MINING ETHICS.

Otago Witness, Issue 1866, 26 August 1887, Page 12

MINING ETHICS.

(Written specially fob the Otago Wit- , ness) ■ j SBSYN ADAM. Gold-digger.

Miners' Associations— Mining Act Tinkerings —New Mining Act— Australian and New ' Zealand Mining Legislation Compared— The Goldfields Member-The Miners v, the Gold-diggers— A Suggestion. ■I. "God Sends Meat and the Devil Sends Cooks."

' The .recent attempt at the Lowburn, near Cromwell, to resuscitate the defunct miners' association movement is the ouccome of repeated tinkerings' with the Mining Act. 1 The most notable, feature in the amendments introduced into the new act is that they make mining legislation less and less practical, under the plea of adapting it to the altered conditions of mining. This plea, as a plea, may be allowed to pass for what it is worth. But no plea can serve as an excuse for legislation which anticipates developments and neglects existing conditions. And this is exactly what the new Mining Act has done. In a maze of clauses fancied requirements are met and provided for, while actual absolutely necessary provisions for the existing state of things are amongst the omissions from the act. Nor are these omissions mere oversights which might be supplied by attention being called to them. They display either a woful ignorance of the existing state of things or a wilful disregard for thsir real importance and bearing upon mining. These defects are conspicuous in all the previous New Zealand Mining Acts. They repeat themselves with increasing obtrusiveness, they reappear in aggravated forms, and become more pernicious with every repetition. They have now reached the stage at which it may be fairly supposed that, if pointed out, even the New Zealand mining law-maker may be made to see and dimly discern them.

Of all legislation mining legislation— if the Stannary Laws be excepted — is the newest. It must be therefore, by force of circumstances, to a degree experimental. In all New Zealand mining legislation the experiments have been chiefly confined to copying the Mining Acts of the neighbouring colonies without the slightest regard to local, physical, and climatic conditions. The present Mining Act attempts to legislate for an extent of country measuring north and south equal to that reaching from Gippsland, in Victoria, to Rockhampton, in Queensland. This extent of country in Australia is legislated for by three different Mining Acts, although perhaps they do not diverge very much in principle. But these acts only outline mining legislation, and the, real regulation of mining matters depends upon .numerous mining boards, which adjust the Mining Acts and regulations to local requirements and conditions. In a reverse way amendments in the Australian Mining Acts filter through the mining boards, and if they stand the test of practical examination may become law by being adopted and incorporated in the respective Mining Acts.

In New Zealand nothing of all this is known. What is not originally experimental is copied from other acts, and becomes so in a still more pernicious degree. The New Zealand golddigger's voice is not and has never been listened to. It appears sufficient for the passing powers that have their temporary existence at Welling-ton-in quick succession that he be legislated for ; the " how "isof no consequence so that he be heavily taxed. Not only is the gold-digger beyond this point totally disregarded, but the Mining Act makers also resolutely shut their eyes to the result of their experiments. If the Australian Mining Acts meet all tihe needs and conditions of New Zealand's mining requirements — as it is held by so many that they dothen the outcome and effect must be, logically argued, the same here as they are in Australia. The New Zealand goldfields bear very favourable comparison as to richness ' with those of Australia. The average yield of quartz per ton and the average earnings per miner, according to the total yield of gold, are in favour of New Zealand. The only real difference is in the territorial extent of the Australian goldfields as contrasted with those of New Zealand, and this difference does not affect the question under consideration. Yet is there anyone at all acquainted with the condition of mining in the two countries who will have the 3lightest hesitation in pronouncing against our local mining legislation, to say nothing of its administration ? Such a fiasco as the Big Bay Prospecting Expedition would have been simply impossible in Australia; and this strikingly illustrates the management of local mining matters. If there be any virtue in experimenting by the method of how-not-to-do-it, then our colonial Mining Act makers deserve credit for the degree of success they have attained.

It is true that the New Zealand gold-digger has suffered from the infliction known as the goldfields, member, as has also his Australian confrere, and both have swallowed the incubus with a similar effect upon their mining constitution. Of the New Zealand' legislature it may with justice be said that the worst enemy the industry has had — not even excepting Dr Pollen — has done it no greater amount of injury than the goldfields member. The mining vote is passing away from the gold-diggers, and will in future be wielded by the miners who work for wages. The miner with no purpose to serve but a selfish one is likely to be much more gregarious than the gold-digger ever was. When •he awakens to the full power cf his strength he will influence mining legislation instead of the 'gold-digger. In Great Britain he is already i asserting his political weight. It therefore only remains for the colonial miner to follow suit. With no connecting bonds between the gold- \ digger and the miner, there is great danger that they may become political antagonists. When this comes about, the natural law that the weaker must go to the wall will .assert itself. It is not necessary to point out who will have to go to the wall eventually. The object of the gold-digger's straggle is to delay the advent of J the time when this will take place as much as i lies in his power. For this purpose he should at once take a firm stand, and trust for aid neither to the executive power of the Govern* j.ment nor to the goldfields members of the House. " Heaven," it is said, " helps those who help themselves." The formation of a miners' association at the Lowburn may be a step in the right direction; but it does not go far enough. The same experiment was tried when the golddigger was infinitely stronger- than he now is; and though in the last tinkering of the Mining Act many of the improvements projected by the first miners' association of nearly 20 years ago are introduced and are now law,itwoula not serve ..the purpose of the gold-diggers tq

agitate to-day for innovations with the dim probability that they may be adopted and become statute law in, say, 20 years hence. Let as completely copy our neighbours by adopting their whole legislative mining system, mining boards and all — that is, mining boards without administrative functions. No worse mess could be made of our goldfields legislation than obtains at present, and the quotation at the head of tbis article never found a more apt application than when applied to our goldfields members and our Mining Act makers.