WATER EIGHTS.

Alexandra Herald and Central Otago Gazette, Issue 1211, 10 December 1919, Page 5

WATER EIGHTS.

TO THE LDITOR. Sir, —In your leading article of December 3rd you eeeui to be iu doubt and distress to kiiow why Clauses 2, 3 aud 4 were struck out froni the amendment to the Miniug Act, aud by which of the two gentlemen—Sir William fc'rascr or Mr Scott. If you bad taken the trouble to read " Parliamentary Debates " 1919, October -'7 th page 932—Mining Amendment Bit?, you would hive had your answer. I would like to ask you or anyone else interested in the water right question to real carefully the Minister of Mines address on this |<age and u'so -S:r Francis Bell's address to Council, pago 1054, 1093, 1094, October o0:h. Compare what he evidently had been tokl by "an officer of the Vincent County and thd solicitor for the Viaeent County " with the evidence given before the Warden's Court, the account or which appeared in your columns during lue past few months. I think the person who told Sir Fraucia Bell thit L tuei water rights from two choline's iu the Cjnroys Creek " has been the source of supply for domestic purposes to over 100

persons " should take a few lessons in arithmetic. Of course the name of is not mentioned, neither is my name in priut in Sir Francis Ball's apeecb to Council, but it is obvious to whom he refers. His remarks imply that I was seeking lo j imp the claims of others and that my ease \<r;%s without merit of any kind, aud that I would be amply compensated by the fine. S.irely it is sufficient merit to try and safeguard the interests and welfare of a well-established old home which took oO years of hard toil and grit to make. Aud I think auy reasonable person can easily understand a fine in lieu of forfeiture vroaVl not in any w«jr have compensated nie. I was not seeking c nnpen-

?atiou. I did not wish to " jump " the water rights of Lines, and only -sued for cancellation when actually forced to do so. And even now when the Magistrate has granted forfeiture, I

do Dot intend to take advantage of tike h»w to the full extent. The Ayjders are welcome to the w iter and JVh as far as lam concerned. They jE>uld have been willing in the first place to take over Lanes rights without priority as bad to be done with all the other privileges of Conroys Creek in former year?. The water right which commands this property dates back to the sixties, but lost its old title when the change of purpose took place in 18S0 Now suppose you give your readers another' leading article " on the " water right ,: <tueation next week. —1 am, etc., Ai.ex Tay'lok.

[We are iu no doubt as to whero

the blame ahoukl be laid for the withdrawal of clauses 2, 3 and i of the Amendment to the Mining Act. .Sir W. Fraser ia primarily responsible »3 being the Minister in charge and the Mines Committe are also implicated as agreeing to the withdrawal. The reasons fur tbe withdrawal became known on the receipt of the Hansard mentioned by our correspondent. The press copy of this number was not to hand when our first article was written so we could hardly consult what had not at that time been in circulation. Messrs Taylor and party were quite eutitled to protect their interests. It wa-, as stated by us, quite unfair for new purchasers to step in ahead of old right holders, hut the recent decision in the Warden's Cmrt emphasises our contention ; the unsatisfactory position of the destination of valuable irrigation water being determined under the terms of a mining act. —Ed. A. lI.J