The Evening Star THURSDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1871.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2706, 19 October 1871, Page 2

The Evening Star THURSDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1871.

Last year a joint committee of the two Houses of Legislature reported in favor of a sum of money being granted in favor of developing Colonial Industries. The vote was not taken on account of the late period of the session, but the matter was not allowed to drop, and on the Bth of last month a memorandum was laid before both Houses, detailing the action that had been taken in accordance with the resolutions. The subjects for inquiry were Water Supply to the Goldfields, Goldfields Law, Howard for Mines, Development of Coalfields, Planting of Forest Trees, Sericulture, Bonus on Manufactures, Docks, Scab, and Technical Education. Each of these subjects affords a wide field for investigation, but as yet the information acquired is of the most meagre discretion. This is the more to be regretted as through the recently opened up communication with America we are brought into contact with a people proverbial for enterprise and successful investment of capital. As to Water Supply, the only communication appears to be one by Mr Sewell, the Minister of Justice, who brings under notice the legal hindrances to the utilization of inland waters. He points out that the English law relating to Water Bights is extremely defective, as it is “ based “ on certain main principles, at vari- “ ance with the requirements of modern “ improvements.” The principle which obtains with regard to navigable streams, is that both the waters and their beds are the property of the Crown. But this principle is departed from in the case of small streams and rivulets. Not being useful as means of internal communication, they are deemed of no national utility, and the ownership, therefore, “ is vested in the proprietors “ of the lands through which they “ flow, or, when a stream divides the “ lands of distinct properties, in such “ properties respectively, usque ad “ filum aqiuc. As regards natural re- “ gervoirs and soui'ccs, such as springs, » wells, lakes, ponds, etc., the owner- “ ship follows the ownership of the “ land where they exist.” Mr Sewell considers that these time-honored rights of ownership are incompatible with the interests of the Colony, and wherever recognised, are “ found to be “ obstructive to their application to “ various uses required for the public “ service.” He enumerates the uses to which they may be put as reasons why, in selling land, these means of industrial development should be reserved. The principal are 1. Navigation, in the natural form of rivers, or artificial, as canals. 2. Irrigation. 3. Waterraces for mining purposes. 4. Mill powers. 5. Supply of towns, and domestic purposes. 6. Drainage and sanitary purposes. 7. Extinction of fires. Over all and each of these applications of water, control is parted with if the principle be maintained that property in it vests in the purchaser of the land. This is one of many illustrations that might be given of the necessity for adaptation of law to circumstance. Much as we may boast • of our more enlightened views as compared with our forefathers, wo are continually endeavouring to patch new clothes with old material. We forget that our preconceived notions of property in land are derived from feudal times; that these claims to exclusiveness have been based more on might than right, and that customs applicable to a condition of lord and vassal, however, tolerable in a land where habit has made the yoke bearable, should not be adopted and perpetuated where all ownership is new, and where society is in a position to define beforehand the terms on which certain property shall be held. Mr Sewell recommends that “ Inland waters in all their forms, “ should be regarded by the State as “ objects to be governed by special “ laws and regulations, framed on con- “ Biderations of public policy,” He suggests as the basis of those laws that they should be regarded “ as subjects of property, distinct

“ from the land,” and regulated by a special code, which “ should care- “ fully provide for the various “ concurrent interests of the public “ and private persons.” It is much to be feared in the Parliamentary wars between the “ ins ” and the “ outs, ” both sides are so much wrapped up in party stratagems as to overlook this most useful hint. Parliamentary papers and reports, often very valuable, are seldom utilised as they ought to be by the members for whose special information they are intended. Some few master their contents : the remainder allow them to remain in their hands, very often unread—for the most part cursorily glanced at and then forgotten. This, however, is a subject in which the public are as much interested as in the construction of railroads ] and the closing sentence of Mr Sewell’s memorandum should be seriously remembered : “ It will be easier to make such “ provision by law now, in the early “ stage of the Colony, than after pri- “ vate rights have grown up, which “ will be obstructive of improvement.”