THE Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR O' CLOCK P.M. Resurrexi. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1880.

Thames Star, Volume XI, Issue 3660, 18 September 1880, Page 2

THE Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR O' CLOCK P.M. Resurrexi. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1880.

Fubthkb consideration of the Miners' Bights question, only goes to prore that' the coarse suggested by us is the wisest and best that can be followed, namely, to request; the Gorernment to hold an enquiry into the whole circumstances, under which the field was acquired from the natives. The more the subject is considered the more tangled and confused does it appear, for while on the one hand it seems somewhat plain that the natives hare re* ceired rery much more money then they are entitled to under their agreement, on the other, the many alterations of the law, the subsequent arrangements made with the natives, and the of provincial legislation, which all surround the subject, makes it very difficult to find out the actual position. The first agreement with the natives was a Bimple one,' providing that they were to receive £1 for every Miner's Bight, and £1 5s for every kauri tree, and in consideration of such sums, men had the right to mine for gold, and do all acts, works, &c, incidental thereto, including a right to occupy a portion of such land as a residence site* Very soon after the opening of the field, | the Provincial Government, in order to raise revenue, imposed other taxes or ! rents, requiring a certain sum to be paid i for each machine site, water race, battery, &c, and subsequently the licensed holdings rent, which sums went direct to the Provincial treasury. It was never intended that this extra revenue was ever to go to the natives, and if the provincial form of government oontinued it never would have gone, but upon the abolition of the provinces the Government, misconstruing a clause in the Act of 1873, allowed the money to be paid to the natives. In the clause referred to, number 173, the word rent occurs, and by placing a certain construction upon it, one evidently never intended by the framers of the Act, the whole of the revenue was authorised to be paid the native owners. Now if it can be proved that no subsequent agreement binding upon the Government was made with the natives, providing for other revenue than that received from Miners' Bights and the •ale of kauri trees, then without question the Government, are not required to pay to the natives revenue received other than from the two sources mentioned. That the mining industry should continue longer to be burdened with unnecessary charges and in a measure illegally so, is a question

that calls for instant inquiry; and when it is stated that the amount of taxes raised from other than the two sources mentioned, exceeds £1500 per annum, the magnitude of the burden may in some measure be conceived. Alterations in the first place would probably go to relieve the lessees of license holding, unless a regulation were issued, and we believe the Governor-in-Council has the power to issue such regulations, proTiding that where mines are held under lease the men working in the same should not be required to bold miners' rights. Many objections of course may be raised against the adoption of such a plan, but there are other ways in which the question might be settled, and which we will point but in a subsequent article.