THE NEW GOLD-FIELDS BILL.

Cromwell Argus, Volume IV, Issue 192, 15 July 1873, Page 5

THE NEW GOLD-FIELDS BILL.

Notes by Viator. On perusing the new Gold-fields Bill which j will come under discussion at the ensuing i session of Parliament, I confess I am rather ; disappointed with the contents thereof. It lis doubtless in some respects a slight improvement upon the present Regulations, j but for all the benefit miners an* likely to | derive from it, it might be consigned to the i waste-paper basket. It reminds me of the change of food said to be enjoyed by shepherds—"mutton and damper to damper and mutton." In some of its clauses 1 see a little j additional taxation for the miner, but in | none do I note a reduction ; in others there i is a certain amount of ambiguity, and as it is fcintended to make the transaction of business I by the miner easier than hitherto, it would . )e better cleared of this haziness. In the 3 ope that our Mining Associations will lose o time in carefully reviewing the Bill, I will tideavour to point out a few of what in my s o.inion are its defects. I noticed that you i pHially reviewed it in a former issue, and - Y ;le agreeing with your remarks thereon, 3 allny me to pick up the thread where dropped . at action 30. Cause 1 shows, as you stated, that no necesity will exist to serve notices on miners 3 holdtig adjacent claims, by the party apply- ., ing fir a grant of water. 1 think the necese ltv dle s exist. We will suppose that a numP ber of Timers are using the water in the creek r pr its Neighbourhood in the ordinary way—cradling, box-sluicing; &c. &c. The applicant posts his notices at the head and the end ot his proposed race, both of which points - may be niles from the scene of the aforesaid a miners' operations: it may happen they never ssee them, and the first intimation would be a e Brought in the creek, and consequently their ~ occupation, like Othello's, gone. Mv impression is that notice should be given 'in such a fc pase, and this mudit be done in a wav prodded m other sections of the Bill—by advertisement in the nearest newspaper. ° Nothing is stated with regard to tail-races, onncl, ™ P'U remarked, it may be inferred thuEtfav right to construct them is oonfeered

by the water-license. The subject should have beon noticed, as drawing inferences in any such matter is very apt to lead people far astray. In clause 3 of same section it is set down that £1 shall be payable annually as rent for each water-license, whether the quantity bo one or fifty heads. I do not consider this fair or equitable : the tax falls too heavily on the small holder. Two years ago a charge of ss. per head was imposed by Government ; this was found to be prohibitory and retrogressive, and was therefore repealed ; and now, notwithstanding this experience, an attempt is about to be made to impose upon the miner who holds one head of water the sum of £1 per annum as rent, while the monopolist of fifty gets off with the payment of 4|d. per head. On the principle of a reduction being made on taking a quantity, this might do, but in no other light is any consistency discernible. If a charge must be made, let it be a small one per head or not at all—the latter preferred. In the same clause it is proposed that water-licenses may be granted for any term not exceeding fifteen years, renewable at the end of such term. I wish to know if the Government, having fixed the limit, propose to reserve the power to refuse a renewal, and if so, will compensation be paid ? In clause 34 of this section, compensation in case of a revocation of the grant is provided for ; but if, when the term of the grant has expired, and Government should prove unkind, what then ? This strikes me as a doubtful point, requiring further elucidation. In clause G of same section, relating to objections, it is stipulated that any person who is desirous of constructing a water-race through " any freehold land, or any land in the lawful occupation of any one," is liable to pay compensation to such "any person," meaning, I suppose, among others, the squatter in occupation of Crown lands. The well-known antagonism of the two classes being likely to make this a serious matter for the miner, it would be better to amend it thus :-—any freehold land, or land held under miner's right, business license, or agricultural lease. Ido not suppose, generally speaking, that squatters would object to the extension of irrigation on their runs, but I know of one such case on record, and it would be better to " mak' siccar." Also in this clause, the Warden has power to determine the amount of such compensation. Would it not be fairer and more satisfactory if left to arbitration I I scarcely know how far under our beneficent laws the "liberty of the subject" extends, or if the Government has the power ; but if it has, it would be well, when granting a water-right to atiy person or company who purpose selling water to miners, to restrict them to a certain schedule of changes for said water; and .further, that the "head" supplied shall be of the same dimensions as granted to them—viz., 40 inches. There are present instances of permanent sluicing districts becoming depopulated by the prohibitory charges and small heads supplied by the "water squatters"; and all the expensive and useful works—such as sludge-channels, tail-races, &c. <fcc.—constructed by the united labour of the miners assisted by Government funds, will eventually fall a prey to these monopolists. If the framers of the Bill had witnessed this " little game" as I have, they would doubtless have strained a point to clip the wings of these vultures—" liberty of the subject" notwithstanding. I find I have exceeded my usual limit, and will only add that 1 trust the foregoing crude remarks will draw increased attention on the part of Mining Associations to the features of the Bill. I fancy that generally they will agree with me that it is merely an old acquaintance in a new gnise. For the amount of benefit, as I before stated, miners personally and collectively are likely to derive from it, it would be better to commence <k novo. Should I notice anything further worthy of remark, I will endeavour to communicate it ere Parliament sits. In the meantime, Mining Associations, to your work ! liendigo, July 11, 187,"!.