THE MINING COMMISSION.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 186, 31 August 1871, Page 6

THE MINING COMMISSION.

(To the Editor.)

Sib, — There appears to be a difference of opinion about the proposed amendment of the goldfields regulations, &c, submitted to Government for approval, but anyone who knows anything about mining will see at a glance that many of the clauses adopted by our Commissioners are not amendments at all, but the reverse. On examining their report, it is is easy to see that it was framed for the benefit of a small section only of the miners, viz., water squatters, and the owwers of large claims. The owners of water-races ought to bo satisfied with the monopoly of water they already have, without coveting the little allowed to thsir loss fortunate bretheren. I wonder if they have ever read the story of the rich man who had large flocks and herds, and the poor man with the one lamb. J commend it to their consideration. They also want a list of our names, so that they can send for us (some a distance of thirty or forty miles) to adjudicate on their cases free. (Don't they wish, they may get it.) There is an absurd proposal to remove the Wardens- triennially, which, if carried out, would, without adding to the efficiency of those officers, do the contrary, as well as being a hardship to them by increasing their expenses in the face of a proposed reduction of sakr y7 If any Warden, through local influence, administers bis office par-

tially, by all means remove him ; but do not let the innocent suffer with the guilty. In the administration of justice, there is much room for amendment. The Warden's discretionary power is too great, and from which there is in most cases virtually no appeal, on accourtt of the £10 deposit required. The £10 deposit should either be done away with, or a cheaper Appeal Court provided.

Mining leases are much too expen»ive to obtain and maintain. I approve of an extra area under the extended claim regulation being given in proportion to the amount expended in bringing in water and opening the ground. I agree with the proposed reduction of miners' rights to ten shillings, simply because I believe a greater amount of revenue would be derived from tuis source by the sale of extra mirers' rights, as a great many could afford to pay ten shillings who cannot the pound. I also agree with their proposal for three acres as a residence area. Yea, I would go a little further (and without which concession the extended area would be valueless) i.e., that after three years hona fide residence miners- should have the privilege of agricultural leaseholders extended to them ; and that having complied with the improvement clause, they should have the right of purchase of their residence areas at a reasonable upset price. In case of the ground taken up proving auriferous, the compensation should be limited to the cost of removal of a digger's hut — say £5 or £10. This would be a preventive to the taking up of auriferous land for residence. There is plenty of nonauriferous land which anyone, except in the case of quartz reefs, can soon prove if they want a non-auriferous area ; and to prevent residence areas interfering with agricultural settlement, they should be taken up within the inin'ng reserve.

I must conclude, for I imagine you will be looking for your shears if I add any more this time. — I am, &c, E. V.

Switzqrs, August 25.