LAKE COUNTY AND ITS GOLD-MINING REVENUE.

Lake Wakatip Mail, Issue 1517, 29 January 1886, Page 5

LAKE COUNTY AND ITS GOLD-MINING REVENUE.

(TO THE IDITOR OF THE LAKE WAKATIP MAIL.)

Sir,—ln my letter to you re this matter, some of my friends think I implied a certain amount of dishonesty to councillors in what I claimed to be a mal-administration of goldfields and land revenue. This I deny, but if wrong, I desire to retract any such implication. It is not what councillors have done personally that I am desirous the public should understand, but collectively as a body, as trustees of public funds. Personally, I hope I have ever been on good terms with nearly all the members, Kst and present, of that local body, and it is only cause I wish the mining interest to avoid the perils of the past, and for the future to claim just recognition, that I have entered the lists upon this matter. The Chairman (Mr C. C. Boyes) is at last, see his annual address, a supporter of goldfields interests. Yet lam hardly trustful enough in the integrity of the principles of a squatting gentleman, who has looked upon me as a miner demagogue, "spouter" and blatant land reformer. What lin those few years contended for and so denominated are even now the statute law ot New Zealand. The council of vested interests bow to inevitable circumstances. I rejoice they are so, but the mining interest has a fair claim upon the Council to readjust the past mal-administration of goldfields and land revenue. Even despite cautions, I will adduce a present log-rolling arrangement for an expenditure of money under the Government vote of roads for goldfields.. I have not kept data of revenue so strictly as one interested in the system of local selfgovernment should have done, but published balance sheets in your papers can easily remedy any difficulty by a reference to them. I do not wish to extend my remarks further than possible. To continue, Sir, the County Act, 1876, really only became operative in the following year. The first balance sheet, therefore, is for 31st March, 1878. So far as what constitutes revenue of the Council, reference must be made to the financial arrangement, etc. So far as regards land revenue, I hold that, up to the year 1882, the goldfields were entitled to a large expenditure upon them—so large that, practically, the Council should have left, up to that year, the special goldfields revenue untouched. With due care this might have formed a very comfortable "nest egg" for use to-day. Even this land revenue was subsidised to the extent of 10s in the pound out of the consolidated revenues of the colony. My advice in 1876-7/ (when I was County Clerk and Mr A. 0. M'Ardell was Chairman) was to consolidate this income as a special fund. The advice was not new, for I had used it as a motive power of grant in the General Assembly, ami had also obtained with it a share of surplu» land revenue even from the Provincial District of Canterbury (Lake Wanaka). The principle of those grants and aids still exist, and is covered by grants to open lands upon goldfields, for roads to goldfields, and, more important still, in the matter of roads to land settlement, say, such as agricultural leases, deferred-payment blocks, etc. This revenue has l*een duly conserved, and its subsidies administered must be left over for other examination. My simple advocacy is that this land revenue—if duly adminstered with economy and without a scramble for roads and expensive luxuries—would have, with other revenue of a large amount, met all requirements. The land revenue alone up to 1882 amounted to £18,500, without full subsidies. Since then grants have been made in special cases. Roads to goldfields have, like water-races, also been subject to special aid under another Act, viz., the Public Works one, and this has often been administered by the Council for and on behalf of the Government.

Now, as to goldfields revenue, section 37 of the Financial Powers Acts endorsed—in connection with the Counties Act—all revenues as accruing under " The Public Revenues Act, 1567," relating to mining for gold. As to division of such revenue it was made, and is still collectable (vide section 22>, l»y the Crown authorities, and divided, so far as gold duty is concerned, pro rata. Part of this was also subsidised, say, for rates and general revenue. The amount of these over so many years is necessarily large and they cannot l>e arrived at correctly. The aggregate of gold duty received to 31st March, 1881, was £5,446, and since then £5,000, or in all £10,452. as far as I can find out. But, then, rememl>er this is only a pro rata distribution without subsidies. It has, however, betn accepted by the Council as a fair one. The Crown is entirely exempt from any such pro rata distribution. The County Council is not to blame, except that it never sought a better means for ascertaining our goldfields actual revenue. It also shtlved the work that Government asked it to do at last meeting, i.t. collect local revenues. Thus we have an appropriation of goldfields duty received of the al>ove amount. Surely some of this sum beyond the miserable amount—say, not not exceeding £soo—might have been given or lent to aid the mining industry. I have a further debit against the Council to bring on l>ehalf of the mining interest. There are two other sources of goldfields revenue. One is L'oldfielils revenue properly, the other is in fees and licenses of all kinds. Goldfields revenue properly contributed up to 1882 the sum of £3,659—0r a grand total of £8862. Not desiring to, in this letter, further weary your readers. I ask them to consider and ponder over these detailed facts, which do not include rates, etc.

Goldfields revenue £8,862 Say | share of land revenue ... 4,650

£13,512 Direct reverue and goldfields duty 10,452

£23,964

Now, once m«re as to misappropriation of goldfields revenue. I accuse the Council of being guiltv (quite lately) of allocating a portion of their gohlfields and Government revenue in the matter of making approaches to the Mace town road through Arrowtown. The deed is not yet signed or completed, but there is something behind that requires candid and clear explanation.—l am, etc., H. M ANDERS, Queenstown, 25th January, 1886.