THE ISLAND BLOCK.

Otago Witness, Issue 941, 11 December 1869, Page 9

THE ISLAND BLOCK.

To the Editor qfthe Otaoo Witness.

Sir— l have been a constant reader of your paper .these, last eight years, and have always found it a good advocate to the mining interest. ' But I was greatly disappointed when I read an article, in the Times of 20th Nov., attempting to justify the action of the Qovernment in setting. aside a petition against the proposed sale of laud near Horse-shoe. Bend. You, bring forward aa one argument, that " because it has been open to mining enterprise, you see no reason why.ftbe oovernment should keep it any longer .on hand ;" a dangerous doctrine. . It contrasts oreatly with an article in your previouai paper, wherein you say, •• Mining enterprise is the keystone of our prosperity as a community. Upon its success depends that of every other industry." If it be so important to our welfare, why do you advocate to cramp it, whioh your argument certainly tends to do? If the Government were to sell all auriferous land, whioh has until now not proved payable, they would certainly be undermining the "kdyatcno of oar prosperity.'* What could we do when the ground we are now working is worked out, | but to leave for some country where there is still ground to prospect on? lam glad this question has been brought forward: by this Mount Benger petition, and I hope my fellow-miners will not let this matter drop quietly through. We are represented in the Legislative assemblies of the colony ; still, while our representatives have been unsuooeasfally fighting for the reduction of the export duty on gold, th»y hare overlooked a matter of far greater importance to us, namely, that of securing the aurif urous lands to the miner. The gold duty is only a tax upon those miners tbat are actually getting gold, and we think it no hardship at all oompared to that of depriving those that are not getting any gold of means to pet some, by alienating auriferous lands. Yet are we foroed to hold a Miner's Right, whether we get gold or not. Is this encouragement for us to settle down ? When auriferous lands are disposed of regardless of the future development of the KotdGeldn, just to put a few hundreds in the provincial cash box. is the Government not deriving a revenue off auriferous lands in the ahape of depasturing lioonses, besides the direct tax upon miners of miners' rights and gold duty. Compare tho revenue derived from an ajrrioaltnral district with that of a gold producing one. Can the Government sot be contented with it.- instead of trying to raise a land revenue off It, by whioh thoy will surely be sapping the foundations of the 'Voystoneof onrprosP We 'in the Wakatip axe troubled with the same oomplainfc, large blooka of land hay« boan granted, not only known to be auriferous" but payable ; bufr if one of as take an aotion in the matter, like the Mount Bengev petitioners, , it is pnfc down as egotism or am spite against the applicant. It has bsen a sou roe of «reat aanoyanoe to «c these last three years, aud only with the greatssk difficulty have I been ahl* to retain the around lam working now. I own tlat agriculture in this distrlot has bwa

ttsg^ttCe¥^^ &i«tKttmßiderßtioif&^ farmer would^ have Bo',mark;i|feifoJS«Tbißvprpr I duce^, I hope some abler pen than thattpf ,\ l An Old Miner iV will JaJie^th'e matter rouse ? minersi from, their indifference to poUtical,'maifer& !;LeF us* combine at the ensuing electiottB J oill^ lip vote for that candidate who will' do 'all in. hia^poyer'to'.see, the auriferouVJ lanQs jroperly f Bejjured' ' to the miner.' '• ' ''"''^' " ' " ""-• 1 - < ■ J Hoping you will insert this- in your journal, soextensively read amongst us miners— |l'am,',&o.j;: >. ■ r "* • An\;Olt> Minsk. > ' i Shotover, Nov. 30th, 1869.