THE NEW MINING BILL.

Otago Witness, Volume 11, Issue 2280, 11 November 1897, Page 20

THE NEW MINING BILL.

RESUMPTION, ABANDONMENT, AND

SURVEY CLAUSES.

By Minkk's Right.

Since my latt article I, notice that resolutions have been passed by the Brokers' Association and the board of the Otago Dredging Company urging the Government to be reasonable in compiling new labour regulations for alluvial ' mining', and also a capital letter from Mr John Mouat in the same direction, in which he states that, in a- 30 years' experience, -he has never known a claim forfeited solely for breach of the labour conditions. This, too, was tbe burden of the Premier's speech before the Australasian Chamber of Mines in London. Notwithstanding these assertions such forfeitures are of frequent occurrence in Auckland, and my contention is that it is unnecessary and unwise to re-enact labour conditions which can only allow alluvial mining to exist at all by the practical connivance of the wardens. There must be a sharp distinction drawn, if it is necessary to specify any fixed number at all, between the number of hands to be employed in quartz and in alluvial mining. •To make a law, knowing at the time that it can never be carried out, will not add to the dignity of Parliament. If these impossible regulations are again gazetted a conscientious warden must conclude that it is the desire of the Legislature that the act as passed ba enforced, and forfeitures entailipg heavy loss on individuals and incalculable injury to the industry must accrue. If the Wardens' ConfereLce left any minute or passed any resolution which might be n. guide to the Goldfields Committee or to the House in. discussing tbis bill, I take it it will be produced and considered along wiPh the suggestions subsequently made by experienced lawyers and mining men who have taken advantage of the department's in : vitation to discuss th« draft as circulattd.

WATER BESTJMPTION,

. Probably the most revolutionary propoial in the present draft is contained, in subsections 9 and 10 of clause 96, which provide :—": — " In any case whore the Governor is satisfied that tbe water diverted or used under any license is required by bona fide settlers or for arty publicvsetor purpose he. may revoke such .license,, and the licensee shall be entitled tt> full compensation from her Majesty for the then actual value of all races, dams, and other ar'tifioal works ' constructed under the license so revoked, provided that in assessing the amount of such compensation the value of water or other natural agents or advantages shall not he included." There is no explanation in the interpretation clause of what " any public use or purpose " i 3 intended to mean, and therefore the Governor, who is of course the Government of the day, might decide to cancel the license and resume the water granted to any individual or company { under hitherto inviolable title, in response to ' a spasmodic agitation or the petition of a few discharged employees or any ill-conditioned persons who 'might covet the possession of a proved claim, with water brought in by the expenditure of other people's money. If the water is resumed, the claim is of course usele-s, and, however valuable, must be abaudoued. Thus every inducement would be extended to the unprincipled to secure their neighbouis' pesscss'ons by this lawful means, or to r#pay some old grudge perhaps buried and half forgotten. If the water is to be taken from Crown lessees after all their expenditure, hard work, and enterprise, by all means pay them the out-oF-pocket cost of their work, and alao the full value of the water and claim of which they have been deprived. It miy be argued that tbis proposal is Dot retrospective, and if applicant; apply for and ob'ain mining privileges under tbeec condition?, why demur ? But I say, who will do ko, and why strangle the industry. This clause is rr,n:h more inequitable than the< provision for the compulsory resumption of land for - settlement. In the latter case, tha owner gets valuation for his improvements, and any profit there miy be in the natural advantage of his soil and surrouudings. I conteDd that tho general power asked for in this clause should be decidedly refused. It would give any Government a terrible pull over their political opponents and recalcitrants ; agitations — especially where there ia so much to gain and nothipg to loge — are eatily fostered ; and whilst I do not impute unworthy motives to tbis or any future Government-, the possession of such a power under such an elastic restraint as "any public use or purpose" would very likely prove as q^os^y to the general taxpayer, who would have To find the money, as it would be unjust to the visiims. If any necessity arises at any time to wrest from any lawful owner the privilege granted to him, let it be a matter for Parliament to dtcide with special reference to all the circumstances of the case. Water which is being put to its hona fide use should not by the general provisions of any such unwieldly act as this be interfered with at all.

