to apply it all round, bacause immediately afterwards there would be complete freedom, except iu the case of individual outbreaks, and that relief would be worth a great de. 1. 16716. Chairman.'] Do you wish to add anything ? — ^No. Mr. Sidney Cmcper examined. 16717. Chairman.'] What is your appointment? — Principal clerk in he agricultural department. 727 16718. Do ail uoniniUuicationa and currebpondence referring to tlio working of the acak net and the appointment of inspectors puss through youi- hands ? — Yes, the whole of it. 16719. NVould you kindly state now «cttb inspectors are appointed ? — As soon as thcuad in vogue, and my instructions have been to carry it out. Personally I should bo very pleased with the plan you suggest. 16755. But Mr. Hutcheon told us this morning that inspectors are sometimes appointed on the recommendation of members of Parliament. Is that a fact ? — No, but they have beea eonsulted. 16756. You first consult the divisional council, then Mr. Davison and Mr. Hutcheon, and then I suppose some member of Parliament has a favourite and he steps in as a third partj', and to please him his favourite is appointed ? — I iou't think a member of Parliament would do such a thing. 16757. Do you know that the divisional counf-U of Alexandria recommendsd a l£r. Potgieter to be scab inspector, and instead of appointing him you appointed a Mr. Grant?— I think that was the case, but it was before I came into the department, L.^v ' .. - . 7a» 1676H. Covld you perhapu tell the Commission why it was done ? — No, I don't know Anything about the lacte of that particular caae. 16769. But much later, did not the divieioual council of Somerset East recommend a Ur. Lrasmus, by a large majoiity, and instead of Mr. £raBmus a Mr. Featheistone wa« appointed ?— Y es. 16760. Could you give the reasons for that ?— Mr. Erasmus was not considered a fit person by Mr. Lavifcou and Mr. Huttheon, who both knew him personally. Bis education w as delfcctive. 1 am under the impression that Mr. Boyes, the civil commisaioner, simply iorw arded the recommendation w ithout comment. 16761. At all events, he did not say Mr. Erasmus wais not a fit and proper person tor Le ajpoiulment "r — lie had already reported that on the previous election. 16762. Lo you remember tliht before they adjourned alter the last circuit, this Com- ttjissiou recommended that all the scab inspectors in Somerset East should be removed ? — YeB, 1 remember that. 16763. "S\ as that carried out ? — Only in the case of Mr. Bowker. Mr. Hofmey r resigned. 16764. "VXould heotheiwibe have been removed? — Probably. 16766. But how many more were removed Y — Nobody else m that district. 16766. W ere there any more inspectors in Somerset East at the time ? — One comer of (Somerset Eatt is included in the Alexandria area. 16767. W ho was inspector there? — Mr. Slater. The rest of the Somerset Eaat area bad only two inspectors, one Mr. Hofmeyr and the other Mr. Bowker. 16765. 1 suppose you know that Mr. Probert, the scab inspector at W'itmos station, is a speculator .'—1 Uon't know it. 16769. Ttou do not know that he made use of the scab act to profit by it f — No. 16770. \ou do not know that a certain lot of slaughter stock ^hich he condemned, and which were taken out of the trucks, were allowed by him to be forwarded to his uncle, six miles luriher in the proclaimed area ? — M ho is his uncle ? 16771. Another Mr. Piobeit? — No, 1 did not know that. 167 72. "V.OU do not know that he had any share in the speculation? — No, I have not the sbghiest idea of it. 167 73. It ou had not the slightest idea that he did anything wrong? — I know nothing about him except that he has always given a satisfactory explanation. 16774. 1 suppose jour department is so conveniently ignorant of anything that may happen that jou don't care to know ?^1 would not like to say that on behalf of the depart- ment. 16776. W hy are divisional councils asked for recommendations if you are not prepared to act accoidingly ? — Because it has olten happened that a divisional council has recom- mended a veiy suitable man, and we have been only too glad to appoint him ; but now and again it has come to our notice that the man they have recommended was not one the de- partment was prepared to accept. 16776. But who is a better authority in a district than the divisional council to know who is a suitable man ? — Of course, we look to our own expert adviters, such as Mr. Jjavison and Mr. Hutcheon, who have had a groat deal of experience in the country. 167 77. iJon't you think it very strange that as you have such very good men, who know everything which it is necessary to know with regard to the matter, such as Mr^ Hutcheon and Mr. Davison, you should pass them by and ask the divisional council to recommend someone, and after they have taken the trouble to do so that you should not accept him ? — i can hardly give any more satisfactory •answer beyond what 1 have already Baid ; jour- question is of a political nature. I carry out the instructions given to me by the head of my department. 1677». Jkr. J!rancu.'\ Is it not a fact that some of the inspectors who were appointed by the Government on the recommendation of the divisional councils were found to be perfectly worthless in carrying out the act, or at all events to a great extent ? — There have been some very indilierent inspectors appointed from time to time. 16779. 1 presume the object of your department in obtaining all the information you can from the best souices before appointing inspectors is for the purpose of getting the best men '( — That is our object. 16780. And cases might occur of men being recommended by a divisional council not because they were the best men, but through per.sonal interest ? — Such cases might occur. 16781. Aro the inspectors in the Transkei territories appointed on the same lines? — There are no divisional councils in the Transkei, and the administration was conducted entirely by the native affairs' department. Various people applied for any scab inspector- ship wliicli might fall vacant, the names of applicants were kept in a register, and when- ever a man ■Ras required the department selected from the list the person they thought most Biutabie, always consulting the local magistrate and obtaining the approval of the chief magisiiate. \Ve aie practically going on the same lints. 16762. Have there been any complaints that the iu.spectors who have from time to time been appomted in the Transkei have not fulfilled their duties ? — No ; I think most of the TiaiiSkeian inspectors have given us considerable satisfaction. I can only call to mind one man, and he is not perhaps quite up to his work on account of physical infirmity. I67b3. Aie you aware tliat a certain gentleman was recommended by the divisional council of larkastad for the appointment of scab inspector, and was appointed, and that he •Weighed 4oO lbs. ? — No, 16784. But if such is the case, would you not think that the recommendations ol divisional councils could not in all cases he depended upon? — I could- not regard him as an active j'oung: man. 16785. Do you think it would be Itettor if scab inspectors were classified? — ^Yee, I am strongly in-fuvour of that, and have been fur some time. 16786. You think it would be a great inducement to inspectors to carry out their work efficiently ? — I am sure of it, because now a man commences at the full salary, and there is nothing to encourage him to do his work. Another thinj; is that we are bound to take the inspector from amongst the applicants resident in the area where the vacancy occurs, and that operates badly, because it g^ves interested parties an opportunity of recommending some man who maj' be a relation or friend, and putting liim in. I think it would be very much better if you could take yoiu- inspector frut the exact percentage of losses for which we sliould be Hable must necessarily be one of those details left for final settlement witli the G(jvernment. It must he largely influenced by the basis of valuation to be laid down and other circumstances at present obscure and unsettled. It would of course never do for us to accept an arrangement under which the owner would have a positive interest in his sheep being kiUed. Both his and our interest should certainly lie in the preservation of his stock, and 1 have no doubt tliat a mutually fair basis of compensation can be ultimately arranged. During the public discussion of our scheme there have been raised certain objections to tlie use of Cooper's dip, tliat it is harmful to the sheep and wool and other sucli. I mayperliaps be permitted to assure the Commission that wo have a most complete answer to all such o1ije<;tions and lliat we are prepared to give the Government proof to demonstration that none of them have any foundation in fact. May I say a word too why we ask for payment upon all the sheep and goats in the colony including the clean ones, and for the same amount in each year, when, aft3r the first, the work may lie expected to be less. Every practical farmer knows tliat if he discovers one scabby sheep in a flock, the whole flock in reason and as a matter of necessary precaution must be considered infected and consequently be dij^ped. There are comparatively very few flocks absolutely clean, and extremely few kraals. We must start on the assumption that there is not a clean sheep nor a clean kraal in the colony, and we shall treat every one on that assumption. There is no other course absolutel}' safe. The explanation of the " expenses money " being the same in each year is very simple indeed. It is a mere matter of taking the average of the expenses of the three years and arranging the " success money" so as to prevent any unfairness to either side in the effect of the average struck for expenses, and fui-ther to make it to the mutual interest of all parties concerned to score success as quickly as possible. Let me say finally that we are very confident of our ability under our scheme to absolutely clean the Cape Colony of scab, and we are certain that it can afterwards be kejit as clean as the Australian colonies, in some of which there has not been a spot of scab for thirty years. We are prepared to deposit £25,000 guarantee for tlie performance of the conditions of the contract, reducikle £5,000 a year as we proceed, and to place 25,000 cases of our dip in the cohmy before we commence working. That is equivalent to a guarantee of £100,000 in addition to the heavy capital expenditure necessary both at home and here before the work begins. All this coupled with the forfeiture of £210,000, or £157,000 or £105,000 for each respective year, and the sacrifice of our reputation should we fail, is surely as effective a guarantee as could be wished of ultimate suecess. If we are permitted to undertake the work, we will not willingly leave it until scab be absolutely banished from the colony. Copt Town, Monday, \9th March, 1894. PRESENT : Dr. Smabtx (Chairman). Mr. Botha. I Mr. Hooklt. „ DU ToiT. I ,, Francis. Mr. Charles Currey, Under Sccretanj for Agriculture examined. 16801. Chairman.'] You are the Under Secretary for Agriculture ? — Yes. 16802. And the administration of the scab acts passes entirely through your depart- ment } — Entirely through our department. 16803. Have you found any difficulties in the admiuistratioa of the act, or have any 732 complaints been made to the department on the suVjject ? — Not ia regard to the manner of its administration ; but tlioso toncemed liave in many instances complained of the operation of the act, its harshness, and the difficulties under which they are placed in submitting to ts provisions. 16804. In casps where the scab inspectors have prosecuted, and where their prosecutions have not been upheld by the magistrates, or being uphold by them, have been dismissed by the higher court, and where the department has considered that the inspectors have acted nllra vires, what stops have y ju taken ? — If the prosecutions have faded through ignorance or faidt on the part of the inspector, he has always been instructed on the points at issue ; just now I have a case in the Barkly Kast division, where an appeal fr m the judgment in the lower court has been upheld. The proceedings, it appears, were instituted through ignorance on tlie part of the seal) insjiector, who really prosecuted erroneously, and I con- sider that the magistrate was equally at faidt. It is no part of the duty of the departaient to instrtict the magistrate : we can only draw attention to the matter through the Attorney General ; but imder such circumstances the inspector will bo fuUy instructed as regards the law on the subject, a; d as to how ho should act ia future. Under such circumstances as these the inspector, in many cases, would merit and would also receive a reprimand. 16805. Have there been a sufficient number of such cases to justify you in the conclu- sion that certain scab inspectors are grossly incompetent for the discharge of their duties'? — I cannot saj' yes to that c^uestion, as it is put ; but such cases, combined with others showing ignorance of their duties, and incompetsuce, have led the department to infer that the staff of inspectors, taken as a whole, is not equal to the duties required of them. 16806. Would you consider it advisable to have such men removed fi-om their present positions ? — Undoubtedl}-, assuming that the Government is to do any good by adminis- tering the scab acts. 16807. For the proper administration of a scab act, specially if it referred to the whole Colony, would you bo in favour of a special department within the aa:ricultural department, under the charge of a chief inspector of stock, who would be responsible for the thorough and efficient administration of the act .?— Certainly. If the operations of the scab law are to be extended to the whole Colony, I consider you would want a strong executive staff, which should be under the direct control of a responsible officer of superior standing, and I should prefer that this officer should be caUed chief inspector of stock. He would, of course, as with the rest of the public service, be under the administrative control of the Minister, but he would be the chief executive officer. The administration would remain in the ministerial department of agriculture. 16808. Such department, I take it, could also attend to all diseases of stock in the Colony ? — Yes, and if I may say so, I think such an arrangement r \--,remely desirable. 16809. Mr. Butha.'\ To whom do the scab inspectors give an account of their doings ; is there anybody or department to whom they report themselves from time to time?-— To ni persons or department personally, but they report periodically by letter ; in the first instance to the superintending scab inspector, whose head-quarters are at Bedford, and in the second place, or rather simultaneously, to the ministerial department in Cape Town. 16810. Do you think it is necessary to have twj administrating departments as it is at present ? — No, I don't think it is necessary to have two administrating departments nor is this the case now ; there is only one administrative department, and that is the department of agriculture. The superintending scab inspector is the chief executive officer acting under the admin'strating department. 16811. Don't you think it would be an improvement if he were stationed somewhere near your dnpartmont, or in your office, instead of being at Bedford V —No, I cannot say I do. We have a professional adviser at head-quarters, in the senior colonial veterinary surgeon or, in his absence, one of the other veterinary surgeons, and it is only upon pro- fessional points that the ministerial department requires advice other than that which can be obtained from its own officers. 16812. Is there any particular ailvantage in having Mr. Davison stationed at Bedford rather than anywhere else ? — I consider there is. As far as tay knowledge goes, Bedford may be said to be the centre of the principal wool growing districts ; he is more get-at-able there tlian I think ho would be anywhere else, and my experience since I have been in charge of the department, shows that it is a convenient station for him, from Bedford ho covers the giouud he is required to inspect very conveniently to himsell: and satisfactorily to the Government. 16813. You don't know of any other reason why Bedford should be more convenient than any othiu- place in tho Colony for his residence .'-^No. The efficient administration of the scab acts is tho onl}- reason with which I am concerned. Tliere may be other reasons, personal to Mr. Davison ; but that is tho only reasoa I am aware of ; ami unless I nai mistaken the reason I give is the main one that would iutlucuce Mr. Davison. 1681 1. In caso the scab act should be extended over the whole Col i;iy, or over a much larger area than it is at present, woidd Bedford still contiuue to bo the tiost place for his residence ? — T cannot say positively that it would ; under the altered circumstances T ttuuk wn might have to select now hoad-cpuirtors for the chief inspectur of stock. 16815. Of course, even scab inspectors may sometimes misconduct them--.dves, and in such cases to whom are the public supposed to go to report ttio circumstauc^s and oi tain redress : is it to your department direct, or to tho chief inspector, or to the inagish-ate of the district 'i — To our department direct. Whenever the public refjuire redress f -v any •yVVV 3 "733 misdeeds on tto part of executive officers, T take it tliat thoy should complain to the ministerial department which is responsible to the country for the conduct of affairs. 168 10. Don't you think that a man miglit bo a very bad lawj'er, with regard to prosecu- tions, and still be a very good scab inspector ? — Yes. 16817. Then would you advise that men who wore incapable of prosecutiug, or who failed to obtain convictions should be got rid of as boing unfit for the appointment .' — T don't think 80. 16818. In such cases, don't you think it would be in the interest of the scab act, and with a view to its being properly carried out, that an iuspootor should have the services of a suitable lawj'er to act for him, iu the same way as we used to have in the old times, when in all criminal cases the clerk of the peace prosecuted iu the magistrate's court? — I don't think an inspector should have a legal mau to act for him, but I think ho should have one to assist him in conducting prosecutions, and that is actually tho case now ; when an inspector applies for Ipgal assistance it is invariably granted, aud all inspectors are under instructions so to apply whenever occasion arises. 16819. Mr. Francis.'] Don't you think it would be advisable if inspectors were classified, since at present they all receive ahout the same salary, aud^hold exactly the same position, consequently there is no inducement to encourage a mau to do his duty, and except by dis- missal there is no means to punish a man for neglect of duty ? — I think it very desirable that there should be some regulated system of prom^jtion for scab iuspectors, as a reward for duty done, 1 doubt myself the expediency or pra?tioability of enforcing any system of fines for neglect of duty amongst officers like inspectors, aud I think that any notice of irregularities or the like should lie left to the ministerial department to be dealt with, whether by repri- mand, dismissal or otherwise. But some regulated scheme of promotion would undoubtedly have a very good effect. 16820. 'The only means, I suppose, which you have at present to pimish scab inspectors is by dismissal, which might in many cases be rather too hard a measure, or by a reprimand, which might be too slight ; but supposing every man appoiuted wore considered to be a third-class inspector, at a certain salary, but if he showed ability and energy ho were promoted to the second-class, with an increase of salary, and so on to the first-class ; would it not have more effect on these officers, and if a man who neglected in duty were disrated ? — Undoubtedlj', some ready means of inflicting punishment for minor offences would be of great use to the department, and would no doubt improve the administration. 16821. Are there occasionally cases where a man holds a certificate of a clean bill and a certificate of removal, but in moving sheep the certificate is not sent, and consequently the man gets into trouble ? — Yes. 16822. Would it not therefore be advisable that any one holding a clean bill should be bound to give a declared copy of it with all sheep removed ? — I am afraid that would be opening the door to very serious abuses ; I consider the certificate itself and only the certifi- cate should be held for production upon demand by any competent officer. 