The Lyttelton Times. WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 2, 1896. THE GOVERNMENT AND THE GOLDFIELDS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCVI, Issue 11052, 2 September 1896, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 2, 1896. THE GOVERNMENT AND THE GOLDFIELDS.

A Bill now before Parliament seeks to amend the law relating to our goldfields in several important particulars, and as the measure has evoked soma adverse criticism, especially in the Auckland district, it may be useful to examine its provisions. Tbe Bill proposes to give the Government of the day power to resume possession of all freehold land containing gold or silver, on payment of surface compensation to the owners. So far as the principle is concerned, we see no reason to question its soundness, and no ground for the fear expressed in the north that by passing such a law we should discourage the investment of English, capital in mining enterprises in this colony. A Victorian case that was in. 1870 carried to the Privy Council turned upon the right of the colonial Government to claim gold or silver in lands held under freehold title, and it was decided in favour of the Crown. So far as we are aware, however, no colonial Government has yet proposed to re-enter upon possession of such lands ; but that is a mere matter of expediency, the right being undoubted. It seems to us that our Parliament will act wisely by agreeing to sanction the re-purchase o£ lands proved to contain stores of the precious metals, and the result of such a policy, we should think, would, be to stimulate legitimate investment in gold-mining enterprises and to check merely speculative transactions. The principle of State control of natural resources might, indeed, be extended, with advantage so as to include all the forests, kauri gum deposits, and so forth.

As regards the proposed amendment of the Mining Act, the crucial point is the compensation to be paid to the owners of auriferous land. Here we perceive the necessity for some modification of the proposal before Parliament. Though the stating of the doctrine of surface compensation will doubtless have a good effect in limiting speculative purchases of land believed to be auriferous, it seems only fair that, when purchases have been concluded before the amending law was pro- ' posed, the Government should recoup the full value paid. The resumption of mineral lands, so far as it concerns the Auckland district, is further complicated by questions of Native tenure. The Maoris claim that the Treaty of Waitangi gives them absolute ownership in the minerals, and the practice in the past has been for the Government to recognise their claim. If, therefore, a proposal should be made to resume possession of auriferous lands acquired from the Maoris, of which, there are large blocks on the Hauraki goldfields, the present owners of these lands may carry the dispute to the law courts, and involve the Government in heavy expense. The Natives themselves cannot go to law on the question, as the Government could, under the statutes in force and in terms of the Treaty of Waitangi, exercise the right of pre-emption ever Native lands. As a matter of fact, Government resumption of these lauds ought to secure the Maoris their full rights, and save them from being exploited by goldfield speculators. The chief opposition to the Government’s mining proposals comeal from the representatives of the Kauri Freehold Gold .Estates Company, an , English concern that lately acquired some 30,000 acres of land believed to be auriferous. That Company is said to he prepared to develop the property by searching for gold and carrying on active mining operations. It has probably paid a considerable price for the freehold, and it ought certainly not to he made to lose by the introduction of a new mining policy. ' The Bill is now, we believe, before the Goldfields Committee, to which it -was sent after - the second reading had been agreed to pro forma , with the understanding that the debate on the principle should be taken on the motion to go into committee on the measure. If the Goldfields Committee should find from evidence that the proposed new law would operate unjustly, no doubt the House would modify the provisions of the Bill. It would be an exceedingly shortsighted policy if the Government, which is proposing to spend £200,000 in the encouragement of gold-mining, should discourage English enterprise by enacting harsh or inequitable provisions for the resumption of mineral lands. The English investor would like to be assured, above all things, of security against sudden changes or unexpected developments of policy. He may as well be informed at this stage that the settled policy of this country is to retain the control of natural resources and to exercise the right of resumption whenever it is thought desirable to do so. But we‘must insist upon fair compensation being paid to those who are dispossessed, so that noi pretext may be given for the cry of “ confiscation ” or “ spoliation.”