Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

THE Mount Ida Chronicle FRIDAY, JANUARY 16, 1874.

We need make no apology for :again reverting to the,claim set.up by Messrs "Bortou and M'Master, to stop"the gold-mining at Maerewbenua. during their pleasure, on the ground that they are riparian proprietors below. ..According to English law, if a property is bounded by a river, lhe 'owner; of ,th'at ' property;isi the; assumed'owner of half of'tHe.river bedj and'if l he-is owner of ; bothb'anks, ( of the wholeofthe river bed," with "a right" to" the " use"of the water'flowing over- the" half or whole,' as the case-.may be, of tliat bed, and-to the fish—so far as he can catch them—in it. it This,- however, applies;-only,to rivers that are not?navigable—for navigable rivers appear from very ancient times tohave been vested in the king for the public. Sir JVlathew Hale states that public rivers for the coin--mon passage of vessels, whether large or small, highways by water/' " and as much under the control of the ".King.as the common highways on the' " land "—" and as the highways by " land are called altce vice regicd, M so "these public rivers;"for passage are " called jluvii regales an&haut streams " le roi, not ; in reference to the -pro- " perty of the river, but to the public " use—all things of safety aud " convenience being, in a special man- " ner, underthe king's caro, supervi- t " sion 1 , and protection—and therefore " the report of' Sir John Davis mistytakes ithe, reasop/of - those books that " call these streams le roi, as -if they ">w ( ere .called so J a. respect of-proprie-",tary, for .they were called so because ".they are of public, use, and under the ■" special , care. and protection, of< the " king, whether the' soil be his or not." This reserved right wherever the public use' was concerned, we look upon" as shoeing the spirit of the whole law. We seejthajb the public convenience over-came any riparian rights, otherwise in existence, of individual owners. ' Tn old timestherewerenoimportant public requirements, necessary to ,be considered'in allowing proprietors along the banks'of shallow and isolated .rivers from sharing joint rights as equably as possible. Then, again, we find that all these rights and disputed rights have arisen in connection with the rvalue of certain- fisheries—principalJy in salmon, rivers'—and that-the Knglish Parliament. has not -scrupled to repeatedly pass—indeed,'nearly every year—Acts alternately upsetting, re - establishing, and in all ..cases interfering with the rights ofripnrian owners. In lfc-61, •when • thes English; Salmim Fiaheries Act wast pawned—we think, repealing all previous legislation on the question —a writer in the'' Edinburgh Kovicw' states " that fchrt legislature acted in a pereraplnlry way. with tlio owneris of " fiahmg-weirs—that is to sivy, -thoso " fixed structures that were Med ex- " cluHively for atopping.and catching flsh. It ordered a gap one-tenth of " tim width of the river to be made in at the owner's; ox-

" pense',>-without* any compensation, " however ancient'tlie weir. This was " all but ruin'and confiscation; Bat "it was done, and cannot'be undone. " The aame thing, was done, ia Ireland. " but .not,in Scotland." Ofcourse the owners of tiiese weirs had merely built theci o,wn 50i1,,, and did not impede or'divert a but' Hhe' le^islature>con«4ened inj ureH '■ the public, and therefore, wisely- or not, abolished'their The Sal moiv Fisheries Act of 1861 is of importance as being the first we hear of river pollution. In the good old times .of King John manufactories did not exist, nor was. drainage of to wns, houses, or fields considered necessary, nor even dreamt of. In the nineteenth, century,' how-ever,'.-the genius, of Watt and Stephenson, followed by the discoveries of-,the chemists, called into, being an-immense amount of" dormant energy and brain power, very soon to act on the rivers by the introduction of poisonous - matter. This Act accordingly-dealt with river poisoning or pollution—providing against the. introduction of lime_ and other poisonous matter. But these provisions were merely introduced to protect the salmon fisheries-—an-industry; we need hardly say, of- iin.mense importance to. Great Britain'and Ireland. The provisions under this Act—ere ated in 18GJ^'for.a' special purpose—if they could be construed to apply to the discoloration by tailings from gold- , workings iiv New [Zealand; must not be confounded with the old riparian rights mentioned iii Magna Cliarfca! The writer in the-'Edinburgh .Review' we have above quoted . from, . writing in January, 1878, savs poll u1 ion of ri-, " vers is undergoing a separate solu- " tion," —speaking of the question as be in so late as -1 as t year was ;■ not legally preventible. Clearly, it" is as easy for the legislature to legalise river pollution for definite public pur,poses as .to legislate against such pol-, lution if the public interest lay in that /direction. ' There can be noquesti'oivhere on which, side the public'interest lies when, ah attempt is made which, if suc- f cessful, would effectually stop goldmiuing altogether. „.JWe 'overlook the' doubtful, question of Messrs. Borton and M'Masterbeingthe owners of these ancient riparian one merely of legal evidence. The reservation of the river banks, universally^carried„out as it should have been, would constitute the Orown for; t)ie people sole riparian .proprietor. _ Admitting that the sheep farmers can'show they have sustained injury through a presumptive difference in value of their wool, we maintain that the,-'jndirect advantages, they have received through, the i increase of the value of their land, and their whole general,, prosperity, have i been brought about by- the success of i the New Zealand -Goldfields;-. We very I much doubt whether, independent of those Groldfielcls, facilities would have existed for the despatch of their produce to Europeat other thin most spasi, modic intervals,-making it quite a mat- I ter of uncertainty- whether it got Home i in time for. the wool .sales or notr —it" I not, incurring a l'oss,o'f interest for'a J year.'on the .whole 'clip.' " : "So 'greatly have'these'inairect' advantages' predo-' .minated over the "at'ttfal" loss to the' freeholders from any .pollution of the rivers'tliat'has "taken place; that' J there J can be' no objection'from a moral'pointro'f view*in legalising- river- pollution for gold-mining purposes, while the desirability of such legislation on the grounds'of'public necd J and expediency is patent to all: ■■ ■ »-v .v.w/w :

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MIC18740116.2.5

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume IV, Issue 254, 16 January 1874, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,006

THE Mount Ida Chronicle FRIDAY, JANUARY 16, 1874. Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume IV, Issue 254, 16 January 1874, Page 2

THE Mount Ida Chronicle FRIDAY, JANUARY 16, 1874. Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume IV, Issue 254, 16 January 1874, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert