Our Undeveloped Mineral Resources.

Otago Witness, Issue 956, 16 May 1889, Page 11

Our Undeveloped Mineral Resources.

!' Editor Witnbss,— Sir: The above subject was very ably explained and dilated on in the Witness of the 4th inst. The subject of gold mining I think has never been more lucidly dealt with in the columns of the Witness to my ..knowledge before in regard to developing gold mining. /There is just one matter left out that I think should have held a place in the article— and an important place too. Mr Ashcroft; ir his admirable' lectures on the subject of gold mining also 'did not draw attention to what I mean to point out in this letter! ' Remarks about the boundless wealth of gold in the country read very well in print, and it only required the pick of the miner and capital to make the land literally flow with milk and honey ; but practical working gold miners know the value of tall talk and the difference between it and actual gold mining. In any country where gol ' can. be mined it should be the aim of the Government of ; the. country to encourage its production id every possible manner. Food we cannot do without, and gold we must have. No one can gainsay the prominent position that gold bolds in all the various branchee of commerce, and in the wants and requirements of everyday life; in fact, bo work can be carried oat without it. The settler going on land, must possess some of it. Itii the sinews of war, and the means whereby peace ,h made. The Dunedin Exhibition would be adißmal|^ilure without it.', Some, of ray readers Biay think a bank tiote^wot^ld.aet as wellag gold, "but 'tHe Ifkct' wjiiaSj^ that there was not a aove'reij^.^'back'^ note would be q! the? B^ev'alu^'asja^iperlight, and no one would give any kind of goods in exchange foi^

