THE SLUDGE-CHANNEL QUESTION.

Kumara Times, Issue 2498, 21 June 1884, Page 3

THE SLUDGE-CHANNEL QUESTION.

To the Editor Kumara Times,

Sir—As Mr Seddon with the deputation before Mr Holies ton thought fit to characterize my letter to Mr FifzGerald as contradictory, I beg to offer you a copy of the manuscript, with a hope that you will place it before your readers at the earliest possible opportunity.—l am, &c.,

Alexander Miller. Kumara, Jane 21, 1884.

To G. G. Fitz Gerald, Esq., Wellington. Sir—ln my own behalf as well as that of others 1 take the liberty of addressing you with the object of furnishing you with information which may be of assistance towards the satisfactory settlement of the Kumara sludge-channel question. I have considered it necessary to trouble you owing to the fact that the member for Kumara, Mr Seddon, appeal’s to have taken a one-sided view, contrary to my own, of the matter. In my opinion the main question at issue is that of priority of right to the use of the sludge-channel, and not, as may be generally supposed, the introduction of the new rules. Priority is a privilege which holders of permits under the first “ Terms and Conditions for the Use of the Sludge-channel ” are entitled to ; but the manner in which that clause in reference to it has been administered is unfair to a large number who hold permits under the same “Terms and Conditions.” A legal opinion which I have had on the subject implies that any holder of a permit under these conditions can claim the use of the sludge-channel in his turn. I think if that construction had been placed upon the priority clause, the present difficulties would hot have arisen. I feel certain that the question of priority should have been dealt with in a more decided manner when the first permits expired. At that time several parties holding permits for a longer term sent a protest to the manager of the sludge-channel, the substance of which was objecting to those whose permits had expired being allowed to retain their original positions. The manager, however, refused to act in the matter, and stated that Government had not given him authority to interfere. And here I think a great mistake was made. It is only reasonable to suppose that the various clauses in the “Terras and Conditions for the Use of the Sludge-Channel ” can only be in force during the term for which the permit is issued, and any holder of a permit can only claim any privilege he may be entitled to until the expiry of that terra. By allowing holders of permits which have expired to retaili their original positions in the sludge-channel, the management has given grounds to suppose that a priority of right can be established. Strange to say, although many of the said holders of permits which have expired have been working under terms and conditions in which priority of right is not recognised, several occupying high positions here hold the same views with them, and have been working hard for their interests. Not a syllable has been uttered nor a word written in favor of those who have had the same difficulties to contend with, who have had the same guarantee from Government that they would be accommodated into the sludge-channel, but whose only misfortune was, to be a few months later in obtaining their permits, and to do a far greater amount of work to get their claims in working order. I am a shareholder in a claim which was taken up in June, 1882, and which was ready for sluicing in October, 1883. Owing to the manner in which water was being distributed at that time the claim was registered for two months. On the understanding that a fair supply of water would be given, a start was made in the beginning of December, and it has taken until the month of May, a period of five months, to obtain 52 shifts of four hours—the quantity of free water allowed. You will judge then that some alteration is necessary ; and, to begin with, I think the Government should be firm in insisting that the new regulations for the working of the channel should be put in force. This will have the effect of doing away with the erroneous idea of priority of right; everyone interested in the use of the sludge-channel will be on an equality, and will therefore work in unity to remedy any defects that may arise in carrying out the new regulations. Alterations will have to be made, especially clause 16, which provides that a grating shall be used. 1 am of opinion that Government should be satisfied if the grade of the tail-race is reduced, but would suggest that the distance named in the regulations, viz., GO feet, should be altered to not less than 150 feet, and that would prevent to a great extent the abuse of the sludge-channel. I think it is unfair to some who have been allowed to construct their tail-races with a high grade that they should be asked to alter them, and would consider they were entitled to compensation in proportion to any decrease in their gold receipts taken into consideration with the size of their claims. The Government should bo urged either to provide increased accommodation in the sludge-channel or to relieve it by subsidising another tail-race that would accommodate five or six parties ; for I would impress upon you that although there are a large number, probably between eighty and ninety ' men “on strike,” when all are prepared to work, the incapacity of the sludge-chan-nel keeps about the same number idle at all times. In conclusion, I hope that you will fairly consider both sides of the question, {tad do your utmost to improve matters.

You are in a better position, being a nonresident of Kumara, to judge impartially than our member, Mr Seddon, and that is my reason for troubling you in the matter ; but you may rest assured I have written what I believe to be the truth. 1 am, sir, Your obedient servant, • Alexander Miller. Kumara, June 11, 1884.