MINERS' ASSOCIATION.

Otago Witness, Issue 2009, 25 August 1892, Page 14

MINERS' ASSOCIATION.

A special nieetins of the Mount Ida Miners' Association was held in the Town Uall, Naseby, on Wednesday evening, 18th inst , when there were present— Messrs M. Lennane (chairman). W. Blair, C. Rumble, A. Buchanan, A. M'G. Brown, R. Mountain, T. Lennane, and J. M'Grath.

The meeting was convened to consider a telegram received on the !)th inst. from Mr 11. A. Gordon, Inspecting Engineer, with reference to the proposed amendment of the Mining Act. A considerable discussion ensued with respect to the section of the present .Mining Act dealing with tailings, which reads as follows :— " No license shall be deemed to entitle the" holder thereof to claim damages or compensation by reason of the flow of tailings into any creek or water course into which tailings are deposited at a distance exceeding two chains above the head of such race."

The mectingappearcd to V,e of opinion that there was nothing in the Amendment Hill to cause anjf alirm, the only possible objection being to the words "heretofore granted." Then followed a discu ;sion, in which it waj pointed out that the present act gives no ri^ht to discharge tailings into a water course. The secretary read an opinion on the matter given on the 20th January at llivcrtonlby Mr Warden Rawaou, who is a district judge as well, as follows :— "I have been examining the new act very closely and comparing it with the old one, and for the information of those interested, I desire to make a few observations in explanation of the intention of the act of ISJI. I desire to point out a difference between one section of the new,act and one of the old with respect to powers conferred by a miner's right. There was a certain section with respect to tailings that looked at the firct glance as if anyone would be entitled to bluice into streams, and no one would have a right to damages provided thehead races were two chains below. When I come to look ctrefully into the new act I find it does not give a miner any authority or ri^ht to deposit his tailing-, into a stream, and of that point of restriction I find no mention made in Mr Vincent Pyke's analysis of the Mining Act. I want to point thin out Section ii.l of 'The Mining Act, ISSU," give-, the holder of a miner's right an authorisa tion to take or divert water from any spring, lake or pool, &c. Now, however, under the new act (section 10.5) every holder of a miners' right shall during the continuance thereof, subject to the provisions of the act and with the consent of the warden, be entitled to take or divert water from any spline, lake, or pool, Ac, tituate or flowing tniough cr adjoining Crown lands. Under the old act a perfoa could ;r^e water running through Crown lands ; cow the cocient

of the warden has to be obtained. Looking all through the act, there is no right given to any miner to deposit any tailings in any stream. A miner can deposit debris on unoccupied Crown lands, but there jsnorightgiven to deposit into any stream unless it has been made into a sludge channel, and then compensation has to be given to the owner. There is a reason for this. Suppose, for instance, a miner had the power, and that' the stream'ran through private land, the owners could have an action for damages for injury to their rights. If certain Crown lands are bought after a certain date they shall have no claim. If miners had the right to deposit tailings in a stream, why the property owners could say, 'We want damages.' There is no such right — none whatever. If anyone applies for a tailrace to terminate in the stream, the granting of the application rests with the warden, for, in the first place, there is no right given to run into a stream, and secondly, no right to have a tailrace, the responsibility resting upon the warden. The act specifies [that debris is to be deposited in unoccupied Crown lands. The very fact that section 150 says that the Governor may, from time to time, set apart lands for the deposit of tailinjrs, and section 152 states that the Governor-in-Council may declare that any watercourse shall be a watercourse into which tailings may be discharged, supports what I have said, and shows that it requires a power to authorise the person to do it. The difficulty lies in the fact that no one has a right to run tailings into a stream." Mr A. Brown said he was of the opinion that the present act gave miners permission to pollute water by mining operations as against any license granted after the act of 1891 came into operation. He did not consider existing rights should be interfered with without paying compensation io the owners. The difficulty was that the pollution of water by mining operations was an illegal act, and if the law was not amended to do away with the words "pure and unpolluted water," every miner would be liable to damages for pollution of the water after it had passed many miles from any gold-mining workings. There were many creeks into which no tailings or tail water had yet been discharged, and if miners set in to work to ground sluice, owners of irrigation water rights would surely stop any gold mining at any distance above their rights, and this would be the cause of locking up many miles of sluicing country. In his opinion it was only a matter of a short time, if better legislation were not enacted to protect the mining industry against the settlers, when New Zealand would be placed in the same position Calfornia occupied with regard to ground sluicing for gold. Mining in that direction has been stopped there for many years past. The settlers on the low country commenced suinjc the miners for damages for sludging their land, and after long and expensive lawsuits the miners were coinpolled to give in, the settlers bein? too strong and unitcl. It was welt known that at present all the gold miners working in the wafer-shed of the Taieri were liable for pollution of the water, and should it come to* a case of stoppage of pollution of water, what would become of the owners of water rights on the goldfields ? Their water races would be valueless. Take the Maerewhenua goldfield for a precedent (continued Mr Brown). If Mr Bortou had been a vindictive man, after getting a verdict against Mr Howe for pollution of the river, he could have claimed damages from every miner on the field, and an injunction would have followed restraining the miners from polluting the river ; and if the injunction had been disobeyed, the result would have been that every miner doing so would have been lodged in her Majesty's gaol. Then of what value would their water rights have been ? The miners on the ' Maerewhenua goldfield owed their sincere gratitude to the Hon. Minister for Mines for placing them in the secure position they now enjoyed in their operations. The only difficulty ho (Mr Brown) could see in the clause was with regard to the words " heretofore granted." The Chairman (Mr M. Lennane)said he was the owner of a water light and race " heretofore granted," and he could not see any cause for the alarming cry of "confiscation of water rights." Tie was a man of a live-and-let-live principle, and hacnuld not understand how any one could try to deprive hi.s fellow-man from vi.'iking a living by polluting the water in a creek. Muddy water was often serviceable in a water race for the purpose of staunching leakace. He quite concurred with the remark of Mr Brown that gold mining would certainly be stopped in New Zealand by vindictive settlers if the law were not speedily

amended, and his water race property would be ; useless to him. '

