CLAUSE 8, SECTION 10, NELSON GOLD FIELDS REGULATIONS.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1414, 11 February 1873, Page 2

CLAUSE 8, SECTION 10, NELSON GOLD FIELDS REGULATIONS.

[to the BDrroß.] Sir— ln our miring tales this clause, after having been for years a fiaitfal sourc9 of litigation, is at length by the extreme obstructiveness of its character attra sting to itself the attention of the mining community. It is a singular fact that no matter how obnoxious any existing thing may be, no sooner is there an agitation to get the same removed than champions fly to arms to defend the nuisance and seek to disparage the motive that prompts its removal. Tumbledown bouses and unsightly statues, that have long been an eyesore to the inhabitants of large towns, find hosts of defenders as soon as there is some talk of removing them, and utilising the space they occupy, and if no better argument can be adduced for the preservation of the statu quo, there is always the antiquity of the institution to be lauded, and the logical inference drawn — •'That what has stood so long should stand longer." It is upon such grounds, I imagine that Clause 8, Section 10, finds advocates, and doubtless similar ideas illumined the great minds which eliminated that piece of prodigious wisdom the clause in question. The original framers of the law must have argued somewhat thus : — " As water has been running in the bed of the creek since the great upheaval of the mountain chains, it is only right that it should be left running there until the end of time." The Clause states that "a head of water musb be left running down the creeks at all times." Whether needed or not matters nothing, the must is absolute, and it is only by a very liberal interpretation of the law that men are allowed to use the water of the small creeks that abound in this part of the West Coast. Fortunately for the miners, the gentlemen who administer possess more common sense than the gentlemen who make the mining rules, and consequently men are allowed to divert the water for raining purposes, unless it is specially prohibited by the fortunate holders of creek claims, who are the only persons who by virtue of the law are allowed to exist. Of course I do not for. one moment assert that it is right to permit raceholders to take water from a stream wherein men are actually engaged at the time. But this need never happen, because notices must be posted and sufficient time for objectors to make good their objections. But when men expend time and labor in directing streams that are running utterly useless, I certainly maintain that they have the right to enjoy all the benefits that may accrue unto their enterprise, and that they have no right to be dispossessed of their hardearned privilege by the first man who may subsequently strike gold in the bed of the stream so diverted. That Clause 8, Section 10, does seriously retard the advantageous working of our gold deposits lam certain. In the first place it effectually prevents a large outlay of capital upon water-races, because it prevents any security being given to, or obtained by. holders, of the same. Secondly, it is the cause of a great amount of imposition and swindling on the part of needy and unprincipled men, to whom it affords every facility for carrying out their nefarious practices ; and thirdly, because it incites and encourages race-holders to destroy and render unworkable large aud valuable patches of ground. In parenthesis permit me to state that the gold workings of the Grey Valley are chiefly confined to small streams intersecting a formation of low sandstone hills and terraces possessing no extensive watershed. The creeks seldom contain in ordinary weather more than one or two government sluice-heads of water. Therefore when such streams are diverted, often at considerable cost, it is apparent that the holders of water-rights are completely at the mercy of any person who chooses to set into the creek below the point at which the water is turned off. The holder of the creek claim may take up the ground intending to beneficially work^ the same, or he may be actuated by altogether different motives ; but the result is the same. The. creek claimholder must have the water, and the raceholders must remain idle. I could cite instances where pieces of worthless ground have been taken up and shepherded for months until race-holders were compelled to pay exorbitant sums to get rid of their tormentors, who, walking away with the price of his swindling in his pocket could toy on the first friend he met to a similar surface, patch of roguery. This is surely a very undesirable state of things' in a country wnose very existence depends upon its mining industry, the most important branch of which is its sluicing. The great argument used by writers ■ who defend the existence of this clause is that the race-holders are a minority. Can it be wondered that such is the case, when the amount of discouragement that is accorded tixis kind of enterprise is taken into consideration ? l Remove this obstructive clause ; let the men who discover and utilise waste streams of water be the sole owners thereof ; and we should soon remark a marked, change in the number of race proprietors, and a corresponding improvement in our gold returns. Why should men mining in or near a creek have a greater right to the water than men working on the back terraces 7 !j?he only answer I have hitherto hear d to this question is, f;hat the vyater has always been there, and there it. ougtit to remain. But would not the same reason apply equally well to the gold itself. Nature placed it in the gravel, and judged by the same standard some at least should be left where nature placed it. " Don't disturb things that are quiet," is a proverb that seems to be so universally adopted and thoroughly appreciated by our Nelson rulers, that I really dp not wonder aj; their f r.aining and upholding anything that lias the efFecfc of oheckirig movement in any direction, and. never waa the " lotus eating l ' policy displayed more prominently than in the clause that forms the subject matter of my present letter. We do not need to seek the vote of the miuers as to the effect produced by the working of this clause. It is only too painfully apparent in everything that meets our eye. In the stagnation of our trade, in the falling off of our revenues, and in the rapidly increasing exodus of our population ; for the maintenance of this clause is only a part of the whole

