EXAMINER ON OLD TUSSOCK.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume II, Issue 66, 6 May 1870, Page 3

EXAMINER ON OLD TUSSOCK.

(To the Editor of'the Mottktlda Chronicle.)

Sib,—Permit me to examine " Old' Tussock's" reply to "Examiners" note of 22nd April. I pass iris opening compliments and self-in vented motives attributed to "Examiner," and note his admission that the complaints—viz.,- M'Aulay v. Harper and Party, and Harper and Party v. Extended Company—are alike. (If the, complaints are the same, the cause of complaint must be the same.) Also, " Tussock," it would seem, is told that the, circumstances are different. It seems he is not in a proper place to observe, or he would know that the circumstances and purposes of both dams are identical—viz, to confine the water to the face of each party's workings. The formation of each dam was identical, and the verdict was for M'Aulay, with expenses added, and also an order to remove the obstruction. The dam was then placed on an angle from M'Aulay's box to the face of Harper and Co.'s workings; and although the Warden admitted that this alteration had lowered the guily from the time he saw it previously, yet a verdict was again given for M'Aulay, with an order to remove the obstruction..- , ;.;•/.';

This time, it is Harper and Company against the Extended Company, for placing a dam across the Main Gully, and blocking the tailings upon Harper and. .Co.'s bye-wash, which projects their race. ..Verdict, given for defendants, and a suggestion to place on a better angle the dam complained of. The complaints are the same in substance, and the circumstances identically similar —viz,, to bring the water into the face of each of their workings. The formation and angles of both dams were identically the same, but the verdicts were diametrically opposed to each other. There is one slight difference in the two cases, however: Harper and Party's dain was upon their claim when the Extended Company's dam was not pn their claim.—they having only marked it out on the 3rd January; but it is a notedfocfc that

they have not worked upon it up to the present date, as they have been working outside of their pegs since they marked it off. This is a material difference, which entirely overthrows " Tussock's " statement, where he says that they are backing tailings only on to their own claim, to the injury of no one but themselves.

"Tussock," in hia next paragraph, states that the rights acquired under miners'rights are rights for which, in case of any interference therewith, there should, and must be a le»al remedy. Would "Tussock" °plea.se show George Martin his legal remedy, now that his sluicing operations are virtually stopped—and many others with him—by the late decision of the Warden ? - -

Again, Sir, " Tussock " seems to be a quack without a diploma, from the implicit confidence he seems to place in the infallible decisions of the Warden's Court, (which to him seem like the laws of the Medes and Persians, wlm-h aliereth not), when supported by a'bank of old and young "Tussocks" at the end of Koaeh's Gully; but, if they are removed, the cause of complaint, with the decision, will pass away-as quickly as the tail water and tailings can run in Dead Level No. 1, which has backed them.

Again, Sir, " Old Tussock's" glasses must have a multiplying quality, or otherwise they must" have thrown a shade on the opposite side of the gully, which, no doubt, "Tussock" mistook for the dam bank placed across the bottom of Eoach's Gullv.

Sir, ' ; Tussock" states that whether a bank was two or eighteen feet higli would not make the slightest difference with regard to the flow of tailings. This is surely some of his arithinotie, and a late production of the nineteenth century. To place a bank two feet high across an incline of six inches to the twelve feet, and then to state that this bank will back the. tailings as high and as far up the incline as a bank eighteen feet high is simply absurd, but quite in keeping with the whole of " Tussock's " wild and untruthful statements. .. •

As to the natural causes of tailings backing which "Tussock " is trying to explain, he had- better go and get-a lesson from some practical sluicer ;on the subject. - . As to the one word with " Examiner" by "Tussock," the Government have granted rights to one party, and sold a right to another. If these rights clash with one another, the Government is responsible, and must in honor find a remedy; .but, if the complaint arises from artificial causes, or inventions of miners, then such obstructions ought to be removed by the transgressor. Let the right horse carry the saddle. It is patent that " Tussock " is not a native of -the Hogburn, otherwise he would know more of the injury old and young tussocks have done, and are doing. A.nd now, Sir, I shall dismiss the subject with a recommendation to the miners interested in the present movement to put their shoulders jointly to the wheel, and bring their grievances fairly, and firmly before the Government, and they will be sure to find redress ; and the right to mine under your miner's upon Crown land, without let or hindrance, be recognised. At present appearances denote a flood from the mining quarter which Jwill likely sweep old and new " Tussock " out of all the gullies on the Hogburn. Serve them right. " Tussock " charges Nil Desperandum Company with being litigious and quarrelsome. He is at fault here also as to his knowledge of the matter. The quarrel commenced by Warden Broad refusing to grant their application for a.tail .race. He stated to one of the Dead Level Company ISTo. 1 that he would never grant it so long as he was on the Hogburn ; but, thanks to higher powers, after twelve months' fighting he was compelled to grant it; and.more, what is not on another grant on the Hogburn, it is twice signed. Hence the quarrel which continues up to the present day; the" on us of being quarrelsome falling on the opposers.—l am, &c, Examinee;