SLUDGE-CHANNEL AND WATERRACE MANAGEMENT.

Kumara Times, Issue 2327, 12 February 1884, Page 2

SLUDGE-CHANNEL AND WATERRACE MANAGEMENT.

[to the editor.] Sir—Being in the Court House when the late inquiry into the working of the sludge-channel and water-race was going on I, was rather suprised to hear the Manager say he did not recognise that any parties had a prior right to the Government water. Now, what has been puzzling me since is : Why did the Manager advise one party of miners, when commencing to sluice, to pay the back debts of another party whose claim had been abandoned, and thereby secure the defunct party's rights? And, in another case of more recent date, he (the Manager) advised a party on purchasing a claim that had a right in the sludge-channel (and of course a right to Government water) to take the quantity of water the previous party had been using one day in each month in order to maiutain that right intact. Now, how he can reconcile this with his statement made in Court is more than I can understand, as by his actions mentioned above he clearly shows in his system of management that he does recognise priority of right. These facts forcibly demonstrate that a Board of Management should be appointed in the way suggested at the inquiry by the Secretary of the Miners Association, as the value of the miners' property should not be subject to the caprice of one man, who, it seems, can upset oldestablished customs at will, and by so doing bring wholesale ruination to a lot of honest industrious men. And, what is worse, Mr Gow's vacillatory way of dealing with this muchvexed question of prior-right has been the cause of the bitterness and ill feeling which exists amongst the miners of this field, so much that any christian man ought to be ashamed of it; and that he has assisted to bring this about I am convinced of so as to be able to work the great reforms he has in view, such as sluicing through a six-inch grating and other absurb notions. He jocularly remarked in giving his evidence that the miners on this field thought themselves competent to teach the Californians a wrinkle in sluicing. I should like to know if he got his ideas embodied in the new regulations from that country ? I can scarcely think so, seeing that they wash away about two. million yards of gravel in. about ten months in some of the cairns working there. Now there is another question thai I wish to briug before the miners of this field, aud that is the cost of keeping up the sludge-channel. According to receipts and expenditure, the income is about one-third of the outlay, and, seeiug such is the case, I am afraid there is little hope of getting a reduction in the price charged for water. I would suggest that the Miners Association call a public meeting of the miners interested, and make an offer to the Government to take the sludge-cbannel off their hands, if they would allow a percentage of the moneys received from sales of water used in working into it to go toward assisting to maintain it • and I have no doubt they would be glad to get rid of it afe the price. Trusting that some abler pen than mine will take this matter up, as I believe that it would be to the advantage of all concerned.—l am, &c, Priority, s February 10, lcib-i.