MINING SUMMARY.

Auckland Star, Volume XXIII, Issue 142, 16 June 1892, Page 3

MINING SUMMARY.

(from our own correspondent. ) Thames, Wednesday. * The past month has been a most unevenbful one as far as the mining industry at the Thames is concerned. The various mines have continued the even tenor of their way, bub in no case has any discovery of importance been made, so thab a detailed description of the work done would prove wearisome and uninteresting. On the 11th inst. the Hon. R. J. Seddon, Minister of Mines, arrived at the Thames, and was waited upon regarding various matters connected with the industry, amongst them being (1) the proposed extension of the Moanataiari tunnel, and being asked whether "in the event of one large company being formed, and a substantial amount of capital subscribed, would a subsidy be given ab the rate of £1 for £1," the Minister replied that he could not promise anything until a definite scheme had been drawn up ; (2) An assistant for a Thames School of Mines, which was promised conditional upon an item being passed in the School of Mines' item on estimates ; (3) That Government should assist to the extent of £50 in having a leaching planb established at the School of Mines in connection with the presenb experimental plant. This was promised, as was also a dynamo for lighting the School by the electric light, and also a theodolite for the use of the mining class. There ia considerable disappointment at the result of Mr Seddon's visit, and it is freely asserted here that unless Mi Cadman, as member tor the Thames district, asserts himself, this' district will continue to be treated more shabbily by the present; Government) than by any previous Ministry. It may be added thab Mr Seddon's reply regarding the miners' righb question has been received with great dissatisfaction, inasmuch as ib is evident that.be has not made himself acquainted with the law on the subject. Mr Seddon says the Government recognise that the terms of the agreement should be honourably carried out by the Government, bub they contend that the compliance with the conditions of the agreement is not incumbenb on miners working in licensed holdings and claims taken up under the provisions of the Mining Act, 1886. This contention is based on section 6 of the Act of 1891, which reads : " All questions arising in relation to any Act or parb of any Acb repealed by this Acb or by the Mining Acb, 1886, or any Acb in force previously to the last mentioned Act, or any title acquired thereunder respectively, shall, unles9 where otherwise is specially provided, and nobwithstanding such repeal, be determined under such Act, and not under this Act." This is, Mr Seddon says, the opinion of the Law Officer of the Crown, and it is, therefore, worthy of consideration. I am informed, however, that other professional men outside of the Governmenb service are not of the same opinion, and hold thab the section referred to cannot affect the miners' right question, as this is nob really a question'of title. The real question which would have to be decided by the Court would be: Are these; men engaged or employed in mining wichout a miner's righb, as section 250 sets forth that "every person, not being the holder of a miner's right, who shall be engaged or employed in mining operations shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £5." This is clearly a matter within the Act of 1891, independent of any question of title created by any former Act, and irrespective of the fact whether a man was working in a claim or licensed holding, or whether the land was held under a new or an old title. The Law Officers of the Crown contend that the section necessitating the taking out of miners' rights is not retrospective. Neither it is. No one would imagine for a moment thab those men who up to the Ist of January last) were, .working without

miners' rights would now be liable to a penalty. But as the provision relates to each man mining, and not to the owners of claims or-licensed holdings, and-there-fore does nob in any way affect the i title to these holdings, I confess that one cannot read section 6 as affecting these miners' rights. Granting, however, bhat Mr Seddon's statement of the law ia correct, there is nothing to prevent the owners of licensed holdings exchanging their title under the 1886 Act and its amendment, for titles under the Acb of 1891. There is, in fact, a great inducement to do so, as the rent is less, under th 6 new Act, and the labour conditions are easier. In this case, there can be no question thab the taking out of miners' rights would be compulsory. Mr Seddon no doubt hopes to introduce the amendment spoken of by him before many months are past, Under this amendment rents will be practically abolished, bub the claim-holders will be called upon to pay miners' rights for the men working on their land. This, it is presumed, means up to the number of men which by law they are required to employ. Bub in cases such as the Waiotahi 4 or Cambria, for instance, where a great many more men than required by the Acb are employed, who would provide those extra, men with rights? Nob the employers, as they could not reasonably be called upon to pay for more men than the- conditions of their license demanded. If they did do so, they would have to pay a very heavy rental —in many cases, ten times what they now pay. Ib seems clear, therefore, that even under Mr SeddonV proposed amendment many miners would have, after all, to provide themselves with miners' rights, and their position would be in no sense improved, while much dissatisfaction would inevitably result. I have referred at length to this subject aa intense interest is taken in ib by the miners of this district, and if the miners' right fee of £1 per annum is enforced they will en masse refuse to take them oub. A pleasing feature of the month has been the handsome yield from'the Waihi Company's mine. The amount of ore crushed for the four weeks ended the 4th insb. was 1,466 tons, the bullion from which is valued ab £4,902 10s Bd. The whole power of the battery was not used during that time, an average of 50 stamps only being employed. This is the largest monthly return yeb recorded from the Waihi mineThere is nothing fresh from the other upcountry mines.