The Lake Wakatip Mail. Queenstown, Saturday, July 2, 1864.

Lake Wakatip Mail, Issue 123, 2 July 1864, Page 2

The Lake Wakatip Mail. Queenstown, Saturday, July 2, 1864.

Before proceeding to examine into the subjects that, in the interests of the goldfields should be brought under the consideration of his Excellency and the Assembly, it is necessary to look into the action produced under the present form of Government, and ascertain whether, in advocating a reform in the management applied to the goldfields, the Provincial Council system is not also attacked. The question then for the goldfields —or, at least this, the largest, richest, and most permanent portion of them—to consider is, how arises the mismanagement of this goldfield ? Secondly, what has been the action of the Council to the gold-producing interest; and lastly, are Provincial Councils longer necessary ? In narrowing this question to the basis of a goldfield point of view only, we are certainly justified, inasmuch as the Council has refused on various pleas to give the goldfields any further voice in the management of their affairs. If the goldfields are to remain a subject of class legislation, it cannot be expected that any opinion emanating from them should be elevated to a higher standard, and though we are at all times prepared to urge a broad and general policy, we are compelled in this discussion to reduce ourselves somewhat to the standard established by our politicians for our guidance. We are not, however, alluding to the present Ministry. The mismanagement of this goldfield arises from several causes—the principal and chief of which are, that to a very late date, the management of the goldfields collectively was entrusted to so many different heads of department, that those portions which chose to abandon their position and sue lowly and meekly for their-rights, obtained the lion's share of the expenditure. This debasing policy was strongly appreciated at head quarters, and though a temporary advantage is gained, we doubt whether those portions of the goldfields who obtained their wants will, in the end, profit when the expenditure comes to be examined into and equalised. Again the position of the Wakatip —its near proximity to the Province of Southland, which had lately successfully separated itself from Otago after a severe struggle, and the jealousy of that province reaping any advantage from us, has done and is still active in causing this district to be treated with neglectful attention. Superadded to these primary effects, was the irresponsibility of the parties managing the goldfields and the desire to promote solely Dunedin interests. The Wakatip was ignored—one of its wardens at a critical time was withdrawn to swell into a fictitious importance the West Taieri rush ; and the goldfields and the Province have suffered a shock and disgust from

this Hindon swindle, that they have never since recovered from. There was no inducement thus offered to the miners to return to interior goldfields in the Province, especially this one —already laboring under frightful disadvantages as regards official neglect. The example of recklessness on the part of the Government, and cupidity on that of Dunedin, was indeed a warning beacon, and this district has never forgotten the blow so artfully aimed at it. The warden taken from us to lend color to the swindle, was a gentleman whose name was all-powerful with the miners. We cannot think Mr Williamson knowingly lent himself to injure the district in which he had been taken from.. Foul treachery, both to the miners and others was acted, but we believe more designing men sat behind the scenes and pulled the strings. However, we were deeply injured, and to this day no one can inform us who is responsible for all this. Beyond these primary reasons for the neglect of this goldfield are a hundred examples of how well this policy has been carried out; the whole of our columns would not suffice to catalogue them. We have shown, however, the cause of mismanagement, and let it be noted that the Provincial Council takes no action in any of these matters.

This brings us to the second consideration. What has been the action of the Council to the gold-producing interest: We could dismiss the subject so far as we are concerned by saying, "nil." It has contented itself with crises and personal squabbles. It never took one question appertaining to the goldfields into serious consideration, beyond the two we are about to name, viz , the increase of representation and a responsible mining minister which were rejected each time they were brought before the House. The former question was mooted several times, but always refused. Queenstown, fully entitled to a member, had her claims refused. It would be unjust not to say that one of the trio of goldfields representatives —the member for the Dunstan—led to some extent to this result through the action he considered himself entitled to take. Those views were not curr.: nt here ; hence the system of returning members for the goldfields required either amendment or an increase of members granted; this, the Council in both instances refused. It persisted in determining in a small Province that the goldfields should be kept and treated as a class interest. This is chiefly what it decided, and we strongly protest against an action opposed to all correct principles. The goldfields have as much right to demand that the squatters should be made a class interest also; and their wool, like the diggers' gold, pay a tax. Both are exported from the Province, neither are directly used in it. It passed a number of votes also, and while thousands were appropriated for jother goldfields, not a tithe was voted for this district. The action of the Council therefore has been narrow, partial, and retrogressive. A review of its proceedings will convince anyone that it is altogether indifferent to portions of the goldfields, and in its action absolutely injurious to them; and consequently to the colony at large.

