THE Mount Ida Chronicle FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1874.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume V, Issue 259, 20 February 1874, Page 2

THE Mount Ida Chronicle FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1874.

In a previous article, attempting with the very scanty means of reference at our disposal to.throw a little light upon the very poorly understood subject of riparian rights, we concluded, on no slight evidence, that "the reservation of the river banks, if.uni"versally carried out, as it should " have been, would constitute the " Crown, for the people, sole riparian " proprietor." Since then we have seen a copy of the declaration calling upon Howe and party to show cause why they should not be mulct in the sum of £ ] 0,000 for the plaintiffs' loss in having to send their clip home in the grease, instead of in a washed state. Tracings of the blocks of land accompany the declaration, from which we see that the river only touches 'the separate-blocks at two corners, and one of these [joints of contact is stated to be a boundary consisting of the river Maerevvhenua and reserves, and the other is described as being the river Maerewhenua and Crown lands, the Crown lands being clearly shown —even written in—on the tracing between the river aide) the blocks in question. Jb'rom this we infer that the orthodox course of reserving to the Crown the river banks of the Maerewhenua has been complied with in due course. If this is so, our friends at Maerewhenua may take heart—for, supposing a right could be made out superior to their licensed right to pollute, it is clearly' not in the hands of freeholders on the river, but the Government who hold the river reserves. On this point there need be-no delicacy as to an expression of opinion, for it is a matter of technical evidence that the survey department's maps will at once make clear.

Although we conjectured as much, we were astonished at the small distance which is claimed as being the line of boundary on the river. The whole length of this river boundary and reserves is only one-twelfth of the whole— chains of river frontage , being alone claimed as river frontage, Crown lands, and reserves. Assuming, for a moment, that the right to a flow of water on its natural bed, in a natural state, were established as belonging to freeholders on that river—to what depth from the river would such right extend ? Clearly there must be a limit. "We believe that limit could not exceed the square of the. frontage. There is no reason in supposing that because a freeholder owns a section on. a river, and ■ ninety -nine other

sections farther ' back, that his river 'right would .extend to.the whole hundred sections. That is really what appears to.be claimed. A river right in the declaration is assumed to a certain determined' frontage, and, as a consequence of this right being injured, damages are claimed for injuries existing where the right in question could by no pretence be made to extend.- - '• -

. Our Oamaru contemporary has very, cordially approved of our efforts inlaying before the public" the real issues in this vexed question of river pollution., Our contemporary, agrees with us that the local characteristics of the case are nothing to'the general importance of the interests-involved. But,' having gone so far,, he appears to us astray in taking it for granted that this is a matter between the pastoral lessee and the miner. We regret this the more, for the expression received the endorsement (by-.-insertion ' without' comment) of the ' Dunedin-' Star,* ,; a paper of large influence and circula-; tion! There should be no mistake whatever'upon'this point. The pastoral lessee has no claim to any riparian rights of any extent or degree, neither has he asserted a claim to such—he is' only a lessee of the grass of, certain; Crown 'lands. As a lessee, the rights; of a freeholder are, of course, 'm the; hands of the landlord—the Crown. 1 On? this point, fortunately, there is no. dis-j pute between the pastoral tenants and! the miners. Every owner of- a /ten-; '' acre section could claim rights as ex-:" tensive and dictatorial -as "'the * law* courts may adjudge' to ■- belong to' Messrs. Borton and M'Master, theowners of certainfreebolds on the river;! Maerewhenua since 1867, or"to ; ,the|, Crown; for'we have never attempted I' to show, that no rights pertain to free-' holders on river frontages, but that such 1 ' rights have alwaysbeenover-ridden by; legislation when the"public-necessity' so demanded.

. Recognising the delays, the uncertainty, and the expense of the law, we are of .opinion' that.'the first step ,the Central Miners' Association should take on assembling, should be to bring every pressure available to bear on _the Provincial Government to take upon itself the onus of obtaining the opinion of the law courts. ■* Messrs. Borton and M'Master only want an acknowledgment of what they consider—prompted, , no doubt by good advice—their rights. The miners only want protection-in the carrying out of work they are licensed (under delegated powers) to d©. Why should the Grovernment force* these different interests into conflict, leading to bitter rivalry and hatred, instead of a commingling of interests for the general good. Can anything be more cowardly—more un'statesmanlike '■?"■ 'What difficulty can possibly exist in submitting a case to ■ the' Supreme ' Court Judges, drawn up and'argued by three lawyers of for the Government, one for the,'freeholder, and one fo" the goldmirieri ' A decision thus obtained would,'at any rate by stating the law, .'make apparent its necessary safeguards for the' rights' of property, and show what paths ral and legislation 'might follow. Erom whatwe-havesaid.it will be seen that our contemporary, in presuming that compensation to, the runholder, or pastoral tenant," might be a final road out of the difficulty, - has been following a. misconception of the case in dispute. To talk of compensating every freeholder holding his freehold near a river or stream poll luted by the gold workings is merely to mention what is impossible:, We need only refer to the Molyneux/the Taieri, and the Manuherikia,, without going further or tabulating minor rivers or streams. ' Let us' know the law, is the demand of all'sides. 'Why cannot the Grovernment obtain from the paid law authorities of the Crown this information of fact, without forcing great interests into a conflict that, once thoroughly entered upon—cannot cease with the question of river .pollution ?

In the face of a general election, to take place at the close of the ensuing session of the House of Representatives, it is well that all those who do not choose to be "nullities in the State should qualify themselves, by registration, to Tote. At the last election many found that their neglect to so qualify incapacitated them from Vuting—for the miners' rights, through informality of renewal,, were often not sufficient. It is quite possible that next session the : right of vote,attaching to a miner's right and business license will be done away with, although it is by no moans sure that manhood suffrage, pure and simple, will be allowed;in its place. If not, several hundreds of voters might find themselves disfranchised on the eve of an election, the results of which will tend to the making or marrin» of the Goldfields, simply through their neglect to hand in their names on the recognised forms before the 3lst of March next. Forms will be kept at Mr. Busch'p, "Naseby, and at our office, for the convenience of those intending to register. Borne will also, no doubt, lie forwarded to the police stations at the out districts.