The Thames Star. Resurrexi. MONDAY, JULY 4, 1898. OUR GOLDFIELDS AND THE LABOR CLAUSES OF THE MINING ACT.

Thames Star, Volume XXX, Issue 9111, 4 July 1898, Page 2

The Thames Star. Resurrexi. MONDAY, JULY 4, 1898. OUR GOLDFIELDS AND THE LABOR CLAUSES OF THE MINING ACT.

Fob some time past a rumour has been current that an effort would DB made during the present session of Parliament to obtain an amendment of the Mining Act Buch as would secure to companies and others possessing special claims what would practically be the freehold of their mining areas. Although distinctly opposed to such a proposal, we have not previously re ferred to the matter, for the simple reason that we looked upon it as a mere rumour, and having no foundation whatever in fact. Such an attempt would, we venture to assert, raise such a pronounced howl of indignation throughout every mining centre in the colony, that there is not the faintest possibility of anything so drastic being even proposed. To give concessions which would amount to parting with the freehold of our auriferous and argentiferous lands would be an act of absolute criminality, add is so diametrically opposed to the policy of the present Government that it could not fail to meet with such strenuous opposition as would prove fatal to the success of such a proposal. But while, in the face of what we have said, it is extremely unlikely that an amendment will be sought to be introduced in the new Mining Act in the direction referred to, it seems almost certain that a determined endeavour will be made to have amendments inserted which will prove inimical to the best interests of our goldfields, though it may benefit a fewprivateindividuals. Wehave always been, and still are, strongly in favor of every reasonable concession being given to foreign capitalists investing money in these golcfields, and every possible restriction being removed from the mining industry. That is the policy we have always advocated, and we see no reason to depart from: it. But we are decidedly opposed to any interference with tho present " labor clauses" of the Act, aud we trust that our member (Mr McGowan) will keep a watchful eye upon any attempt that is made ie that direction. We notice by last Thursday's Herald that Mr D. G. MacDonnell, who 13 a member of the Chamber of Mines,! has madejthe following suggestions in connection with the manning ot licensed holdings and special claims :—

" That the maximum number of men to be employed should be five for a licensed holding of 30 acres, and 10 for a special claim of 100 acres, He also suggested that no labour conditions, as regards the number of men to be employed, should apply to any licensed holding or special claim, provided the rent of same be duly paid, unless in the following events:—That on the expiration of the second year from date of license the maximum number of men are not employed that could be advantageously employed then any person (uot a Government officer) might make *n application to the warden to be placed in possession of sack licensed holding, or special claim, and on such applicant giving a satisfactory guarantee to the warden that he tvould employ the maximum number of men, the warden should notify the holder of such lisensed holding, or special claim, that in the event of the maximum number of men, or such a number as can be advantageously employed, not being employed within a month frem date of notice, the holding should be forfeited, and awarded te the applicant in respect to notice served. In the event of any dispute arising re the term ' advantageously employed,' the mining ins t >ector to be referred to, and his decision to be final. In the c »jnt of a licensed holding or special claim baing forfeited, the person to whom it shall have been awarded, failing to comply with the conditions of award, should have his right forfeited, and the original bolder should be notified by the Warden that he oan resume his right to the ground on the conditions under which he originally held it. The rent on licensed holdings or special claims to be 2s 6d per acre for the fint two years, and 5s per acre for the remaining term of lease. The holder of all lioensed holding* or speoial claims, on which the holder ha> expended the sum of £50 per acre, should hold indisput--1 able title to suoh holding for the unexpired term of the license, and should be entitled to a renewal of the license on the same terns as those under which he originally held it, subject to the proviso that in the event of a total suspension of operations for a term of two years, the holding should be liable to forfeiture, unless justifiable reasons be forthcoming for suspension of operations. Any person holding an indisputable license, as referred to above, should have the right of disposing of the title, subject to the same conditions and privileges as when held by the vendor."

From what we have already said, we thick we have made our views upon the matter pretty clear. The removal of some of the present unnecessary restrictions upon the mining industry has our most unqualified support, while we are also of opinion that the rents on mining areas should be reduced. But any attempt to interfere with the " labor" clauses of the Mining Act will, we have no hesitation in saying, be strenuously resisted by every mining centre in the colony.