policy pursued by Nelson imbecility toward the mining community of this coast— a policy the effect of which has been the almost complete conversion of a prosperous gold-producing district into a wilderness in the Bhort space of five years. That the conversion has not been thorough is not to be attributed to want of will on the part of the 7 rulers, buY rather to the unflinching determination on the part of the ruled. EacbTnew hindrance — every fresh impediment— thrown by Nelson stupidity across the path of West Coast enterprise, has, been met and grappled with by men resolved to succeed, and thanks to their nnquavering resolution we are still able to state that mining property holders still exist (yes,, and flourish too) in this part of the country* \ Apply Clause 8, Section X., of onr gold mining rules to any other; estate, and the absurdity is palpable. Suppose renting a clover field to build a hbusethereon, with a clause inserted in the lease, that if any person inclined to grow clover in the field, and any subsequent period the lessee was bound to pull his house down at a moment's notice, I should imagine it would be a very modest mansion that would be erected on that section, to say nothing of the blissful feeling of insecurity that would pervade the occupiersbreast'fctiowing, as he would, that every loafer that came down the street might demand of him a price for forbearing to enforce bis right to throw the householder from liis home. Yet such is actually the position of the race-holders on the Nelson SouthWest Gold Fields at the present time. - Can it be wondered at that when the law altogether fails to afford protection, men should strive to protect themselves, even ' when by so doing they seriously injure the interests of their fellows. Selfpreservation is the first law of nature, and one example will serve to show how miners endeavor to preserve themselves in the matter of water-rights. Some time since, two men with whom I was acquainted proposed to take water to a distant terrace. It was the work of months, and when accomplished, could have been rendered nugatory for months longer by any person working in the creek bed, the stream from which it was proposed to divert, Thejq^ - therefore, J previous to ' cutting their "race, devoted two months to destroying and rendering unworkable the ground below them. Large trees were felled upon it everywhere it was likely tail-races would be constructed, and the water was turned upon points that could be easily washed away. By these means a mile and' more of the creek was mullocked up, and a large amount of gold that should now be swelling our escort returns is left to benefit another generation. ■■■-■?.■■■ ' I do not defend the conduct of these men. It is deserving of the severe reprehension of all right-thinking men, but surely the men were- less to blame than the laws that compel them to adopt such culpable courses. If men were allowed to hold the water they discovered and made valuable, there would be no necessity for such censurable conduct. There would' be a greater motive for keeping the undiscovered ground open, that it might be worked by the -water that the race-holders would have the right to let to parties who might need it.. It is, nonsense to talk of monopoly. Monopolies legitimately held often tend to promote the welfare of a community, and in the present instance a monopoly is the only means by which the wealth of the country can be -developed— the more valuable the prize the more it will be sought for. If a miner sink a shaft he is allowed all the gold he can discover. Of course it would be more desirable if twenty men who needed it obtained the pile that . often falls to the share of one or two. But no one will deny but that it is better that one or two should directly benefit than that the treasure should lie useless .and. undiscovered; In the one- case, many indirectly receive profit j in the other, no one is a gainer,. As with, ttje, end, so it should be with the means: whoever finds and utilises water should become the absolute Owner— to sell it/; to use it, or rent it, without let or restriction. When the water-right is 'applied for, let the application be made as public as possible; post notices; advertise it in the local paper \ let everyone who^ ha^s, \ valid objection' make. and maintain' it; then, and for ever after, be silent on the subject. If such were the law, the consequences would be : A much larger area of ground brought into work and rendered remunerative ; a more numerous and settled population on our gold fields; and, as a natural sequence, increased prosperity iv every branch of our mining and mercantile industry — a consummation devont%^ to be, wishgcjl -" ' 5 ' : 'The Man in the Back Gui*ly. Ahaura; Feb. 2, 1873.: ; ; •