THE Mount Ida Chronicle FRIDAY, JUNE 27, 1873.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume IV, Issue 225, 27 June 1873, Page 4

THE Mount Ida Chronicle FRIDAY, JUNE 27, 1873.

Clause 37 of the proposed (xoldfields Bill says " It shall be lawful for the " Governor . . to cause to be " issued to any person aipp]ying for the " same, a license to construct and use " water races through anclupon Crown " lands and private lands,'and to take, " divert., and use water - . % . . for " the purpose of mining for gold," :&c. There is no mention made in this

"clause, or in the succeeding ones, of a miner's right ' being essential; but, looking further on, to the penalty clauses, we findthat clause 207 says that any person not being the holder of a miner's right , .. ...... who. shall mine for gold . . •. shall be liable to a fine of not more than five pounds for the first offence and not more than ten pounds, with imprisonment, for a second, so that a miner's right even her 9 seems the first element of title, for without it the work done, being ■peaal, .could not stand good in law as personal property. : The Act goes on then to define how applications for race , construction : through or over Crown or private lands are to be lodged and notified. Then comes a blunder: The sub-section with regard to notices of objection reads'thus—" Any owner, " lessee, and occupier of any private " land through or over which any race. "shall be constructed, and any person " whose interests may be affected " by the construction or use of any " water race, or the diversion of any " water under , the authority of/this " Act, m'ay . > . .... , serve upon such " Eegistrar a'notice. of objection." So that .the party must wait' till the race is constructed before he objects,' the j words being, " through or over" which " any race shall be constructed." This is,' or course, a blunder, and is-only one, we are afraid, of a great many' similar stupid errors of. phraseology which would be awkward in a court of law. One clause is worth noting, as differing froui the present law, and that reads thus " The construction of a water race shall be commenced within two " calendar months from the issue of " the license authorising the same, and " the holder of such license shall con- ," tinue cutting and farming the same " with reasonable diligence until the " work is .completed." . We do not like the expression reasonable diligence. It is very vague, and. no two Wardens would agree as to its interpretation—whether it should apply to the individual license holder, or to the labor he. jmight be presumed to put on theStq'ik. . Still, it is probably an improvement, on the wording ,of the present Act. Wiy-V / :-v': facilities are offered to parties desiring to obtain security, foran tion or extension. The applicants for*! such are relieved from the necessity of j obtaining new licenses, it .being sufficient to post the; notices and make plication in the ordinary vvay, and have the alteration or if granted, endorsed on the original license. To applicants from endeavoring to monopolise more water than their races will carry, a clause is introduced declaring that the number of heads over and above what the race is actually capable, of carrying shall be liable;-for forfeiture. Power is reserved to the Governor to at any .time revoke any water license, and to cause such water to be i returned to its natural channel, if it is required fo fide settlers or for public use—the holder of such fori feited license to be entitled to compensation to be determined by arbitration, and such compensation shall be paid I by the Governor out of the revenue of rthe gold-mining district within which the race is situate. This last condition is most unjust. Take a case. Suppose that one of the projected races from the Kakanui to the I Maerewhenua was completed, and then cancelled by the Governor on the pretext thai the settlers at Kakanui required the water, then the compensation, some £IO,OOO or more, would, under the Act as proposed, have to be i raised from the revenue of the Maerewhenua Goldfield. . The idea is palpably absurd—-the emanation from the brain of a dreamy theorist—but yet that, if not protested against vigorously, may very likely become law. How absurd too, for these races are the creators of revenue ; so, if they are stopped, where is the revenue to come from r" - While we- can see much in the few clauses devoted to race construction to fear and find fault with, the sins of omission are more palpable still. There is no provision; for the diversion of water fro in one watershed to another, nor do we detect anything to legalise the pollution of. streams and rivers, though. some such provision may be

stowed away in some, nook or cranny of the Bill that we have not as yet come upon, and we have no synopsis ; of contents to help us. We hardly know whether the proposition ta place water race property on the same footing as land with regard to chattel interest and mortgaging, assigning, or transmitting will be of any practical benefit or not. With regard to cutting on and carrying races through pri-. vate lands, the Act gives every facility. The constructor must show, however, that such a course is the only practicable one, or, in default of such evidence, must produce the owner's consent. The penalty clause is a little at variance with this. It says somewhat positively, " Any person who shall " knowingly mine, or employ any per- " son to mine for gold on any land be- " longing to a private individual withdut the consent of the owner " shall be subject to the penalties as " mentioned above " for mining without a miner's right)—and .mining for t gold has a very wide meaning under the interpretation clauses. The more we look into the Act the more we are convinced of the necessity for our experienced men to look into it for themselves. It certainly appears to us in many thing 3 Quixotic and unpractical; still; it may be made the foundation of a very successful measure.