16823. The district of Stockenstrom is almost entirely cut up into locations and large commonages. Are there anj- different regulations for the administration of the act in that district to those in force elsewhere ? — No. 16824. Don't you think it would bo possible to make regulations which would protect the owners of stock there ? — -I think such cases might certainly be very easily dealt with under a special clause of any new act. I may, however, mention that there is a section in one of tho existing acts dealing with native lociitions, of which the Commission is probably as well aware as 1 am. I refer to section 11 of act No. 33 of 1881. 16825. 1 believe an experiment was made with a certain composition of dip, which it was considered would eradicate scab. Could you teU the Commission anything about that experiment ? — No, I am sorry to say I cannot. K I might suggest, that is a technical matter, upon which it would be well to have the evidence of the colonial veterinary Burgeon. 16826. If a dip could be found which could be matiufactured at a great deal less cost than the dips at present in use, and which was equally effectual, don't you think that in any future act which might be passed such a dip might be prescribed as the one to be used universally r^That again is a question more affecting the veterinary branch of our depart- ment, but regarded from a purely administrative point of view, I see grave difficulties in tho way of enforcing the use of any one particular dip ; and, if I may be aUowod to say so, my experience leads me to think that it would be better to fix four or five dips, selecting the best of those known, and compelling tho use of one or otlier of them. At present, as the Couimis.sion is aware, the number of recognized dijis is increasing almost every week, and is already a very large one. -16827. Mr . lIocUij .] When you entered upon your present office, Mr. Davison, the chief inspector, had alroixdy been appointed .' — Yes. 16828. Tiien j-ou are uot in a position to say whether there has been an improvement in the department since tlion 'i — Yes, I am in such a position, and I am hapjiy to say that there lias been an imj^rovemont. I presume you refer to the administrative department, and I claim there has been a considerable improvement since iSeptembor, 1892. 16829. Do you think that would not have taken place if you had uot a chief inspector ? — I think the improvement is very largely due to the efforts of the superintending scab jn.speotor, Mr. Davison. 16830. You have referred to certain complaints against tho act. Would you be kia(J 734 enough to tell us the general tenor of those eomplaintg, and what provisions of the act they mostly complain of ? — The provisions dealing with restrictions placed upoa entry into the area, and free movement from place to place within the area. 16831. With reference to the removal of stock into the area, are the counplaints that the provisions are too lax or too stringent 'i — Tlie complaints having come from those who want to get into the area they have been entirely that the provisions are too stringent. 16832. But does the same complaint come from those who are in the area? — By no means. 16833. Do they complain that the provisions are not stringent enough? — 1 cannot at the moment call any of them to mind, but such complaints as we have had liave certainly been that the restrictions imposed upon the entry of stock into the area are not sufficiently stringent. 16834. Have you n«t also had complaints against the imperfect way in which the inspections are carried out ? — -Yes, very serious complaints. 16835. Has it not been pointed out to you that the work is too much for any inspector to overtake ? — It has, frequently. 16836. What would you suggest to remedy that? — The parcelling out of the area under the operation of the scab acts into smaller individual areas, and the employment of a stronger staff of inspectors. 16837. Does not the section which provides that every flockownor, although he may hold a clean bill, must get a further pass, entail a very great deal of work upon the inspec- tors ? — Yes, it does, but this is part of the inspectors' duties. ^ 16838. Do you think that is necessary? — I think you must exercise as complete a check as you possibly can upon the movements of stock, 16839. If a man holds a clean bill, don't j'ou think he ought to be allowed to remove the stock for which he holds the bill, provided they are actually clean, making him liable to very heavy penalties in tho event of his removing stock on that bill should scab be found among them ? — I have no doubt it would be a great convenience to the farmer, but my experience has been that if you are to do any good with the scab acts you should insist upon an inspection by an inspector, and the issue of a permit if removal in all crises. 16840. Then the department which issued that iustructiou differed from you? — Thit is hardly the way to put it, it would be better to say I differ witti the instructions given, and I should like to place on record that this was one of the first things dealt with on taking up my present work. I obtained legal opinion on the point, and this opinion bore out what has just been said, that this standing permit is illegal ; but in view of the difficulty which had been experienced in the administration of the acts, and in pursuance of the policy, which I think is a wise one, of adopting as conciliatory a method as possible in this administration, it was decided to allow this standing permit arrangement to coutinue until the whole cfuestion of the amendment of the scab laws was taken up, the Commission having at that time been already appointed. 1 684 1 . Then you would not give the farmer who got his sheep clean and obtained a clean bill any advantage over the man whoso sheep were scabby and in quarantine ? I don't think I should do so. I am not a sheep f inuflr, and I don't pi-etend to any knowledge I don't possess, but from the light of my experience in administering the acts, I should certainly insist upon an inspection in every case and the issue of a permit for the removal of the stock, as far as it was possilile to do so. 16842. Would you carry it so far as to say that supposing an inspector inspected a stock on the first of the mouth and gave a clean bill, and three days afterwards the owner had a purchaser for some of the sheep, he would in that case bo obliged to follow tho inspector, find him, get him to come back and re-inspect the sheep, and give a removal pass ? — It would no doubt be expedient to allow some limit of time ; as to the extent of the limit, I should be guided by the advice of the veterinary surgeon. 16843. Then you tliink you would strain a point, and allow some I ititade? — I shiuM make the removal permit available within certain clearly si)ecified limits. 16844. If the owner of tho stock were liable to a very heavy penalty if he removed sheep on which scab was discovered when in the road, don't you think it would have tho desired effect ? — No, my experience does not lead me to hope that it would ; I find it is extremely difficult to get heavy sentences from the magistrates. Possibly they may be imbued with the general feeling that it is desirable to adopt a conciliatory policy iu the administration of the acts, or there might be other reasons ; but the fact remains that we but rarely get really •ubstantial penalties for contravening the provisions of the scab acts. 1()845. Would it not meet the case if a heavy minimum penalty were fixed 'i — Possibly. 