THE Mount Ida Chronicle. FRIDAY, APRIL 14,1876.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume VII, Issue 371, 14 April 1876, Page 2

THE Mount Ida Chronicle. FRIDAY, APRIL 14,1876.

Is dealing with the contemplated sale' of auriferous lands we by no means wish to dogmatically bind ourselves to an adverse conclusion. It is certainly easier to pick holes in the scheme than to point to another less capable of being riddled than the one we condemn. Our readers are well aware we have no love for the present system of mining administration, or the laws under

which such, administration is earned out

The cue really souml view, difficult to deal with, by advocates of mining freeholds is the; absolutely valueless uaturu of all tenure possessed by minors,at present. This of fours* would be reclined if mining claims could be •purchased aa mining- freeholds. Lb might indeed be argued farther that a 'laiin, purchased upon an appraisement oi' its'auriferous value, might cynvey'a" right to reasonable use of such' claim, although even then" the right, to_dis-_ charge "'tallings ; ctow'ri" "a"* neighbor's chimney " could hardly be presumed. The ' jMew Zealand Times,' a paper that repeatedly boasts of its advocacy' of the freehold system, has never explained bow such a system could be; put in force. It repudiates the idea we put into its mouth that possibly a square mile might be held by one man, therefore we presume it is in favor of limited areas. Are these to be selected at a fixed price on a system of priority of right, or kfe' such limited ureas to be offered by competition ? To state these questions is at once to show that' the alphabet'of-an : acceptable freehold system ha 3 yet to be devised. All miners know that the auriferous nature of ground cannot be really-known un- : til it is tried. When it is "tried how could the successful, prospectors in fairness be made to compete for -what their patient eaterprise had discovered? Again, hovv.eeaid such ground be reserved for special treatment before its auriferous nature was known.

What will complicate the question very much will be the introduction of the final land legislation proposed for adoption by the Colony (if final can be used in connection with such legislation). If free selection of land, at certain classified prices is adopted, and tho money market -keeps pretty easy, the bulk of our undeveloped auriferous lands will pass into the hands of freeholders before their auriferous value is known: 1 - This would apply more particularly to undeveloped quartz reefs. Supposing that auriferous lands are exempted from such free selection, unless there is a practical Mining Resumption to all intents and purposes, the freeholders would be able to levy black mail upon, the miners, although in so doing they would be acting illegally. In considering the difficulty we find ourselves almost driven to advocate the perpetual State-leasing system so strongly advocated by some. It would be undoubtedly best 'for the Goldfields. ...

At present the freehold claims proposal, so far as it has-been, expounded by its advocates, is simply a proposal to get out of one difficulty in order to plunge into another. There is no gain in that. The difficulty as to the riparian right is aot disposed, of by an assertion that such question must represent a greater difficulty iu California, where the extent of ground is greater. This may be so, What we have, to cousider is JNew Zealand not" California. So far as we can see, and we mit our darkness freely, mining free 7 holds would mean a complete obliteration of goldmining localities, from off the map of Otago. '- About Westland or the Thames we 'do not pretend to give an opinion.

As the application.- of' Brookes and party for leave to-construct a tail race in the Main G ulry f jNaseby, is not yet decided,' we should have preferred to have refrained from-further comment upon it. As, however, "Argus " has written to us, from the objector's point of view only, such abstinence on our part might bo construed into an endorsement of the object'ons raised. In considering- the-question, there are several main facts to be borne io mind. First—Unless the upper-flat "is openedup and connected with the Channel up one can work it. Secondly—No power on earth; will induce the Legislature. to sanctiou any further expenditure on Water Works; oneyoiv party will construct a miua tail race without being .paid, in some wavr for, his or their labor; fourthly—Such' payment must take the suape of enforced taxation, by agreement, on those who useit, or in gold extracted from the race itself while in course of construction, and to a certain extent after. With regard to tbe special application before the Warden, the fact that others might bd willing to construct the same tail race, if true, would be no reason for refusing the first applicant. The whole system of mining administration is based upon priority of application. But, so far, no ono else is willing to construct. Mr. Brookes offered iu Court to iesign the application to any one who would take it up. With regard to tbe width of the appbeatiou it is stated, with a nonappearance of common sense, on behalf of the applicants, that ns one prior right already exists in the Gully, to save both tail races from damage there must be room left for a flood race to conuect with the main bye-wash, and to allow of a safe connection with the Channel. At the same time, it was not attempted to hide from the Court that the alleged necessitated width was calculated iipon, iu determining upon the enterprise, if sanctioned, because it afforded means of a probable remuneration for the outlay. Under any circumstances it is not probable that nore than one additional tail race will be needed to work the ground above the bridge. As to the ground below, there ;is room for half a dozen tail races, if needed. Probably ho long as holders of small claims could make free use of a constructed tail race thoy would prefer to do so rather than run the_ risks and delays of taking down a main themselves.

This point of construction is the real bugbear, and there is a great deal of force in what our correspondent

says about the difficulty of limiting the time of construction for a fail race. Ou the other hand, the applicants have no induce/, t-ut to delay, for what " Ars<us " states about tbe comparative values of the line of race, and the claim is not supported by the slighest evidence, and a3 to break down if it wont pay them to take the race up, being so largely interested in ground, jind in the prosperity of the town, it may be doubted if it would pay anyone else.

.... 4?it-.is.. theapplication is the most liberal" aiid's'p'irife'd we have' yet seen publicly brought forward in Isaseby. We should fail in our duty to the district if, after pointing out the possible danger of delay in construction (which can, we think, be guarded against), we did not do all in our power to encourage the applicants to persevere.