THE GOLD FIELDS REGULATIONS.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1358, 5 December 1872, Page 2

THE GOLD FIELDS REGULATIONS.

[to the editor.] : Sir— No doubt " Our own Corresr pondent" has seen : and he^,rd: a great deal relative to; the working of ; Section 10 of the. Gold; Fields' Regulations; and has come to the conclusion that it ought to be altered j" Fair Play" thiiiki ■ the. same, whilst "S. B. Hafford" con-i siders it has its virtues. I must 'say I think the two former are right, that it ought to be altered, and for the following among other reasons ;— 1. Because it has a. tendency to lock up water, instead of. giving some inducement (as it should do) to turn it to account, so a3 to be in keeping with the policy of the General Government; in regard to Water Supply for the Gold Fields, who wish all the water possible utilised, and arepre-, pared to lend pecuniary aid to parties for the construction of races. , 2. I cannot see why one interest oni the Gold Fields should receive more pro- ; tection or favor than another, which obviously is the- case in the clause in ques- ! -U°Jl*—Mifc r -grotects the creeks to the' QemmenTottneT;errace3:~ - Tror-inßtßiuce7 r if A finds ground on a terrace toidayj that will pay for ground-sluicing, and! there is a creek some distance off with a: head of water in it which no one is using, why should A be deterred from taking! that water as agaiust B, who comes &> month or a year hence and finds payable; ground in the creek or on. a low terrace' alongside ? I fail to see why. No,!sir ! I .say ; ; the . ;. f prior . occupant! should have the prior right, and! therois nothing unfair . in that, for if B had been in the creek first he would have! been entitled to the water, and in that*, way brie party or interest would receive! no more favor than another. ; 3. The Clause, as it is, has been; utterly, disregarded, not because men did' not know that they were running the risk^ of having the water taken from them at j anytime, but solely in the' hope that it' would not be enforced .-against .them,- and [ one cannot help thinking , where a clause I has been so universally ignored, it canuot ' be the right thing. It is a good thing ; for the .country in one respect that the^ risk has .been takeu, otherwise not one- ' half of the races on the gold fields •; would ■ have been constructed, for I have no hesitation in stating that fully one-half of| them would become valueless if a head ; of water was taken from each one, and mi consequence there would be a verygreat reduction in the number of men employed on the Nelson South- West Gold Fields. • I S. B. Hafford says in his letter, that it ' prevents the raceholders from monopolising the whole of the water running in a creek when it may bo wanted for other purposes.' Now I don't believe in a monopoly in any shape, and to prevent that I would have, a clause to the effect that if water was, wanted for, general purposes in the creek from which it had been taken by virtue of a watertight, then the owner should .be compelled to allow, a bead of water to flow down, and for so doing to receive compensation from the parties wanting it — the amount to be determined by arbitration in , the .usual manner ; then there would be no fear of any " pointing," as has been too often the case, and one would feel sure,,: if .demanded, the water would be wantedfor legitimate use. I am, &c., ' ■■ " W. H. Lash. Waipuna Terrace, Nov. 28.