WAIHI MINES.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 12790, 15 June 1912, Page 3

WAIHI MINES.

„. ' PROTECTION OF CLAIMS. (Per Press Association.) WAIHI!, this day. At . the Warden's Court tlie Waihi Company applied for six months' protection for all their claims. 'and 70 mil>sidiary rights, including water races, dams, special sites, etc. 1 'The Orand Junction Company also applied for six months' protection for their claims and 25 subsidiary rights' The Waihi Extended Coifipany and the Waihi Standard Company ah-o. applied for protection. The grounds, set out for file applications were :• Owing to labor .troubVs tt Waihi the above-named companies; not m n position' to man the properties. Mr H. ..P. Barry, superintendent for the Waihi Company, said he had been I iri charge of the company for .21 years. I The company had been work-ins 25 1 years, and the number of men employed i by the company had ranged frpm.lZCOl 'o 15C0. It had expended m plant, j including pumps, machinery, etc., three j. .quarters of a million sterling, and inwages, lind -expended over three millions sterling. Altogether the company had expended over five millions. In connection with the strike he said that the company knew \not-lung ' about what, led np to the strike till it was < served ' with an ultimatum. The cause of the sti-ike was between two bodies of me;. A H> knew nothing about the formaiit-n of the new union until he read -about it m the loc^l press. x \ Neither had his company anvthiug to do with th/e for ( mat ion of. the new union. Questioned j as to the ultimatum delivered by the [ Miners' Union. Mr Bairv isaid he coyhl 1 ' not comply with it. He had had Ano application from the men, since the strike, for work. As soon as there was satisfactory evidence of permanency of working the mines on a -satisfactory', basis Athe company, would re-opeh, irre- , spective of protection. ' Mr D. Mac Arthur '(substitute attorney for the Grand Junction Company);- said, that the company _'■ approximately, em- 1 ployed four times the number of men required by the -law. ' The company, •; had expended close on one million steri-f: ing; out of which shareholders had had .; £46,000. The company had absolutely, no say m the strike. The company , had not been approached by the Miners' 'j Union before the strike. His company had nothing whatever to do with he | formation of the new union. ('"fti this 1 ; point he pave similar evidence to that of Mr Barry/ : ■ ■ .■■'- A . — ■'-.[ The Warden, ia , giving his decision*'} said that where a company was. defend-: ing an action for forfeiture, it was a •jood defence to show that trouble ( hid been caused by a labor dispute to winch : ;it was not a party. These amplication I?'.'1 ?'.' for protection were .practically m j-m-."' ticipation" of the -forfeiture., action -,i and the pame defence co'dd be used. lie was ojiite satisfied that . the ' companies ■ nnd the officials of the ■■.companies'' hid. h->d nothing to do with the formation of the new -union? The facts were 'guit ■■>..■ clear as to this. It, was alsoAqlear that tho. strike had been brousrht. about by friction be' ween two bodies', of "men,, and -, that the companies had nothing to, dot with it. The companies did, not c-uise j the strike by fomenting any trouble. | It wms i id'ieufous, to think that' the com-! panics could have complied with th?, ' demands of the union. No self-respect-,', ing company cbnld have done so. Tn any case, -the strike was -on before this ultimatum Avas delivered. He: would grant, th-a applications for protection. , o<t:h^r local companies were also granted . protection.