GOLDFIELDS AND MINES COMMITTEE: REPORTS ON PETITIONS RELATING TO THE SILTING OF THE OHINEMURI AND WAIHOU RIVERS; TOGETHER WITH MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. (Mr. POLAND, Chairman.)

Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1907 Session I, I-04a

I.—4a.

1907. NEW ZEALAND.

GOLDFIELDS AND MINES COMMITTEE: REPORTS ON PETITIONS RELATING TO THE SILTING OF THE OHINEMURI AND WAIHOU RIVERS; TOGETHER WITH MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. (Mr. POLAND, Chairman.)

Reports brought up on the 13th and 20th November, 1907, and ordered to be printed.

ORDERS OP REFERENCE.

Extracts from the Journals of the House of Representatives. Thursday, 11th Day of July, 1907. Ordered " That a Goldfields and Mines Committee, consisting of ten membera, be appointed, to whom shall be referred all matters relating to mines, and all Bills relating to mines, with power to call for persons and papers; three to be a quorum: the Committee to oonsist of Mr. Bennet, Mr. Colvin, Mr. W. Fraser, Mr. Herries, Mr. R. MoKenzie, Mr. Maopherson, Hon. Mr. Mills, Mr. Poland, Mr. Seddon, and the mover."—(Hon. Mr. McGowan.)

Wednesday, 11th Day or September, 1907. Ordered, "That the petition of T. R. Hewitson and others be referred direot to the Goldflelds and Mines Committee."—(Mr. Poland.)

i—l. 4a.

2

I.—4a.

REPORTS.

Nos. 277, 287, 278, 552, and 681 —Petitions of Terua Tihangi and others, S. J. Laughlin and others, W Scott and others, B. W. Bignall and others, T. B. Hewitson and others, complainants; and Nos. 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 386—Petitions of E. Biffen and others, C. Brown and others, C. Butler and others, D. Donaldson and others, T. Dunn and others, E. Ettringham and others, J. Hind and others, J. McCombie and others, G. Eothwell and others, W. Steer and others, C. Symes and others, N. J. Truscott and others, A. P. Wylde and others, E. Potter and others, respondents. The Goldflelds and Mines Committee have the honour to report on the above-mentioned (complainants') petition that in their judgment any expenditure on any scheme that may be devised for arresting the silting of the Ohinemuri and the Waihou Eivers should be on a contributory basis, the local bodies whose districts are affected by the silting providing their quota towards the cost. Subject to this proviso, the Committee recommend that the petitions be referred to the Government for favourable consideration. Parliament Buildings, 13th November, 1907. H. Poland, Chairman.

The Goldflelds and Mines Committee, having already dealt with the matters involved in the abovementioned (respondents') petitions, have the honour to report that they have no recommendation to make. Parliament Buildings, 20th November, 1907. H. Poland, Chairman.

I.—4a.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.

Wednesday, 11th Septembee, 1907.

William Gray Nicholls, made a statement and was examined. (No. 1.)

1. The Chairman.] What is your occupation ?•—Licensed interpreter and farmer. I reside at Ohinemuri and have resided there since the year 1865. lam also Chairman of the Ohinemuri County Council. I beg to state that these gentlemen and myself have come to Wellington on behalf of the petitioners, the farmers and settlers of the Ohinemuri district, to support the petitions now before Parliament praying for relief and discontinuance of the silting-up of the Waihou and Ohinemuri Rivers. When these rivers were declared a sludge-channel in 1895 the destruction of the navigation and the great injury to the natural drainage of the district were, I feel sure, not contemplated by the Government or the people of the district, whose knowledge and experience of the methods of ore-treatment were somewhat limited—in this way: The quantity of stuff put through the small batteries that were running at the time did not exceed on an average something like 1,000 tons per month, and the heavier material that was cast direct into the river did not travel so rapidly. The far-reaching and disastrous effects'of the fine silt resulting from cyanide opeiations—then an entirely new process in the district — were quite unknown to the people. Consequently no objection was made to the issue of the Proclamation at the time. In the year 1901 the Ohinemuri County Council commenced action in this matter. I will later on produce the correspondence and the different reports on this question. I wish to mention at this stage, however, that the Thames County Council and the Thames Borough Council are in sympathy with the people of the Ohinemuri district'and the Ohinemuri County Council in this matter. I will read a couple of letters from them. This is a copy of a letter received from the Thames County Council: " Council Chambers, Thames, 6th August, 1907. —Sir, —I have the honour, by direction of the Council, to inform you that it fully recognises the damage that is being done to the district by the silting-up of the Ohinemuri River; and, while it acknowledges the importance of the mining industry, it sincerely trusts that some scheme will be devised which, without injuring the industry, will overcome the difficulty with which the agriculturalists have to contend. The Council will gladly give any assistance in its power towards the furtherance of any such scheme.—l have, &c, W. S. Clark,.County Clerk." 2. Hon. Mr. McGouxzn.] Mr. Bagnall was Chairman at that date, was he not?— Yes. Now that Mr. Bagnall's name has been mentioned I may say that he owns a lot of property on the Waihou River, and the fact of the river being silted up will affect him very considerably. This is a copy of a letter from the Thames Borough Council: "Thames, 9th July, 1907.—Sir, —With reference to your Council's application for support in the matter, of the silting-up of the Ohinemuri River with mine-tailings, I am instructed by the Council to inform your Council that they give their fullest support and sympathy to the people affected, and as a copy of the petition to Parliament has been received, the Town Clerk has been requested to get as many signatures to the same as possible.—l have, &c, Albeet Bruce, Town Clerk." I will hand these documents in. [Copies of letters put in.] I wish also to hand in a plan of the district affected. 3. The Chairman.] Is it a marked plan? —Yes, it is a copy of the plan furnished by Mr. Perham, the engineer, sent there some years ago by the Government to report. [Plan put in.] I also hand in an index plan of the Ohinemuri County, showing the district affected by flood-water, marked in blue. [Put in.] I may say that I remember both these rivers prior to their being declared a sludge-channel. They were navigable highways, and vessels of from 40 to 100 tons used to trade regularly up to Paeroa and occasionally beyond Paeroa to a place called Mangakotukutuku, about two miles'and a half up the river from Paeroa, with heavy machinery for Karangahake, Owharoa, and Waitekauri. I saw these vessels go up there myself, and I saw the machinery. These vessels drew over 6 ft. 6 in. of water. There were also several steamers that used to trade regularly up to Snodgrass's Wharf. The names of those steamers were the " Effort," the " Lalla Rookh," the "Ruby," the " Tongariro," the " Te Aroha," the "Kotuku," and the "Paeroa." They were from 40 to 100 tons, and some of them drew over 6 ft. 6 in. of water. They used to trade regularly from Auckland and Thames to Paeroa, and their landing-place was Wharf "Vessels of similar capacity cannot possibly get there now. The site where Snodgrass's Wharf stood is now a bank of silt, and where the vessels used to lie alongside of that wharf in 6 ft. of water there is about an inch of water now; the site of the wharf is silted over. 4 Hon Mr McGowan.] Where has the water gone I —To the other side of the river. 5 lam glad to hear it is still there?—lt is still in the river, but it may not be after a year or two when the river is filled up. It will go all over the plo.ce. I may say, Mr. Chairman, that these rivers are narrowing and shallowing very rapidly, especially the Ohinemuri River, by the accumulation of silt on its banks and the filling-up and raising of the river-bed is daily increasing. I should like to produce some photographs. The places which they represent are all marked on the plan that has been handed in. This one is No. 8, Pereniki's Bend, on the Ohinemuri River. The depth of the river at that particular spot was over 15 ft,—the Natives used to bathe at that place; but now there are about 12 ft. of tailings on it. [Photograph put in.] This one depicts a shed The "Te Aroha " used to come up here, lie alongside that shed, and take in potatoes. [1 tit m.J

I—l, 4a,

I.—4a.

2

[W. G. NICHOLLS.

Photo No. 7 shows a portion of the same place, only it goes further up the river. [Put in.] I used to live just there, and we used to cultivate right along there. You will see where it is covered up to with silt. In 1870 the Government steamer "Luna" made her first trip to Ohinemuri. She also went up the Ohinemuri in 1872. She went up there for the purpose of taking the late Sir Donald McLean to a meeting held at a place called Puketawainui to discuss the question of opening up the Ohinemuri district for gold-mining. Some of you gentlemen may possibly remember that steamer. She turned at a place called Suck-in Bay. Puketawainui is about two miles up the Ohinemuri River. Suck-in Bay is a bank of silt now. It has encroached on the river about 2 chains, and the silt on that spot is about 6 ft. or 7 ft. high—that is, from the original river-bank to the water's edge. Now, it would be an utter impossibility for a steamer of similar capacity to go up the Ohinemuri River. Here is a photo of Suck-in Bay. [Produced.] 6. Mr. Herries.] When were these photos taken?—ln June. Another thing that I might mention to show that the river-bed is rising is this: There is a ledge of rock just below the Paeroa Traffic-bridge—a few chains from it. At one time this ledge of rock was uncovered. I used to go there and undress on it and dive into the river from it. Now there is about 6 ft. or 7 ft. of water and silt on the ledge, and it has not been seen for the last ten years. 7. Mr. Bennet.] Was that in about the middle of the river, or on the side? —Just on the side of the river. I produce a plan showing that rock. [Produced.] 8. Mr. Herries.] That: is in the Ohinemuri River? —Yes. And this is the Paeroa Traffic-bridge on the right of the Van. This plan, with the information shown on it, was sent to Mr. J. A. Wilson, the Auckland District Engineer. I think he was down there reporting on this same question. He went away without this information, and Mr. Kenny, the Paeroa County Clerk, supplied him with it. 9. The Chairman.] What is that?—A tracing and a letter. I will read the letter, from Mr. Wilson: " I have to thank you for youf memo, of the 17th instant enclosing tracing showing the level of the rock at the No. 1 cross-section. I have noted the information therein contained, and return the tracing herewith as requested." I will put that in. [Put in.] There is another matter that I wish to place before the Committee to show that the river-bed is rising. The old framework of the Paeroa Bridge was pulled down, and an iron bridge was put in its place. The men working on the bridge could not get at the lower structure of the bridge to pull out the old bolts in order that the piles and braces might be pulled up, and Mr. Bray, the late engineer of the Ohinemuri County Council, has sent us this note: "Paeroa, 19th August, 1907.—The photo attached hereto shows the old wooden bridge over the Ohinemuri River on the Paeroa - Te Aroha Road, at Paeroa. The pier-braces marked thus X were securea witn bolts to the P iles wnen tne bridge was erected. These bolts could not, at the very lowest water, be unscrewed to remove the braces when the present bridge was erected and the old piles removed. At no time during the erection of the new piers for the steel bridge was the water low enough to allow the walings and braces to be put down to the depth of the old braces. I feel sure there is a rise in the bed of the river, at the site, of at least 15 in., since the old bridge was erected, which is proved by the fact that the new work could not be put down as low as the old owing to water. The season when the new bridge was erected was an exceptionally fine one, and the water generally abnormally low.— Charles Bray, Engineer Ohinemuri County Council from September, 1904, to April, 1907." Attached to the letter is the photo referred to. I will put them in. [Put in.] There is also another very important thing proving that the river-bed is rising, and that is with regard to the Government Railway Wharf at Paeroa. That wharf was erected by the Government for the accommodation of steamers owing to the fact of the Public Works Department having erected a railway-bridge across the river. The steamers at one time used to go beyond where the railwaybridge now is, and they erected this wharf just below the railway-bridge. -The wharf is connected by a side line with the Paeroa Railway-station, whence there is a line to Karangahake, Waihi, and other places. Vessels—some of those that I-enumerated —used to go there with heavy cargo.' Some of them used to come from Auckland and some from Whangarei with coal. One vessel used to run regularly from Whangarei with coal for the Waihi and Karangahake districts, discharging at this place, from which it was taken to the out districts. These vessels after a while had to give up coming there. They now come to a point about six or seven miles lower down the river—Te Puke. This is owing to~the fact of the river being silted up. The wharf is there just to look at; it may be called a reminiscence of the past, We had a photo taken of it, and I produce that photo. [Photo put in.] Now the vessels cannot get there. 10. Is it only since the line was opened to Waihi that vessels have not come up to the wharf? — No, prior to the line being opened. It is about eight years ago. 11. How long has the line been opened to Waihi? —About two years—two or three years. I also produce a photo showing the river just below the wharf. [Produced.] 12. Mr. Herries.] That is on the Ohinemuri? —Yes. Again, in places where the river had a depth in its normal height of from 10 ft. to 15 ft. of water, people can now get across with water just up to their knees, so much has the place filled up with tailings. I may say that the river is now liable to flooding. In places where the farms were never flooded, the land is flooded regularly now after several hours' rain. . 13. Mr. Bennet.] Is that cultivable land?— Yes, farms. I will mention one or two. Ihere are Crosby's, Tetley's, Cooper's, and my own place. 14. Mr. Herries.] Are these all on the Ohinemuri River?— Yes. I will come to the Waihou directly. These places were never flooded, to my knowledge, previously, and I have been there a long time. • - . , 15. The Chairman.] How long have you been there?— Over forty years. I have never left there since 1865. These tailings are very injurious to the land, and when they settle thickly they destroy the vegetation.

3

!.—4a.

W. G. NICHOLLS.]

16. Mr. Bennet.] To what depth might these deposits be on the land, after a heavy flood? —In some places about 2 ft. 6 in. I have a bit of land just at the junction of the two rivers. It is a small block of 6 acres, on the Waihou. Mr. Shaw, of Te Aroha, has a piece alongside of it, and he wanted to get this piece of mine to enlarge his. He offered me £1 an acre rent for it. But after the January flood he did not care for it, in fact he would not have it now at any price. Mr. Chamberlain, who has Mr. Shaw's place, had some cattle running there, and he obtained permission from me to cut down some willow-trees that were growing on my land to feed his cattle with, on account of the grass and feed~having been destroyed by the silt. 17. Do willow-trees obstruct the debris going down the river, and thus to some extent cause the flooding? —Well, certainly they obstruct the tailings from going further down the river. 18. If these willows were removed, would that not allow the current to run more freely and probably sweep itself clear to some extent?— Yes, to a certain extent, but the stuff would go somewhere else. It would meet the tide and there it would stop, and make a big bank there, I should think. That would be in the Waihou River. 19. It would have a better opportunity, at all events, of clearing the silt out it these willows were out of the way?— Some of the tailings would go on and be caught below the township. I have here a photo showing the 6-acre piece of land. [Put in.] The Natives used to cultivate there at one time. It was an old settlement. Just below the junction of the Waihou and Ohinemuri Rivers a large bank of tailings has accumulated, practicaly forming a dam, and a few hours' rain will cause the water to run up the Waihou and overflow at a place called Ngarararahi, and flood the Netherton settlers. I produce a photo of this bank. [Photo put in.] There were in 1895 over seventy Europeans owning about 10,865 acres of land besides the land owned by the Maoris, which can be put down at another 10,000 acres. These lands were directly affected by this Proclamation. I have obtained this information from the valuation roll of 1895, and can corroborate it from personal knowledge. It is not correct, as I have heard stated, that there were only six persons affected by the Proclamation. All the farms along the Ohinemuri River were settled. The Natives were there and had their cultivations and farms. There was not a vacant spot on the Ohinemuri River at that time. I may say that up to very recently Netherton was becoming a very prosperous settlement, and it was through the success and prosperity of that settlement that the people were induced to look to the Piako land for further settlement, and it was, I am informed, on account of the numerous applications received from the Netherton settlers that the Government cut up the Awaiti land for settlement. The Government could easily have obtained from £3 to £4 an acre for it. As a proof of this I may say that I sold a block there just before the flood and received £5 an acre for it. This land was unimproved, the same as the Government land. I will show you that piece on the plan. [Land indicated on plan.] Another piece I was offered £3 10s. an acre for, but refused it, and now I do not think you could get 10s. an acre for the land if it were put up at auction —the whole of the Government land too. I produce a photo of Netherton. [Put in.] There were a good number of families living there. I also produce a photo showing their creamery. [Put in.] Last season the Natives of Ohinemuri and the farmers of the district petitioned the House on this same question, and matters are now much worse than they were then. The Governor's Speech at the opening of Parliament places the agricultural industry as first in importance, but I am afraid that as regards the Thames and Ohinemuri Districts it is being crippled for the sake of increasing the profits of the mining companies at Waihi and Karangahake by the destruction of the natural.highway and drainage. I may say that there is no hostility to the mining industry on the part of the farmers and inhabitants of the Ohinemuri County or the Ohinemuri people, but they consider that some steps should be taken immediately so that one industry shall not unnecessarily interfere with the other. The Ohinemuri County Council is desirous that the mining industry shall continue and prosper, but it has also to see that the farmers are not injured and ruined. The silting-up of the Waihou and Ohinemuri Rivers, if immediate steps are not taken to stop it, will be a very serious matter, not only to the farmers and settlers who have by hard toil and exertion made home's for themselves and their families, but also to those who have lands on the Piako side of the river, as the river is now commencing to break through from Waihou and Te Awaiti. The Government hold a large block on the western side of the river, and that will also be affected to a considerable extent. Mr. Breakell, the engineer engaged to carry out the work of drainage on the Piako side, is, I believe, in Wellington now. He was at Piako and he visited Te Awaiti, and I think that if he were called he would be able to give information in reference to this matter. 20. Mr. Bennet.] Can you suggest any means by which the silting-up can be remedied, without stopping the mines or interfering with them in any. way ?—There are many ways of getting at it. Let them stack their tailings. They used to stack them at one time. They were stacked at Karangahake, at Waihi, and at Waitekauri, and I do not see why they cannot stack them now. There is plenty of land about there to stack these tailings. On the Waihi Plains they could get three or four hundred acres of poor ground where these tailings could be stacked. The only difficulty is with regard to two mines at Karangahake —the Crown and the Karangahake. Well, they could obtain land near Paeroa —some waste land about there—and dump their tailings there. There is a swamp that they can obtain and use. 21. Mr. Colvin.] Would it be expensive for them to put the tailings there? —Of course they would have to go to some expense. They would have to purchase the land and erect machinery to carry the tailings on to the ground. 22. They could never do anything else with this soft silt?—l think that if it were run into pits first and the water allowed to drain off, the fine sand would be left, which is quite dry when the sun gets at it, 23. Mr. Bennet.] It would be very expensive to put it into pits, consolidate it, and take it out again, would it not?— Yes.

4

I.—4a.

[W. G. NICHOLLS.

