THAMES MUNICIPALITY AND BLOCK 27.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 112, 17 February 1872, Page 3

THAMES MUNICIPALITY AND BLOCK 27.

To the Editor of the Thames Guardian. Sir,— Permit me a little space in your columns for a reply to your correspondent “ Tenant,” who evidently wants to draw a red herring across the scent vrhen he introduces the question of leases. _ I hope that no tenant on Block 27 will allow himself to be thus misled. “Tennants letter smacks very much of the oilice of the owners of Block 27, or of some one in their pay, for lie gives no reason why ho advises his fellow-tenants not to become Uu'pQi/cv s for the freeholders of Grahauistown and Shortland. In foot “ tenants letter seems as a bait thrown out for the purpose of inducing parties to sign leases which, I need not say, are unjust. In fact, if the tenants on Block 27 were all of my mind, Mr ltowe would not be called upon, on his return from the other colonies, to sign any leases, as to my mind the title to that block is not yet very clear, and if a united effort were made by the tenants all deeds in connection with it might be very much altered. Under the “ Frauds Act " of last session no one can deny that the mining community have been badly treated throughout the whole affair, and that tuey are now saddled with rents for what was given to them at one time as Digger’s Gamp on the goldfield. Had any infringement of their rights been taken up as this Municipality question now is, Messrs Howe and Ihomas would not have had it in their power to issue notices as those now to be seen at various places on Block 27. I do trust that the committee appointed to oppose the Municipality will not fail to carry out the good work, and if they succeed (which I do not doubt) they will be entitled to the thanks of tenants of Block 27. I am, &c., A Working Man.