We think we have now shown that the Council has not seriously attempted to remedy the mismanagement engendered by irresponsible officers; that it has not exhibited breadth and grasp enough to grapple with the requirements of the goldfields; that in its Provincial capacity it has voted supplies chiefly to those near to the capital; that throughout, great ignorance and apathy rules in regard to the gold interest. From a goldfields point of view, we unhesitatingly say that the Provincial Council's system i faulty, vexatious, and unsuited for the present progressive period, and that the less they have power to interfere with the goldfields the better for that interest. If the system is to be continued we hope the General Government will reserve control of the goldfields, make them a separate power rather than a class interest in the Council, establish a de-

partment on them and expend the revenue derived from them upon them—less the cost of management; but whatever change may take place it is to be hoped this district will not be permitted to be treated in the manner it has hitherto been. We shall hereafter discuss the other points laid down in our last article.

R. M. COURT, QUEENSTOWN.

(Before Richmond Beetham, Esq., R.M.)

June 29, 1864

Breaches of the Licensing Ordinance. —Thomas Brookes, landlord of the Wakatip Hotel, was charged with having no light in his lamp on the previous Saturday night at 11.30 p.m. The case was at first dismissed, but after hearing another case the Bench decided upon inflicting a nominal fine of Is., and 9s costs of Court. James McCormick was charged with having no lamp over his door, the Bridge Hotel. The defendant pleaded ignorance of the Act, and that since he had been warned he had got one. Fined Is. and 9s. costs. William Ford, of the Provincial Hotel, did not appear when called upon, and constable Murtagh proved the absence of any door lamp. Fined 20s and 9s costs. Elias Coutanche, of the Edinburgh Castle Hotel, was charged with having no light in his lamp on Saturday night. Defendant pleaded that when he went to bed the lamp was burning, and that he thought it must have been blown out afterwards, and that he had ordered a lamp costing £l4. In reply to questions from the Bench, constable Murtagh said there was a hole in the lamp, which was lit at an earlier part of the night. Case dismissed.

A. S. George, Star Hotel; M'Beath, of M'Beath's Family Hotel; Hugh W. Bracken, Queen's Arms Hotel; P. A. Jones, British Lion Hotel, were severally summoned for the same offence and after offering various excuses, were fined each in the sum of Is and 9s costs.

Simon Barrett, Golden Age Hotel, who did not appear, was fined 20s. and costs. The charge against Geo. Willis of the Royal Hotel, was dismissed, as the license was not in his name; and, to all purposes, the house had no right to be open. Mr Beetham called the attention of those present to the terms contained in the licenses which they held, and to which they must act up. For the future he should be compelled to notice any breach of the license brought before him. In the matter of William Ford, he was ordered to reside upon the premises, or transfer the license; and Mr Sheridan, inspector of licenses, was requested to report upon the license held by Mr Gibson for the Royal Hotel, Mr Beetham remarking that the present system of trafficking with licenses was perfectly ridiculous, and that if the party named in the licence did not live on the premises, the Court could not in any way recognise it as an hotel, and the police could take what action they liked in the matter. July 1.

Breaches of the Town and Country Police Act.—Mr G. Bullen was summoned by Constable Mulloy with obstructing the footpath in front of his store in Rees-street, the same being contrary to the 13th section of the Town and Country Police Ordinance. The constable deposed that about three o'clock on the 28th inst, he observed two or three cases and a truck on the footpath. There had been several complaints made to him on the subject. Had seen the truck there at night. By defendant—l have seen cases outside before that date. I complained to you two or three days before I summoned you. Mr Bullen, in defence, said that the cases in question were only landed that morning, and were left while the young men were at dinner. Constable Mulloy complained about two o'clock. Told him the reason, and as soon as the men returned they were taken up to the other store. The truck was used to take up the goods. His purchased ground extended out on the footpath, but could not say exactly how far. Mulloy—l generally see cases out there. His Worship read the section of the Ordinance relating to the subject, and strongly deprecated the practice of blocking up the street with goods. The pathway was for public convenience, and he had often heard complaints on the subject. It besides blinded other places of business, and was in fact a sort of monopoly. Mr Bullen—l will swear that nothing was said to me before by the constahle. I suppose storekeepers are allowed to unpack cases in the street.