24. Would there be no means of putting embankments up along the sides of the river where it overflows? —I do not think that would affect it at all, because the river is gradually rising, and as the river rose you woud have to go on banking continuously. 25. Mr. Colvin.] Is it not possible to dredge?— Yes, the river could be dredged. I have here a letter from the Secretary of the Auckland Harbour Board in reference to this matter. It is, I think, a reply to a communication sent to him by the County Council: " Auckland, 9th August, 1907.— Sir, —I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 31st ultimo, respecting information as to amount of material this Board's dredger is calculated to lift in twenty-four hours, -assuming the material is deposited into the punts without the dredger requiring to shift her position. In reply I beg to inform you that your letter was referred to the Engineer who reports thereupon as follows: ' Bucket dredger No. 121 lifts and dumps into the punts alongside, without shifting her own position, but including the time taken to shift punts under shoot of dredge, about 200 cubic yards per hour. These are only small punts of about 70 cubic yards each. —W. H. Hamer.' " The difficulty would be in getting rid of the stuff after it was landed in the punts. You would have to get some dumping-ground or some depot to put this stuff in. I think the better way would be not to put it in the river. 26. The dredge referred to is a bucket dredge?— Yes. 27. A suction dredge would be better, would it not?— But where would you put the stuff? To take it out to sea would be a matter of about forty-seven miles. I will now read the Council's correspondence in reference to this matter. The Chairman: You had better put it in. It is no use reading it all. Witness: I have here the first report from the Marine Department. I should like to read that. The Chairman: Very well. Witness: This is a report from Mr. W. H. Hales, dated the 30th March, 1901. I will read the letter from the County Council —to the Minister of Mines, I think —leading up to that report. It is dated February, 1901: " Sir,- —When you were in Paeroa on the 22nd January last the subject of the block in the river traffic here by the use of heavily laden keel vessels was brought to your notice, and you. were good enough to state that if the matter was brought before your notice in writing you would consult the Hon. the Minister of Marine and see what could be done to obviate this. The river traffic by the ordinary trading steamers and scows is not in. any way injurious to the fairway; but when heavily laden keel vessels drawing 7 ft. and 8 ft. come up, they generally take the ground, block the channel, and, owing to the swift current, cause a bank to form on the lee side, which proves a hindrance to ordinary traffic for some considerable time after the boat itself has got off. - The River Board it appears have no power to remedy this; and they ask the Government to give them so much power as to enable them to compel masters of boats taking the ground in the fairway to at once lighten their vessels and remove them out of the channel, or in default of their so doing to have it done at the boat's expense. Such powers given to the River Board and exercised by them would soon stop the use of unsuitable boats on the Waihou River and save the ordinary traffic from inconvenience and expense. The regular passenger and traffic steamers have frequently been prevented by this cause from getting tothe wharf, and been compelled to land their passengers in most inconvenient places, and have besides been put to the expense of lightening their own cargo to enable them to keep their own timetable. Trusting, sir, that you will be able to assist us in this matter," &c. On receipt of that the Engineer was sent to Ohinemuri, and this is the report that he gave after his examination: " Having examined that portion of the Waihou River from its mouth to the Ohinemuri Junction and the Ohinemuri from its confluence with the Waihou to Karangahake, I find that there are some grounds for the complaint that owing to some deep-draught vessels, principally employed in carrying coal for the Waihi mines, having grounded in the shallows in the Waihou, especially on' the bank at the entrance to the Ohinemuri River, temporary obstruction to navigation has been caused by the sand and mud around the stranded crafts being displaced by the currents so as to form banks in the channel. But this is not likely to occur very often, as the employment of vessels of a draught too deep for safe navigation of the river must prove to be unprofitable owing to the loss of time through grounding in the channel when making the passage up the river, and lead to the empoyment of scows or other light-draught craft for this service. With regard to the reported silting of the Ohinemuri River by the tailings and mine-debris discharged into it from the mines and reducing-works at Waihi and Karangahake, it is found that very little of the heavy minedebris has travelled very far from the place in which it was deposited, but the tailings from the batteries and cyanide-vats, which consists mainly of very fine comminuted quartz, is carried down by the current into the navigable part of the river which is being steadily filled up by this material, large quantities of which have accumulated on the bank and in the bottom so as to reduce the width and depth of the waterway considerably, especially in that part of the river from about a mile below the Railway Wharf to as far as the tidal influence extends upwards; but there is nothing to indicate that any considerable body of this material has as yet been carried into the Waihou River so as to cause injury to navigation in that river or the lower portion of the Ohinemuri River where the wharf at which most of the vessels trading to Paeroa discharge and take in cargo. There being very little force of current in the lower part of the Ohinemuri River for about a, mile above the Junction, the heavy material in the tailings is dropped before it reaches that point, so that only slight traces of silting are found near the Junction and none in the Waihou River from this cause. The shoals reported to be forming in the latter river must therefore be owing to the drift brought down from the country at head of that river, and the stiffening of the mud on the bar at the mouth to the sand-drift from the Thames beaches.—William H. Hales, Marine Engineer, 30th March, 1901." This report, you will see, was made about seven years ago, and Mr. Hales says distinctly in that report, referring to the tailings, " the tailings from the batteries and cyanide-vats, which consists mainly of very fine comminuted quartz, is carried down by the

W. G. NICHOLLS.]

5

I.—4A:

currents into the navigable part of the river, which is being steadily filled up by this material." I might also call attention to the fact that this report was made long before the Waihi Borough was formed. I have here Mr. Perham's report. The Chairman: We have that. Ido not think it necessary for you to read it all. You can hand it in. Witness: Very well. He states in that report: " That a quantity of still finer quartz sand in suspension mixes with the clear water of the Waihou at the Junction and is carried and deposited in the bed and on the banks of that river for at least seven or eight miles, there can be no doubt." That is, seven or eight miles from the Ohinemuri. He also says, "Of course the deposit is going steadily on, and if action is not taken to clear the lower Waihou of the obstructions rapidly forming, navigation to the Paeroa Junction Wharf will be found more impeded, if not . . . . have to cease entirely." I also wish to hand in this letter from the Master of the " Spitfire," dated the sth August, 1907 : " The Wharfinger.—Dear Sib,—l find from soundings taken that there is not sufficient water for the ' Spitfire ' to take her cargo of explosives up to the Junction landing. Mr. Forrest has had soundings taken, with the result that there is only 6 ft, 6 in. of depth at the top of high water, and the ' Spitfire ' is drawing 6 ft. 9 in., so that some arrangement will need to be made for discharging the explosives at the Puke.—Yours obediently, W. Findlay, Master, ' Spitfire.' " 28. Mr. Herries.] What is'the " Spitfire "?—A scow that brought up explosives for the Waihi Company. I have also received from farmers of the district one or two letters that I wish to hand in. One is from Mr. Arthur A. Wright, of Komata, and is dated the 13th August, 1907: " Dear Sir, —I am writing to you as Chairman of our County Council to see if something cannot be done to prevent the filling-up of the river with tailings. My position is shortly this: In 1894 I leased 450 acres of rich swamp land from near the Komata Railway-station, with over a mile river frontage. Since then I have bought the freehold, the Government Advances to Settlers lending £750 on it, and the balance being lent by the Bank of New Zealand. I have erected a sevenroomed house and outbuildings, opened up the land with six big outlet-drains, cleared it, and sown it all in grass and clover, and have thoroughly drained it with underground tile drains. This has cost me over £2,000, being all my capital, and the savings of fourteen years' hard work. It is well known amongst us farmers that all our drains have to be made on a level with the low tide. The river-bed has been so filled up with tailings during last year and this one that both tile drains and outlets are now three parts of their time filled with river-water instead of draining the landwater into the river, and if the wholesale filling-up of the river continues for another year the drains and the land itself will not be worth owning. I speak not only for myself but for all the farmers here on Komata and about, Netherton. It is hard to see your land being destroyed, and all your savings, with half a lifetime's hard work thrown in, and all to benefit no one, for it must be better to catch and stack up the tailings than to destroy thousands of pound's worth of dairying land. Could not your Council, or in fact any honourable-minded man, hit upon some remedy for this great wrong that would injure neither farmers nor miners?" 1 have also a letter here from Mr. F. Cock. That Mr. Wight has his farm on the Waihou River Mr. Cock has his on the bank of the Ohinemuri River. This is what Mr. Cock says under date 20th August, 1907: "To Silting Association.—Deae Sir, —As you are about to proceed to Wellington on the above matter [riversilting] I take this opportunity of furnishing you with the nature and extent of my loss through the continual deposits of silt from the Waihi Gold-mining Company. As you are aware, my homestead comprises a comparatively small arear (80) eighty acres in all. I have carefully taken the measurement of the pasture now utterly destroyed by these continual deposits, and submit that I have upwards of thirteen (13) acres destrcryed, which means an annual Toss of thirty (30) pounds to me. I desire here to say that I have no desire to exaggerate in the matter, and if you refer to the report furnished by Mr. Stewart you will conclude that lam within the mark. I may add that apart from the destruction of the pasture I have been put to considerable expense in removing my fences on three occasions, which I was compelled to do in order to prevent the Native cattle from molesting me. I would point out that these deposits are getting worse every season. I have been located here upwards of thirty-five years. I have spent the best part of my life endeavouring to make a permanent home for my family, and if this thing is not stopped it means ruin to me, as lam too old to begin the world again. Now, having had so many years' experience of the Ohinemuri River and adjacent country, I may fairly claim to be an authority on this question. And I would here point out that before the mining-silt was placed in the river we always expected a flood after three days' rain. Now we find the river is flooded in ten or twelve hours. In fact the river-bed is gone. When I took up my land we had 12 ft. and 14 ft. of water. Now we count the depth in inches. In conclusion let me add that I am not writing with any feeling of antagonism. I realise the importance of the mining industry and so I do of the agricultural industry. But if we look to the amount of revenue derived from the landed industry as compared with the mining, then any man of common-sense must admit that the mining industry must give way." I also hand in with this letter photos showing portions of Mr. Cock's land sited up. [Put in.] Here is a letter from. Mr. C. E. Lipsham to his landlord, Mr. Shaw: " 14th March, 1907. — Mr. Shaw, —I have sent you £4 on account for rent —all I can manage at present. I over-specu-lated in cropping with the hope of making a rise, which the floods spoilt. I put in all I could rake up, £34 165., for which I only got out three or four hundredweight of potatoes. It has made me a poor man for a time." Another letter from Mr. Lipsham to Mr. Shaw is dated Ist April: "I am leaving your house occupied by me on Monday, Bth instant. I herewith send you £2 and account as undermentioned, making £3 off rent. I 'will be able to let you have the balance in about a month, hoping that will be satisfactory. I am sorry, but the big loss I had places me in an awkward position for a lime . . ..." I also wish to hand in a declaration from the same person: "In the matter of the silting-up of Ohinemuri River with mining tailings. I, Charles

I.—4a.

6

[W. G. NICHOLLS.

Edward Lipsham, of Paeroa, farmer, do solemnly and sincerely declare : (1) That I am a farmer residing at Paeroa, and am of the age of seventy-eight years. I have resided in the Ohinemuri district for the past thirty years, most of which time has been spent in farming. (2) I have been farming in the neighbourhood of Paeroa for the past ten years. (3) About three years ago I leased from Mr. T. Shaw, of Paeroa, his farm on the bank of the Ohinemuri River, but I was compelled to leave this property owing to the damage (amounting to £450) which I suffered through the deposit of mining tailings on the land, which were brought down in flood-time. (4) I then leased from Mr. Alfred Thorp, of Paeroa, a property near the Junction, and in the hope of recouping my former losses I laid out all my remaining capital on this property. I have, however, had all my paddocks in this locality covered with mining tailings brought down by the July flood of this year, and at the present time those cattle that have not died of starvation are in a dying condition, and I am rendered practically penniless and have to depend upon the earnings of my children for support. This land was freshly laid down in grass about ten months previous to this date, and is now absolutely useless as a farm. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and under and by virtue of an Act of the General Assembly of New Zealand intituled ' The Justices of the Peace Act, 1882.'—C. E. Lipsham. Declared before me, at Paeroa, this 27th day of August, 1907.—Joseph Nathan, a Justice of the Peace." 29. Mr. Herries.] Was the flood in last July—the one that he refers to—as heavy as the January one?— Very nearly. There was also an August flood. [Declaration handed in.] I also wish to put in a newspaper showing an application made by the Manager of the Waihi Municipal Gasworks to the Thames Harbour Board in reference to getting their supplies by Kopu. I will read the letter, which explains itself: "I understand your Board has control of the wharf at Kopu, and I shall be obliged if you will kindly give me at your earliest convenience the following information. I am going into the matter of getting coal to these works from Auckland via Kopu. At the present time our coal goes to the Puke wharf, Paeroa, and is then carted to the station, and consequently the charges are high. lam under the impression that Kopu wharf has rails running right down, with a siding to the main railway, so that coal could be taken direct from scow into trucks. Will you please acquaint me with the circumstances, giving wharfage charges, and, if there are no rails, the distance of wharf to station, and name of a reliable carter so that I could get a price in the event of having to cart coal from wharf to station. I feel I am troubling you too much in the matter but shall be very glad of this information." This newspaper is dated the 3rd July, 1907. The manager of the Waihi Municipal Gasworks wished to get coal via Kopu instead 'of at the Puke, because the steamer delivering stuff at the Puke is some considerable distance from the railway-line. Te Puke is the only landing at present for Paeroa by water. That is seven miles from Paeroa by river; and if the silting goes ou they will have to shift lower down to this place at Kopu, about sixteen miles by land from Paeroa. If the river had-not been silted up the vessels could have come up to Paeroa and discharged coal and goods into the trucks there which are connected with the Paeroa Railway-station. You have Mr. Reed's report, Mr. Chairman —the report of last year ? The Chairman: Yes. Witness: I understand that there is also another report. It that before the Committee! The Chairman: Yes, we have had that this morning. Witness: Can we get a sight of that report ? The Chairman: The Committee decided that the report is for the Committee. Have you a copy of Mr. Stewart's report? Witness: Yes. I will put that in too. This is Mr. Reed's report: "Mines Department, Thames, 27th August, 1906.—The Under-Secretary for Mines.—Sir,—Alleged further _ silting of the Ohinemuri and Waihou Rivers : In pursuance of your verbal request that I should visit and examine the Ohinemuri and Waihou Rivers, with a view to ascertaining if any injury to property has occurred, or to what degree the beds of the aforesaid rivers have become raised by the deposit of tailings brought down from Ihe mines, I have the honour to inform you that I have examined these rivers at many points between Waihi and Netherton, a distance of over twenty miles, and covering all the area over which it is alleged that injury has been caused by_ such tailings, and herewith beg to submit my report thereon. ' I found that in no case have the tailings been deposited on the land outside the main banks of the rivers, or above the escarpment caused by the rivers, and the only land affected by the same is the diminutive flats which occur frequently between Mackaytown and Paeroa, and which were always contained between the main banks of the rivers. These flats, which are generally of insignificant proportions, are awash at medium flood, and upon them tailings, silt, and snags must always be deposited by any flood. I found these flats often deeply covered with tailings, but I observed no poisonous effect on the vegetation which comes in contact with such tailings. No doubt the cyanide-solutions had been washed out of the tailings in their descent from the mines. I also found the steep banks of the Ohinemuri River from Waihi to Paeroa covered for a considerable height; up the bank with tailings, but in no case reaching the top of the same. I carefully examined the drains on the low-lying flat and often swampy land between Paeroa and Netherton, and in no instance found any trace of tailings or injury caused by the same and there was no apparent back-wash caused by the tailings acting as a dam at the mouths of the drains or ditches as alleged, and notwithstanding the fact that the Waihou River was so high on the occasion of my visit that I had difficulty in descending with my vehicle from the Puke punt (crossing the river), I found the drains and ditches in good working-order and draining the land effectively. I inspected the bed of the river where possible, but did not take any sound-ino-s as such were taken recently by Mr. C. Bray, Engineer to the Ohinemuri County, who most courteously permitted me to inspect the sections he had taken of the riyer-bed. These appear to indicate that no further silting of the river-bed between Paeroa and Netherton has been caused by tailings since the visit of Mr. T. Perham, A.M.1.C.E., in 1901, on which occasion soundings

7

I.—4a.

W. G. NICHOLLS.

were taken. This is most satisfactory as it indicates that inequalities in the bed of the Waihou River had been levelled up by the tailings, &c, prior to that date, and that the scour of the river is strong enough to prevent considerable silting. I may state also that of late years the ore is being crushed much finer than at the time of Mr. Perham's examination, and as a result the fine slimes and tailings are being carried out to sea in suspension by the water. I observed the river at Netherton (twenty miles below the mines) to be greatly discoloured, and highly charged with tailings and slimes being carried to sea. In the vicinity of the wharves at Paeroa and Puke I observed the river-bed to be raised by willows and snags, which it appeared that no attempt had been made to remove. In conclusion, I may state that the only risk of serious damage to the land adjoining the rivers below Mackaytown would be in the event of a tremendous flood descending in the form of a wall of water above the main banks of the rivers. This would most probably leave tailings on the land as the water receded, but such a condition has never happened since the mines were opened, and unless the water descended in the form of a huge wave immediately inundating the banks, no danger need be anticipated, as by a more gradual raising of the river the tailings at present lining the banks of the rivers would be scoured out to sea before the outer banks were inundated. I have perused the report, of Mr. T. Perham and am of opinion that the timber weirs by which he proposed to retain the descending tailings would only at the best act as a temporary expedient and would be experimental, as there is no comparison between the fine tailings (slimes) of the Ohinemuri and the heavy alluvial tailings of California where such weirs are in use. If any remedial measures are deemed necessary, I should suggest the dredging of the Waihou River in the neighbourhood of the wharves to remove the snags, alluvial silt, willows, and tailings which have banked up there. In no instance is it apparent that any further injury has been caused by tailings deposited in the rivers since the visit of Mr. Perham in 1901. I also examined the various mills at Waihi and Karangahake, but in only two instances found it possible to stack tailings—viz., at the Waihi and Union Mills,' and then only ait great expense and in limited quantities. To return the tailings to the workings for filling stopes is altogether impossible by reason of the poisonous gases given off from the cyanide contained therein; also, on account of their fine incohesive character tailings would not form a sufficiently resisting body to the tendency to " creep " already observed and being guarded against at the Waihi Mine—a most important matter. —I am, Sir, your obedient servant, Frank Reed, Inspecting Engineer." I might say that Mr. Reed when he visited the district came to Paeroa, and the whole time he took to inspect in order to make this report was something like from 11 o'clock to 3 of the same day, and I do not think that in the time he would be able to get over that ground. In fact he engaged a trap, went to the Junction, turned from there, went to Netherton, and came back again, and got on the train and went away. He did not go by river; he went along the road. He refers to snags in the vicinity of the Puke and the Paeroa wharves. Now lam certain there are no snags there. He must have seen some driftwood or something of that kind. I myself run a launch on that river and am continually up and down, and I can say there are no snag's there either at the Puke or at the Junction wharf —not a single snag. I also wish to put in a list of the people—the seventy people—who had properties and farms prior to the Proclamation. 30. Mr. Herries.] Is that on both rivers or only on the Ohinemuri? —On both rivers. [Document put in.] 31. Where on the Waihou—below the Junction ?-—Below the Junction, extending right down towards Hikutaia. I have taken that list from the valuation roll of 1895, and it gives the names, and the blocks, and the holdings. I also wish to read the County Council's reply to Mr. Reed's report: " Council Chambers, Paeroa, 24th September, 1906." (This is to the Minister of Mines.) " Sir,—A copy of the report of the Inspecting Engineer of Mines, re the silting-up of the Ohinemuri River and Waihou River, has been received, for which I am desired to tender to you the Council's thanks. The Council regrets that Mr. Reed did not notify it of his intention to make this inspection, for in that case he would have been advised that the time allotted to this, to us, very important matter, was quite insufficient for the purpose—and further, all the necessary data and evidence would have been got ready for his inspection and consideration. The only representative of the Council who met Mr. Reed and knew anything of the proposed inspection seems to have been Mr Bray the County Engineer, and that was purely accidental. Under these circumstances, I have instructed the Engineer to furnish a report of what took place at the said interview, a copy of which report is herewith enclosed. I may add that, as far as can be ascertained, the whole time occupied in this inspection was from 9.45 a.m. of one day to 4.10 p.m. of the same day, and this to examine thirty-one miles of river. I think, Sir, that it is very evident that the examination must have been of the most cursory nature. With all deference to Mr. Reed's opinion I must refer, on behalf of the Council, to his statement 'that the only lands affected are the diminutive flats which ' were always contained between the main banks,' but even if such were the case—why should this not be considered? These flats are often the most valuable land, and why should the small farmer be made to suffer heavy loss to add to the gains of wealthy companies ? The Council contends that in this flying visit Mr. Reed, from the railway-carriage and buggy, could not see one-half of the river If Mr. Reed had had time he would have found that there are many small creeks, drains and swamps emptying into the river by which flood-water could gam access to the back country long before it reached a bank-high flood. His suggestion that the only way the tailings could be deposited on the land would be by the occurrence of a wall of water as high as the mam river-banks cannot I think have been made seriously. Surely in his examination he must have noticed that the fall of the land is from the river-bank and not to it, and that by means of the access to the back country before mentioned such a catastrophe would bury Paeroa and thousands of acres under from 6 ft. to 12 ft, of silt, It may be held that these rivers were always more or less liable to flooding but this was a matter of little consequence in the old days before the river was made a sludge-channel, as the deposit was then only a rich alluvial, which rather enriched than injured the land, but the barren inorganic tailings smother the grass and render the land utterly

L—4a.

