MINING ON THE KAWARAU.

Otago Witness, Issue 2258, 10 June 1897, Page 31

MINING ON THE KAWARAU.

(From Our Cromwell Correspondent.) Jdne 7.—1 do not hear of anything vory Btartling in mining news. I do not think that the races are yet fiozen up, and alluvial mining is still going on. Tillman and party, at Quartz Reef, who are ongaged in putting in a long prospecting tunnel, have not met with very encouraging prospeots as yet. They calculated that they would strike tho lead they are after when they had driven about 726 ft. They have now driven 700 ft, and are still in a running drift which is dangerous and expensive to drive through, as it requires a lot of timbering, and thay see no indications of the wash or of the approach of firmer ground. However, they are getting more timber, and are going to drive another 100 ft or so before they throw up the sponge, and for their own sakes as well as for the sake of the district it is to be hoped that they shall not have laboured in vain.' Dredging on the Nevis has been brought to a standstill by the severity of the weather. However, as I hear the dredge at present working is not roofed in it would be rather premature to say j that winter dredging is impossible on the Nevis. Considerable difference of opinion seems to exist about the wisdom or the foolishness of, about the necessity for or uselessneßß of, those celebrated mining regulations. It appears to me that, in many cases at least, the regulations are judged from a political point of view rather than from a mining point of view. The Tories, as all opponent 1? of the Seddonian scheme of thing 3 are called, are opposed to the regulations; the Liberals in loyalty to their political chief support them, and find them highly neceEsary and exceedingly beneficial. But the question should not be argued from a political standpoint at all. The question at issue is not a political one, but one in economics, being, Are the regulations favourable or detrimental to the progress of the mining industry ? And from that standpoint only should they be judged. The object of the resumption of mining rights by the Crown is evidently the same as the object of the resumption of private estates by the Crown —the bursting up of monopoly and the laying open to the many privileges that may have fallen into the hands of the few. Granting the principle that " the good of the majority is the highest good," tho regulations are, theoretically, equally as just and equally as defensible as those laws under which the Crown may resume possession of freehold land. But there is a point of view from which the proposed compensation may be totally inadequate. For instance, suppose a company purchases a number of claims and other mining property—l have the Bannockburn in my mind as I write—for the purpose of working successfully on a, small scale what a number of individual miners are working less successfully on a small scale. This company begins its operations ty expending, say, £20,000 on water races, dams, &c, and then begins developing its property, which turns out well, and from which in due course they may expect to draw some £30,000 or so in dividends, assuming that tho speculation turns out highly successful. Well, so soon as the company finds out that thing 3 are turning out well, and begins to congratulate itself on " being in clover," the miuei\j who have aold out, repeDtinjc of their bargain, and seeing that owing to the new races and dams they could now work their old claims themselves with great success, start an agitation for the resumption of the rights granted to the company ; and, if a general election is impeuding, they would mosg likely prevail on the Government to resume, as their votes would far outnumber those cast by the few officials of the company. I'he company would certainly get back the ±20,000 of initial expenditure, but how about the anticipated dividends which were only obtainable through the pluck of the company in liskiug its money? In such a case of resumptiou, the company would mo3t certainly think that it had been robbed. In fact, companies may look upon it in this light:" If we invest our capital in a scheme which turns out successful we are " ret.umpted ": if the scheme is a failure, we " nurse the baby." This is the point of view from ■Which the regulations appear pernicious. Of course from the point of view of the individual niiner, who with consternation sses th-j hungry jaws of companies open on all sides ready to devour him aud his, the regulations appear very necessary and very comforting. As honest old Sir Roger de Ooverley says, " There is much t? be said on both sides," and perhaps experience alone can tell us whether the regulations are a pernicious fad or a piece of wise statesmanship. HORSESHOE BEND MINING. (From Our Own Correspondent.) June 7. —The pontoons of tho M'Kenzie Beach dredge were cut in halves for carriage by waggons to their destination. The last two loads left the Bend to-day. The bad state of the roads makes the task anythiug but an easy one. The Golden Lead started working sgain to-day, being laid up last week for want of coal. The " Gata " has shifted down to the lower end of the claim The Cuapeka Company's dredge is still lying in mid-stream with about 4ft of water above her decks. Mr M'Lellan, manager, intends taking the machinery off as soon as the river falls. I underatand new pontoons of much larger dimensions are to replace the present hulks. The Islaud Block claim, which has been off gold for some time, is working very deep ground, and has a large paddock opened out As this corn panj' employs a number of bands it is to be hoped the " clean up" will prove satisfactory. MINING AT NENTHORN. (From Our Own Correspondent.) Junk 8 —The snow which fell a week ago has givijn the batteries a start once more. Messrs Bradbrook and M'Donald crushed 30 tons, which gave about 12dwt per ton. Mills and Sous crushed 70 tons from their own mine, the Surprise, which gave a cake of liOoz retorted gold. MINING IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT. A Riverton correspondent writes : —I enclose copy of a judgment given in the Warden's Couit here on the loth ult. There has been much discussion on the matter, and many have had their precoaceived idea 3 upset. I confess that mine are - -.URPLUS GROUND —IMPORTANT JUDGMENT. John Taylor, extended claim, 1J acres surplus ground in Menpes and party's claim, Waiau. Objected to by Messrs G. Gordon, Sorenson, Dundas, and Tresfi'ier. This was before the warden laet court day, and in granting the application the warden said :—This is a case in which surplus ground was forfeited, and tbe persons who were declared the lirst applicants for it pegged off tbe surplus grouud from two corner pegs of the original claim, but they did not follow both boundary lines. One line was adhered to, but the other was departed from, and the peg placpdsorne little distance from it, inside the original claim. The sujplus ground thus pegged off formed a trapezoid ins< cad of a parallelogram or a rectangle, as it would bave represented had tbe boundary lines been follo>ved. The question for the court to decide is : Must the ground marked off in such cases be coterminous as far as it goes with the original boundary lines? The point is of borne importance, because if the forfeited surplus cau be held in any form more of the supposed or known line of lead can be taken by the markers by inserting a tongue or angle than if they have to keep to the width of the original claim. Regulation 217 reads :—": —" If any psrsoii shall occupy ;i Urger area of ground than th^t to which he is entitled under theso regulations, he shall forfeit the surplus meisured fioni any two corner peg 3of the original cl-uni or area, at the option of the party claiming the surplus," Ac, etc. Although it may have been, and probably was, the intention of the frames of this regulation to require those pegging off the surplus ground to follow the bounJary~lines, it is not so stated ; and where the language is clear and unambiguous courts cannot seek the intention cf the framers of an enactment, or «upply an evident omission. The regulation could family have been "measured from any two corner ppg.-» along the boundaries of the original claim," but of eouise these words cannot be read into it by the court.

Claims are usually held in the form of oblongs, but may be in any form, provided that the length does not exceed twice the breadth, and even this limitation is omitted when spare ground is occupied. An extreme case can be imagined of a claim being in the form of a pointed star. Surplus ground of such a claim could not be measured from two corners or adjacent pegs following the boundary lines. Such lines, if followed from adjoining pega, would include ground wholly outside the claim. There appears to be no authority on the point. I think it is within the power of the warden to decide on granting the application for forfeiture whether or not the markers shall follow such lines. The form of the original claim is before him, and he can then decide which is the most equitable course to order. This has not been done hitherto, because as far as I can learn the question has not been raised before. The decision of the court is that, in the absence of express directions when the forfeiture is decreed, the applicants are not compelled to keep the original boundary lines. Costs, £2 16a. Mr Moffett for applicant and Mr Lyle for objectors.