THE SLUDGE-CHANHEL AND WATER MATTERS.

Kumara Times, Issue 2507, 3 July 1884, Page 2

THE SLUDGE-CHANHEL AND WATER MATTERS.

According to announcement made, Messrs William Morris and John White, miners, who were sent to Wellington in connection with matters vitally affecting the borough held a public meeting at the Town Hall last evening, to give an account of their mission to Wellington. There was a large attendance of the miners and the public. His Worship the Mayor (D. Hannan, Esq.) opened the meeting. Important business, however, prevented him from stopping, for he knew about taking the chair until he saw it announced in the paper; by the vote of the meeting, Mr R. J. Seddon was afterwards appointed to the chair. Messrs Morris and White gave a detailed account of their mission, and they were followed by Mr Seddon, the late member for the district, who read a long letter, which he said he had been lucky to get hold of when in Wellington. This letter, he said, was addressed to Mr Rolleston, the Minister of Mines, by Mr Miller, for himself and sixty others. Mr Seddon proceeded to read the letter, commenting upon it as he did so. The following is a [Copy.J Wm. Eoheston, Esq., Minister of Mines, Wellington. Re sludge-channel question : Sir— We beg to give you some further particulars in addition to those sent by telegram this morning on the above question. As the telegram purports, two delegates left here ostensibly to interview you on matters affecting the general interest of this goldfield. From inquiries we have made we have ascertained that the meeting at which the delegates were appointed was of a private nature, attended by twelve of the miners who refuse to work under the new sludge-channel regulations, and by one member of the County Council (Mr M'Whirter), who, it would appear, attended this meeting, of which he must have had private information, for the special purpose of giving a guarantee that the County Council would provide an amount of £4O, which has since been voted towards defraying the expenses of sending two delegates to Wellington. We may mention that the Borough Council of Kuraara has likewise agreed to vote the amount of £2O for the same purpose. We are of opinion that when public money is voted the public should be informed as to the object for which it is given. When we assure you that very few of- the miners were made aware that this meeting was to be held, and that particulars of what transpired received only a very short notice through the press, wo think that you will agree with us that we can come to no other conclusion than that the object in sendiug-delegates could be for no other purpose but that of repressing the interests, and especially the question of priority of right to the siudge-channel, of those miners whose permits have expired.

In regard to the question of priority, we consider it prejudicial to our own interests and that of the whole of this goldfield that any such right as that of fixed priority should be established. The miners whose permits have expired have had the full benefit of the privilege of priority during the terra that their permits were in force, and they were particularly careful not to concede the smallest portion of that privilege when the three-hour shifts were proposed to be introduced, even when it was proved to be to their advantage. We maintain that as the specified time in their permits has expired that they have no further claim. But the matter has been taken up by some of the leading men in Westland, and they have fostered the idea which has gained ground amongst many here that those miners have some claim to a fixed priority. To a great extent Government is responsible for such a feeling. When the first permits expired the holders of them should have been placed behind those holding permits for a longer term, and we think the evil would have wrought its own cure. By allowing holders of permits to retain their original position in the use of the sludge-channel the Government have, in our opinion, given grounds to. suppose that a priority of right in perpetuity can be established; and that idea has had the support of men who have a political object in view and for the purpose of gaining the sympathies of the majority. The Government have still a contract to fulfil with many who hold permits for two or three years, and it would be manifestly unfair to them and to those who have signed the new regulations that a fixed priority of right should be established. And, again, it must be remembered that many of those who claim priority have been working for the past eleven months under rules in which that clause is*struck out. The question naturally arises—Why should the case of all those miners who refuse to work under the new regulations be treated in an exceptional manner? If the terms of their contract have not been fulfilled, it is only reasonable to suppose that they would obtain redress in a court of law. Had these men gone to work and proved beyond a doubt, which they could have done by this time, that the new regulations are too oppressive to work under, they would have had our hearty support. But it-has been apparent to us for a long time past that they are determined to be dissatisfied with the management of the sludge-channel ; and this course of conduct we are sorry to confess that Mr Seddon, the member for Kumara, has not attempted to discourage ; but quite the contrary. In our opinion much of the dissatisfaction which has occurred here for the last two years has arisen from the example Mr Seddon has shown. We regret to have to say that we do not consider he works for the general good of the goldfield. There are several reasons which we think worth noting why only an equal right to the use of the sludge-channel should be allowed. We are certain that any of tbo?e who fitst obtained permits never anticipated that the conditions would x’ernain the same; but many took out permits with the idea that alterations would be made in their favour, and more especially with regard to sludge-channel fees. Another reason is that the sludgechannel has accommodated eight and nine parties in a shift; but now from the alterations in the blocking of the channel by substituting stone for wood, and from another important cause—the abuse by olaimholders of the channel by passing stones of too large dimensions—the carrying capacity has been so reduced that only six parties in a shift can be accommodated. We are of opinion that if the regulations were put in force every interested party would work in unity to remedy any defects that may arise. But besides this we would suggest the desirability of either providing increased accommodation in the channel or subsidising another tail-race to relieve the channel of five or six parties. . As we have stated in our telegrams a grant of priority of right would materially injure us by throwing us entirely idle during the wiuter months. We may mention that we have thought fit to request Mr Fitz Gerald’s assistance, as our own member, Mr Seddon, has taken a most glaringly partial view of this question, and contrary to the opinions we hold. Trusting your views of the question agreee with our own —We remain, dec., (Signed) Alexander Miller, For self and sixty others. Knmara, Juno 11th 1884. [We purpose publishing Messrs Morris and White’s statements in another issue.—Ed, K.T.]