8

[W. G. NICHOLLS.

useless for a considerable period, a matter of great importance to a poor struggling settler whose all is invested in his small holding. But an even more serious question is the general raising of the river-bed, which is appreciably taking place, and lessens the fall for drainage: and how can it be otherwise, when about 24,000 tons per month are deposited in the river by the Waihi Company alone, and I understand that this output is to be considerably increased. Continual complaints are also made of the silting-up of the mouths of the drains, and the Council's own experience is that after every flood the dock into which the Puke punt runs has to be cleared of silt. According to Mr. Reed, he made his inspection when the river was high; surely that was not the best time to inspect drains, the outlets of which were covered by flood-water. It seems to me that the time for examining the effects of the silt on drains would be when the river was low and not in flood. By reference to the Engineer's report it will be seen that Mr. Reed was misled (by examining the wrong plan in the Engineer's office) into the assumption that as that plan showed only one transverse section, no further deposit had taken place. As a matter of fact, at that place no second levels were ever taken since. The contention that no further deposit has taken place since Mr. Perham's inspection can, I am sure, be easily disproved, and surely the statement seems a rash one when one considers the amount of tailings that are daily put into the river. It can scarcely be held that all this is swept out to sea when we know that the Thames River is a tidal one in which the rise and fall extends far above the Junction and the flood tide runs strongly up and above the Junction. I must again express my regret that Mr. Reed did not notify the Council of his proposed inspection and take the evidence (for examination) of those most vitally affected by this question, as it would have saved me from the very unpleasant task of traversing most of his statements. I will not here take upon myself the duty of showing what injury the district is suffering from tie deposit.of tailings, but if a proper inquiry is held I have not the slightest in saying that a very strong case can be established. I may add here an extract from a letter received from the Hon. the Minister for Railways bearing date the 18th Aagust, 1906: 'As you are aware, the Ohinemuri River is daily becoming more difficult to navigate, and it is quite within the bounds of possibility that the shipping traffic will, in a comparatively short time, be withdrawn from the Puke wharf, and the conditions which now exists will be entirely altered.' This seems to be very weighty evidence from the Hon. the Minister for Railways, who but a short time ago held the portfolio of Public Works, and through his officers must be' well acquainted with the facts of the case. The statement of Mr. Reed re the inability of certain mines to stack their tailings seems to me to be beside the question. Does he mean to infer that any of the mines would have been stopped from working if the river had not been declared a sludge-channel? In conclusion, Sir, I would say that, apart from the injury done to the individual settlers, it is a sad thing to see one of the noblest of New Zealand's navigable rivers closed to traffic; and that this will be the case no one doubts unless immediate steps are taken to stop further depositing of tailings into the river.—l have, &c, W. G. Nioholls, Chairman." That is about all I have to say in the matter, Mr. Chairman. lam quite prepared to answer any questions which you may put. 32. Mr. Herries.] You were speaking about steamers that used to come up the river ? —Yes. 33. And'you have been a long time in the district. Could they get up at any time of the tide or only when there was a fresh?— They could not possibly get up without the tide. They could not get out of the Thames or Shortland. At that time the steamers came from Shortland. They would have to go along with the tide from there. 34. It was always at high water that they had to come up?— They could get up at half-tide-up the Waihou. 35. You say that none of them could get up now to Paeroa, even at full tide?—No, they cannot. ■< * , 36. But they could get up to the Junction ?—No, Ido not think so, on account of this bar. 37. For instance, the " Kotuku " used to come right up to Matamata? —Yes. 38. That was always in a fresh?— That Ido not know. 39. If there was a fresh on, these boats could come up?—lt would have to be a very high flood I doubt very much whether they could get over that dam that has formed at the junction of the river. I have an oil-launch myself drawing 2 ft. 6 in., and I used to keep her at my own place at Paeroa just above the bridge. Now I cannot keep her there. She is at the Junction. 40. But the " Matuku " comes up to Waihou? —Yes. , 41. How does she get across the bar?—By coming up the Waihou River at full tide; she is only a 5-ton boat. 42 The bar is in the Waihou?—Yes, and the Ohinemuri is shallow. 43. lam speaking of the Waihou River. Do you say that the navigation of the river has been altered?—lt is affected below the Junction—from the Junction downwards. 44. Between the Junction and Puke?— Yes. 45 But not above?—No, that is, not up the Waihou above the Junction. 46. The same boats could get up the Waihou that used to in former times—to Paeroa?—l in 47 S °Do you think from your experience that the Waihou River is worse for navigation than it wag ?_The lower part of the Waihou, from the Junction downwards is _ .48 You remember that in the old days when we used to have the Dispatch, the Patiki, and those boats, they very often used to get stuck?— They might have stuck there if they came up too early for the tide. . The places where they used to stick were at Charlton s and down below 1 you say that a boat like the " Patiki " could not come up equally well now as it did, say, in 1883'?— Yes. 50. You think it would be more difficult?— Yes. „, , , 51. What do the " Waimaire " and the " Tamwha " draw?—l could not say. They do not come up further than the Puke.

I.—4a.

9

W. G. NICHOLLS.

2—T. 4a.

52. Are they not bigger than the " Patiki "?—Yes, much bigger. 53. Mr. Bennet.] What area of land do you consider is being destroyed by the flooding of the river and the bringing of the silt on to the laud ? —Well, the area affected by the silting-up of the river is something like 15,000 acres, I think—altogether about 20,000 acres including some Maori land. 54. Is that used both for cropping and grass?— Not the whole of it; portions of it. 55. Hon. Mr. McGowan.] At what time was the Ohinemuri Goldflelds opened, can you tell us?—ln 1875. 56. Do you remember at what time, roughly, the Waihi Company commenced operations? — It was prior to 1890, I know —about 1888, 1 should think. 57. Were the Crown and Talisman and the Karangahake Mines started before that or after that?— The Crown Mine was before that, I think; the Talisman some considerable time after. 58. But the Crown was before that?-—The Crown and Woodstock were before that. 59. What effect do you think the construction of the railway had on the Ohinemuri River—did it improve it or did it injure it? —Well, Ido not think it injured it, I think it improved it. Of course, it took away a certain amount of the traffic. . 60. Do you consider that the material that was thrown into the Ohinemuri River by the railway people was finer stuff than that thrown into it by the Waihi Company or the Crown or the Talisman ?—lt was heavier stuff. 61. Do you not think the heavier stuff would stop in the river?—lt would stop nearer Karangahake. 62. And you think that the heavier stuff has done less damage than the lighter stuff? —I do not think that it reached Paeroa. .The lighter stuff came to Paeroa, but the heavier remained there. 63. At any rate your statement is that the river was rather improved than otherwise by the railway?—l did not say that. 64. You want to withdraw what you did say?—l do not say that is was improved. I say that it did not do it any harm. 65. I. do not want to catch you. 1 want your own honest opinion as to what effect the formation of the railway had on the river?— Speaking commercially—that is, for the trade, for the steamers —I do not think it did them any good, because it took trade away from them. 66. lam talking about the river, hot of the commercial aspect, I want to know whether the putting-in of thousands of tons of stuff from railway-construction —stones and carth —blocked up the river more than the tailings from these mines? —Now I understand your question. Certainly it did not improve it. The putting-in of any material whatever does not improve the river. It helps to fill it up. 67. Do you know that there are still steamers running up the Waihou River?— Yes, the " Matuku " only. 68. Where to—what is the station 2—From Te Puke to Te Aroha. 69. lam talking now of the trip from Auckland to Te Puke. What is the place they stop at now?—Te Puke. , . ~ . 70. There is the "Paeroa," is there not? and the " Waimane I— The Taniwha and the " Waimarie." 71. Are there any others?—l think those are the two that come up. 72. From Auckland? —Yes. 73. Are there any coming from the Thames? —I do not think so. 74. Were there any.in the habit of coming from the Thames?— Yes. 75. Do you know the tonnage of the " Paeroa " ?—About 94 tons. 76 And the " Taniwha " ?—The " Taniwha " is about 260 tons, I think. 77. Are these steamers trading there regularly at the present time?— They are trading up to Te Puke at the present time. 78. Is it a daily service? —Yes. 79. That is in 1907. Going back to 1888, were there any steamers of that size or larger trading up as far as Te Puke?— No. mr.i--.000 ti 80 There were no steamers of that size trading regularly up to Te Puke in 1888, or after that?— The "Paeroa" is 94 tons. She used to trade right up to Paeroa, and with deeper 81. It is not necessary for her to go there now: she could if she wanted to I suppose?—No, she could not, , , 82 Do you think many of these steamers would go to Paeroa wharf now assuming that the water was as' deep as it was in 1888 or 1875, or at any time you like to take?— Yes. 83. You think they would still go to Paeroa?—Yes, that is provided the railway wharf was 84 You think that any steamers taking material or passengers for Paeroa, or beyond it, would still go to the Paeroa wharf instead of to Te Puke or the railway-station, now?—No, they could not. 85 But would they if they could?— Certainly they would. _ 86 Do you think'they would go to where there is no station rather than where there is a station?—Thev would go to the Paeroa Railway Wharf. They would take their coal _ there—that is, the vessels from AVhangarei-because at the Pa.eroa Railway Wharf there is connection with the Wall B7 lm And you say that the traffic, instead of going to the Paeroa wharf, would go to the Paeroa Railway Wharf 1- -Exactly. 88. So that if you had 30 ft. of water there they would not go to the Paeroa wharf?— They could not go there on account of the bridge. ■ , -. , 89. But they do not want to go there because they would be going past the railway I— That is so.

10

[W. G. NICHOLLS.

I.— 4a.

90. And the stoppage of the boats is for want of water, and because of the inconvenience 2—That is so. 91. Were you a member of the County Council when they interviewed me upon this question seme time ago?— How long ago is that ? 92. How long have you been a member of the County Council? —I was a member from 1885 to 1893. About two years ago I was again elected. 93. Were you not one of the deputation that met me at Paeroa in regard to the silting-up of the river and the tailings being put into it, and so on 2—l was at one deputation five or six years ago. 94. On that subject?—l think it was in reference to that. I was not in the Council then. 95. Did I make any proposals then regarding a means of helping the settlers in the presumed trouble? —I think you suggested something about rating. 96. Anything else? —I do not remember. I did not take very much notice of the proceedings at the time. 97. Were you not deeply interested in the matter ?—There were others there who were appointed to do the talking. 98. You said there were about 15,000 acres affected. Would you tell me about how much land has been destroyed by the tailings, or could you give me a rough estimate of the area destroyed?— No, I could not. 99. Has any been destroyed by the tailings?—Oh, yes! 100. Tell us where the land has been destroyed—not affected but destroyed?— That is, covered up with the tailings ? 101. Yes, destroyed in effect?—l cannot give you exactly the quantity of land, because in some portions I have not seen it. 102. Has any been destroyed?— Yes. 103. About how much?— That is rather a hard question. , 104. Has any been improved? —No, none. 105. You make it quite clear that there are three steamers trading regularly and that these are as large as, if not larger than, the steamers that were trading before the Waihi Company was in existence?— Yes. They are trading up to Te Puke, but their ooming there is getting more difficult every day. 106. Who told you that?—l know it. 107. It is just your own opinion?—lt is my own experience. 108. If the captain of one of these steamers said he could go up the river easier now than he could before the Waihi Mine started, would you believe that?—-No. 109. You think you would know better than he?—l am certain he is wrong. 110. There is a list of owners of land here. Did Mr. Brown have any land affected at Kaimanawa 2—Yes. 111. Has he lost any land? —He has sold it, I put in that list as showing the people who owned land prior to the Proclamation. 112. To whom did he sell? —To Mr. Morrison. 113. Mr. John Morrison? —Yes. 114. Has any of Mr. John Morrison's land been destroyed?—lt is flooded. 115. Has any of it been destroyed?— That I cannot say. 116. I have seen some of it flooded when there was no rain 2—Probably some of it at the back. 117. Do you know whether he has done any draining?— Yes. 118. Had the drain a good effect in drying his land?—l should think so. 119. Where did he put the material that he cut out when cutting these drains?—On the banks. 120. Did it all go on the banks? —Most of it I should think. . 121. Would there be no silt go into the river? —There would be a little. 122. How much land has Mr. Arthur Hubbard lost?—-I cannot say. 123. How much has Mr. John Hubbard lost?—I cannot say. 124. Mr. John C. Hubbard: has he had any destroyed by the tailings?— That is the same firm. 125. Do the three men own the same farm?— Yes. 126. What applies to one will apply to all, I suppose?—-Yes. 127. Do you know Mr. John Morrison, jun.—he is a ratepayer of the county? —Yes. 128. Was any of his land destroyed by the tailings 2—l believe so—according to his own statement he has had some destroyed. 129. You were the owner of your holding when the rivers were declared a sludge-channel?— Yes. 130. Why did you not put in a claim for compensation ?—Because we did not know the seriousness of th 6 nature of this process. It was entirely a new process then. I mean the cyanide process. 131. But this has nothing to do with the cyanide at all. It is not the cyanide that is grinding the stuff. It is the tailings that lam dealing with?— The quantity that was put through before the Proclamation was issued would not hurt the river, because it was a small mill. Now it is filing up the river and destroying the drainage. 132. Does the drainage itself not fill up the river?—l do not think so. 133. Have you had any experience of rivers other than the Ohinemuri and the Waihou?—No. 134. Have you ever seen the actual bed of a river above the land adjoining?— No. 135. Have you ever walked along the road between Thames and Puriri ?—I have gone along it on horseback 136. Do you know a creek there called the Matatoki?—Yes. 137. Have you ever noticed the bed of that creek? There is a creek, and a road alongside it, going towards Puriri ?—No, I have not been that way.

I.—4a.

Thursday, 12th September, 1907. William Gray Nicholls (No. 1), examination continued. 1. Mr. Seddon. In what capacity do you come here—as representing a Council, or personally? You do not represent yourself, do you, as one of the people who have suffered from the silting-up ?— 1 appear in both capacities, as Chairman of the County Council and also as one heavily interested in this matter. 2. In what way—you own land, do'you?—Yes. 3. On what river?—On both rivers. 4. What sort of land is it? —On one river—the Waihou—we have several blocks. There is one block called the Waihou West. It was cleared some time ago and fenced off, but through the damming-up of the Waihou River the water goes all over it. 5. What is the area of that?— 277 acres. 6. It is owned by you personally?— Yes. 7. What was it used as before—was it grazing-oountry or cultivated? —It was grazing-land. 8. How long have you owned that land? —It belonged first of all to my wife's people—she inherited it from her ancestors. 9. In what year did the silt first appear on it?— With respect to this particular block, the water dammed up at the junction owing to the silt, and it dammed right back and overflowed this place. 10. There is no silt comes on the place 2-—No, but it is flooded with water. 11. What is the nature of this silt? It is said to be from up-country drains. Is that the cause of it, do you think?— The quartz silt is from the mines. 12. Are you sure it is from the mines? —Yes. There is' no doubt about it. 13. You spoke yesterday about the stoppage of shipping. The ships I believe come up to Paeroa at present, do they not?— No. They come up to.a place called Te Puke: That is seven miles by river from Paeroa. The vessels that are running there now, although they are of larger capacity, were built specially to run to a place called the Junction, which is nearer Paeroa; and they had to shift from there in consequence of the river-bed being filled up. They now come to Te Puke, two or three miles lower down. 14. What is the nature of the ships now in comparison with the ones you. remember that used to come up previously? Are they smaller of larger?— They are larger, but they were built specially for the trade, to draw less water. 15. You are quite certain that the river-bed has silted up. What is your proof of that? Have you watched the landmarks or anything like that?— Yes. 16. What can you point to particularly? —There is a rock of which I spoke yesterday, that used to be uncovered. 17. Absolutely?— Yes, fully a foot. Now —well, it has not been seen for the last ten years. 18. You know exactly where the rock was and you say that the covering-up of it is due to the silting-up ?—To the silting-up and the raising of the river-bed. Samuel Jameson Laughlin made a statement and was examined. (No. 2.) 19. The Chairman.] What are you, Mr. Laughlin?—A farmer, residing at Netherton. 20. Are you one of the petitioners ?—Yes, and one of the sufferers. 21. You are chairman of the Farmers' Union there, I think?— Yes. 22. Will you make your statement now, please?—l have been appointed by the residents of the Thames Valley as their delegate to support the petition to Parliament with regard to the silting question, and hope that you in your wisdom can give us some relief. I can speak from my own experience as lam a sufferer from the silting-up of the river. It is impossible to estimate the heavy losses sustained by the settlers, but I can produce a list furnished by some of them. I can talk from experience from both miners' and farmers' points of view, as I am a certificated minemanager and was formerly a battery-manager for a number of years on the Thames, where I was associated with mining from boyhood. From the farmers' point of view, I have had my present farm over thirteen years, and have continuously lived on it for the last nine years, so I can say I have served my apprenticeship to farming. I produce a list of the miners who have become farmers. Many of the miners are working at the higher wages obtained by mining in the hopes of having small farms to fall back on. That miners can make good farmers can be proved by the number who supply our creamery in the Thames Valley. When the mining goes the population goes with it, but the land is always there, and the population on the land is a settled one. Allow me, o-entlemen, to read some remarks made by Sir Joseph Ward some little time ago: "It was to the fand that we must look for the material side of our progress, producing as it did, directly or indirectly, everything that we required. Anything hostile to the interests of people on the land must therefore also affect all other classes of the community." Why destroy the land that the pioneers with stout hearts have carved, as it were, out of the dense bush amid hardships untold? Why not do something to save the land and let the farmers live as well as the miners? I have travelled over the district and inspected the damage done, and can say that at the present rate the rivers are silting up the farmers in a few years will have to abandon their properties. The question has become a burning one in the district. The dairying industry is one of New Zealand's greatest industries and our rich fertile valleys are likely to be to the fore when the rich gold-mines are a thing of the past. Last year we petitioned for relief and got no answer. We are now petitioning again and feel sure that now the matter has been placed before you in its true light

11

I.—4a.

