OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED NEW RULES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF THE KUMARA SLUDGE-CHANNEL.

Kumara Times, Issue 2394, 1 May 1884, Page 2

OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED NEW RULES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF THE KUMARA SLUDGE-CHANNEL.

[to the editor.]

Sir—l crave a small space in your valuable journal to state my objections to the new Regulations for the Management of the Sludge-channel. First, I object to the rules as a whole, as they are not required. Secondly, I consider that the Government are breaking faith with the miners by trying to put such rules in force, as the whole drift of them seems to be to put all parties on the same footing, which is very unfair to the men who 6rst risked everything in opening claims to work into the channel and stood the jeers of others who said it would never work at all, but who now are most anxious to take their places. As the Minister of Mines pledged himself to Messrs Fitz Gerald and Seddon that prior-right should be determined by the date of registration of their certificates, I object to being coerced into doing it by having my share of the water stopped until I do so. Now, to deal with the proposed new Rules : I object to clause 4; it takes away rights we have acquired in the Warden’s Court, and which are of a saleable value to us, and gives no compensation in return. I also object to clause 6, ns being too much of the <! dog in the manger ” principle, that is, if they cannot give us water they will not let anyone else do so ; and it also debars us from getting water from another source at less cost, it it could be got. I have a decided objection to clause T, as it entails an unnecessary cost upon some claims by compelling them to reduce the grade in their tail-races so as not to be able to sluice away much stuff, but to force them to buy water that is not required with the present grade to do tbp <>.•.. v rl-. Clause 8 1.- ...,l ~u .. .... ii- it will only can i : .• inlufT-i. Clause 9 I object to, us it gives us nn j

say in the matter at all as to what hours we shall work. Clause 10 is ridiculous, as it sometimes happens that we do not use six days water in a month, and as but few of the parties are able to keep a banking account, they would have to wash up, which means loss of time and additional expense which is objectionable. Clause 12 is of too vague a meaning as it says all stoppages over half-an-hour at one time shall be allowed for pro rata, but there may be stoppages amounting to two hours and a-half or three hours in one shift, and still not be over half-an-hour at one time. Now I think that 7s 6d is enough for the miners to lose, and their time, without any more, because when the channel is blocked for a long time in one shift there is nothing to do until the water can be got again. Clauses 13, 14, and 15 are not of much consequence. But now comes the capper of all. Clause 16 is the most absurd nonsense that could possibly be imagined to apply to sluicing, as no man nor any number of men could by any means keep a a grating clear; and as some of the claims do not pay wages at present, they could not pay for the water they would use with a screen put in their races, and their creditors would have to sell them up to pay their expenses, which would be objectionable both to the miners, the business men, and the Government.—l am &c., Objector. Dillman’s Town, April 30, 1884.