THE Evening Star. PUBLISED DAILY AT FOUR O'CLOCK P.M. Resurrexi. SATURDAY, AUGUST 14, 1880.

Thames Star, Volume XI, Issue 3630, 14 August 1880, Page 2

THE Evening Star. PUBLISED DAILY AT FOUR O'CLOCK P.M. Resurrexi. SATURDAY, AUGUST 14, 1880.

Fbom a period almost coeval with the founding of this goldfield, the miners of the Thames hare felt themselves labouring under an injustice in the matter of miners' rights fees. The question, after i lying dormant for some years, has lately sprung up in connection with the petition against the late Inspecter of Miners' Bights, Mr Mcllhone, and the subsequent events have had the effect of making the impost even more irksome than before. The case is simply this: As the law now stands every miner has to pay out of his own pocket, an annual tax of £1, in consideration of such, he receives the right to work on the auriferous lands of the district. This was fair enough as long as men were working their own ground, but when companies began to be formed, for each man's ground in their area, they had to pay an annual rental of £1, so that the natives are really receiving double, and in many instances treble the amount of revenue they bargained for when conceding the right to mine. Take for instance a company holding 50.men's ground. It has to pay £50 for its lease, while every one of its full complement of men, in the majority of instances many more than the number of men's ground, have to contribute their £1, and as changes in the working staff are frequent, every new man taken into the company's employ has also to come down with 20s for the right to earn his livelihood. We have gone to considerable trouble to investigate the matter under notice to find if the natives are legally entitled to tax the mining industry so exorbitantly, and we have before us the report of Mr James Mackay, junr., then Civil Commissioner, presented to the House of Representatives in 1869, and which contains some valuable information upon the subject. At the beginning of the report Mr Mackay gives a brief account of the terms on which iheCoromandel goldfield was acquired from the natives because, as he says, " these terms were looked on by the natives as a precedent for guiding their subsequent negociations," i.e. with respect to the Thames' goldfield. The terms of the agreement were that the Government was to pay the native owners of the northern portion of the Peninsula £600 per annum if under 500 men were searching for gold, £900 if from 500 to 1000, and £J2OO if from 1000 to 1500 men were engaged. In addition to this the miners were also to take out an annual license at a cost of 2s "to reward the natives for their faith and condence in the Government, as well as for recompensing them for any annoyance, damage, or inconvenience they might experience from Europeans while digging on their lands" as a clause in the agreement signed by Governor Wynyard puts it. This agreement it was found did not work well and it was varied, the natives receiving £1 for every license issued. Mr Mackay adds "This together with the previous agreements, is the reason why in the subsequent arrangements made about the Thames goldfields the natives require £1 for every miner's right issued." We have quoted copiously from this portion of the report which though not bearing directly on the subject, points conclusively to the establishment of the miner's right precedent, and no doubt the Maories in

those days thought themselves well paid, unfortunately not so now-a-days! Heferring to the negociations for the lease of the Karaka block, which was the firs* portion of this gold fa'eld opened the report goes on to say-

There wbb considerable difficulty in arranging the terms of the lease. A large annual rental was first demanded, and two years' notice of intention to terminate the lease, the same as in the Coromandel case; but bearing in mind the complaints which had been made by the Provincial Government against paying £500 per annum rent for that field, /or which they received but little in return, we considered it safer for the Government, and greater justice to the Natives, to agree to give them the sum of £1 for each miner's right issued for the block. If the number of minera was email, the runt would thus bo in the same ratio; and if large and the field valuable, then proportionately greater. Wo also found tho question about kauri limber one which gave some trouble, the mm paid to Pito Tnukaka and Riria Earepe being quoted by tho opposition parly. It waa finally arranged that kauri timber was not to be used unless paid for at the rate of £1 5s per tree.

