THE PIPECLAY CHANNEL.

Cromwell Argus, Volume XVII, Issue 835, 14 April 1885, Page 3

THE PIPECLAY CHANNEL.

to the editor. Sir,— Wonderful and worthy of record ! A Crown minister, and one holding the honorable portfolio of Mines, has visited us, and actually listened to our grievances with a circumspection and intelligence that showed he is notlikely to be led astray by the usual stump orations expressed by legal managers aud mining agents of limited companies as to the amount of hard cash expended by them for the public good. Now, Mr Editor, through your columns I would draw the attention of miners and others who may be interested in the welfare of the Sldfields to the application of Pipeclay Channel mpany for a subsidy of £2O per chain, the present subsidy not being considered satisfactory, although when let by contract the work was completed to the satisfaction of the inspector for the sum of £33 per chain, and in the face of almost insurmountable difficulties. Now, let us reviewthe benevolent benefactions this company has already received from a generous public. Through some system of Court manipulation quite foreign to the most ot us, the Warden gave them a large portion of the already constructed channel amounting in value to £l4oo—£7oo being contributed by the County Council, the balance by the shareholders. This handsome gift was handed over to the company without paying any compensation to the former company. The new company —or more properly speaking, the jumpers—commenced operations with a supposed capital of £I2OO. The Mining Association of the district being desirous that the channel should be pushed ahead made application to the Government for assistance, and a sum of £lO per chain was granted, subject to the following conditions : Grade, 1 foot in 19 ; width, 6 feet ; wall, 3 feet above pitching, subject to the inspection of the district Warden. The first condition was totally ignored, the grade being reduced to 1 in 23 for a distance of thirteen and a half chains, or thereabouts, from Ray and party’s tailrace downwards. It is nothing less than a public scandal. Now for the sequel. This company makes a demand on those who use the channel for tailing purposes to pay a rate of 11J percent, for all water running in, although Mr M'Kerrow made it to be tacitly understood that no rates could be collected where Government subsidies are paid. Why don’t the company comply with the “ Limited Companies’ Act ” and publish a statement of the receipts and expenditure, and show the general public under what terms they have spent £3BOO ?—I am, etc., Facts and Figures. Bannockburn, April 11, 1885.