It is understood to be the intention of Government to resume the Diurnal Swamp dam erected by Mr Jno. Ewing and the Roxburgh Amalgamated Company, but if they do so they will require to compensate the builders for their outlay, and at the same time preserve them their priority of right. There is nothing unrearonable about this. If it ia for the good of a district that a dam privately erected should be acquired, compulsorily or otherwise, in order to increase its usefulness for the common weal, I have no objection to oiler, so long as the rights of the owners to their quantum of water is conserved and their outlay recouped to them. It could not injure the owners in the slightest if the Government were to say, " We are going to resume your dam. Your number of headß will be secured to you in the order of priority, aud as it would be unfair to throw upon you the cost of tho structure, which is to be enlarged by the Crown to give your neighbours water for' the mere trouble of asking for it we will pay the present fair value. of the dam." If the present act simply sought this power, and was content to sop there, little could be said against it, but to seek the right to take the race, fluming, and dams of a company or individual for what is indefinitely termed " tbeic then actual value," without consideration for the natural produces or the claim they are obliged to throw up in con-

sequence, is the very height of confiscation and abuse of power. The then actual value conld not possibly t- xceed the co9t ef construction, and would usually be very much less, so that applicants for water for sluicing from the passing of this acb will have to reckon with the certainty of harassment f torn any ill-disposed persons who covet their right*, and in the^tVf nt of .resumption a certain loss. It is ( only the better properties will be coveted, and applicants will'not be found to run these risks. .... *',

ABANDONMENT BY OPERATION OP LAW. The clauses under this section are needlesslydrastic, and as they do not provide any option by way of fice, they will need close criticism^ Clause 148 provides* r " Where the licensee fails | to construct within' the period prescribed a race ; of sufficient capacity to carry the number of i sluice heads registered, then forthwith on the expiration of such peiiod all tlnicc heads in excess of the number the race is then capable of carrying' sball be deemed to be iuten-tiomlly abandoned." As fchisc'ause is drafted it would be quite competent in the event of a race being well advanced but nob completed at the end of the period to forfeit tte whole of the rights and . lose the owner the effect of his outlay. I hardly think this intended. It is no uucommon thing to find that the ltngbh of .race in the original application has beeu very much understated, aud the time named for completion far too short. There is no provision in the acb of 1691 for extending tbe time by endoisement or otherwise, and the preeeat measure should see to this. It ia hardly possible when lodging the application to state a time within which a lace cam be completed. Rook in abuudance m-\y be met, with where plough a-nd'scoop . work was anticipated ; loose sidlings may carry ! away, or the work be interfered with by Blips from above. ,There is a clause which aims 4.0 give piotection to owners coming upon unbooked for natural difficulties, but tbe cost is thrown upon tbcm of establishing this defence, and it wou'd be far better to leavo them free to apply for an t-xtensiou of. time to complete than to subject them to the peualtit-s of intentional -fcbandonment. If tbis clause (148) is prohibited -from tpsrating agaiusb any licensee who is actually, constructing, his race .with reasonable expedition, little can be said agaiosb ■ it. No objection can be urped to restricting its application to cASf-s where licensees are onlyusing a pprtion of the water granted to them, or none at all ; but I would like'to see it a condit.iou precedent to the forfeiture of excess water, that' the holder be notified that unlesa his race was enlarged to de&l with his full quantum within a reasonable time it would be forfeited.