12

[S. J. LAUGHLIN.

you in your wisdom will give us speedy relief and not allow one industry to kill another. The Ohinemuri County Council has the support of all the settlers in this matter. We do not dispute the legal right of the mines to deposit their tailings in the river, but we contend that it does not give them the right to deposit the tailings from 1 to 5 chains from the river over our grass paddocks. It used to take several weeks' rain to cause a flood, and now less than twenty-four hours' rain produces floods. We live in dread now when it rains. I produce photographs showing how our lands are being destroyed. [Photographs put in.] I have personally inspected the lands referred to. The blocking-up of the Waihou causes the river to back up and the Ohinemuri tailings are carried up the Waihou and then carried over the lauds by the overflow. I have seen tailings on the lands from Ngarararahi (McKee's) downwards, and seen the cattle starving on the lands. 23. What do you mean when you say " from McKee's downwards " 2—From the Junction down to my place. 24. That is on the Waihou ?—Yes. The owners have to fell cabbage-trees to feed these cattle, owing to the loss of their grass. I produce an affidavit from Mr. Stephen Fisher showing that the damming-up of the Waihou caused the flood in January. It reads as follows : "In the matter of the silting-up of the Ohinemuri and Waihou Rivers by the deposit of mining tailings and debris therein. I, Stephen Fisher, of Netherton, in the Provincial District of Auckland, New Zealand, farmer, make oath and say: (1) That I am a farmer and reside and have resided at Netherton aforesaid for the past fourteen (14) years and am thoroughly conversant with the peculiarities of that and the surrounding districts. (2) I was living at Netherton in January, 1907, at the time of the big flood. That was the first occasiou on which my land was flooded. (3) That on the first day of the said flood I went in a canoe from Netherton up to the Awaiti over usually dry land and found that the water flooding Netherton came from the Waihou River into the low-lying Awaiti flats and thence proceeded to flow straight down across the Netherton lands into the Waihou or Thames River there, and continued to do so for three days. Owing to the nature of the lands in this part it is perfectly natural, in the event of the Waihou breaking its banks at Awaiti, for the water to flow down over Netherton. I saw the water coming in from the Waihou on to the Awaiti and followed the current down to Netherton. (4) At the end of the said three days the water commenced to recede and it was then that a rush of water came from the Piako. (5) That the damming of the junction of the Waihou and Ohinemuri Rivers by large banks of silt and tailings is, in my opinion, the cause of the Waihou breaking its banks at Awaiti.—Stephen Fisher. Sworn by the said Stephen Fisher at Paeroa, this 22nd day of August, 1907, before me—T. A. Moresby, a Solicitor of the Supreme Court of New Zealand." [Document put in.] It is not altogether, gentlemen, the amount of tailings at Netherton that we are complaining of, although they are doing us a considerable amount of damage. What we are mostly complaining of is that the mouth of the Waihou is getting dammed up with these tailings and every two or three days' rain means a flood with us, whereas at one time we would not have felt a week or a fortnight's rain. If you will look at the map you will see that the river winds round at the back of Netherton, and the consequence •is that when the mouth of this river is choked up it naturally overflows down towards Netherton. 25. What do you mean by the " mouth of the river " 2—At the Junction. 26. That is not the mouth?— Well, we call it the mouth of the Waihou up there. I mean at the junction of the Waihou. It overflows and comes, down and floods us for days before it gets away. I have been an owner of a farm for thirteen years. I took up my farm eight months before the river was proclaimed a sludge-channel, and have resided there for the last nine years, and I can see that the thing is getting worse all the time. Mr. Wilson, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Kenny visited my place. 1 went down the river with'them, and I beg to show you some of the tailings that I took off the ground where Mr. Reed and Mr. Wilson were standing. [Sample produced.] This is a sample of the silt that covers the front of my place to a depth of several inches. 27. Nothing will grow in it?— Nothing will grow in it, of either vegetable or lower life. Mr. McKee's and Mr. Hanley's paddocks are covered with these tailings from 1 to 5 chains back from the river. 28. That is on the Waihou? —Yes. Mr. Porritt w r as with me when I went down one day, and 1 showed him seven dead cows within half a mile of this land. The cause we think is their eating the rough grass that is full of dust which the tailings have left. Mr. McKee's potatoes which he had planted on the bank of the river had several inches of this silt over them, and of course were ruined. My potatoes were ruined but not from silt; it was from the amount of water that came on to the ground by the overflow of the Waihou. As I have already stated, I was brought up on the goldflelds and I know what tailings are; I know there are three different kinds, and I know pumice sand from tailings, and I can stand here and say from my experience that these were tailings from the battery. The heavier tailings settle in the bottoms of our rivers—the iron-pyrites tailings. The lighter tailings accumulate on the banks. The river is both encroaching on the banks and rising in the bottom, and naturally every inch that the river rises in the bottom lowers our banks. Hence the water overflows the land and destroys the grass. The flood in January was a big flood, and, we admit, did us a deal of harm, but we are not altogether complaining about that flood, as the petition to Parliament will show that twelve months ago we were complaining—before the last flood. We have been complaining for some considerable time because every two or three days' rain means a flood with vs —and this is where the injury comes in—through the silting-up of the river. At our crossing, where we have to cross in a punt, I myself have seen ladies waiting on the punt for half an hour while I got down and assisted the punt-keeper to throw some of the tailings out so that the punt could come in to her proper dock —a place that the Ohinemuri County Council is continually cleaning out. However, every little flood builds it up again. Mr. George Vowales, a neighbour of mine, had to send his cattle right out from Netherton to keep them alive. I myself lost seven head this year, which I attributed to the loss of my grass and the wetness of the same through the overflow-water. There are several farmers whom I can mention who do not think it

13

I.—4a.

S. J. LAUGHLIN.]

worth their while to put in any crop until they hear the result of this inquiry, and there are others who have put their agricultural-implements into the sale-room, too disgusted to go on any more. One of them is Mr. Chamberlain, who lived at the Junction. Another is Mr. Whitmore, who lived at Te Puke. Gentlemen, we poor farmers have to look to this Liberal Government for some protection against these powerful companies, to save us from being ruined and our lands from being destroyed. My farm is my Waihi. My lifetime's earnings went into that farm, and if is ruined of course I shall have to turn out and try to make a new home. And so it is, I contend, with each man holding land on the banks of the river. Their land is just as much to them, because it is their all, let it be ever so small a holding. Ido not wish to trespass on your valuable time. I simply want to put my statement before you. Everything that I say to-day with regard to tailings lam prepared to prove. If any one visits the ground he can see the tailings there. The stronger grass may come through the shallower parts of the silt, but the fine grass will not. I will conclude by saying that it is the damming-up of the junction of the Waihou that is causing most of our trouble, although the tailings accumulating ou the river-banks are causing a considerable amount, I produce a list of losses sustained by the farmers. [List handed in.] It is not my place to point out any remedy, gentlemen, but, having been brought up on a goldfield, I think the matter could be remedied. 29. You think it possible to find a remedy?— Yes. 30. Hon. Mr. McGowan.] In the affidavit that you read from Mr. Fisher there is a statement that a rush of water from the Piako flooded the ground. What connection has the Piako with the Ohinemuri or the Waihou River 2—The "rush of water after the flood. There was a rush of water came in from the Piako. 31. That rush of water from the Piako could not be from the Waihou or the Ohinemuri —it was from a different river altogether 2—Quite so. 32. And the Ohinemuri River or the tailings in it had no effect upon that rush of water from the Piako? —Not upon that rush, but the Waihou rushed for days before that. 33. Mr. Herries.] I understand you are speaking as a representative of the farmers. I want to know exactly what the losses of the farmers are?— You have got the list. 34. I understand that you say that the losses are due both to the silting and to the floods?— Yes. 35. Do you attribute the whole of the flooding to the damming that you speak of ?—Yes, I am positive of that. 36. Take the river above Riley's and Te Aroha: would you say there were no losses there from the flooding?—l could not say. I have never been there. 37. If I told you that there were similar losses there and that grass had been destroyed there, would you believe it ? —Yes. 38. When this is a river liable to flood right from the source to its mouth, why should you attribute the whole of the flooding down there to the damming-up of the water 2—Because I never knew it to flood so badly until recently. 39. Do you not think that this last year we have had an exceptional season 2—Yes, but we are not complaining of the last great flood. We are complaining that every two days' rain is a_ flood w ith us that every twenty-four hours' rain causes the river to overflow, whereas at one time a week or a fortnight's rain would not. 40. But the experience is the same higher up the river ?—I do not know anything about that, 41. Do you not think the flooding is due to the bush having been felled and the swamps drained and the water coming quicker into the Waihou? Do you not think that would cause it to flood quicker 2 —No. The drains would let the water go off the ground quicker. 42. And quicker into the river, wouldn't they?— When the water overflowed from the Waihou on to our ground the drains would throw it back into the river again. 43. lam speaking of the upper Waihou. Is it not possible that the flooding is due to the country being settled in the upper Waihou, and the water, owing to the drains that have been made, getting into the river quicker than it used to before the drains were made? Would that not tend to cause a quicker rise of the river right through 2—-There are no drains going in where it overflows. 44. lam speaking of the Waihou above Te Aroha where there are plenty of drains. If the water came quicker into the headwaters of the Waihou, would it not be .likely to cause a flood quicker, whether there was a dam or not where the tailings came down ? —I am not quite clear as to your question. You are talking about a part of the country that lam not acquainted with. 45. Take the general aspect of a river. Supposing there were bush on one-side, if that bush were felled and swamps drained, would not the river right through be apt to rise quicker on that account? —No. I do not think that the small drains we put in would have that effect on the river. 46. But there are big drains higher up. Supposing you drained about 20,000 acres of swamp and let all that go into a river where it formerly only soaked in, would that not be apt to make a river rise quicker ? —Yes, with a large area like that. 47. When the silt is deposited, how far does it get deposited from the river-bank? —In some places a chain; in some places 8 chains, and in others 5. In some places you will get a thickness of 4 in., in some 6 in., and in others only about an inch. 48. How far is it that it is really bad? —Probably about 3 or 4 chains in from the bank of the river. The further you go back the lighter the silt gets. 49. Can you form any estimate from these papers as to how much of the actual damage is caused by the'deposit of tailings?— Well, it is considerable—l am speaking of Netherton. There are a good few acres there ruined by tailings. 50. Would there be 3,000 pounds' worth of damage done by the tailings, or 1,000 pounds w , or th? —Yes, I should say that would cover the damage done by the tailings there. 51. £2,000 ?—£2,000 or £3,000 might do it. 52. Supposing the river had not been proclaimed a sludge-channel but was proclaimed now, and the farmers would put in applications for compensation for damage: can you form any estimate

I.—4a.

14

S. J. LAUGHLIN.

of the amount the farmers would ask for?—No, I cannot-in fact I do not quite understand your question. 53. In 1895 this river was declared a sludge-channel, and it was open to any one then to put in a claim for damages 2—l was not aware of that, although I was the owner of the property at that time. I knew nothing about its being declared a sludge-channel, and many more were in the same boat. 54. However, that was done and a chance was given the farmers to put in a claim for damages —for present and prospective damages. Supposing it had not been proclaimed a sludge-channel and were declared now, what would the claims amount to? Would they amount to a large sum?— That is a question I could not answer. There are some very large blocks of land at Netherton. 55. Of course the farmers would have to prove they were damaged?—l think the Government have just completed the purchase of something like 60,000 acres, so I could not really give any idea. Besides, the prosperity that the farmers who are living there now have had will induce the Government land to go off well, provided the silting-up is stopped. 56. What do you want done?—We want the tailings stopped. 57. In what way —not to be put into the river at all?—It is not my place to find a remedy, but of course like every other man I have a right to think what would be the best way. 58. We want to find out what suggestions you have to make?—Am I at liberty to express my views ? 59. That is what lam asking you. Have you any suggestions to make to the Committee? —I consider that there is no one who can deal better with the tailings than the mines themselves. I was up at Waikino some time ago and saw several trucks"of tailings being dumped out on to the Waihi Plains, where there are hundreds of acres available for a dumping-ground. The thought struck me if they can save those tailings—s or 6 tons —why could they not save the lot if they were paid for it? What I would propose would be to allow them 6d. an ounce off the gold duty. I understand there is 2s. an ounce gold duty. I would propose to allow the company 6d. an ounce off the gold duty, to provide a dumping-ground for their own tailings, and would cancel the Proclamation declaring the river to be a sludge-channel. 60. Do you think that would pay the mines?—lt would pay the Waihi. It being such a large mine and things being done on such a gigantic scale there, the least saving on their tonnage would be a large sum at the end of twelve months. I look at the matter like this: There are two large industries coming into conflict and what is wanted is to stop one party—that is the farmers—from being injured without injuring the mining industry. Long live the mines IWe wish them well. At the same time we wish to live, and we cannot see why one large industry should be allowed to crush another. 61. You think that a portion of the gold duty should be given to the mines to make them stack their tailings?— Yes. Of course lam only expressing my opinion. Ido not see where the injury would oome in to any party then. 62. Would it be possible at Waikino to stack the tailings?— Yes. 63. Would it at Karangahake? —The mines there are in a rather different position. They 'are not so rich there as at Waihi. Perhaps they would want a little assistance in the way of an aqueduct to convey their tailings a little distance from their battery. 64. You admit that the mines at Waihi and Karangahake and Waikino are an excellent market for the produce of the farmers 2—We admit that we sell them a certain amount of produce, but we do not lose sight of the fact that we have to compete against the world. 65. Do you not think that the fact of Waikino and Karangahake and Waihi being in your vicinity has increased the value of your land 2—No, I do not think so. 66. Supposing that the mines were all closed, do you think that your land would be of the same value? —Yes, I think we could live and get on just as well as we are doing now. At the same time I am the last man in the world who would wish to see such a thing. 67. I see that there were only ten people who put in claims or say they suffered damage 2—Yes. Many did not put in claims because they thought they would not get anything. 68. Was this the result of a canvas? —No, there was no canvassing. I did not canvas in any way. 69. How far down the river do you reckon the damage goes—as far as Hikutaia?—Yes. When Mr. Wilson,, Mr. Reed, Mr. Kenny, and myself went down we could not see much damage done below Hikutaia. I could see no tailings much on the banks below Hikutaia 70. Can you show the Committee on the map how far you think the damage now done would go?—A considerable distance below the creamery at Netherton. [Place pointed out on map.] 71. Supposing anything were done in this matter, would it be cheaper to buy out the people who have been actually damaged, or to pay something to the mines to stack their tailings, if it were possible for them'to do so? —I do not suppose it would take a great amount to buy the people out. Look at the large rich alluvial flats ; there are about 200,000 acres of land which some day will find homes for thousands of people. 72. That is not damaged now 2—No. There is no one using it now. If the Government wished to buy the people out, I think the latter would be very willing to sell. If that were the only remedy they would be glad to take the money and get out of it. 73. Have you formed any idea as to whict it would pay the country better to do? —I think it would be better to stop the tailings and allow prosperity to go ahead. 74. Of course the mines say they would have to close down ?—We know that that is nonsense. 75. They say that they could not work a lot of their poorer ore? —What does it matter to the mines where'thev dump the tailings, as long as they have got a dumping-ground? 76. Mr. Coivin.] Do you not think that if there was an extra expense put on the mines to get the tailings away they would not take out the low-grade ore that they are now taking out? At present

3. J. LAUGHLIN.]

15

I.— 4a.

they are employing a number of men taking out this low-grade ore, and if they were put to a certain amount of expense to get away the tailings they might take out the richer ores and leave the lowgrade?—Yes, but I would not stress the mines by putting anything on them. What I pointed out about the gold duty would be no stress on the mines. They have a right to put the tailings into the river, or to be assisted to take them somewhere else, or to be recompensed. 77. Who do you suggest should recompense them? —The Waihi gold duty. 78. How long had you taken up your land before the river was proclaimed a sludge-channel?— Eight months. 79. How many other settlers were there at the time the river was proclaimed?—l have not got a list with me, but I could mention a good few that I know. 80. With regard to this list of damages and losses sustained, had all these people been on the land there prior to the river being proclaimed a sludge-channel 2—No. Many have purchased land there since. 81. And yet they claim for damages that have been done since the river was proclaimed?— Yes. I owned my farm before it was proclaimed, but I did not put in for any damages. I would sooner see a remedy provided than get damages. 82. How far does the river overflow its banks?— Over the whole block, because it comes in from the back through the big bend of the river. The water from the. Waihou comes in from the back, and what overflows from the river comes in from the front. The front water carries the tailings. 83. The river floods very easily now —far more easily than it did formerly?— Yes. Even since Mr. Reed and Mr. Wilson visited the river we have had two floods, both carrying tailings. 84. Is it not a notorious fact that there has been more rain in the Auckland District this last nine or twelve months than there was previously for a number of years—that is, there have been more constant-rains?—l am aware of that, but we were complaining long before the last flood. 85. You made a statement that your cattle are d}-ing owing to the silt. Is it not a well-known fact that on the Waikato cattle have died owing to the floods of nine or twelve months ago?— Yes, but what we think is the cause of the death of the cattle is that they have been eating the hard grass that is full of dust. Of course the loss of grass through the floods has been a cause as well. 86. Mr. Macpherson.] What number of stock did you lose prior to twelve months ago? Was the loss of stock more over twelve months ago than during the twelve months since the heavy floods occurred 2—The losses of stock have been more severe this year. 87. Considerably more?— Yes. We lost stock at several smaller floods before the great flood came. It seems to affect the animals' feet and the hair comes off their legs, and they go about in a lame condition, even with the blood oozing out of the cracks, through their standing too many days in the water. I lost several head and I attributed it not altogether to starvation, but to cramp. 88. Do you consider that 6d, of the royalty collected on gold would be sufficient to compensate the mines for the extra labour attached to stacking up the tailings?—l think it would with the Waihi Mine, because that is a very rich mine and could easily fix up the failings, but the mines that are not paying quite so well ought, I think, to get some assistance. 89. What amount would they require—the poorer mines? —Of course I am not prepared to say what it would cost. 90. What is your individual opinion of the cost? —The way I would do it would be to put in an aqueduct and convey the tailings some three miles and a half to a waste piece of land at Karangahake. I see no difficult problem in conveying the tailings in that way 91. It is all a question of cost? —Yes. 92. Hon. Mr. McGowan.] How long is it since you left off mining?— Nine years. 93. How long is it then since you purchased the land? What have you been doing from the time you purchased the land to the time you went on to it ?—I was working in several mines and managing several mines and working in the batteries. 94. I suppose you know there is a great deal of difference between the methods of saving gold now and the methods in use when you were at it?— Yes. 95. Have you ever seen a tube mill?—I have. 96. Were there any tube mills at the Thames when you were working at mining?— Not exactly the same as the tube mills now, but very near it. 97. Can you give us the name of the one that was very near it?— Out on what_ they call Tookey's Flat was a large drum something like a small boiler, and it was revolving. _ One Thomas had it, and he had several pieces of iron and stone in it and had the water revolving to try to grind the tailings up finer than the ordinary tailings going through a mill. 98. But they had no tube mills at that time as we have now 2—No. 99. You are aware of the fact that the tube mills produce tailings that go under the designation of " slimes " ?—Yes. 100. Do you know how they would remove these slimes to the place that you say any mine could easily remove their tailings to? How would they be removed 2 —Down a shoot where the water would flow. The slimes would travel with it. 101. You would carry them by water? —Yes. 102. And where wouid the water go after it had carried the slimes? —I consider that the water would soak away and leave the tailings dry on the ground. 103. Do you consider the water would soak through the slimes?—No, it would work away through the slimes. 104. How would it work away through the slimes?— Slimes are tailings. When they get a certain hardness the water runs over the top. 105. But you said it would soak away?—A great amount would soak away through the ground. 106. If you are carrying tailings by water you must have a considerable quantity of water to carry them? —Yes.

I.—4a.

16

[S. J. LAUGHLIN.

