TEN ACRE MINING LEASES.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 495, 24 April 1869, Page 2

TEN ACRE MINING LEASES.

(To the Editor of the Westport Times.) Sir, —I see in your to-day's issue Mr Cole's reply to a former letter of mine relative to the ten acre system, wherein he affects to have made ninepins of my arguments, rolled the ball (bawl) of his logic, and inflicted upon them a perpetual overthrow. This is scarcely so, for I am going pleasantly to set them up again, and then have a shy at his rather shaky substitutes. I said in my last letter that the ten acre system is a monopoly. I repeat that statement. In many of its features this question resembles tho corn laws of the narrow minded, old fogey England of other days, when Lords were Lords indeed, and Commoners very common. It " cribs, cabins, and confines," shuts out altogether competitive enterprise ; gives with a liberal baud to the few what is taken with injustice from the many. Repeal such a fence to competition, and we shall, like the era of free trade, have a healthier tone throughout. The principle of now granting leases will be found self-adjusting, even as is the value of labor and capital ruled by supply and demand. This I will endeavor to show. If by an outlay of considerable labor and capital I bring in a bead race for sluicing, or a tailrace for the same purpose, or erect a costly and effective machine for crushing cement, and I will suppose the ground upon which I intend making any of these ventures yields only a moderate prospect, then my most important consideration would be the extent of such ground. Should there not be sufficient to warrant a fair return for my labor, I will not attempt the enterprise. Suppose my calculations will not admit of a fair profit with an area less than ten acres, by reason of the time expended in bringing in the tail-race, or head-race, or erecting machinery, and I find there is about that area in the block I have in view. Suppose I get a grant of one or two acres of this block, or I get no grant at all, but commence my works. "Where is my necessity in such a case for a lease of the ten acres ? I baTO possession of the head-race, &c, and no one without similar appliances can make the ground I intend working pay» unless they go to a corresponding outlay. Others may acknowledge the wisdom of my undertaking, and might be desirous of sharing this block of ground, but by calculations arrived at in a way similar to my own, thef perceive that such a proceeding would

only entail disaster. But should they Ibe of opinion that the ground I hare | in view will pay for two parties, and in i consequence are willing to attempt similar works, are they to be denied that attempt? Will I be permitted to put forth my hand and grasp the whole ten acres, effectually shutting out all competition ? ~For armed with my lease I can dare all intruders, and if a lease were granted me would it be a monopoly or would it not? Common sense, that uncommonly scarce article, says it would. Thus it is proved that ten acre leases shut out competition, and are therefore a monopoly, Quod exat faciendum. My arguments may seem cloudy, for cloudiness is part of my heritage, but they are advanced on strong convictions. If I possessed the intellect of Plato I could shadow forth with clearness most forcible the evils of this system. It is when I endeavour to transmit to paper a train of reasoning that I am conscious of my own shortcomings, but not the shortcomings or soundness of the principles I champion. If it has been undisputably proved that this ground has become a barren waste for ordinary methods of working, whence the desirability for leasing ten acres of it ? According; to natural laws it must ultimately become the property of the parties applying for it. If this statement be true, therefore why seize time by the forelock? The (reason is too obvious, for should there be in this small farm any blocks of more than ordinary richness they can have but one party of owners; moreover, no other party can bring in a tunnel or tail-race or work in any manner any portion of it if the lease be granted. I said in my last letter that the deposit of ten pounds required by objectors before they can opppose the granting of a lease was a forcible barrier to intended objections. There is another reason. It is a general shrinking from taking a prominent part in such an opposition. I hear scores of miners'crying out against these leases, but not one of them would think of going to Westport with objections, and if asked to do so, [would say, why cant some one else [who has got as much interest in the [matter as I have, go. Thus it con[cerns many, but incites active measures in no one. Parties bringing in [a tail-race and draining wet ground ought to have some guarantee for their labor, I admit. It is not just that others may reap the benefit of their toil, by working ground they have drained ; but in reference to this district, a tail-race will only drain the ground immediately contiguous to it, ftvas as abundantly proved when the tunpels were brought in to drain Addison's |Mat. My conscientious opinion is [that outside of a radius of one hundred yards no ground would be [benefitted by such a tail-race. I would [certainly advocate the granting of expended areas to parties engaged in I works of magnitude—say two or three [acres —for such men are the pillars of a country's weal, and deserve to have f their interests fostered, and to them be all honor and fitting reward ; but ten acres is unfitting liko a coat made too large In Victoria where large companies are the rule, a ten-acre claim would only be a lion amoag lions, but on the West Coast it more resembles a lion in a sheep-fold. I believe my proceeding remarks embody the opinions of all the miners on the West Coast who have not a direct interest in the ten-acre leases. With reference to the statements in Mr Coles letter, of a one mile tail-race, the £IGOO expenses, labor and the entire abandonment of all the ground in question, I leave them as they are unworthy of contradiction. I have no doubt Mr Cole reflects the light of some greater luminary, who from a high pedestal, condescends to shed the rays of his intelligence upon the ten-acre leases, but I am only a miner myself and wear the indispensable moleskins.—Tours obediently. Live and Let Live. Addison's Flat, April 19. (To the Editor of the Westport Times.) Sir, —Would you kindly allow mo sufficient space in your paper to acquaint the public that I have returned to Westport, and have not, neither had, any intention of leaving the Province, or any creditors (having ; none); as has been maliciously circu- \ Jated in my absence by an interfering | ? element." Such medium had better | look to home and think of the past— I Ballarat. Tours truly, J. Tbimble. Westport, April 23, 1869.