1G846. Mr. Butha.'] Have you had many complaints about the scali act not being stringent enough ? — Yes. A great many. 16847. In writing? — Yes, but I should explain that tho complaints come more from our own officers tlian from the public. 16848. But I moan from the owners of stock, who miglit have sufT.n-ed from the act not lieing stringent enough ?— Speaking from general recollection I may say that complaints have been made, but I cannot call to mind any particular one at tho present time. 1C849. Mr. (he Toit.l Ai-e you aware of the fact that there is a great desire to have more inspectors than there are at present ; for instance, to have one in each ward ? ^I am not aware that there is any such desire on the part of tho public. I know that the superin- 735 tendings Rc.tl) inspector wislies for an increase of bis stafl. and has from time to time repre- sented the necessity for this. I680O. In that case, w"(juld you j^ive a smaller salary to each of this largo number of inspecters in consideration of the fact that each iusppctcr would not have such a largo area to visit ? — That question has not been gone into. As th^ mm tdr was not one for practical consideration, the question of salary was not entertained, deferring again to your former question, I .should like to say that we have had represeutations of the inconvenience of ascertaining the wliereabouts of inspectors, the delay in securing their attendance and the consequent inconvenience t') the farmer wlio wished to remove his stock, and to that extent I should like to qualify my previous answer. 16851. Are you not also aware of the fact that it is the desire to have those ward in- 8poctor.s chosen from amongst the enterprising farmers in the ward 'i — I cannot say I am aware of any such desire ; no such desire has been brought to the knowledgede of the de- partment, so far as I am aware. 1685"2. You are not aware that it was distasteful to some old, re.spectable farmers to be dictated to l)y youngsters who, perhaps, very often had no experience, and wore not sufficiently polite ? — It is no part of the duty of auy inspector to dictate to a farmer, whether he be old or young ; and, speaking from recollection. I cannot remember any complaint on the part of anj' fanner, whether old or young, that he lias been dictated to by an inspector. 1685.'). But are you aware that they do dictate to farmers ''. — No. I can understand, if such is the case, that tlierc would be an objection to it on the part of the farmer ; under similar circumst iijces I should object to it myself. 108.34. Mr. Franch?^ Do 1 under^itand that you think it would be inadvisable to allow anj' .sheep to be movoil out of an area, even if clean, imlcss previously inspected? — As I said before, I am not a slieep farmer, and I catmut speak from praittical knowledge; but my experience is that if you ai'o to do auy good by the scab acts, the law must be as strin- gent as possible, and you must exercise the greatest possible control upon the mo-ving of sheep from one part to another. 1(585.5. Do you know that, even in districts wliere thoy are in favour of a scab act, the jirincipal complaint which farmers have is the ditficulty iu obtaining permits to remove stock? — Yes, I am aware tliat is one of the general complaints made against the act. 16856. As it is at present, tJie farmer, upon discovering that his sheep have scab, must at once give notice to the inspector. Don't you think it would be advisable, and a great advantage, if he was also obliged to give notice to all his neighbours ? — Yes, certainly. 16857. Do you know whether the inspectors receive any help from the police iu pre- venting or reporting breaches of the act ? — I don't think there is anything said in the act, the regulations or the general instructions to scab inspectors under which tliose officers ■ II.' (1 (Jaim the assistance of the police. 16858. Don't you think it would bo a great assistance in carrying out the act if the police were empowered to report the removal of stock ? — Undoubtedlj-. 16859. As far as you are aware of the working of the act, do you think that the penalties inflicted by the magistrates are sufficient to prevent breaches of the act ? — -I fear thej' do not act as any deterrent, 16860. Mr. Botha.] Your last appointment of a scali inspoctov was that of a farmer, on the requisition of his fellow farmers, who was appointed by you for Graafl-Reinet ? — Yes. 16861. A sheep farmer ? — Yes. I u iu reply to your letter of the 9th ultimo that scab iu sheep was completely wiped out of this Colony iu 1868 and also in the other Australian Colonies at subsequent dates, and there has never been any appearance of the disease since. I may also state that there is no such thing as spontaneous generation of the disease. VICTORIA. D. E. Martin, Secretary for Agriculture.— I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 9th ultimo, and in reply to state that this Colony has been free from sheep scab since June, 1876. SOUTH AUSTRALIA. C. J. V'ale.mi.ne, Chief Inspector of Stock. — In reply to your request by letter of December 9th, 1 892. I have great pleasure in complying with your request. In the beginning of 1865, scab was cleared from sheep in South Australia but it bioke out ao-ain in the latter part of the year, and it was introduced in 1866 by some imported "sheep our regulations then not being strict enough. Careful restrictions wore made and all doubtful sheep were confined to certain districts, and in 1871 the lust produmutiou of scull districts was removed, and siuco that time uo scab has ever been known in South Australia. You tun satisfy your iii'ip':- I Impo on tliat matter. It wants a strict law, Bbnrii penalties and enforced di])]ung, unci flicie can 1)0 no doiiLt about cleaning .'