ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

Oamaru Mail, Volume IV, Issue 1160, 5 January 1880, Page 2

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

THE MAEREWHENUA DlSljlrtT. (TO THE EDITOR OF THE OAMARU Mil.) Sir.—The following is a copy Goldfields Committee's report on J|e petition forwarded, to the Hoiise of Representatives re pollution of the Maeife whehua River : The Goldfields Committee, to whom.wa referred the petition of Charley F. Roberts i|nd others at Maerewhenua, praying that th< Maerewhenua River be declared a water coarse for the discharge of mining dibris &c.,v<failing which, that a Commission hi appointed to inquire into the whole subject have directed me to report—2. That the Committee, having carefully considered the petition, the action of youi Committee in previous years, and the vanoui recommendations which have from time t< time been reported to the House, are Oi opinion -that no further recommendatioi which they could make would be likely tc affprd a satisfactory or final aolntio& to thi difficulty as between the miners and ripariai proprietors resident in ' the Maerewhenus district, nnlesa it were deemed advisable U recommend that the Maerewhenua diatrici Jje taken out of the goldfield. 2. The Committee do not see their way ai present to make any recommendation at the same time they are of Opinion that the holders of water-race' property in the districl effected might well consider whether it mighl ui>t be wise to surrender all the rights thej aow possess under the Acts in force relating to gojdiieldsAretaining their water-race pro gerty for all purposes other than mining—for such reaaonaole compensation as woulc t>ffer ah inducement; to the Government tc meet theman a 1 liberal spirit. - 3. The cancellations of; the goldfield wgptt ;nable a large area of Crown land to be placec in; the market for agricultural settlement, which at -present is fsom sale, aj aeing probablyapriferons. " 4 ( The, Comnjii%g v wislj, v ( dis; iinctly. to. be xuiderstood tlui| ; riedommend; a&j ' reiffoval the\r Staerfr

: such a superficial from thd ■ 'ignorance of members of the existence of the Act known as Shepherd's River Pollution Act, and further,' the exiatonc«L of shingle reserves along the banks p river were unknown to them. But now that these things have* been fully laid before them in the memorial referred to, they still flinch from going into the subject. Difficult as the solution of this vexed question may appear to these honorable gentleman, to our comrnoa- : sense way of viewing such matters it seems exceedingly simple, and would do to them were they Bincere in their wish to do justice to this place. To their enlightened vision it seems much easier and better to resort*to the depopulating principle adopted some time since in some parts of Scotland. 'Hiey think it preferable to drive, away some twenty-five or thirty families to seek other homes and other employ to taking eight or ten chains of river frontage from the present owners at a fair and equitable compensation, though it should not exceed in cost LIOO. Land, I am told, has recently been sold, the,exact counterpart of that in dispute, for L 8 per acre ; it will thus be seen that if the frontage were. taken with a depth of ten chains, and valued at LlO per acre all through, LIOO would cover it. But in the opinion of our legislators land and sheep are p of far greater value than men ,and women. To what is this unstatesmanlike idea due 1 It cannot be the honest conviction of the persons comprising the Committee. Not knowing the names of the gentlemen referred to, I am undecided whether to attribute it to squatting influence (surely they could not be bought, though the party are said to be allpowerful and far from scrupulous) or to the adverse party in power. I incline to the latter. My hopes as to the result of the memorial, I must confess, have been very weak since the advent of the present Government to power, for well do I know they are no friends to the miner or the working men. Add to this the fact that our representatives are on the wrong side of the House to get any concessions, or even justice, for their constituents. We have now several instances on record in support of this view.. The second clause of the report throws out a suggest tion, which, if adopted, would inflict jpn the majority of the residents serious injustice and wrong. I can readily imagine that, as nearly the whole of the waterrace property is owned by absentee shareholdersjjsuch an arrangement as that proposed may meet their views ; but what of those who own no water-race, but who nevertheless have equal, if not superior, right to compensation ? Is it no light thing that men *with families, having built cottages and fenced and cultivated gardens, should be made houseless and homeless, and compelled to adopt a new and perhaps uncongenial employment to earn bread for their little ones, even could they find such employment ?—a very doubtful prospeot. Further on the idea seems to be that the race owners should return their property for other uses. I conclude irrigation is what is meant. If I am correct, then here is a display of gross ignorance of the conformation of Maerewhenua. It is no exaggeration to say that of the cultivable land, ninetenths of it could not be irrigated. The third clause, however, is so utterly false and untrue that, if it were written ignorantly, I do not wonder that the memorial met with such scant justice, for it is very evident the Committee gave judgment without evidence, and decided the case without data to guide them. I do not fear contradiction when I assort that there is not in the whole of the Maerewhenua Goldfield, frtSm Otekaike to Awamoko, 2tioo acres of Agricultural land' fit for settlement. Except on one spur on the west side of the river, it would be impossible to find a square block of twentyfive acres that could be ploughed. Let those who question this appeal to the person who is tfow surveying and laying off the land referred to in sections. Is it not lamentable that men so thoroughly incompetent should be returned to Parliament to represent the various industries and interests existing in the various constituencies, and deoide matters of which they are so ignorant that a child of twelve living in the locality could enlighten them. But there is evidently an unwillingness to go into the subject, or why not have summoned witnesses, or even conceded the latter prayer of the memorial, viz., appoint a commissioner, who should visit the place and take evidence. I have no alternative but to conclude that the decision was foregone, and any discussion of the subject was superfluous, else what has the action of th§ Committee in previous year)^,and their recommendations *frbm to do %ith the case in the new light thrown upon it byjihe discoveries of the l^st. year. The delay (unnecessary and repffeliensible, I term it) in reporting to the House precludes the possibility of the Mining Association moving in the matter to get the report reconsidered, so J suppose they must even bide their time; but I can promise the Committee they have not yet heard the b ' r " t