107. Where is that water to go?—I consider that it would work away off the tailings and leave them dry. 108. Where would it go to?— Back to the river, or into any drain or any place that you might provide for it. 109. Do you think it would go away in a state of ordinary clear water?— Yes, I consider it would go away very clean, because if you give tailings time they will settle down and the water become clear. 110. That is so with tailings, but did you ever see that take place with slimes? —I have not had a great amount of experience with finely ground slimes. 111. Have you ever been in any of the boats coming up the river from Auckland without calling at the Thames?— Only once. They generally come via the Thames. 112. Are you aware of the fact that the slimes can be seen some miles out in the Thames Harbour ?—No, 113. With regard to your own property, you say that the water comes into the front from the Waihou or Thames River and at the back comes into the back of your premises. Now, where does the water that comes into the back come from?— From the Waihou River. 114. What part of the Waihou?—At a place called Te Awaiti, where there are the flax-mills. 115. How. far is that from Te Aroha?—A long way—about three or four miles past the Junction. 116. Is it above the Junction? —Yes. Haoea Taeeeanui made a statement and was examined. (No. 3.) Witness: I live at Ohinemuri. My tribe is Ngatitamatera. The petition of my tribe and my fellow-sufferers, the Europeans, is before this Committee. I should like first of all to submit to you a report by Judge Edgar, of the Native Land Court, upon this matter, which I think the Committee should see. lam here for the purpose of supporting the petitions from my Maori friends and my European friends. I may say that I was here in the year 1900 in connection with a grievance that the Ngatitamatera Tribe were then labouring tinder —that the water of the Ohinemuri was all spoiled. The then Premier, the late Mr. Seddon, redressed the grievance. He supplied clear water for the Maoris. I may point out that our trouble commenced from the time of which I speak. We, the Maoris, did not at that time anticipate that the trouble would attain such gigantic proportions as it now has; but during recent years we have found that the whole of the river is, practically speaking, filled up. Mr. Berries: What river do you refer to? Witness: The Ohinemuri River. 1 may, perhaps, have something to say about the Waihou River by-and-by. I have described the commencement of the trouble. Now, I think I am quite safe in saying that at least 500 acres of our land have been destroyed. The Ohinemuri Goldfield was, in the first place, ceded by my tribe, and we who are outside of the goldfield area should be protected and have our wrongs redressed by the Government, I am sure that members of this ■Committee can see for themselves that in the deed handing over the goldflelds all that is carefully provided for; but we are not protected under the deed as we should be, although it provides that we should be so protected. I believe we lost quite 150 acres of our land this year. All the potatoes and other crops were destroyed. That is irrespective entirely of grass lands, which would come to a very much greater area. I think I may say that I myself have lost about 50 acres of potatoes this year. I have seen it stated in.some newspaper that the dirt has come down the Waihou from Matamata to Ohinemuri. I say that if the country is looked at from just below the Karangahake batteries down to the mouth of the Waihou. there will be found this sand, this deposit, all along the whole of that area of country. 1 say there is no sand like this along the Waihou or any of the streams coming down from Matamata. It never came down the drains from Matamata and Waihou. I know all the principal streams running from the Matamata district, and have known them for years. There is no sense in attempting to distort it and make it appear that this trouble comes from there. I say definitely that the water that is causing the trouble at Ohinemuri is from the mines. And here the sand has come down further and smothered up all the land about my kainga and all round there, and it is from the mines and nowhere else. I have for seven consecutive years now been refencing and refencing our burial-places, and they keep on getting smothered up with this deposit. If the Minister would like to go with me there I could show him the tips of a lot of fence-posts just showing above this deposit. That is the fourth fence that I have put up. I have put up a new fence this year for this same burial-place, simply because each fence successively has been covered up by this sand. 117. Hon. Mr. McGowan.] What height is the fence? —It is of eight wires. I put up another fence this year, and the tips of the posts of the last one can be still seen. 118. What would the height of the fence be? —The new fence just put up is 6 ft. high. 119. Were the others as high?— The same height, 1.20. That is to say, 18 ft. of tailings?—l think, at any rate, there is a deeper deposit than the height of this room. 121. It is not even 18 ft, ?—The deposit is higher than that. Now, in the year 1903 the fence I then put up was 6 ft, high, and there are just the tips of the posts showing now. If the Minister would like to go, I can show him for his own satisfaction on the ground. I am describing the troubles first, I can describe the Ohinemuri River by-and-by. T have said (hat an area of over 400 acres of our land has been destroyed. The trouble commenced just down below the goldfield, and extended right down to the mouth of the river. lam not speaking now about the injury the pakehas have suffered, but merely what we ourselves, the Maoris, have suffered. I think I was born at Ohinemuri myself, and all my people lived there. From my childhood up I have known all the good points about the Ohinemuri River, and the benefit derived by us from the neighbour-

H. TAREEANUI.]

17

I.—4a.

hood generally. There were plenty of food-supplies obtainable from the river—eels and whitebait, and so forth. The water was clear and good for human consumption and bathing purposes, and so on, and large steamers used to come up the river to Ohinemuri, right up to the township at Paeroa itself. The " Luna " was a large steamer, and she has been up to Ohinemuri. I think the year was 1872 when the " Luna " came up there, because that was the year in which my grandfather died, and I know it was then that Sir Donald McLean came up. The steamer came up as far as Te Kopu. That is a wide place in the Ohinemuri River, where the steamer turned round and went back. Now, that place where that big steamer turned round is all filled up with the sand, and even a canoe cannot cross. Formerly many large steamers have been up as far as Paeroa, as I say, but since the mining first started the steamers have gradually been put back, and put back, and put back. Then there was a large wharf called the Junction, but the whole wharf now is sealed up with this sand. The whole of the Waihou River is filled up with this refuse from the gold-mines, and the steamers are pushed away still further down stream. The Government are very persistent —my "friend the Minister of Mines himself is persistent—in endeavouring to obtain our sanction to the sale of Moehau. We think it would suit us very much better if the Minister purchased from us these lands on which we are living at Ohinemuri, where they have been spoiled; but to sell Moehau we will not agree, because if the mines continue, and nothing is done to fix up the trouble in connection with this drift and deposit, well, then, we may just as well die, because there is no object in trying to live there any longer. I have therefore come here' for the purpose of praying for redress to this House, which we have been led to believe does attempt to remedy and rectify grievances that merit rectification. Whether it will do so or not remains to be seen. With regard to Moehau, I might add that I have here a report that has recently been sent down by Mr. James Mackay from that district, to the effect that it would be advisable that Moehau should not be sold. This is the portion of the report to which I desire to refer the Committee: "In the Coromandel portion of the district the County Council have urged the purchase of large areas which principally belong to the Ngatitamatera Tribe, the majority of whom reside in the neighbourhood of Ohinemuri. Taking into consideration the fact that the lands occupied aud cultivated by these people at Ohinemuri will shortly be rendered useless by the floods now frequently occurring through the silting-up of the Ohinemuri River, caused by the deposit of tailings and mining debris therein, I therefore recommend that this question be left in abeyance for the present. However, I beg to suggest that the lands owned by the Ngatiwhanaunga Tribe, in the Cape Colville Block, should be acquired, and a portion of those of the Ngatimaru and Tawera Tribes also." 122. Hon. Mr. McGowan]. What report is that?-—A report from Mr. James Mackay, Native Land Purchase Officer, to the Under-Secretary for Lands, dated Paeroa, 15th May, 1907. When the river was proclaimed a sludge-channel by the Government —I think the year was 1895 or 1896 —being a Maori I am not perfectly certain of my dates, but I think it was somewhere about then — we never received any notification that it was the intention to destroy the Ohinemuri River. We had seen the mills and batteries at the Thames, and they did not shoot their refuse into the rivers. It was- all piled up in a heap outside the mill. We never expected this until it had happened, and then we found we had been injured as I have described. I ask my friends the Chairman and members of the Committee to give serious consideration to this really serious injury. This Ohinemuri River formerly was a river of very great depth. I speak from experience, having been born there and having grown up there from childhood to manhood, and having been there all my life; and now, in this river, in places where it was 30 ft. or more deep before, we could stand up with our heads out. It will be apparent to all the members of the Committee that, when the river shoals up like that from the bottom, two days' rain will flood the whole country. As I say, we have been seriously injured. We did not hand over the goldfield for the purpose of injuring the Europeans; we handed it over so that it might be of advantage to the Europeans and to ourselves as well. Therefore I say, look into our grievance and redress our injury. The Waihi companies are going along very satisfactorily, and we also ought to be put on a proper footing and have our wrongs righted. I say, again, that lam sure, if you look at the deed of cession by which we handed over the goldfield, you will find there is provision in that deed that we should be protected from injuries such as this. There is not a word in the deed to the effect that we may be injured and called upon to suffer in this way through the goldflelds. If this is a new departure with the intention that we shall be injured, well, then, the original deed had better be destroyed. 123. Hon. Mr. McGowan.] Were you one of the parties concerned in the Proclamation of the Ohinemuri Goldfield 2 —Yes, I think so, on the first occasion. 124. What were the terms of the Proclamation, roughly, do you remember?—My recollection is that the Government undertook to protect us and provide for us outside and apart from the goldfield. 125. Did the Natives get anything for the cession of this Ohinemuri Goldfield?—Yes, I heard that some benefit of some kind was given to the Maoris. 126. Did they get any monetary benefit?— Yes, I think I may say that I have heard that money was paid over, but I did not receive any of it myself, because at the time I was too young. 127. Then you, being young, had no voice in the cession of this land for mining purposes?— No; but we were very much Maori in those days, and were not so conversant with pakehadom as we are now, and therefore the people who were approached and dealt with in those days were the people who were known as the leading men. 128. That .practically admits what I want you to say, that you yourself had practically no voice, seeing that the chiefs of your hapu or tribe were the parties who dealt with the land 2—That is beside the question, because I signed the deed, I think, 129. Then you were a party: what did you get for signing the deed?— That has nothing to do with it. 130. I am asking the question, and you must answer? —There was an arrangement made about miners' rights to become payable after the signatures were affixed to the document. That was why

3—T. 4a.

1.-4 a.

18

[h. taeeeanui.

the people signed; but, then, the outside payment made by the Government, apart from the miners' rights, was another thing. 131. I do not want to question you too closely: 1 only want the general facts for the Committee 2 —l think it would be rather difficult to explain to the Committee the position that the Government took, up and the way in which the Government of that day acted. 132. lam not asking you what the Government did, but what you yourself did?—l signed the agreement. 133. Do you know what you got for signing it?— No. I signed the document, and I received payment of miners' rights afterwards. 134. You signed the document on the condition that you were to receive payment in miners' rights ? —No. The whole tribe signed first. Those payments were made afterwards. 135. Did you sign the document on the condition that yon would get the miners' rights after, or did you sign it for amusement?—l did not know as much then as 1 know now. I was»simply told to sign and to hand this land over as a goldfield, and I did so. I. am certain that my friend the Minister of Mines cannot produce any document to which I signed my name, handing over this place as a goldfield, which shows that I received any payment whatever in money for signing. 136. I did not intend to suggest producing any document: what did you or your tribe receive for the cession of the Ohinemuri field for mining?— Nothing was given, but some monetary payments were made by the Government of that day to the principal chiefs of our people. We simply sat and looked on. 137. You know the Ohinemuri River from its source to where it enters the Waihou? —Yes. 138. What sort of a bottom has the Ohinemuri River from the Town of Waihi down to below Karangahake?—lt is of many different descriptions. I could give you a detailed description. 139. Is it not a fact that the bottom of the river from Waihi down to below Karangahake is a rocky bottom 2—Yes, parts of it. 140. And is the flow of that river not a rapid flow ?—Yes, in places. 141. Hence anything that may be said about the deepening or filling-up of the river has no application to that part of it, at any rate?— Not until you get down to Ohinemuri. Everything that is brought down by that river is deposited at Ohinemuri. 142. You said you remembered the time when at the crushing-mills you could see the tailings stacked up outside, and they were not put in the river—at the Thames and other places?— Yes, I saw that. They may have put into the rivers what I did not see. 143. Do you know the reason why the quartz that is crushed now is crushed so much finer than it was in the olden days?—No, I do not know how it is done. 144. Can you tell me the height of the first fence from the river at the place where you had to fence three times 2—Some of the posts of the original fence are still standing in the river, but they are rotten —they are of willow. 145. How can they still be standing in the river if, as you say, you have put three fences up, one on top of the other ?—As the ground silted up the fence became so low that a cow could get •through it, therefore a new fence had to be put up. 146. Was the fence put up in the same place?—lt was moved back a bit. 147. You said you had 50 acres of potatoes destroyed : where were those 50 acres of potatoes? —At Opakura. There were 15 acres at Opakura. 148. You said you had 50 acres destroyed?— That is adding together my own and the potatopatches belonging to other people. 149. Was it all at the one place or at different places that they were destroyed?— Thereabouts or a little distance away. In addition to the potatoes there is also the grass to be taken into consideration that has been destroyed. That, to my mind, is just as bad as the potatoes. 150. You made a complaint at one time—l think it was to the Mines Department—in regard to water: did you not make arrangements by which the county was to supply you with clear water? —No, the Government itself paid for it. .151. That is what I am referring to?— The Government were so stiff about it that we made arrangements with the County Council, and it was after they had ngreed and we had begun, the work that the late Mr. Seddon agreed. Thomas Nepean Edward Kenny made a statement and was examined. (No. 4.) Witness: I live at Paeroa, and am County Clerk and Treasurer to the Ohinemuri County Council, and an authorised arid licensed surveyor. If I might be allowed, I should like first to put in this statement of the tonnage and draught of the steamers referred to by previous witnesses. And I should like to draw attention to the fact that the larger steamers, the "Taniwha" (and the " Waimarie," a smaller one), of 245 tons, drew 6 ft. of water, whereas the " Paeroa," a boat of 91 tons, drew 6 ft, 6 in. of water, and used to come up to the upper wharves. [Document put in.] I put that in because the question arose about the later steamers being larger and presumably drawing more water, whereas, as a matter of fact, they drew loss water. 152. The Chairnian.] Do they go up to Paeroa? —No, they go no further than the Junction— or, rather, they do not go to the Junction now; they used to. They were built to go to the Junction, but they have not been up to it since Christmas, 1904. I have resided in Ohinemuri for the last twenty years,, and have had .pretty considerable knowledge of it for twenty-eight years. All the time I have lived in Ohinemuri I have, resided on the bank of the Ohinemuri River or the Waihou River. I have continually been up and down in pulling-boats and launches, and I can speak pretty confidently as to the state of the river. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the details that have been gone into by the previous witnesses, but the point is that there have been, practically speaking, four wharves that have come into the question in the course of this inquiry. The first wharf—the highest up—was actually in Paeroa itself, and was called Snodgrass's ——

I.—4a.

T. N. E. SENNY.]

19

153; Mr. Herries.] These are all on the Ohinemuri River?— Yes; I will come to those on the Waihou presently. There was Snodgrass's wharf at Paeroa;'iheu there was" Eraser's wharf about a quarter of a mile below that; then the Railway Wharf, which is, I suppose, another quarter of a mile lower down, below the railway-bridge; and the Junction wharf, and the Puke wharf. 'Steamers, as I said before, drawing more water than the steamers now trading to the Puke, used to go right up to Snodgrass's wharf. The " Lalla Rookh " was one. In course of time the railway-bridge was put up. The erection of the railway-bridge was the real cause, I think, in the first case, of Fraser's wharf being given up for the wharf below, because the steamers could not get up; but the smaller steamers with punts used even then to go up to the railway-bridge and right up to the Paeroa traffic-bridge, above the wharf that I have mentioned as Snodgrass's; in fact, the new iron bridge was taken up in a punt by a steamer, and landed actually at the place close by the rock that has been referred to here. The explanations, perhaps, become a little complicated without understanding the rise and fall of the tide in the Ohinemuri River. I cannot speak with any certainty about it at the Paeroa Bridge, but I live just at the Junction, and I know that the rise and fall of the tide there is from 3 ft. to 3 ft. 6 in., and I am informed by persons residing at Netherton that there the rise is 3 ft. 6 in. I may also state that the Ohinemuri River as far as the Paeroa traffic-bridge above Snodgrass's wharf, and the Waihou River up as far, I believe, as Te Aroha—l am certain as far as Manga-iti—is treated by the Government as a navigable river, because, when the Council put the bridge up at Manga-iti, and when the new bridge was erected at Paeroa, the permission of the Marine Department had to be obtained. 154. Is that as far as Matamata? — I could not say from my own knowledge. With regard to the silting-up of the river, I will only just pick up one or two points that I think have not been mentioned by previous witnesses. The Railway Wharf is conuected by rail with the Paeroa Station, and any goods that can be delivered at that wharf can at once be put into trucks without any transhipment. Until quite lately large scows used to be towed up there at high tide and discharged at the Railway Wharf into the trucks, and the trucks were taken away. They gave notice to the Waihi Company that they could not do this any longer, and the Waihi Company went there and sounded the river and found that it was a fact that at one place there below the Railway Wharf there was not more than 2 ft. of water at low water. 1 myself afterwards went there and took soundings. It was deeper than that with me, but this was because the tide was a little higher. Ido not think any mention has been made of these boats that, to my knowledge, have actually come to the Junction wharf—the " Kia Ora," which was subsequently wrecked, the " Chelmsford," and the " Waiotahi." 155. How long ago was this? —It would be before 1904. It was before the Northern Steamship Company left the Junction wharf for the Puke. I think there is a misunderstanding as regards the convenience of the two wharves—that the Puke wharf is a more convenient wharf for transhipping goods than the Junction wharf. As a matter of fact, the Junction wharf is 60 chains from the railway-station ; the Puke wharf is a mile and a half. So that, as far as cartage and-transhipment are concerned, the distance is much greater from the Puke to Paeroa than from the Junction to Paeroa. And I may add that of the two the Junction road is undoubtedly the tetter as far as metalling and good order are concerned. There is another ominous notice that was given to the Council. ' The letter, I believe, has teen put in that we got from the Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones, in which he informed us, when we asked whether we could get a railway siding to the Puke —I think it was —that the thing was not worth considering, because the Puke was only a temporary place; that before long the state of the river would prevent vessels going up to the Puke, and that they would then have to discharge at Te Kopu. The letter is in evidence. Until a very short time ago—that is, even since the January fresh —the explosives for Ohinemuri were brought up in cutters. There was considerable difficulty in the cutters getting up, but they generally managed to get up to some little distance below the old Junction wharf. They gave notice that they could not come there, and they had then to go to the Puke wharf. The wharfinger objected to the discharge of the explosives at the Puke wharf, and (he man said he had no place to discharge at. He was ordered to proceed to the Junction. He went up there and sounded the river,.and this is what he said: ■ ' I find from the soundings taken that there is not sufficient water for. the 'Spitfire' to take her cargo of explosives up to the Junction landing. Mr. Forrest. has. had soundings taken, with the result that there is only 6 ft. 6 in. of depth at the top of high water, and the ' Spitfire ' is drawing 6 ft, 9 in., so that some arrangement will have to te made for discharging the explosives at the Puke." I should also like to put in a declaration by Mr. E.-J. Adlam, master of the " Rotokohu," trading on the river. I may say that this was given of his own free will; he was not pressed in any way to give it, "In the matter of the silting-up of.the Ohinemuri arid Waihou Rivers by mining tailings, I, Edward Joseph Adlam, of Paeroa, in the Provincial District of Auckland, master mariner, do solemnly and sincerely declare—(l.) I am the master of the s.s. '.Rotokohu,' and have teen navigating her and other vessels up the Waihou or Thames River and Ohinemuri River for the past fourteen years, and am thoroughly conversant with the whole of the said rivers. (2.) That during the flood of the Ohinemuri River in July last I distinctly saw the waters of the Ohinemuri, charged thickly with the mining tailings, backing up the Waihou River for a distance of about two miles to a place called Ngarararahi, where it overflowed the bank of the Waihou and ran down over Netherton. During the whole of my experience of the rivers in this district, I have never before seen the waters from the Ohinemuri' back up stream from the Junction in this way. Deposits of silt may now be seen on the banks of the Waihou as far up as this backwash extended. Owing to the fact of the Waihou being a swiftly flowing stream, this stands to prove that the junction of the two rivers must be blocked, and in my opinion it is caused by a large bank of mining tailings formed just below the junction of the two rivers. This bank has raised the river-bed at that point about 3 ft. or 4 ft. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and under and 'by virtue of an Act of the General Assernbh- of New Zealand intituled ' The Justices of the Peace

I.—4a.

20

[T. N. E. KENNY.