^hei'i). Tlioio are no .stabbv eheeji in (iueei sland, New South Walch, Victoria aud Tasmania, and has nut been for some years. In consequence, we allow under careful restiiction, of shoep licing introdiued by sea uiiler certificates without being dipped. By land ouly nominal certifi( ates and notices. New Zealand will shortly be clean. West Australia has .still a few infected Hocks but riiey are now moving in the right direction . Cape Colony ought to be free and theio is no excuse for the sheep owners if thoy do not have them clean in these times. QUEENSLAND. P. i\. GoiiDox, Chief Inspector of Stock. — Scab was eradicated in Quoeuslaud thirty years ago, and thoie has never been a single case of it in tlic Colony sin -e ; uor is it's re-appearanco possible, unless by juis(ak(> it should bo .smuggled in by sheep from a scabb}' country, and that is efl'ectually guarded against by the quarantiue laws at all Austialiau ports. The Colony of New South Wales passed an act for the destruction of all scabb>- slieep, the owners being compensated from a fund raised hy an assessment on all tlie sheep iu the Colony. By this means scab was completely stamped tmt iu that Colons' about thirly-tive years ago, and New South Wales and (Queensland long remained the only two Colonies in the Australian group free from scab while in all the others, Victoria, South Auotralia, Tasmania and New Zealand, it continued to make headway. In 1864 scab was unfortimately re-introduced into New South Wales from Victoria, and as by thi:t time its cure was so well understood an act was passed repealing the act providing for destruction, aud in its stead an act was passed comjjelling all owiers to report the appearance of scab in their flocks and to dress them with such medicaments as the chief inspector of stock should direct, under a jjenalty ; aud providing that all iiifected sheep and land be placed iii quarantine until declared clean. TASMANIA. T A. Tau.M! r. Chief Inspector of Stock — It has been proved beyond the shadow of a t in Ibis Cnluny that scab can be eradicated, and that tlierc is no chance of an outbreak unless from < outact. In 1870 our scab act came into force and in 1881, Tasmania was proclaimed a clean Colony. No disease had lieeu scon for two j'cars jjrior to the date of proclamation, or since that time up to date, fifteen years (lo). [F.] Extract from letter of the Secretary of Lands, Mines and Agriculture , dated the 21st October. 1892. stating certain points for the con- sideration of the Commission. 1. As to whether a general act to operate throughout the Colony be possible and advisable, and the nature of the provisions of such an act. 2. If not, as to the scope recomnu'iided for a permissive law and as to what amendment, if any, of the j)ermissive law at present iu force especially under the following heads :— (a) Voting power for admission to any scab area, whether it shoidd not be in proportion to tlie number of sheep owned rather than as at present (Acts ■2i> of 1889 § 1, No. 7 of 1890 §§ 1 aud 2, No 37 of 1891 §§1 and 2). (b) Entry of stock into a proclaimed area, movement of stock within anj- ^jro- daimed area, and treatment aud c^uaran tine of infected stock within a |ii-i>cllimed area {t:} Dipping of stock belonging to natives ; whether it would bo advisable to provide dips and tanks at a tariff to cover cost, (d) The appointment duties and powers of scab inspectors. 3. .As to whether outside of a proclaimed area it is not advisable to protect the owner who is careful about dipping liis stock against infected stock of careless travellers or neighbours. Memorandum by the Senior Colonial Veterinary Surgeon. rO THE CHAIRMAX OF THE SCAB COMMISSION. Sir, — In compliance with your reque-tt, that I should prepare a brief description of s.'ab, its nature, 'cause, sj-mptoms and treatment, for publicati m as an appendix to the report of the Scab Commission, I have the honour to submit for your approval the following observations on the subject : — Nature of Scab. Scab is a contagious disease of the skin characterized by imtation and intense itching, and accompanied by redness and the eruption of small pimples, these discharge a serous fluid, which in drying forms, when undisturbed, a creamy looking moist crust. This is foUowod bj' the shedding of the wool from the affected parts, and the lonaation of hard scales due principally to the constant biting, scratching or rubbing of the parts by the animal. The Cause of Scab. The sole originating cause of scab is the presence oa the skin of certain small insects or mites called acari. These acari belong to a numerous order of little creatures called acaridfe, a division of the trachcaria of the class arachaida. There is a gi-eat number of these mites or acari, no class of the animal kingdom is fi-ee from them, but in the present instance, we have principally to do with the three genera which affect horses, cattle, sheep and goats. These have received the following distinguishing names : — The sareoptes or mite that burrows in the flesh. The dermatodectes or psoroptes or mite that pricks the skin, but does not burrow and The symbiotei, a sort of medium between the other two : it bites but does not bui-row, and congregates together in large numbers. Each of these genera is again divided into numerous species, each of which affects a particular animal only, but there are exceptions to this rule, and in fact very little difference can be det ;ctod, even hy the aid of the miscroscope, Ijetween the so-called different species of a particular genus, as will be referred to subsequently. It is further to be remarked that the horse, ox and sheep are liable to be affected with the thiee genera of scab insects, and the goat to two. Each geuus of scab acari produces a distinct variety of scab which may be distinguished >iy an expert, bj' its special characters, the particular parts of the animal affected aud its manner of spreading. But although certain animals are liable to become infected with more than one genus of scab acari, each animal \i much more conimonly affected with one particular genus of acari than with the others. For instance, the scab which is most common to the Boer goat, and which is quite characteristic, is produced by a species of the sareoptes called the sareoptes caprm. This is tlie genus which burrows under the epidermis of its host to deposit its eggs, and hatch its young, and as a result of this burrowing, we get a thickened hard crust formed on the skin, which becomes as stiff' as a board, and cracks and bleeds by the movements of the animal. The Boer goat does frequently become infected with the genus symbiotes from the Angora goat, but as a general rule Boer goat scab is of the sarcoptic variety. In like manner the form of scab which is commonlj* met with in the Angora goat is the symbiotic variety, puroduced by the symiiotes capr/c, the mite or acarus which bites liut does not burrow. This scab mite congregates together in immense numbers on a portion of skin. Angora goat farmers must have observed the slow consecutive manner in which this variety of scab spreads over the body of the Angora goat, commencing- generally on the inside of the fore or hind legs thence along the chest, and abdomen, and then up the sides until the whole body is encased in a tliick incrustation of scab of several layers in thickness. Angora goats, especially half breeds, are sometimes affected with the sarcoptic form of scab whidi they contract from the Boer goat, but it is not very common. Sheep aie said to bo infected with the three varieties of scab, but I have only seen the psoroptic aud sarcoptic varieties in this C'olon\- and the latter only very seldom, a few sheep here and there become affected with it about the ears and bare portions of the head and face, but the common scab of sheep in this Colony is caused by Xhe inoroptes or dermatodectes oris. This is the mite which pricks the skin, for which it is provided with long sharp mandibles but it does not burrow, it lives at the roots