DUNSTAN.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VII, Issue 337, 11 March 1874, Page 3

DUNSTAN.

{From our ovm Correspondent.)

The Waste Lands Board in refusing the application of Thomson and M'Lennan for a lease of ground for coal mining purposes, adjoining the lease held by Marie, stated that no application would be entertained unless it was recommended by the Town Council of Clyde. The matter came before that hody at its last meeting, in the form of a letter from Messrs. Thomson and M'Lennan, asking them to recommend to the Board the application 'they were making for another lease. It was admitted by the Council that a coal trade which at one time was considerable here, in the shape of supplying waggons for down country, was, entirely lost ; but it was resolved that the application be allowed to lie on the table of the Council till proof that the present pit owner would not be injured, and that he had-plenty of coal in his lease to recoup him for his outlay in opening up his pit was produced. The " Dunstan Times," in speaking of the Bame, brings some very strong accusations against the Council. They are accused of selfish motives, and for interfering with what does not concern them. It says, " the only question for the Council to answer is : Is there another pit wanted?" To which it answers most emphatically "No." Hitherto I have been silent over the struggle that has been going on for some time about these leases, and should have still continued so but ,for the remarks above stated. How can the Council be accused of selfish motives by the resolution they adopted? or why the impertinent question put : What business has the Council what coal Marie has in his lease ? The Waste Lands Board, by its last decision, has left the matter entirely in the hands of the Town Council, and on their recommendation vill depend the fate of any future application. It certainly behoves them to take into consideration all parties concerned, and not to jump at hasty conclusions, as the "Dunstan Times" would have them. As the affair seems to be a matter of questions, might it not have been asked with, equal force when the present lease was applied for : Is .there another lease wanted ? The Clyde pit, as the " Times " saya, was able to supply the demand then equally and more so than this pit can do now. What would have been the consequences to the district if such a theory had been acted on both here and at the Alexandra pits. Both these pits, once perfectly able to give an abundant supply, have now, unfortunately at least for their owners, been shut up, at least for a considerable time. Is the owner of the Coopers Gully lease, or his agent, touter, or the "Dunstau Times" prepared to give a guarantee that no accident can befall them by which they cannot be able supply coals ? Has not the town suffered from au insufficient supply of coals during the last two years, and hundreds of pounds been drained to procure that supply from other parts ? Does the granting of a coal mining lease confer on the holder a monopoly ? What would be thought of a farmer, merchant, tradesman, or even an auctioneer raising the cry, if threatened with' opposition, "You must not establish yourself here; I am perfectly able to do all' the business in my line -in this

place." If ridiculous in these instances, how much more so in the other? To use the expression of the " Times," " to our mind," I do not see what the Town Council of Clyde or the Waste Lands Board has to do with the question: Is there another pit wanted?. They hare no right to object to legitimate com- . petition. If Mario has so taken up his lease that he does not include much of an area containing coal, though scarcely supported by law or precedence, it would be fair to allow him to take in an area which might be considered sufficient to recoup him for his outlay ; but that the holder of any parcel of Crown land for any purpose whatever should object to any other party taking up an adjoining area is unprecedented, and its supporters are only fostering a monopoly.