RIVER BEACH CLAIMS.

Lake Wakatip Mail, Volume I, Issue 24, 22 July 1863, Page 5

RIVER BEACH CLAIMS.

To the Editor of the Lake Wakatip Mail. Sir,—ln your issue of Wednesday last, I see a letter in answer to mine which appeared in yours of the 11th instant, in which jour correspondent deems me out of order in reflecting slightly on the Government for " making the present Goldfields' Regulations." Seccndly, your correspondent accuses me of reflecting on the present Warden " for carrying out the said regulations." Thirdly, because I defend our late Warden for departing from the Goldfields' Regulations. Now, Sir, in answer to the first, I am bound in duty to believe that every nineteen out of twenty .diggers on the Shotover agree with me that the present regulations are altogether impracticable for the Shotover—in short, are unparalleled specimens of ignorance and inexperience. There is scarcely a clause or rule in the Goldfields* Regulations, which do not admit of a loop-hole, whereby an unfortunate digger may be thwarted by what is termed "the discretion of the Warden." Your correspondent states that he would not hive replied to my letter had it not purported to

be an expression of <( opinion that miners entertain on the Shotovor about it, —a long, if not wide latitude for me to take," and so forth. Now, Sir, this u Voice from the Gorge," as he signs himse.f, is defeated at once ; and if he would only gorge the facts Wliich daily pa>sbef.uv him, he would never have written his letter.

A memorial from tins very place (Arthur's Point), was lately sent to Dunedin, signed Oy upwards of 300 miners, praying the Government to alter the present Goldfields' Regulations, and '•make thtm practicable for the Shotover." Again, the diggers of Arthur's Point, in public meeting assembled (19th May last), did unanimously pass a resolution to the effect that the present Goldfields' .Regulations are vague and impracticable— vide Wakatip Mail, 23rd May, and that will suffice for public opinion on the Shotover.

However, Sir, I shall feel myself wanting if I do not show ° Gorge" that the present rules are noxious and impracticable, e.g. :

Suppose Brown takes up a river beach claim to-day, and Black also takes up a claim on the beach opposite ; then Green comes up and takes up a river-bed claim, and obtains a grant for it. A few days, and the river fells; then Brown and Black at once, and in virtue of Goldfields' Regulations, remove their pegs to water-edge. The river again recedes, and Brown and Black once more pay their compliments to a slice of the river-bed claim. Poor Green now complains; the Warden comes, and if he attempts to define low-water mark, he will not define that on dry ground, you may be sure; and suppose he defines it to be where the water now stands, then, I say, he robs and wrongs the river-bed claimholders. Again, if any Warden defines any certain point to be low-water mark, and the water recedes from the said defined point, then imagine the dissatisfaction that will justly follow. But, Sir, your correspondent only sympathises with one class, and that is where his interests are staked—to wit, beach claims—and lo! he writes that if the river-bed claimholders are not satisfied with their area of ground, they ought to abandon it I cry, shame to such an inhuman spirit! It ispureiy the dog in the mauger style, to drive away the river men, so that when your correspondent, "Gorge," has worked out his beach claim, he may then gorge the river-bed claim also. It is an incontestable fact that the river beach claims are impracticable at the Shotover, and the expression of the miners on that subject has gone before us ; and time will tell, when the said regulations are attempted to be carried out in their integrity, for the one regulation infringes on the other, and vice verm. In reference to the second subject, i. e, " reflecting on the present Warden for carrying out the Goldfields' Regulations." This is incorrect. I have not done so in my letter \* hich your correspondent refers to. No Warden has as yet carried out the present regulations; therefore, Sir, if your correspondent will peruse my letter, he will find that on this second subject he has gorged too much ; and if any Warden will come to Arthur's Point to carry- out the present regulatiots at the present time, and place a peg in the beach where his conscience tells him is near lowwater mark, he also will gorge too much, and share the fate so many have uufortunately shared during the recent disastrous floods.