of the wool, and underneath the loose scales, btit although the damage done to the skin of the sheep by this mite is not so great as in the case of the Bof;r goat scab the irritation and itching is a great deal more, as the insects are continually spreading to fresh portions of skin. • From the above description of the most common varieties of scab met with in this Colony, it will be observed that tlie different forms and tj'i)es, wliich it assumes are not due so mucli to any difference in the skins of the animals att'ected, as ti the distinct genus and differ' nt habits of the respective acari which are the originating and e.xci'^ing cause of scab in each instance. As already stated there are certain animals wliiih are liable to become infected with three distinct genera of acari, each of wliich produces its own p:irticidar Vlll ▼aviety of loab, whioh might Tie diagonosud hy an export, by its general characters alone without the aid of the niicrosoope. None of tlie^o varieties of scab, Jiowovor, can possibly originate, witliout the presence of the particular variet}' of acari, and it is no longer a matter of argument, but a matter of fact, that these acari do not originate spontaneously by any conditions, natural or artificial, that are known to exist, or can be produced on this earth at the present time. It is just as necessary for an acarus to liave a father and mother as it is tor a sheep or goat to Jiave a father and mother. The primary source or origin of life may be a matter of considerable doubt and difference of opinion, but whatever the originating cause of terrestial life may have been does not alter the fact, that at the present time, life is known as the product of pre-existing living matter only. Our sheep and goats are the progeny of pre-existing sheep and goats and of nothing else. In like manner the numerous genera of acari are derived from previous living acari, and from nothing else. And just as a whole species or genus of large animals maj' be destroyed by united action, sy the whole genera of scab acari may also bo destroyed if a similar plan is adopted. This is no mere theory, for the eradication of suab and the destruction of the acari have already been accomplished in the Australian Colonies by means of effective dipping and vigorous Legislative enactments. At tlio jn-osent time, although it is no unusual thing for tens of thousands of sheep to die from poverty during a drought in Australia, yet not one of these thousands of sheep manifests any indication of scab, which it would certainly do were drought and poverty its originating cause, as is believed by such a number of farmers in South Africa. Further " in New South Wales u^ion large tracts of country subject to many varieties of climate, feed and other circumstances, millions of sheep were depastured for forty j'ears without the occurrence of scab in any one instance, until it was imported from Tasmania. New Zealand and Queensland confirm the same fact, viz : that scab is no necessary accompaniment of sheep, and does not arise spontaneously." — (Edward M. Curr). Conditions predisposing or favourable to Scab. Although the originating cause is undoubtedly the presence of the scab acari, and nothing else, there are certain conditions which favour the development and increase of these parasites, and assist their destructive operations on the skin of their host, wliicli easily account for the greater prevalence of the disease during one season than another. Any conditions that will induce debility in an animal will render it more susceptible to the spread of scab, on its unhealthy skin, such as drought, with its attendant poverty, moist warm weather, a long fleece ; and a young animal is more susceptible than a full grown animal in vigorous health. Abundance of food, and good condition are no pro- tection against scab, but it does not flourish under such conditions, especially if the weather is dry. But it is unnecessary to enumerate all the causes favourable to the sjiread of scab, because they are merely conditions, which favour the multiplication and operati(m8 of these acari. None of tliese conditions occurring, either individually or collectively, could produce one single typical case of scab, unless the acari are present also. Natural History of the Acari. The life history of these parasites is in general very similar, they are all oviporous or egg bearing little animals, these eggs being dejiosited under the epidermis by the sarcoptes and on the surface of the skin or under tlie scales by the psoropies and the symbiotes, these eo^gs hatch out in about five days, and arrive at maturity at about fifteen. Gerlach has estimated the average number of eggs wliich the female lays at fifteen. These, he says, w hen hatched consists of about ten fenaales to five males. In my observations the females liear a far larger proportion to the males. In the genus sarcoptes, I have found the proportif)n of females to males to be aliout five to one. In the psoroptes and symbiotes genera, thej' appear about three to one. Polygamy is the rule, as a matter of necessity under such conditions ; but the act of copulation being much more prolonged in the psoroptes and symbiotes genera than in the sarcoptes genus wiU account for the greater proportion of males in the two foimer genera than in the latter. " By allowing the procreative faculties to be in operation when the acari are fifteen days old, which is understated, Gerlach estimates the increase from one pair in three months to be about 1,500,000." Vitality of the Acari. A very important question arises — How long will these acari live after being taken from their host's back. This is somewliat difficult to determine, as much will depend upon the medium in which they are kept. There is a concensus of opinion, however, amongst different experimenters, that unless they are kept in exceptional conditions, they do not live more than about a month iu the open pasture, but the conditions are quite different when we come to consider how long the infection may remain about a kraal or sleeping plni-e where there is an abundance of organic matter. In such situations the eggs have to be taken into consideration, and it is very evident that tliese eggs can remain a long time in tlie (b'y manure of a kraal, and yet be capable of germination when blown with the dust of the manure amongst the wool on the sheep's back, at any rate there is very strong evidence to show that scab infection may remain about an old kraal, for more than a year : hence the necessity for either destroying the kraals, or properly disinfecting them. SijmptdiiiK (if Scab. These are briefl_v: A slight disfnrbnnce of the wool, as the result of biting, scratching or rubbing, dojjending upon the situation of the infected spot. On opening the wool so ilisluviieJ, the fiist appearaiicfi is a red .'