THE PROPOSED GOLD-FIELDS REGULATIONS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume V, Issue 1344, 7 March 1868, Page 3

THE PROPOSED GOLD-FIELDS REGULATIONS.

Discussion on these regulations, as published in our issue of yesterday, previously to their being adopted by the authorities, has been invited. "We propose in the present instance to draw attention to what appears to us to be a defect in one at least of them. Eule 24 seems to be opei to grave objection. We have now on the Thames goldfields to our own knowledge, two instances in which it works unfairly. The claim of Mclsaacs & Co. is one; that of the "Freeman's Bay claim," (.McLeod & Co.'s) another. The regulation says : " The holder of a reef claim shall be allowed to sluice within the limits of his ciaim for specimens only, but if he sluices for alluvial gold his claim must be reduced to the area of an alluvial claim," Now each of these two claims is a quartz reef claim, but in each is to be found a vein of alluvial washdirt. In the latter case, the men, we are told could make a living by working it till they got machinery on the ground, but the moment they commenced to do so, they were threatened by jumpers with having their claim, a boua file quartz reefing claim, reduced to the size of an alluvial one. Much the some thing has occurred in Mclsaacs , claim. Is this fair? To us it seems like stretching the la.v, Lot for the purpose of protecting, hut injuriug the individual. Regulation No. 24 is evidently framed with a view of preventing greedy individuals from monopolising more than a fair share of alluvial ground, in which perchance the presence of a little quartz might otherwise enable them to do, by calling it a quartz reef claim. But in neither of the two instances mentioned, and there may for aught we know be other claims similarly situated, is such precaution needed. In each case the alluvial deposit is the exception. The claim in each case is purely and simply a bona \fide quartz reef claim. Where a claim comes fairly under the denomination of a " Quartz claim," and is registered as such, the holder ought in all fairness, if alluvial gold be afterwards found to exist upon it, to be maintained in possession of the full exI tent of the claim. Could it be proved that the I claim should in the first instance have been defined as " an alluvial claim," then by all means let the area of ground be reduced, but not otherwise. Eule 12 gives a clear definition of chiiins, and if a claim be once fairly marked out, claimed, and registered under such definition, lei the holders be entitled to all they can find within its boundaries. The attempt to hold more than a fair quantity of ground by wrongly defining a claim can be defeated otherwise than by oppressing claim-holders in particular instances, as shown above, who under peculiar circumstances may find alluvial gold upon their claims. Fortunate would it be if every straggling company of men could find on their quartz claims a small patch from which they could wash sufficient gold to keep them in rations until they could get their quartz sent in quantity to the mill. Where, in a few instances some are so fortunate, it seems cruel to prevent them from enjoying the opportunity of doing so, forcing upon them one of two alternatives, either to leave the alluvial gold alone, or to submit to a reduction of their ground. As it is the claims are small enough to warrant the erection of expensive machinery upon them.