The Ensign. GORE: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17. MINING DIFFICULTIES.

Mataura Ensign, Issue 946, 17 September 1901, Page 2

The Ensign. GORE: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17. MINING DIFFICULTIES.

The meeting held in Gore last week amply sustained our previously expressed contention that the extravagant demands of the dredge workers could not possibly be met out of the results secured from tbe industry so far. It was made plain that if the workers persisted and carried the day so far as increased wages was concerned, they would do so at the cost of closing down a large number of dredges in this district, and so limiting appreciably the field of their own now fairly-remunerated activity. But the labor aspect of the case has been fully ventilated already, and needs little further comment. Another difficulty which presents itself for solution, and which is not so clearly defined in its issues, is that in relation to the water troubles on the Waimumu and Charlton creeks. There are two very important aspects of this matter which cannot be lightly dismissed. These are, first, the rights of the farmers to clean water, and second, the rights of the mining companies (representing a very large amount of capita)? to pursue an industry which adds materially to the prosperity of the colony. The farmers on their part demand, as being first comers (now that the dredging industry has started), that they shall be placed in the same position as when they first took up the land—i.e., that they shall be given clean water for their stock, and that they shall be relieved of tbe risk of their pastures being damaged by silt deposited in flood times as a result of dredging operations. This is a very reasonable position to take up. Neither the Charlton nor the Waimumu district is within a mining area, and agriculturists purchased their lands unencumbered by any of the risks following the pursuit of farming in a mining district. On the strength of possessing rights to two never - failing streams of clean water, they laid their farming plans accordingly, and it is reasonable to suppose that at the time of the original purchase of these areas by the farmers, some tangible acknowledgement of the worth of the two water courses was made in the price paid. All this being so, it cannot with justice be now contended that these farmers should be deprived of their water rights altogether, or else be forced to relinquish them at a lower price than their actual cash value. The mining companies, too, have good grounds for consideration. They have exploited a field of large natural wealth ; have run great j risks in doing so, and may now fairly claim to be placed in a position of pursuing further operations without molestation. But the farmers' and miners' interests conflict right through the chapter, and all efforts so far to j bring about an amicable settlement of the difficulty have failed. Clearly it is not incumbent upon these individual farmers concerned to make any sacrifices to permit the industry to go on, ner can it bo shown in justice that they should suiter one shilling's worth of injury without adequate compensation. The farmers have taken their stand on these premises, and so far have been masters of the situation. Tbe matter then resolves itself into a question to be settled between the miners and the Government. Can it fairly be claimed that compensation for water rights on a large scale comes within the province of dredging companies as an expense incidental to the pursuit of the industry ? We hold that it cannot, and there are numerous precedents created by the Government to support us. In any case it is the duty of the State to c'ear the way for the inauguration of undertakings likely to prove of public benefit if their importance can be demonstrated. The dredging industry so far as this district is concerned is a case in point, and should receive the fullest encouragement. To facilitate the exploitation of the goldiields is an equally important branch of State-craft with the policy of coustiucting railways to open up new settlements. The case of the Waikaka stream and the Government's proclamation of it as a sludgechannel is not on all fours with that of the Charlton and Waimumu. It must be remembered that at the time of its proclamation, the upper portion of the Waikaka traversed a mining district, and in the very early days of settlement the water was fouled by the deposit of mining debris. Many settlers along the lower portions of the stream took up land with their eyes opened to tbe risks and possibilities of dirty water and silt. On the Charlton and Waimumu no such conditions obtained and a different process of treating claims for compensation must be adopted in regard to these. So far as the Waimumu is concerned, the amounts claimed (totalling £23,000) are obviously excessive. This is not altogether the fault of the farmers, and it is probable the most extravagant demands are made by holders of Mataura suburban sections. As for the Charlton we are not competent to say whether £OOOO is or is not reasonable. We are assured, however, by these latter farmers that if they are placed in the same position as regards water as before dredging started not one desires a shilling of compensation. The dredging companies on the Waimumu and Charlton are prepared to make reasonable sacrifices to secure a settlement of the difficulty, and their demand that the Government should do something more than pay one third of tbe cost of constructing a storm channel in each instance is not at ail extravagant. The Government's proposal is too j indefinite and vague. Without prejudicing the rights of the farmers in the least the Rivers Commission could hear evidence and determine the validity of claims for compensation. In this manner the whole question would be brought before Parliament and placed in a light fair to all parties. Upon this basis it could be finally settled. At present the matter, which is properly one for Parliament to deal with, is concealed in the departmental pigeon-holes.