THE GOLDFIELDS BILL.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VII, Issue 381, 12 August 1874, Page 3

THE GOLDFIELDS BILL.

(From the "Arrow Observer.") The amended Gold Mining Bill introduced this session by Mr Shepherd has met mith a fate Bimilar to that which befel it last year. After having pasaea its second reading in the Assembly, it, has been thrown out by the . Goldfields Committee — only one voice being favorable to its committal, that of the hem. member for the Dunstan himself. Were it not for the grave importance attached to the passing of a Bill suitable to the Goldfields of the Colony, one could heartily enjoy the picture of the Otago mining representatives fighting over the shadow of the honor and credit of getting such a measure passed into law, while the substance, as represented by duties they were sent to the Assembly by their constituents to fulfil, is looked upon as of secondary importance. The various and plausible messages wired to the metro, politan Press fro'n Wellington are such that it is impossible for those most deeply interested in the question — the miners — to know which is the truth, and political wire-pulling is freely indulged in by the members and tneir friends. One telegraphs that the Bill itself is very little good, and even were it- ever so workable it were hopeless to expect the House to pass it while Mr Shepherd "fathers" it ; while another confidently asaerta the measure is as near perfection as can be, and was only defeated by the lobbying and intriguing of other Goldfieldsj members jealous of the hon. member for the Dunstan. One correspondent says that ' ' Mr Pyke, on the second reading, spuke of it as a good Bill, and said that he would assist to pass it through Committee, but turned completely round and strongly opposed it;" another, that "Mr. Pyke tried to save the Bill, but the feeling against Shepherd was too strong." Now, we are quite aware that Mr Shepherd is not wanting in self-conceit, nor is he a man who will hide hi 3 light under a bushel, and he may possibly be possessed of many other attributes which make him disliked personally ; but we are of opinion that in drafting the measure which has brought upon him so much undeserved odium, the member for the Dunstan tried his utmost to make it as comprehensive a law as the varied necessities of the Goldfields would allow, and the general feeliug is that Mr Shepherd has been unjustly and too severely "sat upon" in this matter. Even his political enemies concede that the Bill as amended was a good one, and should be nan-do l.i». Why, then, must *i»o measure be condemned uecause of the man 1 Who among those so ready to denounce the work of the hon. member for Dunstan is prepared to bring forward one of more value ? It is so much easier to break down the handiwork of another than to erect something better in its place. We are no special advocates for Mr Shepherd, and are pretty well acquainted with his shortcomings ; but justice compels U3 to acknowledge that he is not treated with common fairness. Every suggession made by him in the House — and he has made some good ones — seems to be systematically poohpoohed, and no opportunity is lost of turning him into ridicule. The result of all this may eventually turn out different to what his detractors think. There is a growing sympathy with Mr Shepherd in regard to his Goldfields Bill, and it is just possible he may be abused iill he comes to be looked upon as a martyr, and a revulsion of popular feeling obtains for the member for the Dunstan that meed of justice which is now withheld from him.