AGRICULTURAL SETTLEMENT ON GOLDFIELDS.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VI, Issue 287, 31 July 1873, Page 8

AGRICULTURAL SETTLEMENT ON GOLDFIELDS.

[communicated.] At the present time, perhaps no subject is of greater importance to our mining community generally than that of the mode of occupation of crown lands within goldfields. The unsatisfactory working of the existing law with regard to agricultural leasing on the goldfields has unfortunately created a bitter feeling between settlers and miners, and that to such an extent as to foster the idea that the interests of the two classes are diametrically opposed. And so we s*;e the miners combining successfully to close against agricultural occupation large blocks of country pre. sumed to include small spots of auriferous ground ; while the farmers have secured legislation to enable then) to hasten the conversion of their leaseholds into freeholds before the land has been prospected or tested in any way by the miners. The interests of miners and farmers on goldfields are identical, and that they should appear otherwise is solely attributable to deficient and unsuitable legislation. The miner needs cheap provisions, cheap fuel, and free liberty to prospect. The cost of "his gold is proportionate to the cost of his liviug ; and deprived of free liberty to prospect, his enterprise and energy are crippled, and the country is the ultimate loser. The farmer on the other hand requires security of tenure, and justly demands to be placed, as regards the rent or price of his land and depasturing rights over unoccupied land, on an equal footing with the occupants of Crown land in hundreds. The interest of the country at large is undoubtedly 10 get an agricultural population settled on the goldfields as quickly as possible, while the alluvial diggings are still prosperous. This settlement will draw in its wake facilities of commutation by roads and rail, and, by cheapening the cost of provisions and fuel, will enable the miner to work profitably large areas of ground now passed over as not payable. Judging by the eagerness with which both farmers and miners have availed themselves of the present system of agricultural selection, there is little room to doubt that under a liberal law, which would not clash with the interests of the miners, the whole of the truly agricultural land on goldfields might be in a short time profitably occupied and cultivated by a settled population. It is easier to point out the defects of the existing system than to indicate a remedy. We see large sums spent in litigation and arbitration where leased ground, is proved to be auriferous. We know that the miner cannot mark out a claim on an agricultural lease without becoming liable as a trespasser ; nor sink a prospecting shaft without first obtaining the consent of the holder, and alsotlepositing a considerable sum of money ; nor obtain a certificate to construct a water rac« through a lease without the leaseholder's consent being previously obtained, and payment of compensation, costs of assessors, &c. As* 1 soon as the lessee fences in and .ploughs up his land, to all intents and purposes it is closed to the miner. True, auriferous reefs may be traced up to his boundaries, but even then, as the law now stands, he could at his leisure peg out and apply for a mining lease over his own ground, and hold it against the original prospectors. The introduction of the system of agricultural leases has proved a great boon to both miners and settlers, and, notwithstanding t^e excessive rent paid, has been taken advantage of to an astonishing extent. It is safe to say that, considering the expenses attendant upon application and subsequent snrvey, the stringent conditions of his lease, the exorbitant rental — 2s 6u\ per acre — paid for three years, and his anomalous position as - holder under a certificate, the agricultural iessee has been far more illiberally dealt with than any other oconpitn> of Crown lands in the provincp. And the rapidity with which land has beeu taken up, even under all these drawbacks, is an earnest of what would result under a more liberal law,

In a letter to the "Otago Daily Times." Mr. John Cargill suggests the introduction of a system of selling land on goldfields without the mineral rights. This, if practicable, might doubtless serve its purpose with regard to mineral v -ins; but, in regard to alluvial deposits, itisto be feared the difficulties the miner at present experiences in prospecting land held under lease, would simply be intensified if the land were freehold, Perfect freedom of access is required by the miner, and this will never be obtainable when the ground is freehold. But it is doubtful whether any one system can be applied to all Crown lands on goldfields. Some classification is required. Land in the immediate neighbourhood of alluvial diggings, or on which alluvial deposits have existed, or been wholly or partly worked out should be classed by itself. Again, a distinction should be drawn between land purely pastoral, and that which might be fairly called agricultural, under the assumption (which may be erroneous) that the absolute alienation of Crown lands within e;oldfields is undesirable, and that alienation by Crown grants retaining mineral rights is impracticable, we must fill back upon some system of leasing by which the farmer acquires the same facilities of selection and occupation, while the miner retains his right to prospect, cut races, divert streams, and appropriate and work auriferous deposits when discovered. (To be continued.)