THE WAIHI MINES.

West Coast Times, 15 June 1912, Page 3

THE WAIHI MINES.

N. Z. TELEGRAMS.

APPLICATION FOR PROTECTION. COMPANIES WIN THE DAY. ~PEH PRESS ASSOCIATION.—COPYRIGHT, j WAIHI,' June 14. At the Warden’; Court to-day, the Waihi Company applied for six months protection for all their claims, and seventy subsidiary rights, including water races, dams, specie! sites, etc. The Grand Junction Company also •applied for six mouths protection for their claims and twenty-five subsidiary rights. The Waihi Extended Company and the Waihi Standard Company also applied. The ground set out for tho applications were:— (1) Owing to labour troubles 11; ■ Waihi and tho above-named companies are not in a position to man tho pro-

, portios. H. P. Barry, Superintendent of the Waihi Company said he had been in charge of tho Company for two years. The Company had been working twenty five years and the number of men employed by the company had ranged from 1,300 to 1,500. It had expended in plant, including pumps and machinery £750,000 and* in wages had expended over £3,000,000 and had altogether expended over £5,000,000. Examined as tho Company’s action in connection with the strike Mr. Barry said that the company know nothing about what led up to tho strike, till they were served with an ultimatum. The cause of tho strike was between two bodies of men. Ho know nothing about tho formation of a new union, until he read'about it in the local papers. Neither by suggestion, nor by advice nor financially had his company anything to do with the formotiou of the Union. Questioned as to the ultimatum delivered by the Miners’ Union, ’Mr. Barry said ho could not comply with it. Ho had no application from tho men since strike for work. As soon as there was satisfactory evidence of the permanency of working the mines on a satisfactory basis, tbo company would re-open the mine irrespective of protection. D. MacArthnr, substitute Attorney for the Grand Junction Company said that tho Company approximately employed four times, the number of men required by law. The company had expended close on £1,000,000 out of which tho shareholders had had £40,000. The company had absolutely no say in the strike and the company had not boon approached by tho Minors’ Union before the strike. His company had nothing whatever to do with the formation of tho now union. On this point ho gave similar evidence as Mr. Barry.

Tho Warden (Mr. J. Mclndoo) in giv ing his decision, said that where a

company was defending an action for forfeiture, it was good defence to that tho trouble had been caused by a labour dispute to wliich they were not parties. These applications for protection were practically in anticipation of a forfeiture action. Tho same defence could he used on the grounds for protection. ITo was satisfied that tin companies and tho officials of the companies had "had nothing to do with the formation of tho now union. Tho facts wore quite clear as to this. It was also clear that tho strike had been brought about by the friction botween tho two bodies of mon, and that the companies had had nothing to do with it. Tli o companies did not cause the strike by fomenting any trouble, ami it was ridiculous to think that the companies could have complied with the demands of tho union. No self-respecting company could have done so. In any case tho strike was on before this ultimatum was declared. He would grant tho applications. Protection to the other local companies was also granted.