Act; 1882.'— E. J. Adlam. Declared before me, at Paeroa, this 24th day of August, 1907.— Joseph Nathan, a Justice of the Peace." I may say that in the last flood that took place—in August—l went up the river. I had heard the reports that the river had broken over its banks, and I got a steam launch and went up the Upper Waihou from the Junction ; and following the Upper Waihou from the Junction the backing-up of the mining tailings could be seen up to the position that Captain Adlam speaks of at Ngarararahi. I mentioned that fact, 1 think, to the Chairman of the County Council before I knew anything at all about that letter from Captain Adlam, so I can thoroughly corroborate what Captain Adlam says about the backing-up, [Declaration handed in.] As regards the river flowing over the bank, fhe whole of the waj up from the junction with the Ohinemuri the river was flowing over the bank, except in one or two places on the Hape Block, close to the Junction. At a place called Komati, as the water was flowing markedly over the bank there, I took a photo of it, which I put in. [Photograph handed in.] The question has arisen about the silting of the river, and the knowledge of the people with reference to the result of the proclamation of the river as a sludge-channel. As far as my knowledge goes, it was only in 1900 that the matter came to the knowledge of the Council, when they began to see that it was a serious question; that the silt was, in fact, going not only to fill up the Ohinemuri, but to spread down to the Waihou and interfere with the navigation. In September, 1904, the Council applied to the Government for an engineer to report on the rapid silting-up of the river. 156. Which river are you speaking of now?— Both, because even then we had Mr. Perham's report in, which showed that there was silting in the Waihou River. Mr. Perham has marked in red, I think, on his map where the silt-banks were. As I say, in September, 1904, the Council applied to the Government, and the reply received was that there were two reports already in—one by Mr. Hales and one by Mr. Perham—a copy of both of which reports the Government very courteously furnished the Council with. In 1906 Mr. Reed came up to Ohinemuri and made a report with reference to the rivers. I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Reed afterwards, and talked the matter over with him; but, unfortunately, he did not communicate with the Council beforehand, and the consequence was that the Council could not give him any information as to the places I have referred to; and the evidence is what he could test obtain himself without reference to anybody connected with the Council. His visit was a very short one. His report has been put in, and the Council's reply to it. In January a very heavy flood took place, and this really brought matters to a crisis. In the previous three or four years there had been no flood of any account. A large amount of silt had been deposited on the banks, on the islands, and on the low lands of the Ohinemuri, and the January flood, which was a very Heavy one, came down and brought an immense amount of this silt down into the Waihou River. I live just opposite the place shown in this photograph [produced], and in the steamer-channel, that originally was 9 ft. 6 in. deep, there is that island showing at low water, 15 in. out. [Photograph put in.] In consequence of this blocking-up of the channel an application was made to the Hon. the Minister of Mines to send a Government Engineer to report on the injury done to the river. Unfortunately the Minister had not an engineer available for the purpose, and he telegraphed back to that effect. This is the telegram that was sent to the Minister of Mines: " Great complaints re deposit of silt in Ohinemuri and Waihou Rivers during late flood. Would be obliged if you would send an engineer to report." And his reply reads, "Re silt rivers caused by flood: Regret no engineer available at present. Noted for action later on." The Council then passed the following resolution : "That the services of an outside independent engineer, preferably Mr. Stewart, of Auckland, be obtained, to examine and report on the Ohinemuri and Waihou Rivers, the cost not exceeding £40." Mr. Stewart was engaged to come down, and he made a report, which has teen put in. It has been stated outside and in the paper and by critics that this was a partisan report. As all the transactions with Mr. Stewart took place through myself, I can speak positively on the subject. When he came Mr. Stewart was furnished with all the information that the Council had, in the way of cross-sections that they had taken for some years before, and with the reports of Mr. Hales and Mr. Perham —in fact, with all the information we could give him. He was also furnished with a list of the names of those people who would te likely to give him information, and the names of the places, as far as the Council knew, that were most affected by the silt; and then one of the county men was sent with him.to take him to these places. No officer of the county had anything whatever to do with the preparation of his report. He took five days to report. I omitted to state that in 1901, when the silt question became serious, the Council decided on having cross-sections taken at different places, both in the Ohinemuri and the Lower Waihou. The original of those cross-sections is here. [Produced.] 157. The ChairnMn.] Are those the same as the cross-sections on the wall? —No, because there is a cross-section that has been taken since the Government engineers were up. An engineer has taken out the sectional areas of these cross-sections. His instructions were that the sectional area of the very first section was to be taken and the sectional area of the very last section, and, if I may te allowed, T will just read them out. 158. Mr. Herries.] Who were the last ones taken by?— The last one was taken by Mr. Kenny —not myself—under instructions from the Council. 159. Is that the County Engineer?— No. He is a member of the firm of Kenny and- Sons. The reason for that was that the Engineer had not the time, and the Chairman authorised the employment of Mr. Kenny. The first area, taken by Mr. Armstrong on the 24th June, 1901, was 2,2639 square feet; the last one, taken on the 24th August, 1907, was 1,3298 square feet. That is one section. For the next section the pegs were lost. The first section taken by Mr. Armstrong on the 24th June, 1901, was, 1,253 square feet. The one taken in August was 88.7 - 5 square feet, The sectional area of the next was 9.13 ft. and 9264 ft,—that is to say, the last area taken is greater than the one that was taken before; the river there lias deepened. In the next section the area was 1,304-3 ft., and the last one 1,2116 ft. [Map put in.]

21

I.—4a.

t; N. E. feENNYi]

160. Have you got to the Waihou yet?— All those are in the Ohinemuri. I am now coming to the Waihou. The next one is 3,4578 ft., as against 2,238-5 ft. The next one 1,491-9 ft., as against 1,441 ft, The next one 1,4357 ft.; the August one 1,044-2 ft. The next 1,2746 ft. and 1,003-1 ft. Then 1,152-2 ft. and 1,165-7 ft. From these figures it will be seen that two of the cross-sections show that the river has deepened a little, and all the others show considerable shallowing. [Map put in.] 161. Were they taken at the same state of the tide?—No, they were not taken at the same state of the tide; but they were all reduced from the data, so they are comparable. With regard to the question of silt and slime, I have here Mr. Perham's survey of the mouth of the Ohinemuri at the Waihou River, in which he has written at this point [indicated] " Fine quartz slime mixed with pumice sandT" [Document put in.]

Friday, 13th September, 1907. ■" Thomas Nbpean Edwaed Kenny (No. 4), statement continued. Witness: When I left off yesterday morning I put in the cross-sections, and showed the difference between the original sectional area of the cross-sections and that at the last taking of the levels. The difference in the areas is shown on one side of the plan, the original one being shown in black, and the later ones in yellow; also the relative soundings at each place, the first one in black and the others in yellow. I may point out that these cross-sections show that the river has not only narrowed, but has shallowed, although, of course, it carries its normal quantity of water, and we contend that the general level has been raised. Since the January, 1907, flood there have been two floods in the Ohinemuri district, one in July and the other in August. The one in July was 8 in. below the flood of January, and the one in August was 12 in. below. These measurements were taken on a mark fixed by Mr. Ross, an Engineer of the Public Works Department. He marked on Mr. Forrest's office the level of the January flood, and I have used that mark to take the levels of the subsequent floods. 1. Mr. Herries.] In which river is that?— Just below the junction of the Waihou and the Ohinemuri. It will be seen that in this tracing of Mr. Perham's there is shown at the mouth of the Upper Waihou an island with willows on it, and it has been said that possibly that island has had some effect in the obstruction of the Upper Wailiou River. I have lived just opposite this place on and off, I think, for about fifteen years, and I can recollect when that island was not in existence; and, on making inquiries to fix the date, I found that that island was first formed about the year 1884. I wish to fix the date of the formation of that island to show that it was long before the river was proclaimed a sludge-channel, and that from the year 1884 to 1895 there was no appreciable difference in the depth of either the Upper Waihou or the Lower •Waihou; so it is not a factor in the backing-up of the Upper Wailiou River so as to cause it to overflow its banks considerably up-stream. The next question is whether the shallowing in the Lower Waihou River is caused by the Waihou sand or by the silt coining down the Ohinemuri. I think that question is answered at once by the fact that the Upper Waihou has not shallowed appreciably at all, whereas the Lower .Waihou has. Up to about three months ago all the river trade to Te Aroha was done by a small steamer called the " Matuku " towing punts up to Te Aroha and bringing goods back. That little steamer drew 2 ft. 6 in. of water. Within the last three months the Northern Steamship Company have put on a bigger boat, the " Rotokohu," drawing 3 ft. 6 in., and I may say that this " Rotokohu " gets past this shallow place at the mouth of the Ohinemuri and Upper Waihou at high water. She tried to do it the other day, towing a barge, and she had to try three times and to wait until the tide rose to get over. One other argument in reference to the silt in the Lower Waihou is that Mr. Perham, in his map made in 1901, shows the. deposit of silt down as far as Komati North. The map shows that at that time, even, there was mining-silt down the river. [Map put in.] 2. The Chairman.] That is in the Waihou?—ln the Lower Waihou. Mr. Nicholls in his evidence made the remark that there were no snags at the Junction to account for the mud-bank. I live there and have lived there for years,' and pass the Junction wharf and that portion of the river nearly every day of my life, and 1 have never seen a snag there. I have_ seen logs and branches going down, but I have never seen a permanent snag anywhere .in'the neighbourhood of the Junction within the last fifteen years. Under instructions from the Council I took samples of the silt, to show the difference between the Waihou sand and the tailings in different parts of the river. This is a sample of Waihou sand obtained at a place called Manga-iti, about twenty miles, I should think, above the junction of the two rivers; so there can be no question as to its being real Waihou sand. In the same way I got silt from the Hape Creek. 3. Mr. Herries.] Where is the Hape Creek? —Just below the Junction. The specimen of the silt was taken after the flood from where there had been no rush of water—where the water had lain and settled, so the surface was perfectly smooth. I will hand these specimens in. [Handed in.] I also obtained a sample of tailings, in case there should be a difference in the composition of the tailings in the different parts of the river. This was taken from, the Waingunguru Island, opposite Mackavtown. [Sample put in.] I got two samples of that Manga-iti sand, because one was coarser than the other. [Put in.] These other two samples, which I would ask to be allowed to put in, are a dredging from the bottom of the river opposite the Netherton creamery, and a dredging from an island considerably below the Netherton creamery called Simpson's Island, I think. I will point it out on the map. [Place indicated on map, and samples handed in.] As regards the evidence that was given yesterday as to the Upper Waihou being backed up by the banks at the mouth of the Ohinemuri River, I may say that I got some silt that was deposited

i^- 4A-

[T. N. E. KENNY;

on land about three-quarters of a mile above the junction of the two rivers. This silt was taken a chain away from the river-bank, off the grass paddock. [Sample put in.] Perhaps it would be advisable to say how all those samples were taken, so as to show that as far as possible the fairest means were adopted. The tailings were taken just, as they were from the ground. They were placed in" water, thoroughly mixed up together, and while the water was in a state of agitation it was poured through filter-paper, and that filter-paper was dried on a hot-water sand bath; the dry result was well stirred up, and the specimens taken and put into those bottles that you see there. 4. Hon. Mr. McGowan.] Did j-ou adopt that method with both the sand and the tailings?— That was done with the silt-samples, not with the sand-samples; it was not clone with the two Manga-iti sand-samples. I then put the different silts to the gravity test. I got the silt mixed up and agitated, and then allowed it to settle. It will be seen that there are in the test-tubes three distinct classes of silt. One of them will deposit in about two or three minutes. This other sample takes two or three hours to settle, and this very small surface-silt, which lies on the surface like mud, will take twelve hours to settle down, and leave the water perfectly clear. The argument from that is that the further you go down the river the lower or heavier portion decreases in quantity, and the other increases, and the top slime remains apparently pretty much the same in whichever sample you take. The same process was adopted with all these samples. There are. two samples here of a mixture of Waihou sand and Hape Creek tailings. These were mixed "together, shaken up, and allowed to settle. [Samples put in.] 5. Mr. Berries.] That is not taken from any particular place?— No. All the Wailiou sand referred to is from Manga-iti. It is easily seen from these that the sand separates from the silt. There is one point with reference to these samples that I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to, which can be verified here by experiment, and.that is that if any of these wet samples of Waihou sand are taken and turned over the. sand will at once freely go down to the bottom. Take the samples of silt, and you will find considerable difficulty in getting the tenacious silt to depart from the bottom of the glass. This shows that where the sand is deposited it is easily movable and affected by the current or any extraneous object like an oar or anything of that sort, whereas the silt forms a sort of hard pug where it is wet. Reference has been made to the sand from the Matamata drains. I am able to speak on that subject, because I surveyed the whole of the blocks up at Matamata some years ago, and I can say that 1 know of no drains from Matamata that flow into the Waihou River ; most of the Matamata drains flow into the Waitoa, or into streams emptying into the Waitoa. Just below Matamata, at Stanley, there are two or three creeks leading from swamps that flow into the Waihou River, but I do not think there is any contention that sand or silt comes from those, because the water is swamp-water — dark-coloured, but not turbid. 6. Have you not heard of Coleman's drain? —Is that below Matamata? 7. Yes? —I can only speak from Stanley upwards. Mr. Nicholls could speak as to the river below Matamata. I produce the original correspondence between the Council and the Government, for comparison with the copies Mr. Nicholls has already put in, if the Committee require it. The Chairman: I think the copies lire sufficient. Witness: Very well. A question was asked of Mr. Nicholls about the willows—whether the willows did not assist in the depositing of the silt where their branches hang into the river, and Mr. Nicholls's answer, I believe, was that they did to a certain extent. lamof a rather different opinion from Mr. Nicholls. I think that where there is matter like that in solution in water, wherever there is any disturbance the tendency is rather to deepen the water round there than to deposit stuff. If you put a stick down in the river where there is sand or anything flowing, it causes a disturbance of the water, and the sand may deposit lower down—probably will—but it certainly will not deposit there. I should like to show to the Committee a photogtaph that was taken showing some willows round which the silt has scoured away. [Photograph put in.] There is another photograph which illustrates the same thing. [Put in.] You have had put in a list of the people who held land, on the banks of the Ohinemuri and Waihou Rivers in 1895, and it has been contended that the settlers who have since purchased did so with their eyes open. I do not think that that reasoning is good, because nobody knew anything about the. silt question until about the end of 1900 or the beginning of 1901, when the Council first began to take action in the matter. I should also like to put in a tracing of a survey, made on the Ohinemuri River, of a Native block called Tairahi No. 2. This survey was made by my son, and when it was sent in to the office it was sent back for explanation, because the measurements did not agree with the original plan in the Survey Office. It was sent back for him to state the reason why it did not agree. The explanation given was that the silting-up of the river had extended the banks into the river and made the difference in measurement- —a difference, I believe, of 50 links on one side and 70 links on the other. The explanation was accepted. I put the tracing in. [Put in.] Ido not know, Mr. Chairman, whether you have got it in evidence that at the time Mr. Wilson and Mr. Reed made their examination the river was in flood 3 ft. I expect they would mention it in their report, because they got my evidence of it, and also the evidence, of the captain of the launch. With reference to the silt on the land, the following settlers personally came to me and spoke about it, on bearing that I had been appointed to appear here before the Committee, and assured me that if the silting went on they would be simply ruined. I do not know whether you wish to have the names. 8. The Chairman.] Yes?— Messrs. Tetley, Crosby, James and Tom McKee, J. W. Kennedy, and Whitmore. Of these, the two McKees and Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Whitmore are on the Lower Waihou. 9. Below the Junction? —Below the Junction. I should like to put in two photographs. The land shown in them was not touched by the January flood. These photographs were taken in

22

T. N. E. KENNY. 1

23

I.—4a.

August, and they show the land, which had been ploughed up for cultivation, covered with silt. [Photographs put in.] With regard to practical evidence of the general rise in the bed of the Lower Waihou River, t would draw the Committee's attention to Captain Sullivan's statement to Mr. Stewart, which Mr. Stewart gives in his report, and also to the evidence of Captain Adlam, which has been put in. The question was raised about meeting the difficulty by dredging the river. Application was made to the Auckland Harbour Board in order to ascertain what amount of sand the Auckland dredge would lift, and their reply, I think, has been put in. It shows that this would not meet the case. Among others who spoke to me about the injury done to people. were the proprietors of the two timber-mills there. In the January, July, and August floods they were stopped by the waters coming in to their property. 10. Mr. Herries.] Where are they situated?—McAndrew's mills are situated in Paeroa, and Forrest's just below the Junction. Here is a letter from Messrs. Forrest and Clark to the secretary of the River-silting Association, dated Paeroa, 2nd September, 1907: "Dear Sic, —We estimate that 7,712 cubic yards of tailings was deposited in our log dam by the January flood. We spent £30 in clearing it away. And both the recent floods have again deposited each about 3,000 cubic yards. Outside the dam in the main river (our dam is almost opposite the junction of the Waihou and Ohinemuri Rivers) a long bank of tailings, probably 8 chains long by 1 chain wide, has been deposited, completely blocking off our dam from the river, so that, whereas formerly we could float our logs right into ihe dam, now we are compelled to haul them in over this bank by steam-power. We estimate the daily loss at 12s. The total loss we have sustained, if things were reinstated to our convenience as formerly, we estimate at the very least at £200. But we question if it be possible by ordinary means to restore former conditions." In addition to the photographs I have just put in, I should like to hand in this one of Pereniki's Bend. 11. On the Ohinemuri? —On the Ohinemuri. Where it is shown here near the river that bank of silt is about 18 ft. high, and where the figure is standing it is about 14ft. high; and there I have frequently brought up my boat and tied it in about 6 ft. or 8 ft. of water. [Photograph put in.] 12. The Chairman.] How long ago was that?— That was long before the silting—when I lived on the Ohinemuri. 13. Mr. Berries.] You say you know the Upper Thames—-that you were surveying at the Matamata ?—Yes, I surveyed Matamata. 14. How long ago was that?— About 1882. 15. You know the river pretty well up there? —No, I cannot say I know it pretty well up there. I went up by road. I have been up that river twice only. 16. What is the general character of the banks of the river and the oountry round there? — Well, opposite Shaftesbury I saw a big drain apparently scoured. 17. Are not the banks generally pumice?—l could not tell you. 18. Is not Matamata big pumice cliffs? —I should not like to say. I believe there are big pumice cliffs there, but I could not say that for a certainty. I saw no drains there, and where I was surveying, right across from the Wailiou to the Waitoa, the general fall of the drainage was to the Waitoa. 19..Y0u know the big drain at Shaftesbury?—l have seen that 20. Further down, is there not a drain called Coleman's drain scoured out?— That I could not say. I have not been there for years. 21. As to the general character of the river, it is a twisty river: in some parts there are flats, and in some parts it eats into the cliffs? —Yes. 22. And if those cliffs are sand, as I think you will admit, a certain amount of sand must be always falling into the river and being carried down 2—l should not have thought that, but still, as you say, there are flats and high bluffs. It did not, however, give me the impression that the river was eating them away. 23. Supposing you resurveyed Matamata, do you think you would find the bank in the same position as it was: you do -not think the river will have deposited stuff in some places and eaten away in others 2—l do not know. 24. Is that not common with all twisty rivers? —Yes, in pumice land like the Waikato; but I should not have thought that would apply to the land up the Waihou. 25. You know there is a chain reserve up there: if the chain reserve were resurveyed, would you not expect to find that in some places it disappeared altogether and in other places it was well inland? —In that class of country, as I recollect it, I should oof think so; but in the Waikato I should expect it. 26. With regard to this island shown in Mr. Perham's map, is that correctly shown: did Mr. Perham survey it?—l believe so. 27. That can be taken as correct?—l never saw that plan until after it was furnished to us by the Government. 28. Do you think it is incorrect? —No; I think it is correct. 29. You say that that island began to form in 1884? —About 1884. 30. Then, that island began to form before the silt came down the Ohinemuri ?—Oh, yes. 31. Therefore, at that time the river was depositing sand? —It took years for that. 32. The river has been depositing this sand ever since 1884: the map says "Pumice sand and mud " ?—There was an island there, only it has got bigger and bigger. 33. Still, the deposit of the pumice began before the river was declared a sludge-channel?— Yes. .<• 34. In a sandy river there will be deposits of sand ?—Yes, a little. 35. On the left bank it seems to be all pumice land, whereas on the right bank it is silt?— Yes. 36. This map says "Coarse pumice sand," and that must have been brought down by the river 2—Yes.

