THE Mount Ida Chronicle FRIDAY, JANUARY 30, 1874.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume IV, Issue 256, 30 January 1874, Page 2

THE Mount Ida Chronicle FRIDAY, JANUARY 30, 1874.

The proclamation of a district as being within a Goldficld, or as an independent Gohlfield itself—the granting of miners' rights, water races; tail races, special claims, &c.—the necessity, in applications for head races, tail races, and public, channels, that, prior to consideration by the" Warden's Court, the line of such race or channel should l>e indicated : if anything can do it, all. these'conditions legalise those fulfilling them to mine for gold within that district. '! hen,'is it possible that such mining can be an offence'in civil law—an offence for which- a'.miner or a party of miners can be dragged, from their employment, harassed with threats and a dread of, the .unknown liability suppositiously attaching to them, and sued for very heavy damages v Such a thrag is clearly possible only on one hypothetical'conjecture.: that the' Government or power instituiing the Warden's Court, the' Goldiields Act and the "Wegulationa, have let or otherwise disposed of. one right to two parties. -Of course,, ; in such case, the first possessor may vevv- well turn round.upon the second, should he be interfered with by the latter in undisturbed possession. ■ But is, No., 2, who so unwittingly has come'in to conflict with N0'.,.1," to,bear the brunt of the battle ? Clearly not; but the power.or Government who made the •blunder—who have actually received ■considera.tion-for letting.the same right to two parties, perhaps in the one case by actual sale, and in the'other by license'or lease: , $o much t Xor supposition. Le„t' us now turn to.reality. The freeholders at Maerewhenua asse'rt'that'they purchased from, the Government certain including a right to all the water in the river to be allowed to flow by or through their property in its natural state. '.The on the .contrary,'have .to show their licenses from the Government- to use for mining purposes certain streams, all being feeders of the Macro »vher.ua River, and also licenses to cut and construct tail raeos for the conveyance of sludge and tailings. water; these licenses being backed up by miners' rights—direct permits tb'mine;' subject to the'conditions'of the Gbldfield's Act, the .Regulation's, and the decisions of the Warden in chnrge v pf the, district the holders may happen to be mining in. Assuming the .freeholders'assertion is'as-' valid as,the goldminers'—and this, of course, is solely amacier for legal investigation—we have • exactly 'this suppositious case we started "with.' Are, then, the.miners, duly licensed by the Crown, to be dragged from their work' —which would, in many cases, involve, forfeiture of their races and- claims for non-usage—and made to,defend a case as to wh.ether'the Government had let' or disposed of one right'to : two differ-' ent parties and interests— extracting an equivalent, in the shape of premium or'license fee, from each for the same thing. It is very clearly the place of 'the Government to 'defend its own acts',*and.it would have been more cre--ditablp have;taken action -in the case to have at once attacked the-Government instead of the miners, who might, it was probably judged, be bounced intocompromise, which would have been virtually a giving up of the right they held' by special license from the Crown. Failing this absolute duty being undertaken by the Government, the Goldtields, as a community, must not allow one narty to be ruined in fighting a general battle.; but,, on behalf of the Goldiiolds residents; ;.we do protest against the costs of a-Heavy and indefinitely prolractedlaw dispute ..being thrown upon-them—a law ease not, to. vindicate their rights, but the wisdom and policy of the Government in,developing and populating the Goldfields of the' Colony. One other rea-son-we-wish,shortly to adduce why the Crown should-defend this case now pending in the.Supreme Court, or. else pursue some alternative course to relieve the present defendants from further difficulty. Shortly, it is this : If a policeman observes a parcel of boys committing a breach of. the peace by throwing stones at windows, robbing orchards,-,or the,like—if he does his duty—ho takes up for the offence, not the small boy who has not wind to run away, but the-leaders. ..Or, should he not do so—should he, from shortness of wind himself,, owing to savory morsels picked up confusedly from behind area railings, seize tho small victim, the bigger boys would, if of the right sort, relieve their small comrade'by actual rescue, or by making absolute 'confession, a t IVTaerewhenua we have this curious feature: One party aremining in a steady and persevering' way-on a very small scale, with a capi" tal of a few hundred pounds, and co'nsequ;eu'*ly polluting, or helping to pollute a' river. At Queenstown, we have a .company, formed at an expense 'of £30,000 or more, doing the same thing with regard to another river. a 1 Mount Tela, other parts at the

.V.es, oastV afidinoiip. other district nrfher North, "wo have the Governnent devoting £200,000 to do exactly ■he same thing. The offenders in these ast cases have, however,- lony legs to jnable them to evade attack ; but our <mnll boy at Maerewhenua has not—he,is pounced upon and held as security tilt the Government, who hasled him into, mischief, is bold enough to fome forward and take the onus upon itself. It is fund.: "Un on. Kight it " out even to" the Appeal Court, and a " good cairs will lie for compensation." Poor work that. A-dangerous game to depend upon is suing for compensation. It would be more manly to let the burden of "battle rest on the right shouldeis—shoulders 'that have the means and the brains at command to asserf the law'as it is, and to remedy it if found defective; .It is said that,this case is siob judice, and ".therefore ib.is unbecoming to speak of it—to write of it. A very convenient plea for ignorance and the evasion of'the difficulty of conflicting rights such an assertion is. We do not so regard i't. If the plaintiffs have the law on their well and" good ; only we have a right to assert that such Jaw is most defective. Tor our own part, we do not intend to suffer a deserving party* of miners to be ruined in legal expenses —possibly to be partially refunded to theui hereafter as dole—as privilege and great favor—while we have the ■ means at command to publish the disgraceful conduct on the part -of any Government that would allow it. We prefer to run the risk of offending in' etiquette, in'good taste, and in any other way offence ihay' v possibly' be taken'by those -who are only too glad to see-imaginary motes in their neighbors' eyes. 'ln the case, however,'in discussion—the matter of.'prineiple to who is the real defendant—there is' no such risk. - A legal point, it is ad*-, mitted, is raised for the sollution of the' law courts: The Government, not the goldmiuer, is clearly the'defender-of; its own acts. • ■ ' . - .