■pot, in the centre of which there is a small poiut like the beginning of a pimple, soon a little vesicle forms, which bursts and discharges a little serosity, these increase, and if the part is undisturbed by rubbing or scratching, a creamy looking loose scab forms on the surface. But if the part is rubbed or scratched, this loose creamy looking scab is removed, and a thicker and harder scab takes its place, while the skin surrounding the infected spot becomes inflamed, thickened, and of a pale purplish colour, and the wool is gradually torn off, by the incessant biting and scratching, leaving the affected part in in anj' instances Cjuite bare. The scab insects, as a rule leave these bare patches, and are found principally on the moist edges surrounding them. In other cases, more especially when the wool is comparatively short aud there is not much yolk or moisture on the skin, the scab spreads over the surface of the skin very rapidly, leaving a thick hard persistent scab behind it, the wool is not shod off but it looks harsh and irregular. I h«ve seen the whole body of such a sheep covered with a thick dry hard crust, and yet on examination I could scarcely detect a single scab insect on the affected parts. The scab insect of the sheep selects the parts having the densest wool principally, both for covPiing and warmth, tlie legs and other parts of the body are very rarely affected, neither is tlie belly which is generally cold and moist. The insects which produce the Boer goat scab on the other hand select the barest parts of the body, and so in a less degi-ee does the scab insect of the Angora, which commences its attack generally about the thighs and belly parts, but spreads over the whole body afterwards. Treatment of Seal. The primary consideration in the treatment of scab is the destruction of the acari, wliich are its originating cause, and to effect tlieir destruction with as little injury to the animal or its fleece as practicable, and last but by no means least, to accomplish these objects as economically as pos.sible. The question of dipping or dressing need not be dis- cussed, as it is practically impossible to clean large flocks of sheep except by dipping in a properly constructed tank, and with all the requisite appKances to insure the operation being thoroughly as well as safely done. Without going into details, the essential con- siderations are, that the respective dips used should be mixed in the proper quantity of water and used as directed, the sheep being thoroughly immeised in the mixture, and kept iu sufficiently long to allow the latter to penetrate to every part of the skin. Where there are a number of animals badly affected, and largo portions of the skin covered by a hard scab, these pla(!es should be spot dressed with a stronger mixture previous to the dipping. The object which the farmer must keep constantly before him is not merely the cleaning of his flocks, but to eradicate the infection from his kraals and homesteads ; iu fact to be done with the disease altogether. The following directions may assist to guide him to the attainment of this object : — Shear all the sheep at one time, and as soon as this operation is finished, turn the whole of the flocks to graze on one side of the farm. About fourteen to twenty days after shearing have the whole of the flocks dij^ped ; do not miss a single sheep, not even the goats which run amongst the sheep or the sheep which run amongst the goats. For although goats will not contract scab from sheep, nor sheep from goats, the scab insects of either will remain alive on the otlior, aud be the means of reinfecting the flocks. After ten or twelve days, dip them all a second time. This is necessary because the first dipping kills the living insects but does not destroy their eggs. These latter hatch out subsequently and render a second dipping necessary to kill tlie insects hatched from them before they iu their turn have commenced to breed. It may be quite true that some flocks, under favourable eircumstances, have been thoroughly cleaned by one dipping, but these instances are so rare that they cannot be accepted as a guide. Immediately after the second dipping turn the whole of the flocks on to the other part of the farm which will now be clean, having been free of stock for about five weeks, aud keep them away from the old kraals or homestead, until after a good soaking rain or until j'ou have taken some measures to clean or disinfect them. If it is at all practical it would be much safer to burn out the old kraals. Experience shows that the insects will only live for about a month on the open veld, but they may remain alive for many months iu an old kraal, especially about kraals with mist walls, as even a good soaking rain will hardly penetrate to tlie centre of these, though it might clean an open kraal. Where there is no wood the kraal walls would be much better to be built of stone ; after dipping and removing the sheep, the farmer could then dig out all the manure if he he required it for fuel, and stack it, and then burn out the bottom of the kraals thoroughly. The stone walls themselves could be disinfected by sluicing them with the dip which remains over after dipping the sheep which is otherwise wasted, or the loose dry surface manure of the kraals could be collected aud burned, and the kraal thoroughly disinfected with some cheap strong insecticide such as corrosive sublimate. Scab is comparatively easily cured, if reinfection can be prevented, and the euro can be effected in four or five weeks just as easily as if the process is distributed over four or [G l-'94.] C five years. The same effective measures have to be taken at last, however loiij>- they are delayed. It stands to reason, therefore, that a lenient law and half hearted measures, are a greater evil and entail a far greater loss than a stringent law, and efficient measures vigorously carried out. With respect to dips I refrain from making any recomniondati< ns further than this, that where clean ground for tlie dipped .-heep cannot he obtniued a sidphur dip is by far the best. Other remedies may be more ett'ective for the killing of the parasites, but I do not know of any substance that acts so long and 80 effectively as a preventive, as sulphur does. The practicability of cleaning sheep in the dry districts situated in the north west of the Colony has often been referred to, and during a protracted drought effective operations might be very difficult to carry out ; but on the other hand where sheep have a wide range, and there is no necessity for flocks to overlap one another — clean veld could be easily obtained and danger from reinfection comparatively easy to avoid. D. HUTCHEON, CYS, P R. C tE8 ParbSoU'ti'- 30 32 33 3+ REPORT OF SCAB DISEASES COMMISSION — APPENDIX H. 3 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY Los Angeles ■ ' — J~»» c>^iTini>(l below. «sniiTu=o.V[l'''^'^"y °' California 4o!^VlI«rH"A'' "^G'ONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 405 HHgard_Avenue._Lo, Angeles, CA 90024!]]^ Return this material to the library' Irom which It was borrowed. MAY 01 jyygi Form L9- iwam ^Tt ^l^ ^J^ KTT^ \rr\ D 000 528 635 6 =^ fTt: