MINING BOARDS.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 587, 30 November 1869, Page 2

MINING BOARDS.

(To the Editor of the Westport Times.) Sib, —I do not know whether the subject which I am writing upon is discussable or not. In truth I feel somewhat unwilling to touch it, and, were it not that I have heard the diggers generally complaining of the unsatisfactory manner in which some cases are disposed of by our very able AVarden, and having cause to grumble myself, nothing could prevail with me to examine so disagreeable a subject. I am not ignorant of my inability to reproduce the glaring evils arising from the non-existence of these useful and necessary institutions on paper, because it cannot be expected that one bred to the pick ought to be trenchant with the pen, and it is in the hopes of enlisting abler expositors that I venture thus far in it.

I do not think that there are many old miners in this district or in this Province who would not give a warm support to the question of Mining Boards, because we are all perfectly well aware that the existing Goldfields Regulations are both loose and uuspecific on points of the highest importance to those engaged in mining matters. In fact, there is too much left to the discretionary justice of Wardens, who may be very equitable and moderate men, I admit, hut, granting all that, where is the man who would not rather be governed by the supposed wisdom of many than by the doubtful discretion of one ? Casting aside the fact that men are not above prejudice, and, as a consequence, that Magistrates cannot be acquitted of partiality, even in matters upon which the law lays down the duty of the judge, not to mention the scope allowed by the regulations, I will prove that it is not only unjust but impolitic and foolish to empower one man to use his discretion in any matter involving the prosperity or ruin of another.

If we observe the dispositions of men w-hen living in a private capacity we will not infrequently find them to be moderate and just in their dealings, equitable in their judgments, and rather disposed to imitate what is good than to learn what is evil; but elevate any one of these men to a position of authority, where there is room for the abuse and parade of power, and-you will find that his every action as a public man will shame the good qualities which graced his private career. There are exceptions, no doubt, but so few that it does not follow that there any wisdom in trusting any man with an authority which he may use at his discretion.

We have seen too few instances of immutable sapience in Colonial Magistrates to rest satisfied with unrestrained justice. How often do we feel, whilst listening to those decisions which are in the discretion of a Warden to give one way or the other, that we perceive a want of ability in the individual to deal justly in the matter. I could cite many instances to prove what I here assert, and get hundreds of miners to substantiate it. It seems to me that the framers of the present Groldfields Begulations thought that those who were to adjudicate in mining cases Would be too wise to err, and so made it discretionary with these judges to decide in whatever manner they thought fit on matters on which the framers of the regulations had not the requisite knowledge to legislate. I am conscious that we have men of first-race ability acting as "Wardens, but were they as able as they are absolute we would prefer the written letter to the oracle. A Warden may be a man of great capacities, and yet be no great credit to tha bench, simply be-

cause he can establish precedents today by listening to his passions and disregard them to-morrow by hearkening to his interests, because of the unrestrained power which is given him through the looseness of the Goldfields Regulations, on some points of vital importance to the security of mining property. It cannot be said with any degree of truth that Magistrates are uninfluenced by either passion or interest except it be in the cause of justice, because it is not in human nature to preserve the understanding from bias and partiality in anything in which we take either a passing or active interest.

I wish to and will keep clear of every subject which I have reason to believe would give offence to any person or beget ill-feeling by being made public. In fact I only want to show the existence of an evil and propose a remedy. To show this evil I will cite one case out of many which I could produce. For the sake of being explicit, I am the defendant; the case arises out of a difference of opinion which exists between me and A, who is in this case the plaintiff. I am paying £3 per week for a supply of water. I have expended much time and labor to make this supply of water available, after I had engaged to pay the amount stated for it weekly. In fact, I cut a race over three-quarters of a mile long, constructing a dam to receive tailings at the head of it, which dam I let run for one hour per day. This water falls into a blind gully, about four hundred yards above the head of my race, and continues down the bed of the gully to the dam which I have constructed for the reception of tailings, and also for guiding the water into the race in question, which commences at that point. A has a registered right to a supply of water out of a creek of which this gully is, in rainy weather, a tributary, because in dry weather there is no water at all in the gully out of which my race commences but what is brought into it by me. Tet when A's supply diminishes, he orders me to let the water which I pay for and am using Bow down the creek, claiming it as creek water, because it touches the bed of a dry gully in its course from those who engaged to supply me to the head of my race, which gully, I have said, is iu wet weather a tributary of the creek out of which A. procures his supply of water. This I refuse to do, and am summoned to Court accordingly. The "Warden reserves his decision in the matter until he pays a personal visit to the place. He sees at once that there is no natural drainage in the gully, and that in wet weather only is there any other water than that for which lam paying. He makes an order that I am to let the creek water down to the prior right, but what the creek water is he is unable to determine, and leaves plaintiff; and defendant to settle that mattery among themselves. However, I had to pay costs, and, if I cannot come to some arrangement with A, in all probability I will receive another summons to show cause why I did not comply with the order of the Court, which, in truth, was no order at all; but, no matter for that, lam liable for a fine, and can neither prevail upon the plaintiff to come to an equitable arrangement nor upon the Warden to give a precise decision in the case.

Now it is quite evident that the case just cited is one of these for which there is no provision made in the "Regulations, and the public can see for themselves how far the unaided wisdom of a Warden is to be trusted in such a matter. This is no exceptional case. There are many of a like nature brought under the notice of the Warden, and dealt with in like manner ; that is, there is a decision given which, on examination, is no decision at all; nevertheless, if summoned again, the defending parties are sure to be fined. The order of the Court was " That defendants allow the creek water to flow down to the prior right;" that is the decision entered on the book, but the Warden said, when giving that decision, that he could not determine what amount of water naturally did belong to the creek, and that we would have to settle that among ourselves. Well, now, if the plaintiffs fail to come to some equitable arrangement, and sue again for not complying with the judgment of the Court, defendants are fined, and for what ? Why, because they did not proceed, without authority, in determining the amount of natural drainage there is in a dry gully. This state of things is an evil to be complained of, and one against which the public have a perfect right to provide. The public, is not wrong in everything, although it may be taught sometimes " how few at times may know when thousands err."

Do not think, sir, that this letter breathes the sentiments alone of the person whose name is attached to it. On the contrary, it is the written thoughts of almost every digger from Fox's Eiver to Westport, on the subject of Mining Boards, as will be shown very shortly by the steps which will be taken by the miners in the matter. I will not prolong this letter by making any further statement, but, should anything more be required to show the necessity of the steps which I advocate, I will be in a position to produce ample proofs of the irregularity and confusion engendered in the district because of the absence of definite Mining By-Laws. —I am, sir, yours Ac, Aiden DOTXEI Charleston.