I.—4a.

24

[T. N. E. KENNY.

37. Whereas on the left bank it is " Quartz slime " ?— But that sand was there long before the island was formed. 38. But it is the case that pumice sand was brought down by the Upper Waihou long before the silt?—lt must have been. 39. Do you not think that on my own place, where I have got large deposits of this sand, I could have taken a photograph of a good deposit of sand ?—Yes; but the question is, would you support it with your evidence that it was silt? We are prepared to support that all our photographs are silt. 40. This map I have in my hand has been put in as showing the extent of land liable to flooding 2—Yes. I think it will be seen that the further it gets back into shallow water the shorter time the water lies and the less the deposit. Where the water is deeper it has more time to deposit before it goes off, and the deeper the deposit. 41. It is not intended to represent that this is the only place on the Waihou River that is flooded?—No, only to represent our case regarding the land that is subject to floods on which silt will be more or less deposited. 42. What I ask is, is not the W T aihou River as a whole subject to flood?—I should say so, like every other river draining a large watershed. 43. But the flooding is not peculiar to the river below the Junction: it is the general characteristic of the whole Waihou River? —Yes, and the Ohinemuri. 44. How long have you lived in the district? —Close on twenty years. I was surveying, and was continually about Paeroa long before that. 45. Was not that January flood the biggest flood you ever saw?— That is a very difficult question to answer. Personally, Ido not think it was. I think a flood in about 1886 was higher. Barring that, this was the biggest flood. 46. It is generally considered to have been one of the biggest floods —exceptionally heavy?- — That is so. 47. And since then you have had two other big floods —not quite so big, but rather out of the common ?—Well, out of the common for the last three or four years, because we have been singularly free; but I have seen many floods as high as them in days gone by. 48. In a big flood such as the January flood, where two rivers meet, would you not expect, if there were not a deposit of silt, that one river would back up the other? —Yes, to a certain extent, but not to the extent of this, because we have had just as big floods, and we have had combined Waihou and Ohinemuri floods without the results that this flood caused. 49. Still, there would be a certain amount of backing-up?—A certain amount, 50. It could not be attributed wholly to the bank that has formed? —No; but very largely. In places there that were from 8 ft. to 10 ft. deep you find from 2 ft, to nothing now. 51. Can you form any estimate of the amount of land that is damaged by being covered with silt? —The word "damaged" covers considerable ground. No, I cannot form an estimate; but if I were asked for a rough guess I should say that about a hundred acres of land have been absolutely destroyed. In addition, there is as you go back a very large proportion that has been deteriorated, and the further you go back the less the silt is deposited. As a matter of fact, if you go and look into the grass a considerable distance fiom the river you will see silt; and the next flood adds more, and the area destroyed reaches further and further back from the river. " 52. You cannot form any estimate as to what has been rendered absolutely useless? —I could not. 1 know that in one case—Marsh's —17 acres have been destroyed out of the 96 he held. 53. What would be the value of the land that has been rendered absolutely useless? —I should think it would be worth £10 or £12 an acre. That is hopeless; you cannot do anything with it. 54. How many cases were there in that list of yours? —I could not say from memory. The list was made out and put in. 55. Have you any idea what the valuation of the land was then? —No. 56. Would you say that the value of the land has increased considerably since then?— You mean since 1895? 57. Yes? —Yes, I should think it has increased in value; the dairying industry has pushed it forward so much. 58. When was your last valuation for the county made?—ln 1903. 59. When was your valuation made previous to that? —I think it was in the year 1895, but I am not sure. 60. You had no valuation made between 1895 and 1903?— I think not. Mr. Nicholls, the Chairman, says he thinks there was one in 1898. 61. You know the valuation of the county pretty well: you are the clerk of the county?— Yes. 62. Has any land been valued at less in consequence of the damage 'lone by the silt? —There has been no valuation since that I know of. Ido not recollect the 1898 one. I have not noticed any difference in valuation. 63. If you had a new valuation, would you expect certain properties to be valued at less?— If I were the valuer I should place a lower value on them. I cannot say what the valuer will do, though. 64. You do not know how much it would be?— No. We should have to take each case separately. 65. Do you think there would be a general reduction in the value of the land in the district?— Only in the lands that are liable to be affected by flood. ' 66. You would not expect that the 24,000 acres which you have marked on this map would show any diminution of value as a whoie? —Not as a valuer would look at it. _ The valuer when he'went there would not see the floods, and any marks would probably be very slight, 67. Of course, the farmers have a right to appeal? —Yes.

T. N. E. KENNY.]

25

I.—4a.

68. Is it not a fact that the mines have added to the value of the land in the district as a whole?— During the mining boom undoubtedly the value of town lands went up, but I do not know that il has added very much. Of course, it has added a certain amount of value, but Ido not think. it has to any appreciable extent except in town lands. 69. You mean to say that if Waihi and Karangahake were not there the value of the country land about Paeroa would be the same?—l do not see why it should not. It is the dairying that does it. As far as the actual business transacted is concerned, the bulk of the Waihi business is done with Tauranga and Katikati and Auckland. 70. Have you got any suggestion as to a remedy for the state of things of which you complain?— No. Unfortunately, I do not know anything at all about mining, and I could not say; but I should think a remedy could be found. 71. What do the petitioners want done? —They want the putting of silt into the river stopped. 72. Or do they want compensation 2—No; I think there is not a word about compensation in our petition, nor, I think, in any of the estimates of loss that have been put in here. 73. How do they propose to prevent the tailings being put into the river2 —We do not know; but the power that made the Proclamation can rescind it. 74. Do they think it is practicable to prevent the tailings being put into the river ?—I do not know anything about it, but several miners whom I have spoken to seem to think that a remedy can be found. 75. The County Council has not gone into that2 —No.. 76. They are not asking for any particular course of action to be taken? —No; but they have expressed their willingness to assist in this way: are prepared to give up a portion of their gold duty, provided the Government consider it necessary to take a certain proportion of the gold duty in order to meet this difficulty. 77. Have they got any scheme by which that gold duty could be used? —No. That would mean they would have to go to the expense of getting a professional opinion on the subject. 78. Do they think that that gold duty ought to be used in dredging, or in putting up banks, or how?— Not in dredging. The tailings should not be deposited in the river. In my opinion it is quite possible that there may be means of making use of the waste products. 79. You have no practicable scheme to lay before the Committee? —No. 80. Mr. Bennet.] Could you give the Committee any idea what would be the actual area of land that has been affected by this silt—that is, the whole area 2- -The only way I can answer that question is to point to that plan that has been prepared showing the area that is flooded by the silt-water. 81. Mr. Berries.] You do not mean to say that it would not be flooded at all if the silt were not there?— There might be a portion up. here [place indicated on map] that would be flooded by ordinary Waihou flood. 82. You do not allege that the silt extends over that 24,000 acres: it is not deposited there [place indicated on map] ?—No. 83. So you do not really mean to say that the 24,01)0" acres is covered with silt? —No. I think there is a lot of this land on which the deposit would be scarcely appreciable. If I were valuing the land I should not consider the silt area, but the flood-water caused by the backing-up of the Waihou affects all that. 84. Mr. Bennet.] Would there be any likelihood of the part not at present affected being affected in time?— Undoubtedly, if the river-bed rises. The water has to get away somewhere then. 85. Bon. Mr. McGowan.] You just said "if the river-bed rises." As a surveyor, you, I presume, have had a good deal of experience of some of the rivers in New Zealand?—ln the North Island. 86. Is it not a fact that with all rivers that are not swift-flowing, and are travelling either through sandy schist country or where there is movable material, the tendency is to raise their beds? —Yes, in some cases, perhaps, it would be so; but where there is a sandy soil or a pumice soil that will flow right out to sea. It is continually on the move, and it will form a shoal at the mouth of the river. 87. In any case some silt, I suppose, would be left and would not be carried out?— Yes. 88. And that necessarily in the course of time would —and does, as a matter of fact—raise the bed of the river until sometimes it comes to be much higher than the adjacent land?— The Nile has been flowing for five thousand years, and has been bringing down an enormous amount of silt, and yet it is navigable. 89. It is subject to floods? —Yes. 90. And the difference between the Nile flooding and the Ohinemuri flooding is that the Nile flooding makes the land fit for cultivation, while the Ohinemuri flooding destroys it?— That is so. 91. There were floods, and floods that changed the course of the river, before ever there was any mining at Waihi 2—l say it was not done by floods; it was done by obstruction. The felling of a tree or something of that sort has blocked the channel and turned the river. That has been many years ago. There is no doubt that the sand-deposits from the Waihou and the Ohinemuri have come down into the Waihou River, but they have been of the nature of the loose rolling sand that the first fresh carries lower down, and ultimately they have gone right down to the sea, as can be seen by the banks at the mouth of the Thames. The original sand used to go out by degrees at every fresh, but now, when the silt comes down, it is of that tenacious quality that where it once settles it gets like pug. If you put an iron bar or anything like that down on it, it will feel as if yon were striking wood. 92. So that when the tailings, which really are sand, were only flowing into the river—that is, prior to about 1900, when there were little or no slimes coming—there was no effect when the tailings were in the form of sand: your theory would be quite true in that case, whether it was

4—l. 4a,

26

[T. N. E. KENNY.

I.—4a.

sand from the adjoining country or sand from the quartz mines—rolling sand ?—I mentioned before that I know nothing at all about mining. Ido not know of what sort the tailings were m those days. 93. What is sand?— Silica. 94. Is all sand silica 2—As far as I know. 95. Well, that is a new definition of " sand ".: do I understand you to say that all sand is silica ?—No. I say there are several sands. 96. Is all the sand in the Waihou silica?—No, some is pumice. 97. You remember where what is known as Snodgrass's wharf was? —Yes. 98. Do you remember seeing water up to that wharf at any time?—l do not remember seeing it, but I have heard it has been above it. 99. At any rate, you have seen Paeroa under water? —I never saw water in the mam streets of Paeroa'until this January flood; but I do not mean to say that it may not have been under water before. 100. Are there not cattle-sales held at Paeroa ?—There were some a little time ago, but 1 do not know whether there are now. 101. There were cattle-sales there at some time or other?— There were cattle yards and sales held up the Puke Road. 102. Do you think the cattle-sales would have been held there if there had been no Waihi or Karangahake—in fact, if there had been no Ohinemuri Goldfield ?—No. There is a good, deal of trade between Karangahake and Paeroa. 103. Where do these cattle come from—what neighbourhood? —I really do not know. 104. At any rate, the assumption would be that they would be cattle from the farms round about?—l should say so. 105. Consequently, the farmers were benefited by the mining operations 2—Yes, I dare say they were to some extent; but, I do not know where those cattle went. 106. If the farmers were benefited to a certain extent, has the land not increased in value by the fact of Ohinemuri being a goldfield : you will admit, surely, that everything that goes to benefit the farmer must increase the value of the land 2 —Undoubtedly. 107. Would these facts not increase the value of the land: that there were cattle-sales there, and that these cattle —some of them, at any rate—were from the surrounding farms 2 —Yes. 108. How long is it since you went there to settle? —It was about 1880. 109. You would not be there in the earlier days when there was no traffic up thejiver, by steamer or otherwise, except that occasion on which the " Luna " went up?—l was not there then. 110. Do you know how far the " Luna " went up?—l have had the place pointed out to me. 111. Do you know how long it took her to go up there? —I do not. I was told that she went up to where the old mill was, and that she lay there for, I think, fwo or three days, and then backed down as far as what is called Suck-in Bay, and turned round there. 112. With regard to this sand, or "silica," as you call it, the motion of the water would have the effect of taking that down towards the sea ?—The top portion in this sample that I have 'here. The heavy portion settles very rapidly. You see the bottom part is very tenacious. 113. Is that silica or tailings that you have there?—lt is all tailings. 114. Now, show us a bottle of silica and tell us about that: when the water was flowing and disturbed, would not that help to disturb the silica sand ?—The sand, undoubtedly. 115. It would naturally go downwards? —Yes, until it met the tide. 116. And if there were steamers running every day in that river, would not that have the effect of stirring the water up to a greater extent than if there were no steamers running?— Undoubtedly the stirring up of the sand 117. I am talking about the silica: if that was going on, would not the reasonable inference be that the bottom of the river would be deeper than it was before there were any steamers running?— Until the next fresh. 118. It would be deeper until the next fresh?— Yes. We know that in the old days the steamer used often to stick for perhaps half an hour, and stir it up then. 119. What was the state of the tide when these photographs were taken?— That I cannot say. I did not take all the photographs myself. 120. Well, the ones you took yourself?—lt varied, because I did them on several different occasions. 121. Did you take any of them at high tide? —I could not say whether they were taken at high tide or low water. 122. None of these were taken at high water?— The ones showing the wharves were purposely taken at low water. 123. Before ever there was any mining, or any silica or quartz tailings put into the river, were not mud-banks to be seen, on account of the river going through low-lying country virtually all the way up ?—ln places there were mud-banks. 124. You know the Turua and Matatoke, and the bank on the railway side of the river Ohinemuri there at Matatoke?—Yes. I know there are mud-banks all the way up. 125. If a photo had been taken of this mud-bank at low tide, what would have been the impression conveyed to anybody looking at, it who did not know? —Perhaps a wrong impression is conveyed by that photograph. These wharves were built to accommodate vessels of certain draught, and these photographs were taken at low water to show that these boats could not possibly get there now, and the banks could not be shown unless the photographs were taken at low water. I stated in my evidence that the rise of the tide averaged 3 ft. You will see in two or three of those photographs that there are banks 2 ft. out of the water. 126. You say the rise of the tide is 3 ft, at the wharves? —About that, .

I.—4a.

T. N, E. KENNY.

127. You have not told the Committee that in the Waihou River the rise of the tide would vary very materially. If you took it at Matamata or Shaftesbury, or the Junction, or Paeroa in the Ohinemuri River, or at Turoe, or a place lower down—Kopu—would the rise of the tide not vary in all these places? —You spoke of the Upper AVaihou; you mentioned Shaftesbury. Well, the tide does not affect it, nor a long way down; not more than two miles up the Upper Waihou. 128. How far above Te Aroha?—lt does not go as far as Te Aroha. There is always a down current there. 129. How far does it go above the wharf on the Ohinemuri River?—l dare say about a mile or a mile and a half up the Waihou. 130. lam speaking now of the Ohinemuri River: you say that the rise of the tide there would be about 3 ft. 2—Yes. 131. If it is 3ft. there, what would it be at Kopu wharf?—l should say it would be considerably more. 132. The higher you go up the river the less the rise of the tide? —Yes. \ 133. You put in a very nice tracing of this Tairahi No. 2 Block, containing 9 acres 3 roods 28 perches : I suppose that from memory you could not give us the valuation of the piece of land ? —It is Maori land. 134. You do not know what the valuation is?— No. 135. This is the Ohinemuri River shown here, is it not? —Yes. 136. And this particular piece of land is virtually in the neck of the river? —I should say so. 137. The likelihood would be that in any flooding this land would be covered with water, unless it is high land: is it high land2—l do not know the land. 138. Mr. Nicholls would know: Is that high land, Mr. Nicholls! Mr. Nicholls: Yes. 139. Bon. Mr. McGowan (to Mr. Nicholls): Has it ever been flooded?-—Yes, it is flooded now. It was flooded at the last flood. 140. In case of a flood such as that of 1888, this piece of land must necessarily have been flooded, because the river goes right round it? —No. 141. It was not flooded in 1888 2—No. 142. It never was flooded until the last flood?— The January flood. 143. (To Mr. Kenny.) You stated in your evidence that you believed that willows had not the effect of helping to deposit slimes, or tailings, or anything of that kind on a river-bank?— Yes. 144. And you stated as a proof of that statement that if you put a stick into the river the current would wash out around it: have you considered that statement fully? —Yes. When I went down the river with Mr. Reed and Mr. Wilson, Mr. Reed pointed to a place. He said, " Look where the silt has deposited behind the willows." I showed him another place where the silt had not deposited, and I then had the audacity to pit my opinion against the professional engineers', and to show that where there is a snag or obstruction and the current is running thf scour will make it deeper. 145. How would you reconcile that statement with your statement in regard to the island •that is there now? —In what way? 146. If there was something deposited there, why is it that the water is not deeper instead of an island being formed?— There are many causes. Rubbish catches on the willows. 147. Are tailings not rubbish? —I am speaking of things like boughs or sticks, or anything of that sort. 148. But tailings are rubbish, in the river, at any rate?—l should not like to say that. I say they are a waste product that could be made use of. 3 49. I suppose that as a naturalist you have paid some attention to why willow-roots grow towards the water ?—That I admit. 150. If the willows are planted on the bank the roots will go towards the water? —Yes. 151. And they will come up in a nice bunch? —Yes, and strike down and grow. 152. And wherever that takes place tailings will be deposited?— Then there will be a solid obstruction. 153. The result is that the willows do causff an obstruction?—Oh, yes, in that way, undoubtedly. 154. Then, again, I think you made a statement that you have had floods in the Upper and Lower Waihou when there was no flood in the Ohinemuri River ? —Scarcely that. I think I said Waihou floods and Ohinemuri floods. The Waihou floods are when the Waihou is in bigger, flood than the Ohinemuri. 155. I was informed—and I want to know if the information is correct—that during the flood in January, I think it was, the flood-waters continued to come from the Piako; and I think Mr. Laughlin gave it in evidence also that the Piako water came into the back part of his land when there was no actual flood in the Ohinemuri—that is, the flood in the Ohinemuri had gone down, but the water continued to come from the Piako and flood his land. Mr. Laughlin: That was in Mr. Fisher's sworn statement, which I put in. 156. Bon. Mr. McGowan.] So it was: you heard that read, Mr. Kenny?—Yes. 157. Is that true? —I cannot speak from my own experience, but I believe it is true, from what I saw subsequently, that the water does break over the bank up the AVaihou. 158. Mr. Berries.] The point is, whether the water comes from the Piako?—That I cannot say. 159. Bon. Mr. McGowan.] I was informed that when the water from the Ohinemuri River and the Waihou had gone down, the flood continued higher for some hours, the water coming from the Piako? —If I might be allowed to explain, when a flood occurs in the Waihou River—that is, either from the Ohinemuri or the Waihou—directly the flood ceases the water very soon goes

27

I—4a.

