AN IMPORTANT QUESTION. TO THE EDITOR.

Otago Witness, Issue 1355, 17 November 1877, Page 16

AN IMPORTANT QUESTION. TO THE EDITOR.

SlB, — The position of the run-holder on the Otago Gold Fields in his relation to the miner as it at present stands— or rather as it is supposed to stand — is of so anomalous a character, that I think it time that attention should be directed to it with the view of a definite understanding and settlement of the question. The run-holder— as I understand the terms of bis lease— racquires from the Government the exclusive right to depasture stock on all the waste lands of the crown within the limits of a certain defined area, subject to certain terms and conditions, into which it is here unnecessary to enter, as they are foreign to the point at issue. The miner is by virtue of his Eight, legally authorised to mine for gold, and occupy for mining purposes all land within any gold field, with the exception of such areas as have been alienated by purchase, or set apart for settlement under the Agricultural Lease Regulations, or the system of deferred payments. This appears clear and fair enough, but what do we find? Why, large blocks of auriferous ground occupied and fenced — with the run* holders consent — for the purpose of agriculture in the very centre of the diggings, and absolutely alienated from occupation by the miner in the legitimate exercise of his calling, contrary, in my opinion, to the privileges conferred upon him by, and in virtue of his miner's Bight. Though the rnnholder is not entitled to any further privilege under, his lease, than that of grazing, that ia fact, he is not permitted to cultivate and sell the produce of any part of his lease; it appears strange to me that, by giving his consent to another person to occupy a portion of his lease, such person is entitled to do so— -in other words, the runholder, by simply giving his consent confers a privilege he does »°fc nmwflf possess, and the Warden at Naseby holds, whether rightly or wrongly I cannot say, that such consent to occupy any extent of ground for agricultural purposes, is sufficient to exempt men areas from occupation by the miners under the 9th section of the Gold Field's Act, in face, that it is tantamount to an absolute withdrawal of such land from the operation of the said Act If this action of the nra-bolders be pernrisnble, it would be quite poisible for them, by giving consent to a large number of persons to occupy extenme areas, to alienate from the miner the most valuable portion, or indeed, the Whale of any diggings. And not only from the miner, but from the crown also, if the fact of the land being fenced is held, as, tacitly, it has been done here, to give the occupant a claim, amounting almost to a right, to purchase. It would indeed be ft strange tray of developing the Gold Fields if, while the legislature is I voting money for the discovery of new Gold ! Fields, the administrators of the land laws should by alienating, large blocks of proved auriferous ground, destroy diggings. already in existence,. and to 'to speak checkmate the legUlatawe, , . - ;•-. < " An affair of tbii nature has taken place hers ftomtlj, and I flare ventured to Drug the

whole question before the public, in the hope the Waste Lands Board may take such steps as will prevent valuable mineral lands from passing from the crown, for a nominal sum, into the hands of speculators, that they may grow rich, at the expense of the individual miner and the Colony generally. I might instance one, among other cases of this land, wherein the land owner charges each miner the modest sum of £2 12s. per year, not for working on his land, but simply for the privilege of running tailings throngh a corner of it, this too, though the land is neither fenced or broken up, — I am, &c, Alpha. Kyeburn Diggings, 30th, Oct. 1877-