THE Thames Guardian AND MINING RECORD. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1871.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 26, 6 November 1871, Page 2

THE Thames Guardian AND MINING RECORD. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1871.

The debates on the Gold-duty in the General-Assembly, during the present session, have been significant. Mr. O’Neill first moved the reduction of the duty on gold to Is. an ounce. This motion was lost, as was another proposal by Mr. Mac Andrew, the Superintendent of Otago, that it be reduced by (id. per ounce per annum. Subsequently Mr. Collins, one of the Nelson members, representing in part a mining district, moved its reduction by (id. an ounce ; and this proposal also, on a division, was rejected. The great argument against the reduction was the need there was to construct public works on the goldfield, and therefore, that the provincial revenue should be supplemented by the goldduty. This argument was not without its force. So long as the functions of the Provincial Government remained unimpaired, it was quite clear that the reduction of the gold-duty would be equivalent to a limitation of the powers of the Provincial Legislature, of sanctioning the construction of public works on the goldfields. But under the new system of finance, intioduccd by Mr. Vogel, the case is entirely different. The Colonial Treasurer absorbs the whole of the consolidated revenue, and throws upon the goldfield revenue and gold duty the cost of maintaining all those departments which devolved on the provinces by the Constitution Act. Now, this is an entirely altered position. In the Provincial Council we are fairly represented ; but Mr. Vogel’s Bill for reforming the constitution of Provincial Councils only gave us one member. Our voice is heard, and is even potential in the Provincial Council. Is it heard, or if heard, is it potential in the General-Assembly ? In the distribution of the revenue and of the loan is the Thames Goldfield fully represented ? We conceive that it is not. Therefore, we say, that wc are not at all disposed to acquiesce in the decision of the General-Assembly in regard to the imposition of the gold-duty." It happens, however, that by a clause in the Goldfields District Bill, now before the Legislature, provision is made to appropriate all goldfields revenue for public works within the goldfields; but the gold duty is land, or territorial revenue; and should the province collapse, as is not at all unlikely, all the gold duty paid by the Thames and Coromandel will be applied to purposes outside the goldfield, and over which our representatives have no control. Under these circumstances, we think wc are justified in asking our representative at the seat of government not to tie him Self blindly to follow Ministers. He is the sole representative of this district; and he was sentto the Assembly, in the first place, to look after its special interest. Whether he likes Mr. Fox and Mi*. Vogel, and dislikes Mr. Stafford and Mr. Gillies, is not at all to the point. His likes or dislikes have nothing to do with the question. What he has got to do is to look after the general - interests of his constituents, which he should do without reference to party action ; and if the Government are disposed to throw the Thames and Coromandel overboard, he should be ready on his side to throw the Ministry over. Now, it so happens, that the Government actually “ sat down” upon Mr. O'Neill's motion. They opposed it at once. Why so ? Last session they were in favour of a reduction of the gold duty; but then, last year a reduction would have cm- j barrassed the Superintendent of Auckland, this year it would embarrass themselves. The General Government depend on the goldfield revenue and gold duty to keep the province long enough alive to create general dissatisfaction

with the provincial system, whilst they absorb all the consolidated revenue; and when public discontent shall have been created, sufficient for their purpose, they will take the provinces over, gold duty and all, and throw upon private charity the charge of maintaining, in great part, the hospitals, lunatic asylums, and other local charitable institutions. Our advice to the Thames population is this : “ Insist on having your views “on this important matter fully and “ unreservedly placed before Ministry “ and the Assembly by Mr. o‘Neill.” He is as well able to do so, in an effective manner, as any man in the House, and lie should be required to do so, if indeed, he has not done it already. The requirements of the field are large. They are also daily increasing. It would be ruinous to the large interests involved, were the public revenue raised by special imposts on mining operations, and results, to be diverted to other objects than those to which they have been devoted by the Provincial Legislature, by the advice of our representatives in the Council. Come what may of the financial policy of the General Government, this diversion of the revenue must not be tolerated.