28

[T. N. E. KENNY.

off, but when it gets to bank-level it takes a very long time to fall; and, as I understand that Netherton flood, my own impression was that it fell to the river-bank, and then the Piako broke over and the water could not get away on account of the river being bank-high. 160. The Chairman.] I understood the affidavit to say that it was after three days' flooding in the Waihou that the Piako broke over?—lt was flooding for several days before the water began to fall. 161. Bon. Mr. McGowan.] I have been informed that in, I think, the January flood, the water, both in the Waihou and the Ohinemuri, had decreased; but still the water came over from the Piako side and flooded some of the low-lying roads about the Netherton district?— That is what I have heard, but I do not know it of my own knowledge. 162. Did the County Council ever interview me on this question? —Yes, I believe on one occasion many years ago they did. 163. Could you tell the Committee what took place at the interview? —No, 1 really could not at this time. 164. What is the impression left in your mind? —That you said that if we rated ourselves you would help us. 165. That is pretty nearly correct: has the county ever done anything in the way of suggesting that the people should raise some money to help themselves, or anything like that, other than appealing to the Government or any Minister that might be in the neighbourhood ?—I am certain they have not suggested any scheme for rating themselves for that purpose. 166. Is it their idea that the Government should come to their assistance without they themselves doing anything? —No. The principle on which they object to rating is this: that they would put a responsibility on the people which they have no right to put on them. 167. Do you know whether some of the settlers are willing to pay something, either by way of rates or a charge, with a view to remedying this trouble? —Not to my knowledge. Any that have spoken to me have always objected, on principle, to paying a rate. 168. Some of the settlers—not many —have expressed their willingness to me?—l have no doubt of that, but they have not done so to me. 169. The Chairman.] With regard to the cattle-sales that were mentioned: there are some cattle-sales held in Paeroa at present, or have been held there recently?— Not, that I know of. I know that there are cattle-yards, and that five or six months ago there were cattle-sales. 170. Do you recollect thirteen or fourteen years ago cattle-sales being held regularly in Paeroa? —Yes, on Mr. Nicholls's property. 171. And did McNicholl and Co., who were holding those sales, discontinue them? —Yes, after a very short time. 172. How long ago would that be? —About twelve years ago, as nearly as 1 can recollect. 173. Cattle-sales were held prior to mining of any great importance being done at Ohinemuri —prior to the cyanide process being adopted at Waihi and Karangahake?—l cannot speak with any certainty, but I think it was about twelve or thirteen years ago. 174. (To Mr. Nicholls). Were there cattle-sales in Paeroa thirteen years ago?— Mr. Nicholls: Yes, twenty years ago. 175. How long is it since McNicholl's sales were discontinued?— They were discontinued because McNicholl and Co. did very little business. 176. Is there much business being done there in the shape of cattle-sales?— They had a sale there last October. They leased the ground from me for the yard, and now they want to give it up. 177. The position has not improved from what it was twenty years ago as far as the cattlesales are concerned ?—No. 178. Mr. Berries (to Mr. Nicholls).] Is it not a fact that the bulk of the buying for the butchers, Mr. Nicholls, is done by dealers?— That is very likely. May I say, Mr. Chairman, that there is a matter which has cropped up that I should like to supplement.—that is, in reference to the drainage of Matamata. It seems to me that the impression left on the minds of honourable gentlemen on the Committee is that the Matamata drains fall into the Waihou. As a matter of fact, they do not. 179. Bon. Mr. McGowan (to Mr. Nicholls).] Where does the Waihou rise?—A long way above Matamata. 180. Are there no drains running into the Waihou from Matamata?—No. 181. Do you know where there are hot springs at Matamata? —Yes, I own them. 182. Are there no drains there? —There may be drains, but there is no swamp land there. There is a creek there. 183. What is the sort of land where the springs are?—lt is pumice. 184. Are there no drains through that pumice into the river at Matamata hot springs?— You mean to say, drains that have been cut? 185: Yes, cut into the river—artificial drains made in order to drain the land?— There xa&j be one or two small drains. 186. So that the drainage of a portion of Matamata does go into the Waihou?—Yes, but that is only from a small bit of a swamp alongside. Matamata proper has no drains running into the Waihou. I am certain of that. I know the block that you refer to. Well, there is very little swamp on it. 187. I was up there not very long since, and I myself saw some of the settlers who took up the land cutting drains into this very river? —There is very little swamp on it. 188: The Is that all you wish to say?— There is another matter that I should like to mention, and that is that the flow from the Waihou now runs into Te Awaiti. 189. Mr. Berries.] Where is Te Awaiti 2—Here [place indicated on map].

i.—4a.

Edmund William Poeritt made a statement and was examined. (No. 5.) 190. Mr. Berries.] Are you a petitioner 2—Yes. I am a solicitor at Paeroa, and am also a dairy-farmer. lam one of the delegates appointed by the petitioners to represent them on this matter. 1 went to Ohinemuri in March, 1896. When J went there I sought out a piece of ground for the purpose of making a home on it. I made inquiries from a gentleman named Mr. Coote, who owned land, and who lives alongside of me at the present time. He pointed out a piece of land to me which he stated from his own knowledge had not been flooded for twenty-three years. I have spent £1,200 in making a home on that land, and it is now constantly flooded through the silting-up of the river. 191. That is, the Ohinemuri River 2—Yes. If I could get half of what that place cost me 1 should be glad to get rid of it now. 192. Mr. Colvin.] Six hundred pounds?—l would take £600 for it, and be glad to get it. 1 know the Ohinemuri River from Ihe Black Hill at AVaihi to the Junction, and I know the AVaihou from Awaiti to the Hauraki Gulf, at the mouth of the river. From Waihi down through the gorge of the Ohinemuri River as far as Karangahake the silt has done no damage that I am aware of; but below Karangahake, just above Mackaytown, the trouble commences. 1 produce a photograph of the river where the suspension bridge goes over to the Mackaytown Railway-station, showing the formation of an island in the channel there, just coming on now. [Photograph put in.] A short distance below that island Mr. Marsh owns a block of land called Wairere. That land to my knowledge was used for cropping purposes. It is now covered with silt from 6 in. to about 2 ft. deep. 193. The Chairman.] The whole block?— The whole of it, absolutely destroyed. He has a piece of land a short distance lower down, which is being gradually destroyed by silt. I produce a photograph showing the encroachment of the silt on his paddocks. [Photograph handed in.] I produce another view, taken a little lower down the river. [Put in.] On the opposite side of the river also the silt is encroaching on bis land, and I produce a photograph showing how the silt has accumulated on what was formerly a place where he used to turn his cattle for rough feed. [Photograph put in.] Lower down on his land, on the same block, the silt has encroached from the river a distance on an average of about a chain, and I produce a photograph showing the encroachment on that portion of his land. [Put in.] Further down, round the bend of the river, the silt has encroached on both sides over his land for a distance varying from about half a chain to a chain. [Photograph handed in.] I produce also a photograph, taken opposite the Mackaytown Hotel, of a place where he used to turn his cattle for summer feed. [Put in.] I know all these spots personally, and have been over them. 194. Mr. Colvin.] How far is this from your land?— About Ihree and a half miles above my place. Mr. Marsh supplies the mining township of Karangahake with milk, and uses this land for dairying purposes. He estimates his loss, for that purpose, at £2 per acre per annum, and he has lost 17 acres of land absolutely out of a total holding of 96 acres. I produce a survey plan of the Waingunguru Islands at Mackaytown. [Put in.] That land is the property of a Native named Watene Taiwhakaea. His kainga is at the back of my place, lower down the river. That island has been absolutely destroyed. If you will look at the plan you will see an upper channel between the islands, with the river running between. 195. Ban. Mr. McGowan.] What is the area of that island?— There are three of them. I think the total area is between 5 and 6 acres. This photograph shows the upper channel between those islands, where that gentleman in the photo is standing. [Photograph put in.] The channel is silted up and has ceased to exist. The right portion of this photograph shows the lower portion of the middle island, with the channel between it silted up; and this photograph shows the lower portion of the island with the lower channel obstructed, and shows the erosion of silt by the running water —the way it is carried down the river. [Photographs put in.] Coming on below Mr. Marsh's place, the silt extends for a distance of about half a chain to a chain back from the banks of the river, along through the county property and the Native property; and below the abattoirs it has been spread across Sorensen's paddocks from the Ohinemuri River right across to the main road, and across the main road to the foot of the hills. I have been through that myself, and have seen it. Lower down, Mr. Fred. Cock has lost 13 acres of land absolutely—-covered with silt. On the opposite side of the river to Mr. Cock a person named Jacob Tanner has a 4-acre paddock on Hautamirua Block that he pays the Public Trustee £10 a year for. That paddock is absolutely destroyed, and last month he sold off all the pigs that he kept on it. 196. The. Chairman.] What depth of silt would there be on Mr. Cock's place?— From about 3 ft. in some places to about 5 ft., running out to nothing. Lower down the river there is the property of a Mr. James Barrett. A photograph produced by Mr. Kenny will show the condition of his grass pasture. It is a sea of small waves of silt. That is rather an instructive photograph. Lower down, on the opposite side of the river, there is the Church of England vicarage site, and the Rev. Mr. Cowie had to erect a fence to keep his horses from getting into the river. The fence is somewhere under the silt bank shown in the photograph [produced]. It has disappeared. Crossing the river again, and lower down, there is the property of Buchanan's estate. Mr. Tanner —the man I mentioned before—had a lease of 9 acres there. Five acres of it was destroyed by the flood in July, 1907, and he threw up his lease because he could not afford to pay the rent for the balance. This photograph shows the land, but I will not put it in at the moment, as I wish to refer to it again. This photograph that I have in my hand now shows the destruction of that land ; but on the opposite side of the photograph is shown the accumulation of silt on the Native land. That spot where the boat is lying is the place where I used to bathe. I then could not touch bottom with a 10 ft. oar, and from the bank on the other side I could not touch bottom at

29

30

I.—4a,

E. W. PORRITT;

all without diving. You can walk across there now. [Photograph put in.] My property is a little below that. Lower down, at the next tend of the river, prior to the July flood there was a bank of sand extending almost over to Mr. Nicholls's property, and, with the exception of one small channel, there was a bank of silt about a foot out of the water. It was a place where the geese from the Native settlement used to go and sun themselves on the silt bank. A couple of years ago there was over 10 ft. of water at that part of the river. The flood in July scoured that bank away to the other side of the river, and turned in all the silt through my property and Mr. Coote's. Lower down, below the main traffic-bridge, where this photograph shows a gentleman sitting down, was the deepest channel in that part of the river. I have been up and down that frequently. That was the deepest part of the river, and we used to keep to the right side there so as to keep in deep water. The whole of that, when I went to Ohinemuri, was an unobstructed channel. Now, you cannot get up and down a great many parts of it in a rowing-boat. [Photograph put in.] As the bed of the river has risen it has widened out, but the water has shallowed. With regard to the state of the Ohinemuri from there to the Junction, I can corroborate from my own knowledge what has teen stated by the previous witnesses. At the Junction I have seen the evidences of silt for fully three-quarters of a mile up the Waihou River, against the current, 1 went there with the lessee of the land for the express purpose of seeing it, and found his land in such a state that he was cutting cabbage-trees down to feed his cattle on the tops of them, his feed having been destroyed. There was clear evidence of silt over almost the whole of his property. That was after the July flood. 197. Hon. Mr. McGowan.] Whose property was that? —Mr. James McKee's. [Land pointed out on map.] The silt extended from a chain to about 4or 5 chains back from the river, up to the margin of the swamp. The cattle on those lands were in a state of starvation. Many of them were dying, and Mr. Laughlin, who was with me, and I found seven dead ones. And the state of some of the live cattle was such that they should have been destroyed. Their legs were a mass of blood and matter through tramping about in this filth. Lower down than that, Mr. McKee, sen., pointed out to me where he had put in his crop of mangolds and potatoes for winter feed. There was not a sign of them; it was all silt. And he stated that he had to dispose of all his stock, except, I think, a couple of cows. His son, R. McKee, gave me this letter, which he asked me to produce. He had been endeavouring to sell the crop of flax on his property, and had sent a sample away, and this is the reply he got from Fry Bros., the flax-millers at Kirikiriroa. It was written in February, after the January flood, but Mr. McKee gave it to me in August. " Mr. R. McKee, Paeroa.- —Dear Sir, —We got a truck of flax from your brother, but it was so full of the goldfield silt we could do nothing with it, and we had to write to him asking him to send no more like it. It is a great pity, because it is really good flax. Of course, it got the silt through being flooded. We are writing you to let you know that if your flax is also covered with the silt we cannot manage with it. The only way would be to wait till there is a good rain to wash it off. We hope, however, yours was not flooded. Will you kindly let us know." I understand that the principal objection to taking that sort of flax is that it ruins the machinery. 198. The Chairman.] Are those lands on the Waihou?—On the Waihou, below the Junction. The whole of the lands that I saw below the Junction were covered with silt. On the opposits side of the river I went to Mr. Whitmore's place. Be had put his land down in English grass, and fully half of his grass was destroyed. The area I saw was about 8 acres, and very nearly half of that had gone —covered in silt! He told me that he intended to do no farming whatever till this matter was settled; he was giving it up. Lower down there is the orchard of Mr. J. W. Thorp, who is also a farmer, and carries on a dairying business. A very large portion of his ground is destroyed. A great number of his fruit-trees are dying, and a number of his cattle are dead and some are dying. Since I have teen in Wellington he has sent me this affidavit: "In the matter of the silting-up of the Ohinemuri and Waihou Rivers with mining tailings.—l, John Wullanora Thorp, of Paeroa, in the Provincial District of Auckland, farmer and orchardist, make oath and say—(l.) That I am a farmer and orchardist residing near the Puke landing at Paeroa, and have resided in this district for the past sixty years. (2.) Before it became polluted with mining tailings and debris, the Ohinemuri River was a beautiful river, and contained quantities of mullet, eels, whitebait, and New Zealand trout. None of these are now obtainable in the Ohinemuri at the present date. (3.) I remember Sir Donald McLean coming up the Ohinemuri River to within two miles of Paeroa in the Government steamer " Luna," and was informed by the master of the said vessel, Captain Fairchild, that the "Luna" was drawing 8 ft. 6 in. At that time the Ohinemuri River had an average depth of from 18 ft. to 20 ft. as far up as Paeroa Township. The average depth now would, in my opinion, be about 3 ft. or 4 ft. (4.) In those days it took three days of heavy rain to cause a big flood, but at present three or four hours of heavy rain causes a large flood, which is the result of the bed of the river being filled up with the mining tailings. I have seen heavy floods in my time, but never saw a flood, such as the January flood, to last three weeks without rain, which, in my opinion, shows conclusively that the rivers must te blocked up to a very large extent. (5.) In previous years, when there was a big flood, the deposits of silt brought down were of a rich alluvial nature, and greatly improved the pasture; but the mining tailings (powdered rock) now brought down in such large quantities have absolutely no nutrition, and ruin the land on which they are deposited. (6.) I found the first gold in this district at Karangahake and Rotokohu. Thorp and party were granted a prospector's license when the Ohinemuri was opened for mining. I have spent large sums of in prospecting, and am still prospecting for gold and silver, and have the welfare of gold-mining at heart; but do not think that such a thriving industry should te allowed to ruin portion of the dairying industry in the colony, which we all consider is the backbone of the colony. (7.) I remember Mr. Asher Cassrels and the late C. F. Mitchell bringing me a petition requesting that the Ohinemuri be not made a sludge-channel, but I refused to sign it, as I was desirous of assist-

t. W. PORBITT.J

31

I.—4a.

ing the gold-mining industry as much as possible. I had then, however, no reason to believe that the result of that Proclamation would be so far-reaching and disastrous.—John W. Thorp. Sworn before me, at Paeroa, this 31st day of August, 1907.— T. A. Moresby, a solicitor of the Supreme Court of New Zealand." I will put that in. [Document put in.]" I also saw a farmer on that occasion named Chamberlain. He told me that he had sent off the whole of his implements to the auction-room, and did not intend to carry on any more farming till this matter was settled. He is selling off his stock and implements. With reference to that land of Mr. James McKee's that I pointed out on the map, he informed me that prior to January last he had been offered £17 an acre by a Mr. Ward, of Gisborne, and had refused it. He said he would be very glad to see somebody come along and make him a similar offer now. I, personally, have made no further inspection down the river, but the question of the lands lower down is one of considerable importance to the Government, because most of the lands down there are tinder mortgage to the Government Advances to Settlers Office. With reference to the output of tailings into the river, I produce a letter from Mr. Daw, the manager of the New Zealand Crown Mine, dated the 27th July, 1907. 199. Mr. Berries.] Who is it addressed to?—To me. I may say that the mining companies have never refused us any information we have asked for in this matter. He states, " The total quantity of tailings sluiced into the river by the Crown Company up to the end of June this year was 307,285 tons, and the total quantity of tailings sluiced into the river by the Waihi Company up to the 31st March this year was 1,931,240 tons. A cubic foot of dry tailings weighs about 841b." [Letter put in.] I produce a letter from Mr. Stansfield, the attorney for the Talisman Company, dated the 29th July, and addressed to me. He says, " For the year ending the 30th June last the average amount of tailings deposited in the river per month was 3,880 tons. Am very glad to hear that the silting problem is likely to be settled." [Letter put in.] I also produce a letter from Mr. H. P. Barry, the superintendent of the Waihi Gold-mining Company, dated the 2nd August, and addressed to myself. He says, " Last year we milled 328,866 short tons of 2,0001b., all of which, except a very few thousand tons stacked at Union Mill, went into the Ohinemuri River." [Letter put in.] Based on that information, I make out that a total of 2,785,245 tons of tailings have been put into the Ohinemuri since the Proclamation, an annual average of 391,167 tons. On last year's output the monthly average was 33,014 tons—upwards of a thousand tons a day. For the first year after the Proclamation of the river as a sludge-channel — that is, the year 1895-96—the output was 44,966 tons. The difference between the output for 1896 and for 1906 is an increase of 384,638 tons. What we are afraid of is the results of a further increase. I wish also to produce a letter from Mr. S. J. Crawford, of Mount Roskill, Auckland. I do not know the gentleman, but the letter is addressed to Mr. AY. Moore, of Paeroa, and he forwarded it to me. Mr. Crawford speaks as one who has had several years' experience in this matter, and makes a statement, which is the principal reason why I put the letter in. 200. Bon. Mr. McGowan.] Do you father the statement?—l will put the statement in for what it is worth. He says that the Commonwealth of Australia has "offered a £5,000 reward or subsidy to any one devising and proving a practical process of using the slimes." I put this in for the purpose of bringing that aspect of the matter before the Mines Committee. [Letter put in.] While on this point, I have a telegram which I wish to put in. I may say that I wired this morning to my partner in Waihi to let me know how the Grand Junction Company disposed of their tailings. I knew they did not put them into the river, but I wanted to know what they did with them, and I have received his reply. My telegram was, "Do the Grand Junction Company stack their tailings?" and his reply is, "'Yes, for further treatment. After treatment, deposited in old creek-bed to settle behind concrete wall. Surplus water runs into river, but very little tailings go into river." [Telegram put in.] AVhile on the question of disposal of the tailings, I should like to draw the Committee's attention to the latter portion of Mr. James Stewart's report, which has been placed before the Committee, where he suggests that a great quantity of the tailings might be got rid of by putting them into the stopes in the mines. I know that some of the mining representatives—l have spoken to them on the subject—think that that might not be practicable; but, in support of the suggestion made by Mr. Stewart, I wish to put in a quotation from the report of the Sludge Abatement Board of Victoria. It is a very lengthy thing, so Ido not propose to read it all. 201. Bon. Mr. McGowan.] Refer to the chapter and verse?— This Sludge Abatement Board, in dealing with the difficulty at Bendigo and other places in Victoria, mention this as one of the effective remedies: "Send back into the stopes of the quartz-mines as much sand as possible, instead of slate." And in one of the recommendations of the Board this appears: "The Board recommends that the following action be taken: The preparation, after consultation with an expert board by an engineer of high standing, of an effective, economical project for dealing with the Bendigo Creek sludge question." I wish to put that in for the consideration of the Committee. [Report put in.] What we say, gentlemen, is that the remedy in this matter is one for high expert opinion, and that we are not competent to express an opinion as to what the remedy should be. Any suggestions that we would make would be only amateur suggestions, and as such would be liable probably to comment, and would probably evidence many instances of weakness. What we ask is that this matter should not be delayed. The petition put in by the AYaihi petitioners prays for a Royal Commission to take sworn evidence. Now, we do not oppose that, if it is the only thing that can be done ; but what we say is that that will occasion delay, and that this matter has become one of such urgency that delay should not take place. We ask that it be dealt with at the earliest possible moment, on account of the serious nature of the injury that is going on. Instead of our putting forward suggestions for a remedy, we would ask that a substantial bonus be offered, and that the best engineering skill in the colony should be invited to furnish a practicable scheme for utilising these tailings, or disposing of them, so as not to injure the mining industry, and at the same time to prevent all this damage that is being done.

I.—4a.

Monday, 16th September, 1907.

Edmund William Porritt (No. 5), statement continued.

Witness: There are, