Mr. J. W. White, continued.

637. What do you think the effect of the rabbit plague would be to the agriculturist?—Ruinous, unless they fenced.

638. Do you think that rabbits would cause much ruin to viticulturists and orchardists?—No doubt they would bark the trees and the vines.

639. What effect would a rabbit incursion have on the pastoral industry?—The rabbits would eat everything until the sheep died.

640. That is a very prejudicial effect?—Yes.

641. If these effects were very prejudicial, what effect would it have on the prosperity of the State generally?—A great deal; it would interfere tremendously with the revenue that the State is likely to derive from the land.

642. It would have a very prejudicial effect?—Yes.

643. Supposing the pastoral industry be ruined, what effect would that have on the price of meat?—Instead of getting any meat from the State, everything would have to be imported, or nearly so.

644. Therefore, would the importation of meat tend to raise the price to the consumer?—Undoubtedly. I have endeavoured to point that out to the people on the goldfields when they have said to me that they are glad to see the rabbits. I have told them that they would be glad to see them for a few months, but in time the flocks and herds would be destroyed; then they would have to pay more for their meat than they do now.

645. If the rabbit invasion is not soon checked will it affect the prosperity of the State?—The whole State.

646. Would the effect be such as to be adverse to the interests of every man, woman, and child if stringent methods are not immediately adopted?—There is no doubt about it.

647. Do you consider the matter is a national one?—I do.

648. If the pastoral districts become infested, would it tend to the abandonment of holdings, and thus affect the revenue of the State?—No doubt about it. The same thing occurred in South Australia; the whole of the North-West country was thrown up, through the rabbits and the dogs. We travelled through that country, and we saw where the rabbits had eaten all the grass off, and the bark of the sandalwood (not like the sandalwood of this country, but what is called the sugar tree) it has a rough bark which they eat off, and kills the tree as a rule.

649. Would the destruction of the grasses and edible scrub by rabbits affect the stock carrying capacity of the land materially?—No doubt. I could tell you of a case in which the number of stock had been reduced from 70,000 to 17,000 in four years.

650. This has occurred within your own knowledge?—Yes; returns had to be sent in to the Government, and it was shown that this reduction in number had taken place in four years.

651. In your opinion a rabbit-proof fence would be a protection to the future revenue of the State from lands, and thus pay its initial cost?—No doubt, provided one thing, that it is properly supervised and kept in repair. If that is not done it is useless to erect it. I mention that, because in one or two places in New South Wales and South Australia no one was placed in charge of the fence, and it was knocked down and the rabbits got through.

652. By Hon. R. G. Burges: A rabbit-proof fence in cattle country would have to have barbed wire?—I recommend two barbed wires, which would make it dog-proof as well.

653. By the Chairman: Have you seen any portion of rabbit-proof fencing where sand drifts occur that cover up the wire fence?—Only along the coast. The two or three blue lines marked on the plan are not in the places where I have travelled. My reports will show where I have travelled.

654. I see the Royal Commission of New South Wales in 1888 reported that the system of compulsory destruction by professional trappers is radically bad; do you hold to that view?—Yes; I think it is a mistake.

655. I also find that the Queensland Rabbit Conference of 1888 passed a resolution that it would be a penal matter to pay head money for destroying rabbits, or in any way deal, use, or preserve their skins or carcasses as articles of commerce. Do you agree with the substance of this resolution?—Yes, to a great extent. I think it works in the same way.

656. Have the parties sent out by the Government accomplished the object in view?—They are checking them, but will never eradicate them unless enclosed in a small radius. I pointed that out at the time these parties were appointed, and I also pointed out what it had cost the adjoining States: £305,834 in three years in the payment of scalps. It is given in Mr. Goyder's evidence. The amount paid for dog scalps was £152,211 0s. 1d.

657. In three years?—Yes; that was for dog scalps. For rabbits' scalps the Government paid £153,623 7s. 3d., making a total of £305,834 in three years for dog and rabbit scalps.

658. By Mr. Wittenoom: What is paid for dog scalps?—There are different prices for different districts; it ranges from 10s. to £2 per scalp.

659. By Mr. Richardson: Is it your experience that the increase of rabbits invariably results in the increase of wild dogs?—Undoubtedly. I had a very strong experience of that. There was some country help on the Murray for 20 years before the rabbits got thick, but after the rabbits got thick the country had to be abandoned, and it was not an uncommon thing to see three or four wild dogs together. The pups can catch a young rabbit, and can get enough blood out of it to quench his thirst and keep him alive for a few days.

660. By the Chairman: Do you think this State is adopting, at the present time, the best methods for checking the rabbits?—I do not think so; I think the only method is fencing.