THE Thames Guardian AND MINING RECORD. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1871.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 63, 19 December 1871, Page 2

THE Thames Guardian AND MINING RECORD. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1871.

On; contemporary, in his issue, of Thursday, says, “ We cannot see why the Ohinemuri question and the old squabble between Mr Mackay and Mr Williamson should have been dragged up in the Provincial Council.” We have been informed that the cause of allusion being made to the Ohinemuri question was that Mr Mackay, in speaking on Mr Mitchell’s motion, “ about placing £ 10,000 on the estimates for the purpose of opening Ohinemuri,” said the best plan was to leave the natives alone, and not constantly stir them up about Ohinemuri, as it was not a question of money, but of obstinate adherence to the Native Land League policy.” To this Mr Mitchell replied, “ that Mr Mackay was one of those who formerly had stirred up the question, and, if stirring up was the cause of failure, those who did it were the cause of that failure.” Mr Mackay then explained tliat “he hail no desire to interfere, with the Ohinemuri question, and that Mr Williamson was the first to go there, and went there in a very injudicious manner.” Our contemporary goes on to state

“ tliat Mr Williamson 'wont up tlic Thames in 18(17, fully believing that lie would succeed in opening the country, where Mr Mack ay and others had already tried and failed. We have made some inquiry into this statement, and find it is utterly incorrect. It will be remembered by most persons that the Thames Goldfield was opened on the Ist August, 18(37, at which time Mr Williamson was in Wellington, attending the General Assembly, and, when he returned to Auckland, Mr Mackay had negotiated for, and obtained for tin* Crown, the right to mine over a considerable portion of the present proclaimed goldfield ; but he had not then visited Ohinemuri for the purpose of procuring a cession of that district for gold mining. We arc informed on the best authority that Mr Mackay did not go to Ohinemuri at all, from about the end of December, 18(3(3, until April. 18G8, during which period Mr Williamson and several other parties visited Ohinemuri, “ tried to open it, and failed.” Mr Mackay put this question clearly before the Council the other night in the following words, which, with the usual inaccuracy of our Auckland journals, were not reported:— “ At the time of opening the Thames Goldfield nobody believed in it, and all predicted it would be a failure similar to Coromandel, consequently no person thought there would be any ‘“kudos” (praise) got for opening an unproductive field, and his negotiations were not interfered with. Had a similar course been pursued towards Ohinemuri, the result might have been the same as at the Thames. He did not assume to himself the position of being the best oi“ only person to open Ohinemuri, but believed that whenever it was done it must be done by one man, that the effect of a number of persons acting independently of each other was to create confusion, as they were all pulling different strings. That Mr Williamson thought he would gain “ kudos ” by opening Ohinemuri, and came to fshortland with the intention of proceeding there, and asked him (Mr Mackay ) to accompany him and assist in the negotiations. He objected, not for fear of Mr Williamson getting the credit, but because he did not consider the time or state of feeling at Ohinemuri as being propitious. But, at Mr Williamson’s request, he went to Matariki, and induced the chief Te Moananui to accompany him. He had other business to attend to just then, ! and afterwards received instructions ! from the General Government not to accompany Mr Williamson to Ohinemuri. That in April, 1808, he afterwards went there, and in December, 1808, procured the signatures of all the natives who were willing to sign an agreement ceding their lands for goldmining purposes. To keep these natives quiet, he gave them a document to the effect that when the country was opened they should receive a bonus of £SOO, and an advance of £ 1,000 on account of miners’ rights fees. This policy would have been to have kept the friendly natives quiet ; they had done all they were able to accomplish, and the next step should have been to disarm the opposition, it was no use giving money to the men who had already agreed to open the country, and with the. others it was not a question of money, but of principle.” The probable reason the Stafford Government instructed Mr Mackay not to go to Ohinemuri is that they, from the reports of that officer, knew the proper time for acting at Ohinemuri had not arrived : and they having confidence in his judgment in native matters (and it will be remembered he had charge of till native affairs in the province of Auckland at that time), and also being annoyed at what they considered an impertinent interference with Mr Maekav and his j duties by the Superintendent, deemed it advisable for him not to interfere in the matter. We are quite certain that the Stafford Government “ did not order Mr Mackay not to go to Ohinemuri, because he had quite enough to

do in his office of Civil Commissioner at Auckland and the Thames, and ought not to be absent from his office for weeks on useless errands at Ohinemuri.” Firstly, because lie bad not been to Ohinemuri about goldmining matters before the order was given : and secondly, that Government knew tlieir officer too well and his antecedents in tlieir service to, for one moment, suppose that he would undertake useless errands or negotiations. We agree with our contemporary as to the propriety of burying the wretched past in the matter of Ohinemuri, but we object to burying Mr Williamson’s injudicious proceedings by misrepresentations as to Mr Mackay’-s conduct, nor do we approve of smothering Mr Mackay alive under the heap of inaccurate statements made in his columns. One great mistake Mr Williamson seems to have made, was in asking a General Government officer to accompany him, to assist him to accomplish, what that officer had already been instructed by the General Government to undertake at such time, as lie thought proper. Mr Williamson, without consulting the Stafford Government, who it is well known were very particular as to interference with tlieir servants; asks one of their principal officers to assist him to perform a duty which they looked on as a purely General Government business, being a native question, and which they had given special instructions to that officer to do if possible, but to use the utmost discretion in the negotiations, for fear of any complications arising likely to endanger the peace of the country. The Stafford Government, doubtless, also took into consideration that Mr Mackay bad successfully accomplished what they ordered him to do in the matter of obtaining the cession of the Thames Goldfield; and that Mr Williamson bad not the excuse that Mr Mackay had failed up to that time in carrying tlieir instructions into effect. It may be as well to remember that Mr Mackay obtained tlie cession of all the goldfield at present proclaimed (excepting a small piece at Coromandel formerly held by the Government) between the 27tli July, 18(37, and the 9th March, 18(38, and considering the number of blocks and the tribal disputes about tlie boundaries of the same which had to be all arranged before signing the agreements, we think Mr Mackay’s proceedings will contrast favourably with those of Sir George G rey Mr Fox and Mr McLean, in procuring the cession of a small piece at Coromandel, which took much longer to accomplish than Mr Mackay’s single handed acquisition of the present large area of territorv.