Now, Sir, I have arrived at the third subject, i. e., '• attempting a defence for the late Warden for departiug from said regulations." A memorial was lately sent to town for the consideration of Government, in which our late Warden was spoken of in the following terms:— " That your memorialists feel satisfied that no Warden could be more energetic or persevering iu t!ie discharge of his duties than Mr. Wood," and so forth. This memorial was signed by near 300 miners on the Shotover. Another fact is, that at a public meeting of miners at Arthur's Point, a resolution to the following effect was carried unanimously:—" That this meeting desires to express its confidence in Mr. Wood as Warden," &c. Vide Wakatip Mail, 23rd May. Such, Sir, has been the expression of opinion, and I believe no Warden cf a goldfield has ever had a greater commendation bestowed him from the diggers than our late Warden, Mr. Wood. I have never presumed that Mr. Wocd was faultless ; but I have now shown, without leaving a doubt on the mind of any rational being, that not only myself, but the diggers almost universally, have publicly approved and commended the conduct of our late Warden.

Your correspondent, Sir, now drops off in his epistle by lionizing our Goldfields' Secretary as an "experienced Victorian." Does your correspondent mean experienced in villany ? This " Gorge" might tell the Old Identity that our Goldfields' Secretary is " all there ;" but he must be cautious how he spins such yarns to a Victorian. "Birds of a feather flock together." Your correspondent was in the company of Mr. Pyke at Arthur's Point; and then he writes, " whom I am glad to know was in our midst the other day." Diggers! will you lionize Mr. Pyke, who, when the lands of Victoria were at stake, sided with the squatters? Remember the Victorian Association, and your " experienced Victorian," who was notorious for tearing up Governors' addresses.

Now, Sir, your correspondent concludes by saying—" The regulations as they stand are, in my opinion, sufficiently intelligible." But, Sir, it is waste of time, and I would be sorry to trespass any further on your space, but trust you will be kind enough to favor me with the insertion of this reply, that the diggers and your readers may be able to judge for themselves between me and " Gorge," who lam acquainted with; and I trust that when he again troubles a public journal, he will not write what he may be ashamed to sign his proper name to. 1 am, Sir, yours, ftc, July 17,1863. Henry Chamberlain.

To the Editor of the Lake Wakatip Mail*

Sir,—l believe that it is not within the memory of the oldest gold-digger of these fields or any other country, to have seen men invested with powers unlimited as the Wardens of Otago are. I rather think that if the author of our present code of bye-laws could see the practical working of the same, he would stand aghast at seeing the manner in which they are eontorted and twisted about to serve the purposes of those who ought to be above prejudice. The present Goldfields' M.P.C.'s have pledged themselves to a revision of the present bye-laws, and verily there is nothing will give the miners more pleasure than to be once more accounted as belonging to the human family, or at least that they are entitled to some consideration from the privileged few.

A recent case at Tuapeka has led me to indite these few lines. The case is a simple one: A certain Warden thought proper to qualify his interference with a certain application to him for a stream of water out of his district, by legalising the application, instead of having nothing to do with it when he found it to be out of his jurisdiction. I, Sir, conceive that districts were defined and Wardens appointed for the same, for the due and proper carrying out ot the public business; and to prevent complications, the several Wardens should be only able to adjudicate in their own districts—for, if a Warden have the same power in another district as he has in his own, serious complications will surely arise, and a large amount of injustice will surely be done to those who will be least able to bear it. For, any person who wished to obtain any privilege to which he might expect many and strong objections, would certainly apply at that Couit and to that Warden who would be furthest off, thereby compelling those who wished to object to such privilege being granted, to go only at a great sacrifice to themselves of both time and money, or not object at all. The loose and vague manner in which the duties of the Wardens are defined—or rather not defined at all—have put into the hands of half-a-dozen men such a power as no other men in the whole world possess short of Dictators. Hoping this will find a place in your valuable columns, I remain, your obedient servant, Curiosio. Shotover River, July 14,1863.