It will thus be seen tbat so far there was no thought of such a thing as a double payment. Further on, in alluding to the cession of a small block north of Tararu Mr Mackay speaks of " rents, in the shape of miners' rights fees." The following extract, though somewhat voluminous, bears directly on the matterMr Mackay, after referring to the progress of the field during the two years it was open goes on on to speak of the probable consequences to the natives upon the introduction of the leasing regulations—

I would most respectfully urge on the Government, the necessity for carrying out in their integrity all the arrangements entered into by the Natives for the leasing of their lands for goldmining purposes, not only as an act of justice but also in their own interests, as whatever is tne course pursued on the present gold field will be looked on as a precedent for the Upper Tham«s and other auriferous districts. I bope I may be pardoned for stating that in my opinion the leasing regulations issued by His Honor the Superintendent of Auckland are likely to cause considerable injustice to the Native owners of the goldfield as entailing a certain falling off in the miners' rights fees received, and a consequent diminution in the amount of rent payable to them by the Crown ; unless a portion of the money paid for mining leases is awarded to them by the Provincial Government. I was aware of this and poinfed it out to the Provincial Secretary at the timo the leasing regulations were under consideration, and said that if a copy of these was furnished to me I would be happy to make suggestions. It was promised this should be done, but I only received a copy the evening previous to the publication of them in the local newspapers. This effectually precluded me from interfering in the matter. I however, subsequently wrote to the Hon. Dr Pollen on the subject. It must not be supposed that I have the slightest feeling antagonistic to the granting of leases; on the contrary, I was one of the first who proposed that leases should be issued ; but my opinion was and still is—

1. That the agreement with the Natives would require amendment, before it would be quite clear tbat these conferred on the Governor the power to lease lasds for mining purposes.

2. That steps would have to be taken to prevent the Natives becoming losers by the diminution of miners' rights fees caused by the granting of leases, as the holders of such are not by the provisions of "The Gold Fields Act, 1866," necessarily obliged to take out miners'rights. (The natives at the time of making the agreement! asked who were liable to hold miners' rights, atd they were informed, all claim holders and their servant*. Neither I nor they then contemplated the necessity of having one of these document! for every minute interest held; that was left for others to bring to light in their anxiety to assist some of their friends in finding valid reasons to "jump" claims. By this perhaps the Natives received more than they otherwise would have, still the agreement was—they were to get £1 for every miner's right issued. Probably this extra amount did not more tbsn cover the deficiencies caused by many persons working without miners'rights.) 3. My proposition would have been this: To charge a rental of £1 10s per annum for every fifty feet by 300 feet, or 16,000 square feet (one man's ground) oontaiued in each leasehold; in addition to this everj labourer or mechanic employed would have been com* pelled to be the holder of a miner's right, ihe rent might have been apportioned thus: £1 to the Native owner, aud 10s to the Provincial Government to cover the expenses of the management of the field. This would have been better than the miner*' rights system, as it would have abolished the taking out one of those documents for every, small interest in a claim held by any person, which is at present required by " The Gold Fields Act, 1866." Another advantage derived would be the facility of apportioning the money among the Native owners, as it would be easy to ascertain the locality of claims, which is ho..- a task of great difficulty. . . ,

6. As long as claims were held under miners' rights, the owners thereof had a direct interest in seeing the r servants had miners' rights, or their claims might be "jumped." Under the leasing system there is no danger of this, and the only risk is being fined, which, as the police nevtr inspect miners' rights, there is not the slightest chance of occurring. In this way the rentals payable to the Natives may also be diminished by the leasing arrangements.

The report affords a very good history of the founding of the goldfield, and gives information not generally known to the miners of this field. Looking at the whole question it appears as if there was sufficient ground to cause a further enquiry into the whole subject. The circumstances of the field are quite bad enough without the industry upon which we depend being hampered unnecessarily. It would be advisable to call a public meeting aud have the question discussed, when resolutions might be carried asking the Government to cause an enquiry into the whole matter. We shall have some* thing further to say upon this subject.