Mr Buchaman spoke strongly on the matter, as well as the other members present. Ultimately it was proposed by Mr C. Rumble, and seconded by Mr Buchanan, that the following be wired to the Minister for Mines :—": — " Referring to Mr H. A. Gordon's telegram of 9th inst. re proposed Mining Act Amendment Bill, a special meeting of tht association was convened on 10th inst. to consider the matter. A motion was carried unanimously that the proposed section in the Mining Act Amendment Bill meets present requirements with respect to the protection of the majority of the miners' interests, and that it is absolutely necessary, if mining is to continue, that the pollution of streams by mining operations be settled immediately." — Mount Ida Chronicle.

MEETING AT ALEXANDRA. A public meeting, which was well attended, was held in the library, Alexandra, on Tuesday evening last, to consider the provisions of the Mining Act Amendment Bill, and also to form a mining association. Mr Theyers, the mayor, presided, and called upon Mr Forrest, as the convener, to address the meeting. Mr Forrest said he had called the meeting at the request of a number of raceowners who were dissatisfied with Clause 3 of the new Mining Bill. There were several things which would be injurious to miners in the new bill. Amongst others, the 1891 act provided that 10s should be paid for miners' rights ; the new one provides that LI shall be paid for each man employed in addition to any rent required to be paid. This was a step in the wrong direction, as it was a direct encouragement to the shepherding of claims. As far as he could learn, the West Coast members made the mining laws for the whole colony. Before any amendment was made in any mining act, it should be circulated amongst miners, and not sprung upon them in the manner of this bill. Referring to Clause 3, he said it had been objected to by all the mining associations in Otago. The speaker read the clause. He said that this simply meant that the whole of one's water right could be shepherded— in fact it was spoliation, and rendered a water right useless. Hft could not understand the amendment. He did not think anybody could understand the meaning of it. The speaker pointed out that the first part of this new clause contradicted the second. He thought there was no demand to make any alteration in this matter. Any action to be taken against the bill must take place at the meeting, and the resolutions would require to be wired to Wellington before the 18th inst. If Cliiiiae 3 was allowed to pass it would be a most serious blow to the whole district.— (Applause.) Mr Theyers read the following telegram which he had received from Sir Scobio Mackenzie, M.II It. : "Will operation of Clause 3 of Mining Act, as amended, affect injuriously the town of Alexandra's water supply " Mr Fraser said that if Clause 3, as amended, was passed, it would necess-arily mean the confiscation of all water rights. He objected to retrospective legislation like this. Parliament, after giving certain rights, had no right to take them away. Probably the clause was inserted, as suggested by Mr Forrest, to suit persons on the West Coast. He quite agreed that miners ought to have had a chance of expressing their opinions before a bill like this was passed by the House. He did not know what the Otago members, who were supposed to represent the goldfields, were about to allow such a clause to be inseited. Colonel Fraser wisely got the whole of the North Island goldfields excluded from the effect of the clause. He thought the Otago goldfields ought also to be excluded. He looked upon this matter as most important. If any apathy were shown, everyone in the district would live to regret it. One of the worst features in regard to the clause was the opening of the door to blackmailing any owner of a race. If the Lower House passed the amended clause, then it would be their duty to ask the Upper House to protect the interests of miners.— (Applause).

Jlr Hanseu, as a miner of many years' standing, thought that if the clause was passed, it would destroy mining rights. Men who had spent thousands of pounds would simply lose everything they had spent.

Messrs Fache, Theyers, and Macneil having spoken to the same effect, Mr Fraser moved the following resolution, which was seconded by Mr

Hanson :—": — " That as in the opinion of this meet« ing section 3 of the Mining Act Amendment Act, even as now altered, must eventually result in the destruction of every water race in Central Otago, and will deal a deadly blow to the mining industry, the operation of said section should not apply to the goldfields in Otago." Mr Gilkison in speaking to the resolution said section 3 was so worded that it would have taken away the right of every owner to the uninterrupted flow of water. The amended clause was also unintelligible, but as far as he could see it still took away the right of uninterrupted flow of water in any stream. It was retrospective in its operation, and retrospective legislation was bad. He referred to the present law regarding pollution, and he pointed out that it had been in existence since 1802, and there had been no demand for alteration. If pollution were to be upheld it would have a very injurious effect. Any one might levy blackmail and fill up a race. He had much pleasure in supporting the resolution. — (Applause.) Mr James Rivers would like the attention of the Government drawn to the fact that the whole of the rights to the streams in Central Otago had been taken up years ago. He pointed out that the warden had refused to issue any more licenses in the district. In Central Otago little gold was to be obtained by the old cradle business, and stress ought to be given to the fact that a large amount of capital nad'been laid out in the purchase of races on the good faith that the rights that had been given would, not be taken away. It was a distinct breach of faith for the Government to now interfere with these rights.—(Applause). The resolution was then put to the meeting and carried unanimously, Mr L. Cards proposed and Mr J. Paterson seconded the following resolution :— ." That in the event of section 3as amended passing into law it will prove an incentive to unlimited blackmailing." — Carried unanimously.

On Mr Fache's proposition it was agreed that the secretry (Mr Forrest) wire the resolutions as passed to Scobie Mackenzie, and ask him to get Messrs Fergus and Valentino to kindly co-operate with him. — Dunstan Times.