it.,, Now .what hag. the Government 6f i( New Zealand done to stimulate the production of Bucn a needful commodity as gold ? To get gold out of the alluvial drifts, or,, rook requires the labour of a prospector, not aT syndicate/ After an expenditure of time and labour he may un- , earth more or less of the precious metal; and as , ( » reward for his industry and perseverance he is compelled to subject his ounce of gold to a special, tax of 2s. That is one part of the Go* verninentfs, idea of encouraging gold mining. Then when that ounce of gold has to be disposed of it suffers another loss by being) sold at at from 4s .0 6s below its standard value, which ' wbyld not be the case if the Government performed a simple duty to the gold mining industry by establishing a mint in New Zealand. There has been more money expended in the country on needless and , unprofitable work than a mint would have cost. Several millions have been lost to the gold producers of New Zealand through the want of a means whereby miners cpuld get the legitimate value of their gold! I saw in the Mount Ida Chronicle of July 19, 1888, 5 case in point. A Mr. Learmond, a miner there, took to the Melbourne Mint a parcel of 2430z, the value. of which at the mint was £4 3s lljd per oz. That is a specimen of the way the gold miners are treated in this, country. It should be the duty of the Government, if they, cannot erect a mint, to take such steps in connection with either the Melbourne or Sydney Mints as would enable jlgold producers to receive the fair and just value of the metal. Why has not the New Zealand Government aofceri in the same manner to gold mining and gold miners as the other colonial Governments have done ? jThe reason ia plain to be seen. Half of the M.H.R's. pin their faith on wool, wheat, and frozen matton ; another quarter pin theirs on finance, rabbits, land for the people, and the honorarium ; and the other quarter's voices are drowned in the general clamour. Off the goldfields no M.H.R. when addressing his constituents— except in very rare cases— ever drops a word about the gold mining industry. There is plenty of talk about settling the people on the land, bur to do that in the first instance requires money — the very article that gold mining supplies. Why should gold be exceptionally taxed, and no steps be taken by our Government similar to those of other colonial Governments in order to enable the miners tn . get the standard value for their gold ? The New Zealand Government thinks by sending Mr This or That, to this place and that place, to inquire into the treatment of refractory ores, that they are fulfilling their duty to gold mining, overlooking the fact that the bulk of New Zealand gold is got from alluvial' drifts. The blowpipe i* not required except to carry water iv. If the many years past had abolished the gold duty— though the proper name for that tax is the gold miners' income tax — aad taken due steps to see that the gold that was pro iuced in the country was sold at its proper value, gold mining and the country at large would have benefited a great deal more than it has done by the nostrums that the Government doles out in the shape of aid to prospecting, lectures, aad elaborate reports. I will digress a little from the subject to pass a few remarks on the speech of Mr J. Allen, M H.R., at the meeting of the Dunedin Chamber of Commerce, a report of which appeared in the Witness of the 18th inst. Mr Allen is evidently interested in 'dredging. If these remarks come under Mr Allen's uotice would he kindly note the amount of gold the dredge that be is evidently financially interested in produces? Let him tot up the value of the gold' obtained, including the gold duty and the price it will be sold for in Otago, and then tot it up without the gold duty to pay and the loss of at least 5s per oz that he will sustain through the want of t» mint or facilities for selling to a mint. I think the difference of the figures will be a thorough practical illustration to him of my subject. It is qaifce possible thai the gold duty and the difference in price and value of the gold may be the profits of the dredging operation's. It has oome under my notioe before that many ventures had to be stopped and men thrown ' out of employment because there was a loss in the working, whereas if there had been no gold duty, the mine could have been carried out with a margin of profit to the proprietors,—Yours, &c , < Andbew G. Nicol. CJrey Valley, Greymouth, April 30. The Blue Spur Mines. Editob Witness,— Sir : Sir Robert Stout's last letter on this subject is strikingly characteristic of that gentleman and of his connection with Mr J. 0. Brown and the Consolidated Company. Its principal ingredients, as I shall show, are evasion, quibble and half truths. Has Sir Robert Stout no answer to the extract I furnished in my last letter taken from that iniquitous document, the prospectus? Why then does he still continue to give this company the sanction of, his name and prestige P His excuse is that he is " simply solicitor to the company."' But in saying this W Robert Stout prevaricates. "The direc tors," said Sir Walter Buller, at the last meeting of the company in London, " declined to take their aeats unless a man they had the fullest confidence in were appoiuted, with power of attorney to watch their interests, and Sir Robert Stout was appointed." ■ Sir Robert Stout is therefore the chief prop and stay of the company. Of the same misleading character is his statement that none of the directors received any Kslary. But why? Not, certainly, that they are not supposed to get salary, but for the all-nufficient reason that this miae, which was guaranteed by Mr J. C. Brown to yield a clear profit of £50,000 a year, could do no more, as Sir Robert Stout knows, than pay working and management expenses. So far from the directors receiving no salary, the fact is the chairman is entitled to £500 a year, aad two direofcors £250 each. Quibbling of this character is very discreditable to Sir Robert Stout. "The directors had nob one farthing by way of accommodation from their bankers since October last," said Sir Walter Buller, "since which time every farthing of expenditure at Home had been out of ht« own pocket." And in view of this lamentable state of things Sir Hobert Stout denies the veracity of my statement that only the richest , ipatcb.es of the ground were worked. Is S ; r | Robert Stout aware that they actually ', ran away from the tailings and made applLa- ' fcior. ti> the county council for permission to slaice into the roadway which had not been v/orked before? Mr J. C. Brown, it will be remembered, had control of the workings, and, of course, the authur of tbe prospectus would «nob think of working the richest patches, even though the shareholders clamoured ever so loudly for the £50,000 a year clear profit, nor even if the final payments by the shareholders depended on tha yield of the mines for the first 12 moaths' workiug. This, presumably, is the gentleman from whom Sir E. Stout gets bis information, and, if so, its want of candour is -easily accounted for. ft is a notorious fact all I «ver the district that, when possible, only the ■richest patches of the ground were worked. Sir ttoberfc Stout accuses, me of being influenced by political feeling towards Mr Brown; but he has himself made a d'riofc charge of misrepresent** #on against him. In a letter pf Sir Robert

Stout's to the manager of the Otag6 Company, insisting on the rescission of, the contract and demanding the return of the share* , holders' money, occurs the following passage ;— "The ground of rescission is misrepresentation, by your agent, who arranged to the company?' > This letter is dated 4th April last; and now Sir Robert Stout is the advocate and apologist of , the man he then distinctly charged with mis- : representation. I cannot ,see that my profession is at all. material to the issue. Sir.Robert Stout, I believe,like myself, was once a dominie; and I am not aware that it has detracted in any , degree from. whatever little bit of dignity he believes himself,to be the possessor of at the . present moment.—l am, &0., -„. : Lawrence, May 0. F. M. Bybyb. ' ' < : ; ' ( ' ' j ] 1 • ' ' ■ ] i ( ' j i j ■ ' ] j ' } ' < ' j

iYBYB.