MINING REGULATIONS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 217, 30 August 1862, Page 5

MINING REGULATIONS.

{To the Editor of the Daily Times.)

Si r,—ln continuation of the subject, briefly and hastily touched upon in my last letter, permit me to sate, that when advocating an extension of areas in every class of mining here, I had no intention to trespass on your valuable space by discussing questions of mere detail or interpretation, for the subject is one that will admit of being treated on broader grounds. Neither did I foresee that it would become necessary to prove the correctness of my allegations respecting Section G of the present regulations, but the tenor of Mr. Pyke's letter, of July 31st, constrains me—however unwillingly—to do both of these thing?, and fortunately the rules supply all ' the evidence that is required for the purpose. Relenting to my letter, in your issue of July 2«th, 1 find it asserted, in respect to creek and river working?, that " a comparison of the late rules with those m force at present will show that every saving provision has been expunged from the former, and a single clause composed of impracticable conditions and coupled with a vexatious requirement, is made to do duty instead, whilst the consideration of details has been wholly overlooked or ignored." Now, the first and third of these statements are correct b°cause clauses 9, 10 and 11 of the old rules have been withdrawn, and are not replaced by any equally protective provisions in the new rules, and as for details, there are none. As to the second assertion, the requirement is vexatious, because the time is too protracted, during which notices must be posted, and the condition is impracticable, l>ecause of the senseless restriction of creek and river claims to 300 feet in length in the whole. Supposing, for instance, a party of men to have selected 300 feet of the river Waipori upon which, to commence operations, they would find themselves deterred from doing so. Ist.—Because JOO ft in length of a new channel opening at the commencement of the claim and redelivering the stream mto its natural be<l at tbe lower end of it, will not be sufficient to drain that part of the rtrer that is proposed to be worked, for the water will back-up a distance in proportion to the fall or incline there may be m the channel from which it h diverted: hence the impracticability 2nd. By tbe withdrawal of the 11th clause of the old regulations, parties are deprived of any " right to surplus ground," so that if a company should be possessed of the necessary capital,and have sufficient enterprise to cut a race 1000 feet lon^ aal thereby drain say GOO or 700 feet of the river's bed, what would be the consequence ? The Regulations state explicitly enoueh, that creek and "river claims shall not exceed 300 feet in length in the whole ; consequently the first comers would be entitled to take up the remainder without paving a single sLiJlinf? of compensation, or in other "words a proportionate share of expense of cutting the race and erecting the embankments.

But it rni<rht be said that creek and river claims may be amalgamated as well acclaims in other classes of mining. No doubt many things may be done, ami be dona legally too, but this is not one of them, else why the following under the head of Resristration Fees: " For registering an ainalsamated claim or a creek or river claim, two shillings and six pence ;" Hhowing clearly enough that the clause providing for the amalgamation of ckiut3 was not iuteuded to apply to the latter cla.«s of mining. So much in proof of the correctness of what I alleged respecting Section G.

A few words will suffice to show how palpably oppose.! to the letter and even to the spirit of the present rules, is Mr. Pyke's interpretation of Regulation No. 6. He says "Ordinary creek workings ! are in no way affected by it;" and again, "Supposing therefore a creek 10 feet wide, each miner is entitled to 30 feet of the bank ia addition " The most dis- i tinct refutation of this interpretation is contained in j clause Four, of the classification of claims, namely "Creek or river claims,?, c. alluvial claims in the beds of creeks or rivers." It will require more subtle reasoning than Mr. Pyke has thought proper to adopt, to prove that 30 feet of the bank of any creek is at the same time in its bed, and if it is no*t i in the bed of the creek, the ground is held illegally, j !«?cause of the above definition of what are creek or river claims. If I am not dispose-! to accept without question the Gold Fields Commissioner's interpretation of Regulation No. 6, neither do 1 wish it to be thought that when making the foregoing remarks, I liave been actuated by a spirit of hypercriticism. I have endeavoured to deal with the subject fairly and candidly, and the only conclusion I can arrive at is, that as it stands, the clause is not defective merely, but it is virtually prohibitory. Apologising for having trespassed on your space, I am, Sir, &c, *&c, Waipori, Aug. 26th, 1562.