His Worship—So long as they do not interfere with the public convenience. Mulloy—l don't know if anyone else was there when I spoke to Mr Bullen, but he said others had cases outside their doors. Mr Bullen—That was on Wednesday, the day I was summoned. Mr Percy—l believe, your Worship, it is not necessary that the constable should gave any warning. Mr Bullen was summoned once before.

Mr Bullen—That was for exposing goods for sale—quite different from the present charge. The truck, too, does not belong to me, and is generally in front of Cassius's store.

His Worship said ha did not care who it

belonged to. This exposure of cases outside stores was becoming a perfect nuisance. He should fine defendant 10s and costs. J. Hallenstein was summoned for the same offence. He stated in defence that on the day in question he had been sending out large orders, as he could prove by his delivery book, and therefore he could not help having goods outside his store, as well as the truck. He had also purchased ground in front of his premises. The constable stated that the truck was sometimes left out at night. His Worship said that until the ground in front was railed in, it was to all intents and purposes a public footpath, and the must not put goods on it. Fined 10s. J. Gibson and Co., for the same offence was mulcted in a similar penalty. James M'Beath was similarly charged with having two cases obstructing the public way. Constable Mulloy, Inspector of Nuisances, proved that on the 28th June several cases were lying about, and that he had cautioned the defendant on previous occasions. Cross-examined by defendant—Did not take down the dates upon which the cautions were given. It might be a month ago when a caution was given. It might be to your storeman. Cautioned you several times since. Mr M'Beath urged in extenuation of his offence that the two cases had only arrived on that day, which happened to be a particularly busy one with him, and that he had been unable to unpack them and take them in so quickly as usual. Mr Beetham—You have a right to take your goods into your store, and not leave them ou+side.

Mr M'Beath —They were on my ground, which is a foot beyond my store. Mr Beetham—You have no right to have goods outside for sale, if you have not your ground fenced in; the ordinance is very stringent on the subject. It becomes a nuisance to the town. It is not these two cases that creates a difficulty, but first one puts out a case a little way, then another storekeeper goes a little further next day, and then they creep out over the footpath into the public roads. It may seem an extremely hard and harsh thing to inflict a penalty, and it was no benefit to him to do so, but the people in the town complained, and the law must be carried out and a rule laid down.

Mr M'Beath—lt is a very hard case. Mr Beetham—l cannot really see it. It is the abuse that is complained of, not a slight encroachment, but when the footpath becomes blocked up, other parties complain that they cannot go through, and that the things hanging about were con stantly knocking them. As a matter of individual comfort it was nothing to him, but he must put down the system of unnecessarily exposing goods; but as this information related only to two cases of goods, and some doubts existed about the time they were there, he should dismiss the case.

John Angus was charged on the same date with having a quantity of cases, barrels, &c, outside his door.

Mr Sub-Inspector Percy said this was a second offence, and that Mr Angus kept the worst place outside of his store of all, and that frequently whole dray loads were deposited in front of the store. The Inspector of Nuisances deposed to the nature of the charge, and in cross-examina-tion admitted he could not say whether the bags contained potatoes or onions, but repeated that the passage under the verandah was blocked up. In defence, it was urged that the purchased ground was not fully occupied, and that on the particular date in question no nuisance existed.

The Bench repeated their remarks and inflicted a cautionary fine of 10s and costs. J. C. Brown and Co. were charged with having a case lying in the street. The Inspector deposed to its lying there for several hours, and also having cautioned the storeman, and in cross-examination further deposed that he called the attention of the defendants to the filthy state of their premises, caused by packhorses, but could not give the dates upon which the cautions were given. The defence was that the things were upon purchased ground, and that naturally it had been used. From the decision in previous cases he (Mr Pritchard) had, of course, been misled. He was not aware that he could have nailed up a batten and enclosed this ground, and he was sure the constable had never given him any warning. The magistrate at Tuapeka had dismissed a case in which Mr Brown had been summoned for having a horse tied up, when it was found that the ground was private property. The case in question was not his, and he had given permission to some people at Arthur's Point to unload it there, and he thought the party who left the case was the right one to fine, and especially as he had no notice. Mr Beetham said that under the circumstances he should dismiss the case.

Mr Chesswas pleaded guilty to a similar

charge, but urged in extenuation the want of room at the back of his premises. Fined 10s.

Mr Beetham said, as this was the last case, he wished t» know why other nuisances had not been summoned. Several complaints had been made against Mr Webster, who kept an iron stretcher outside his doors, and against which people had stumbled. Constable Mulloy said he had forgotten it, but had some more summonses to get out.

Mr Beetham—Let the information be laid at once.