The Dunstan Times. FRIDAY, JANUARY 7, 1881.

Dunstan Times, Issue 977, 7 January 1881, Page 2

The Dunstan Times.

FRIDAY, JANUARY 7, 1881.

Beneath Ike rule of men ESTIRELTJUSti lh PEN is MIGHTIER than then WORD,

For many years the contention between the miners and freehold ts at. Marawhenua has been a fruitful source of trouble and litigition. I lie former a”er that mining property—races, ifec.—constructed at a cost of 1.20,000, has been rendeied comparatively worthless, by the sa'e of tho river frontages comprised in five sections of land j and both the late Provincial Government and the General Government h.vc been sup plicated, times without ’number, to purchase these sections, and retain the auriferous land, and the ont-lets for public use. Once the matter turned up in the Supreme Court as “a teat case”—Borton v. Howe—-

which was supposed to he intended to settle that and nil similar cases on tho Otago Goldfields. But inasmuch as the only question “ tested " was that of the freeholders riparian rights, the issue was never doubtful, and practically the “test case” tested nothing and settled nothing, which had not been tested and settled at “ a period beyond which tho memory of man runneth not.” Recently a new phase of the difficulty has occurred; and it is one which affects the whole mining community. During the last Session of Parliament a pe'ition was presented from Chaiii.es F. lioBEHTS and others, praying that the Marawhenna River lie declared a watercourse tor the discharge of mining debris, he, ; Jailing which that a Cumurssiou lie appointed to i quire into the whole subject. And the Gold fields Committee to which the petition was referred recommended “that the petition be referred to the Government, with a request that they will make inquiry into the matters alleged, with a > iew to giving effect to the prayer of, tho petitioners.” It is necessary to explain here, that there have been no less than 10 reports on the lUarmvlienUa Goldfield, furnished by all kinds and conditions of men, including of such note as those of Professor Ulrich and Mr McKkußoW, the Chi.-f Minever. Of Course there are reports from Mr Warden HoUlssoS also ; and one of the matters alleged by the petitioners is that that officer has not fairlv sta'ed tho facts to the Government. Whether that allegation was correct or otherwise is foreign to the present question. It is sufficient that the Parliamentary Committee recommended an enquiry into this amongst other matters in dispute, and the Government. accepting tho recommendation, ord'-red an enquiry. But how, and after what fashion did they proceed i Of course wh-m the Committee recommended an enquiry, it was au enquiry by Commission, as prayed for The members' of that Committee could not possiidy imagine that the Commissi n would he limited to one person, and that person the officer whose report was alleged to be unfair. Yet this is precisely what was done, for Mr Robinson was uppointed to enquire into the m <tt(r ; and to report inter alia on his own Deports. A nyihing more absurd could scarcely be concaved. And so nppatently thought the “ Miners’ Committee." They begged that some other person or persons Should hold the enquiry, but the Government turned a deaf ear to their representations; and Mi Roberts was informed that the Warden would hold au enquiry “into the matters alleged'” on the Ist December last Hut the Miners’ Committee convened a meeting to consider the position, whereat it was resolved not to furnish the Warden with anj r information on the ground that “ they had no faith in his impartiality.” The result was that no evidence was tendered nor anything done, beyond the ventilation of some very hard statements by a Mr Frateb, who took it on himself to “blame tho Warden for withholding facts, and making statements that were n«t in accordance with the troth " —an assertion which all who know Mr Robinson will find very difficult to be lieve. Now, we do not hesitate to sav rhat in tins matter tie- Government have been guilty of two wrings They have wronged the Warden, whom they placed in a false pos'tion by directing him to enquire into the accuracy ot his own r<«|iorts; and they have wronged the people who naturally expected, as they had a right to expect, that recourse would have been bad to a Commission of neutral and ind pendent gentlemen. They have kept the letter of the Committee’s recommendation, only to violate its spirit and intention. It is a mere case of administrative jugglery, and .-hon'd be exposed if only to secure the public against similarly erratic action in the future. More will be heard of hj yet, we mat be sure, both within and wi'hout I’arliament. We notice an article in the Daily Times on this'subject, in which, as : it seems to ns the real point at issue i rather skilfully evaded. If Mr Huberts and his friends have, or think they have, grounds for their al'egations, it could be scarcely expected of tlr-m that they would be satisfied with the proffered enquiry an appeal from Robinson Walden to Robin-on Commi-simicr; and as thev prefer awaiting the issue of au appeal (to,.the Legislature next Session, it;is • sheer notisense for nnr Dunedin friend to assuulc'that “they have put themselves altogether in the. wrong by declining to support the petition ”■ in the improperly constituted Court of Inquiry. Of the merits of the case wo do not cate to speak at present. r