41 

 Clause 21. 



21. If any barrier fence shall be erected by any llabbit Board on the boundary of any 

 Eabbit District, the Board of the adjoining District shall bo liable to pay to such Board as afore- 

 said half the cost of erection and maintenance of such fence, or such fence may be erected and 

 maintained at their joint expense in accordance with such arrangements as they may mutually 

 or jointly agree to. 



Mr. LESLIE (Forbes) proposed that clause 21, as printed, be passed. 

 Mr. STIXSON (Coolamon) seconded. 

 The question was put and carried. 



Clause 22. 



22. In respect of any rabbit-proof fence which the Board has erected, or has paid con- 

 tributions under section forty-two of this Act, the Board may by notice in writing served on him 

 require the owner of any holding along the boundary of which the fence is situated (in addition 

 to any rabbit rates payable by him) to pay, and the said owner shall pay to the Board one-half 

 of the cost of making the fence rabbit- proof. 



Mr. LESLIE (Forbes) said he wished to strike out the words "along the" and put in "on the 

 protected side of such " in line 47 of this clause. There was no need to explain the necessity of this. 



Mr. BKETT (Tirana) seconded. 



Mr. ALISON (Canoubar) said he would strike out the whole of the clause. He could not see why 

 a private owner should be called upon to pay anything for a barrier fence. Many owners would sooner 

 that the fence was put further away from them, because the laud which was next to the fence was more 

 liable to damage from the rabbits coming over the fence than the land 10 miles away. He did not see 

 how a man alongside the fence got any benefit. He moved that this clause be struck out. 



Mr. OAKDEX (Cobar) seconded Mr. Alison's motion. 



Mr. LESLIE (Forbes) withdrew his motion. 



Mr. FLANAGAN (Gunbar) said he would now move an amendment. There was not a word in this 

 clause about barrier fences, it was all about rabbit fences. He thought the clause should stay as it was. 

 The farmers found it very convenient to shut out the rabbits. Mr. Leslie had been talking about " the 

 protected side." He would like to know what the protected side was. The rabbits were like an invading 

 enemy, they came in from all sides. He held that it would be a great injustice, for the rabbit-proof fences 

 were the most effective means of fighting the plague hi many portions of this country. If they eliminated 

 this clause, and one man put up a fence, his neighbour would not be compelled to pay for half of that 

 fence. 



Mr. GIBSON (Hay) thought the Conference would make a very great mistake if they struck out 

 the clause. He thought it should be amended. If a barrier fence was erected it was at somebody's 

 expense ; he thought the individual holder got an advantage from it over and above its value as a barrier 

 fence. It was a fence along one of his boundaries, and he should pay something for it. lie proposed 

 that instead of paying one half of the cost of making a fence rabbit proof, they should make the clause 

 read " and the said owner shall pay to the Board a contribution assessed according to the benefit derived 

 and to be derived from the rabbit-proof fence, which in no case shall be more than the value of half the 

 fence." 



Mr. FREEMAN would like to point out to the meeting that those who were assessed in the district 

 had to pay a contribution. If the Board erected a fence they all got a benefit from it, and they were all 

 paying for it by contributing to the fund. 



Mr. ALISON'S (Canonbar) motion was put and carried by a large majority. 



Clause 23. 



Compensation ly Babbit Board. 



23. A Eabbit Board shall not be required to give compensation for anything lawfully 

 done in exercise of the foregoing powers, except where a barrier fence is erected upon any private 

 holding or land so as to cause damage by severance. 



The amount of compensation due to any person shall, upon application by him as pre- 

 scribed, be determined by the Local Land Board ; and in fixing such compensation the Local 

 Land Board may take into consideration and set off any betterment accruing to such person's 

 property by the construction of such fence, and shall have power to award costs to or against any 

 party appearing before it. 



Mr. LESLIE (Forbes) proposed that the clause as printed be adopted. 



Mr. DILL (Hay) seconded it. 



Mr. OAKDEN (Cobar) moved an amendment. He wanted " Local Land Board " struck out and 

 " Court of Petty Sessions " put in. 



Mr. BATLIS (Narrandera) seconded. 



Mr. ALISON (Canonbar) said he hardly thought the meeting appreciated tha importance of this 

 clause. It introduced a new system, which he believed was known as the betterment system. He did 

 not think that, as a rule, land owners or stock owners were in favour of the betterment system. Mr. 

 Oakden proposed to strike out the " Local Laud Board," and put in "the Court of Petty Sessions," and 

 in that case the Court of Petty Sessions would be called upon to decide upon the betterment to any 

 holding through which a fence might go. He thought that this was rather a large order for the Court 

 of Petty Sessions to decide what advantage a holder might gain from a barrier fence. He thought it was 

 hardly possible to imagine a case where a fence could be put through a holding, subdividing the holding, 

 so as to be an advantage to the owner. It was a decided disadvantage in nearly every case. It might 

 cut the owner off from water. It might cause him in many ways a great deal of inconvenience. Ho 

 thought the term betterment was so vague and so difficult to arrive at, that instead of any persons through 

 whose holding a fence was put receiving any benefit or receiving any money for damage, in all probability 

 32 F he 



