THAMES DEEP LEVELS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 14109, 10 July 1909, Page 6

THAMES DEEP LEVELS.

A LIMITED SUBSIDY.

SCHEME MAY BE WRECKED.

The Thames deep levels scheme, which seemed to be on the verge of being brought .to a head, has received a further set-back owing to the action of the Government in connection with the subsidy, upon which so much depended. It will be remembered that the representatives of the various companies concerned met at the Thames on June 24 ■ last in conference with Mr. F. Reed, inspecting engineer of the Mines Department, and agreed upon a scheme which was submitted to the Government. This provided" for a crosscut at the 1000 ft level, from the Queen of Beauty shaft to that of the Kuranui-Caledonian, and subsidiary crosscuts to the Saxon, May Queen, and Victoria areas. The estimated cost of the whole scheme was £16,795, and the Government was asked to give towards the undertaking a £ for £ subsidy to the extent of £8398 (half the total estimated cost), the companies intimating that they were prepared to pay the sum of £10,000, and to start the work immediately if the Government assistance asked was forthcoming. The Minister for Mines has, however, decided to limit the subsidy to £5000, and this may wreck the whole scheme, according to Mr. C. Hudson, chairman of the Waiotahi Gold Mining Company.

, The representatives of the companies yesterday received the following telegram from the Minister (Hon. R. McKenzie): — " I have to inform you that, subject to ratification by Parliament, and also to conditions now being drafted, the Government has decided to grant a subsidy of £ for £ up to £5000 on the crosscut from the Thames Hauraki shaft at the 1000 ft level to the . Kuranui-Caledonian shaft. The subsidy will only be payable on the actual crosscut between the two shafts, and not on the subsidiary drives to connect the different claims with the crosscut. The principal condition that will be attached to the grant will be the right of future companies, and companies other than those who have now entered into the agreement to contribute towards the cost, to utilise the crosscut on payment of an adequate contribution and generally the intention is to make it clear that the crosscut is to be regarded as a work for the public benefit in return for the subsidy from the State. The form of agreement containing the conditions, etc., will be submitted to the companies shortly." A meeting of the renresentatives of the companies is to be held early next week to consider the position. MUST MODIFY OR ABANDON. The Minister's telegram is causing considerable agitation in local mining circles. Interviewed hv a Herald representative last night, Mr. C. Hudson, a prominent member of the Thames Deep Levels Committee, who placed the companies' scheme before the inspector of mines at the Thames last month, said it wa? satisfactory to have the assurance of a. subsidy of £5000, but disappointing not to bo promised the amount asked for. .

: ; "In making the proposition to the chief inspector of mines," said Mr. Hudson, "I first asked for a subsidy of £10.000, as it was expected the total cost of the work would run into £20,000, and the companies inteiested were prepared to find £10,000. Hem-ever. Mr. Reed pointed out that it would be better to moderate our request and a.'k for only exactly half of the estimated cost£B39B. In his opinion our application .would then have more chance of success. The funds available will now be £5000 the amount of the subsidy promised by the Government) and the "companies' quota of ; £lo,ooo—a sum total of £15,000 to carry out a work of which the estimated cost way £18,375. I think, and it is quite evident, that the scheme will have to be modified or dropped if the Government do not see their way; to give us the sum asked for. The Minister states that the Government cannot contribute to the subsidiary crosscuts, and this lias evidently been the reason of the £5000 being substituted for tie £8398 asked for. No doubt tkee subsidiary crosscuts are prospecting works which the Government should not be called upon to contribute to. Mr. Reed made a suggestion in our interview that these should "be eliminated, but I pointed out to him that counting in the crosscuts the total length of driving under the scheme proposed to him was a main crosscut of 2706 ft and subsidiary CI * 0K£ r aggregating in all 1300 ft, a total of 4006 ft, and this was considerably shorter than the first proposal to drive in a circuitous route from the Queen of Beautv shaft to the Big Pump shaft on the route laid down some years ago at the request of the Government. I also pointed out that the subsidiary crosscuts were a necessary adjunct to the scheme to enable the various properties to be drained and to give access in the direction of their shafts, and that the o°, m £ ; i™ were Prepared to subscribe £10,000 as against the £8398 asked for from the Government, lam afraid the Government's action may wreck the whole scheme." Mr. Hudson said, "as it is absurd to call on us to enter on a work which at the lowest estimate may reach £17,000, with a provision of only £15,000. It may be possible to modify the proposal bv striking cut altogether the subsidiary crosscuts, but I do not think it likely that the companies will agree to this, as the conceesion was only given to them after long negotiations and careful thinking -out. It is to be hoped that the Government will reconsider the matter, and increase their subsidy to £8000 at least. I understand the Kufanui-Caledonian advisory committee are only waiting to hear that the subsidy line been" granted to telegraph to the London directors to get their consent to join the scheme." COST OF THE SCHEME. The Hon. E. Mitchelson, chairman of the May Queen Company, endorsed Mr. Hudson's opinion as to the probability of the scheme falling to the ground, unless the Government increased their subsidy. There was, however, he pointed out, one serious omission which the companies had made in arriving at their estimate. The amount, £16,795, was only the estimate of the cost of the main crosscut and subsidiary crosscuts. The companies had omitted altogether the cost of raising the debris, and also the cost each company would have to bear' in unwatering and keeping the shaft unwatered. . The May Queen Company had already been put to an expense- of something like £6000 in unwatering and in sinking their shaft, and they still had to bear this cost. In coming into the scheme they had stipulated that each of the other companies interested would have to pay its proportion of this and reimburse the May Queen. The mine managers had, however, left that altogether out of their estimate. Therefore the £16,795 arrived at would not nearly jover tho whole cast of the scheme.