SORVEY,

Clause 132 reimpo-es three months as the term within which turve.js eb&ll be completed and the ucceessry papers lodged, and to show how utterly insufficient t.bis term is, provision is immediately made for its extension upon application for a further term of up to six additional monthp. Three months is known to be altogether too short, and bub for pretty general extens : ons hitherto, and the consideration of the warden in holding a Fpeci«l court v.hen necessary, many applicants would have had their applications voided and their deposits forfeited. Tbis is a harassing business in any case. An applicant applies in due form and lodges the statutory deposit. The survey is wholly in the hands of the chief surveyor, and if through ceglecfc or other cause on the part of the officer to whom the work it entrusted, the papers are not returned to the warden within the statutory period tbe applicant who has complied with all the provisions of the law within his own coatro 1 , is penalised, whilst the department escapes scot free and sticks to the fees »s if the work had been completed in time far the purpose intended. It would be better to go back at ouo.« to the rix months period fixed by the act of 1891, and to allow applicants when leaving to nominate the surveyor from the registrars list of authorised persons to, whom the survey should be' given. They would then know who to hustle to get their i papers in in time. .'The present measure makes the surveyor an; officer of -the court, and severely penalises him if,- hs acts in any case where he is in any way interested-.

One good feature of the present draft; is that ifc purposes to make the eurvey of claims pt under 10 acres not-obligatory, 'but discretionary un the part of the warden, and it would be a very good thing if this discretion could be extended to cover any claim of any s'ze, the pegs of which adjoin a claim already surveyed and correctly located, the holder being bound to 6urvey at any time alter possession if called upon by the warden to do bo. The question of surveyors' travelling expenses need? revision. It Fhould be distinctly illegal as it IB in questionable taste to charge mileage on a 45-mile road which was not travelled instead of a 28-mile rail journey which was the route admittedly made use of. The decision I refer to came as a surprise (o mining men generally, but Mr Garew is far too sound a lawyer to have erred in the matter of law. This should b<j put beyond question by the new regulations. Again, if two or more claims, adjoining each other, are applied for at cue time, it should be the duty of the department to give this survey to one surveyor, and to certify only to one sot of travelling expenses, to be paid pro rota by the applicants. It is not clear now whether in the event of three claims adjoining being surveyed for different applicants who may be partners nevertheless, the surveyor, although doing them all at the one time, would not be entitled to collect his fall mileage from each applicant. Mining men seem more than apathetic over the. provisions of this bill, and why in the name of all that is wonderful some effort is not made to get a workable measure is more than I can say.. The Government evidently desiire it, and have solicited expressions of .opinion upon the draft It will be regrettable if the Chamber of Commerce and leading business men do not ventilate their views. It may not be strictly speaking directly within the province of the chamber, but the activity among the hardware and woodw&re trades to-day is very largely due to the mining industry. There are between 100 and 150 dredges at work,* or in course of construction in this province alone, and a capital of at least half a million is embarked in the industry. In nearly every case the claims beine or to be

} worked are liable to forfeiture for non or In* ' I sufficient; compliance; with the labour regulations. Under the present draft the discretion of the warden to declare an informer or complainant the first applicant is taken 'a way, and the sole and absolute tight tb apply .for, -the for-feited-privilege is vested, in She complainant for for feveu days after forfeiture. This isiuiquit-* ous. The informer, perhaps a discharged hand, lays an information if he finds a man shorb or some nominal breach has been committed, and the warden must infltot a fine of at leait £10 with costs, or, if he forfeits the claim, the informer has a week to blackmail the previous awners — the dredge and crew being idls meanwhile — or to find other purchasers for it. There is, therefore, a direct and powerful ioducement to harass owners, and the complainant will be in a position, to press the warden to forfeit because he has an equitable interest in the forfeiture and tbe defendants have bivkt«u the law and rendered themselves liable to the penalty. The. warden's discretion (clause 146, set of 1891) mast be fully restored, and the £10 minimum limit of fine bo-removed, or dtedgeowners and sluicing men will have a costly and troublesome time in the future. It wou.ld ,seem as^though the stiffening of the penalties and the withdrawal of the legitimate discretion of the'coiyrt" h»d been inspired by some weak or inexperienced wardeD, anxious to go to -.extreme .lengths without the mortal responsibility for Ins action: -- - - , *'"