The Evening Star FRIDAY, JUNE 30, 1871.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2611, 30 June 1871, Page 2

The Evening Star FRIDAY, JUNE 30, 1871.

In a former article we discussed the principles which the Mining Commissioners in their Report recommended should form the basis of the new legislation contemplated with regard to the goldfields —viz., separation of the purely mining statute from questions affecting agricultural settlement and pastoral rights, and the right of mining upon private lands. We will now proceed further to consider the Report, which presents many important features of a novel character, and as expressing the minds of the miners themselves, is worthy of serious attention at the present juncture. The whole Province bids fair to become one large goldfield, and already to this interest we are indebted for the greatest part our,territorial revenue. Having laid down the principles we have adverted to, the Commissioners proceed to treat the subject of mining legislation under two heads—viz. : (1). The tenure of mining property involving the whole question of the rights and obligations of miners; and (2). The administration of justice with regard to those rights and obligations, tinder the first head they call attention primarily to the operation of the Stamp Act as being especially inconvenient and burdensome to the miners; we presume, for upon -this point no details are afforded, that the allusion is to the necessity for transfers of shaves or interests being stamped ; whilst not only in many cases are stamps unattainable, but, from ignorance of the necessary values, mistakes which invalidate the documents are of constant occurrence. We think this grievance, by a little management upon the part of the Government, might easily be remedied ; and we would suggest that the gold receivers in the several districts should be appointed distributors of stamps. The miners would then bo supplied, without inconvenience to themselves, by intelligent officials, instead of having to depend upon storekeeper-postmasters, who seldom keep a proper supply, and who are ignorant of the application of the law. The Report next takes up a far more sei’ious matter—the question of the “ miners’ right ” —which we mast say, it deals with in rather an arbitrary manner; proclaiming it “ un“just and burdensome,” and classing it, oddly enough, under the “ revenue “ laws.” We had rather thought it was a license to occupy for mining purposes, under the Regulations, a certain portion of Crown lands, and a title to the area denominated a “ claim.” It conveys other privileges of very considerable importance, authorising the holder to avail himself of the Mining and Agricultural Lease Regulations, and conferring the electoral franchise. We cannot agree that the payment of one pound a year is a “ pecuniary “ burden ” under these circumstances; nor do we think that in any case it can press hard upon individuals. The Commissioners indeed fail to demonstrate the necessity, or even the expediency, of reducing this amount. Any reduction would be inappreciable to the miner, whilst seriously affecting the territorial revenue. The question of the lapse of the miner’s right, as affecting property, is far more intelligently dealt with, and is one demanding very serious consideration. Already the point has been raised in the Law Courts whether a break in the continuity of miners’ rights under which property is held does not absolutely and irremediably invalidate the title. If this is ruled to be the case, many valuable rights are held upon very insecure tenure, and investing monies in mining enterprise becomes a very hazardous experiment. The Report assumes the fact by the words—“ The “ neglect of the provisions of which ” (the law with regard to miners’ rights) “ deprives him at once of the means “ of defending his rights . . . Neglect “ to do so involves the loss of all his “ property and rights ”; and goes on to recommend that “provision should “ be made for protecting the revenue “ by means of moderate penalties, and “ otherways not involving such grave “ forfeitures.” We trust that this provision will be made in the new Act, and that while no encouragement is afforded to wilful misfeasance in this matter, security shall be afforded that rights of property may not be imperilled by the varied accidents which may break the continuity of the miners’ light, even in cases where it results from carelessness or negligence. The great drawback to the development of the goldfields in the Province is the fact that up to this time very little capital has been invested, and we account for this by the want of confidence which is felt by the monied interest in the security of the title to mining property. We know this has been the case notably in Dunedin, and Parliament will do well in accepting the recommendation of the Commissioners upon this point, and removing this

great bar to the advancing prosperity of our goldfields. Whilst upon this subject we may notice two other suggestions of a practical character which we think commend themselves to the good sense of the Legislature, vis. — “ That miners’ rights shall be issued “ for a term of years,” and that “ con-. “ solidated miners’ rights should be “ issued to public and private com- “ pauies.” The further proposal that “ Miners’ rights should be made avail- “ able for the occupation of Crown “ lauds throughout the Colony, without “ regard to the Province in which they (< may have been originally issued,” is not so easily disposed of. The Commissioners appear to have lost sight of the fact that the revenue derived from them is “ territorial,” and is consequently allocated to the several Provinces in which they may be issued. Under these circumstances we do not see our way to any such adjustment as would enable the plan to be carried out; although ~we quite quite admit the anomaly—we might go so far as to say injustice of surcharging the miner for what is absolutely the same “right,” when he moves from one Province to another. We will conclude the present article by a quotation from the Report, showing the importance attached by the Commissioners to the question of the tenure of the mining property : —“ The question of “ the tenure of mining property is of “ the greatest importance, and should “ receive the most careful consideration “in framing a new statute. Upon “ making the subject clear, well de- “ fined and intelligible, depends the “ security of mining property, and the “ consequent willingness or uuwilling- “ ness of capitalists to invest money in “ mining enterprise, either directly or “by way of mortgage. The system of “ tenancy by mere occupancy, adopted “ by mining custom in California, and “ and to which effect has been given by “ the decision of the Courts, is well “ worthy of the gravest considera- “ tiou.”