IDA IN REPLY TO MR FARQUHARSON.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XVII, Issue 5206, 12 February 1892, Page 4

IDA IN REPLY TO MR FARQUHARSON.

TO THE EDITOR Sir, —I have taken up the question of the so-called Maerewhenua Mining Reserve on purely public grounds. I am not the champion of any party or individual. The opinions expressed are those which I have formed after much careful thought. X write from an honest conviction of the worthiness of my cause, and not that I have any wrongs against myself to redress, or private grudge to avenge. I consider that I am perfectly justified in my attempts to keep for settlement a large tract of generous soil, of which I do not want a single acre. Mr Farouharson contends, in his opening paragraph, that I try to show that: "The majority are entirely at fault in trying to keep the reserve, as such, a reserve open for mining purposes, and also to enable the miners and others to run a few head of cattle." Mr Farquharson is not by any means an imaginative man, and yet, when he wrote the above sentence, he drew largely on his imagination. He knows that no such construction can be put on any exppession of mine. He also knows, as well as I do, that the land in question is jiart of a declared goldfield, and, therefore, it is open for goldmining purposes, Dut not for grazing purposes. To make this question clear to the public it is advisable to give a short history of this so-called reserve. Ten years ago there was a cry throughout the country for land for settlement. At this time runs numbered 17, 3CD and 301, were about to be re-let, so the Government cut off the inner fringe of these runs, amounting to 5000 acres (approximately) and surveyed it into suitable areas, and offered it on deferred payment. A few sections were taken up. The ground was known to be auriferous. The miners petitioned the Government to set the land apart for mining purposes. No question of grazing rights had then cropped up. The herds had not then grown. To a certain extent the petitioners' prayer was granted. The land was withdrawn from sale. I deny that it was at any time gazetted as a commonage for the use of the residents of Livingstone. It simply remains Crown land withdrawn from sale. Now, I fail to see that the Government can dispose of Crown land except in accordance with law, and T am not aware of any law being in force which enables the Government to vest an extensive area of Crown land in a local body that, in the eyes of the law, has no status. Mr Farquharson is very misleading when he penned the following : —ln trying to keep the reserve open for mining purposes." He knows the law as far as occupation license holdings are concerned. He knows that, if every acre were let in accordance with section 230 of the Mining Act of 1891 and regulations of said Act, mininsr would not be endangered in the remotest sense. On all sides the Act protects the miner, and justly so. At the same time the Act protects the miner it in no sense gives him the right to graze a herd of cattle, nor does it even give him the right to graze "a few cattle" ; no, not even a cow. Mr Farquharson says—" We are striving to keep two or three from monopolising it" (the reserve). This is another misleading statement. Two or three persons cannot possibly monopolise the laud, except as a cattle ranche. The Mining Act of 1891 states explicitly that the Warden may grant 100 acres, but not more, to one applicant, and the applicant must reside on his holding. Mr Farquharson also says that " at no time in the past have we objected to a single application for .a section on the reserve." This is not quite correct. Some two years ago an application was made to the Warden for 10 acres. The miners were indignant at the application, and objected to the granting of it on the ground that the applicant was a settler and a freeholder, owning3ooacres. The Warden very properly refused the application. Previous to making the application the applicant had ploughed the land, and. after being refused the grant, he fenced and cropped it. It is still fenced, and an excellent crop of whe.it has been grown on it this year. Now I call this setting the Warden's Court at defiance and defrauding the revenue. This is not an isolated case in which land has been illegally fenced. There are many similar ones. Areas ranging from one acre to 20 acres have been fenced and are held without a legal title, and the Miners' Association has taken no steps to prevent the Government being defrauded of its just revenue. This illegal occupation of Crown lands has been going on for years, and it will continue to go on. I know of one who purposes fencing 20 acres of this land, and who is to prevent him ? Not the Miners' Association, as all in similar positions must be treated alike. Mr Farquharson challenges me to prove that the reserve has been monopolised by a few cattle owners in the past. He says that L 45 was collected at 2s 8d ahead. I take this to mean full-grown cattle. This at 2s Sd a head gives in all 33S head, owned by 41 persons, or an average of eight each. Now, out of the total of 338, live persons acknowledge to owning 150. or an average of 30 each, and it is questionable if all these five persons gave in the true tally of their possessions. Now, sir, I call this monopoly, when five persons acknowledge to owning nearly onehalf of the total number of cattle grazing on this land. Mr Farquharson calls 40 head of cattle a few. I call it a herd. Perhaps Mr Farquharson, in his reply, will give the number of people owning live head and under ; or, better still, perhaps he will give the name of each owner and the number owned opposite his name. I here make reference only to the person who, with his four sons, lias concocted some "deadly scheme" to monopolise 2700 acres of Crown land. The man must protect himself—l am not his champion. But I do say, Why did this man ever beget sons ? I was under the impression that a man who gave sturdy, manly, honest sons to his country was worthy of esteem .and honor; but I have been taught otherwise by the Secretary of the Maerewhenua Miners' Association. Here there is no room for our young men ; drive them out, hunt them from the district—out from their childhood's homewithout any prospect in life save that of the Russian serf —the eternal round and grind of daily toil for some rich man. Our young men have been educated at the country's expense. They have a large stock of bone and muscle and are of fair brain power, and are each worth in money value to the Government L2OO. I say, sir, it would pay the Government of New Zealand, "or that of any young country, without thought of revenue, to make a present of 100 acres of agricultural land—aye even 200 acres —to every young man who would settle on it and till it to advantage. By this means the country would be recompensed somewhat for the cost of their education and incur less risk of having to support them in their old age. Better have 20 small estates on this so called reserve, estates on which, combined with mining, a man can rear a family to be an honor to himself and a credit to the country, than be allowed to remain m its present state, a great cattle ranche. I say, sir, at a time like this, when the Government are actually contemplating the re-purchase of large estates for close settlement, that it behoves the Miners' Association not to stand in the way of the full force of section 230 of the Mining Act of IS9I. I am convinced that every true and honest miner iu the district will thank me for having this matter thoroughly ventilated. I have no desire to see my name in print, so refuse to take Mr Farquhar-.

son's hint. I have named the condition under which I will give it publicity. I am, etc. Ida.