THE MINING BILL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22367, 14 September 1934, Page 11

THE MINING BILL

TO THE EDITOR

Sir, —In the lengthy and obviously inspired article in your issue of Thursday last, under the heading of “ Mining Act Amendment Bill," your contributor endeavours to impress those without a knowledge of the subject of the dangers arising from a continuance of mining (from a national aspect) in its present form. It seems a pity that when writing on a subject of such national importance, your contributor thought fit to misrepresent facts as they really are. To deal with the portions of the article relating to the monetary value of farming versus gold mining would occupy too much of . your space, but one may be allowed to deal with a few portions which call for correction. To quote from the article: — “Apart from these cases (lode mining and dredging) the mining of land by sluiciim, hydralicing, dredging, driving, and. sinking in general entails either destruction of the surface or present ot future damage, and the question has been raised whether it is in the national interest to allow this to continue further.” Your contributor neglects to specify the class of laud that is being worked and leaves the public to believe that this applies to all land mined, which is misleading and inaccurate. The damage caused by driving and sinking is so infinitesimal from a national aspect that one may safely leave the amount of national loss to the imaginaAs sluicing seems to be the bogey of the Farmers’ Union, let me deal with the damage caused by this method. It is an easily ascertained fact that on the poorer class (on which most of the sluicing is done) the land appears to be improved by being turned over; so much so that sheep will be found to prefer worked ground for grazing to the adjoining unworked land, and a greater number of sheep will be mustered from such an area than from an equal area of unworked ground. Amain, on this class of land the discharge of tailwater on the lower level binds the lighter ground together, enriches it, and undoubtedly produces better growth. Your contributor further states: “On the other side (as against the value received from rent, etc.) it is agreed that the land after it has been mined is left in such a condition that it does not pay any private individual to take it up and it becomes infested with noxious weeds, etc,, and a burden to the Government.” May one ask upon what authority “it is

agreed”? This is a plain misstatement of fact as far as it applies to the Maniototo basin as one of many exceptions. One parcel of land here of 4000 acres (mostly old workings) was thrown open for selection and was eagerly sought after by local applicants, who obviously held a contrary view to that expressed by your . contributor. Another area in the locality which at one time was a lake has, as a result of sluicing, been filled up, and at the present time presents 400 acres of first-, class grazing. Yet your contributor would have us believe that sluicing destroys land for all time and deprives us of our birthright, etc. He further writes: “Lands of value to-day were many years ago com sidered worthless, or (for all we know),' worthless land of to-day may in years tocome be amongst the richest prizes ot future generations. He becomes a little mixed in his high-sounding phrasing. In one breath land is destroyed for all time and our national heritage bus vanished, and then we are invited to believe that land considered worthless' to-day may become one of our richest heritages. This is in keeping with the muddied reasoning of much of his article. For the information of curious readers, will he state just ip what manner land becomes destroyed for all time? Does it evaporate or become a useless liquid or some substance unsuitable for growth? Because by the application of water pressure it becomes broken up and removed from its original position, does it not remain in the country? If so, how is it lost to posterity, and has not Nature an influence in the matter? Your contributor may reply that, the top soil being, removed and becoming mixed up with rubble, quartz, and rotten rock, it becomes useless. May one remind him that worthless land of to-day “may become one of the richest prizes of future generations ”? Keeping this fact in mind, and not forgetting the rich harvest of gold won—about £200,000,000, the revenue received from rents, etc., and the employment of some 4000 subsidised miners alone, whom, by the way, the farming fraternity cannot affoi-d to employ except at a slave wage, subsidised .by a tax on the rest k)£ the community—one may be excused for believing that there are two sides to this question. As was explained in an article in your paper recently, a pound’s worth of gold creates about £IOO worth of business credits, and a miner may recover £IOOO worth of gold from one acre worth a few shillings only for farming, and yet the gold content has been won, the national credit built up, and the. land still remains in the country—at the worst well suited for tree-planting, and it may yet become one of the richest prizes of future generations.—l am, etc., Jas. W. Keooh. Naseby, September 12.