Tuapeka Times AND GOLDFIELOB REPORTER & ADVERTISER. THURSDAY, JULY 4, 1872. "MEASURES, NOT MEN."

Tuapeka Times, Volume V, Issue 231, 4 July 1872, Page 4

Tuapeka Times AND GOLDFIELOB REPORTER & ADVERTISER. THURSDAY, JULY 4, 1872. "MEASURES, NOT MEN."

In our last issue we promised to indicate some changes that might advantageously be made in the administration of the goldiields. The first change we would suggest is theabolition of the office of Warden. In California and other gold mining States of America Wardens have never existed, yet the want of such officials has never been felt. . In this country the office of Warden has. existed too long, and everyday of its continuance shows more plainly that there is no necessity for it — that itsabolition would be a benefit to the mining public. Nothing can b& done on the goldfields without the interference of the Warden. Does a man want to take up an extended claim; cut a race, build a dam, take up a residence area, or an agricultural lea^e, he must wait upon and receive the permission of the Warden before doing so. Were such an. official stationed in every gully, the necessity of obtaining His sanction would create no great inconvenience; but as each Warden has an extensive district to look after, miners residing at a distance from where he is stationed have often to undertake lengthy journeys, involving considerable loss of time, trouble, and expense, -in order to procure permission to pursue their vocations. The delay caused by this means is frequently great and vexatious. As happened recently, on account of the severity of the weather, the Warden was unable to undertake his usual monthly visit to Waipori. If on that day a number of miners, from Lammerlaw, had come into Waipori for the purpose of applying-^ for claims or races, what would the t result have been ? Why each man of them would have had to lose two day's time, and have had to wait another month, in addition to the time they might previously have been waiting, before he. could with safety take up take up the claim, or commence to cut the race he might have applied for. That men's time and money should be sacrificed in this manner is obviously unfair. If any other class of the community had their avocations hampered and their time wasted in a similar manner, such a howl would be raised as would startle our legislators into finding very speedily an effectual remedy for the evils cdmplained of. The remedy for this grievance of the miners is very simple. Define their rights by statute, and allow them to secure them without the interference of the Warden or any similar official. If the miner exceeds his rights, or fails to comply with the^ requirements of the statute, let it be entirely at his own risk. A vast amount of red tapeism would thus be done away with. There would be.no necessity for the numerous certificates now issued by the Warden, which are, by the way, of very little value — being at their best only evidence of legal possession. Their use could be dispensed with without difficulty. Mining disputes can be as easily settled in a Resident Magistrate's Court as in a Warden's Court. Like all others, they resolve themselves into matters of contracts and torts. No alteration in the existing law is required for this, as the Resident Magistrate's Court has already all necessary powers for determining • disputes and affording remedies to> |-miners as well as to other persong,

«rtim»ted the line which was the same now with one or two slight deviations to avoid expensive building, &c, at total damages L 14.000, but added, looking to the advantages that the line will be to the public, did not believe it would exceed LIO.OOO. Such, orin like words, was Mr Clark's opinion then, when by his own evidence yesterday — land -was of higher value— he said then he believed the advantages would be so great, that many would give their land free— willingly — flrell, at that time Mr Clark was not an interested party — the line did not come through his property, but what do they find now ? At the request of the inhabitants the line is proposed to be brought nearer the township of Milton, and consequently through Mr Clark's land — this valuator for the Provincial Government demands £500 for 5 acres, or one twentieth of his own whole valuation £10. 000, while the land required from him is only one eighty-fourth. He was perfectly surpri°od ta a man in his position acting as he had done. Seven witnesses were called for the defence. The first was Mr Calcutt, who said he considered the plaintiffs Jand poor, and the buildings upon it worth very little. He showed by other cases of land taken in the district for railways in the district, that L 5 an acre was the extreme price. The damage to plaintifl's property he assessed :— 2d per acre on 40 acres, or L 2 per annum at 8 per cent, L 25;2 5; crossing of creek, say L 10;1 0; damages for forced sale, L 25;2 5; the rest of Ll2O as a solatium for annoyance and inconvenience. Fanjkner asked L 50 0; and witness cmnKing him to v, o jotina, replied "you'll get abontLSO." He hadTbten instructed by the Government to deal liberally and avoid reference to Court if at all possible. He had acted up to these instructions, and would not have offered Ll2O had he been acting for a private company. The plaintiff seemed determined to oppose all he could. — Mr John L. Gillies considered L 6 an acre full value for Faulk uer's land, but would not value it at that for loan purposes. In his opinion Faulkner would gain by the railway ; and if there had been no prospect of a railway he would have valued the land at 30s an acre less. — Mr James Adam only valued the land at L 4 10s an acre ; and thought the "railway would increase the value 10s to 15s. Messrs William Black, Crofts, and Miiennan, farmers and land-owners in the district, gave similar evidence. — MrR. Gillies (of Gillies and Street) considered L 6 an acre the extreme value of the land ; the outside compensation he advised was LIOO. Considered the railway would improve the land LI an acre. Did not know why Mr Calcutt offered Ll2O, unless to prevent litigation. Judge Ward said he and the assessors were unanimous in assessing the damages at Lll7 lls, made up as follows : — Value of land, at L 7 per acre, L 47 lls ; loss in cultivation, L 25;2 5; culverts or crossings, LlO ; house and garden, L 25;2 5; inconvenience for cattle, LlO.

The plaintiff was cast in damages, having to pay those incurred by the defendants, amounting to L 29 12s.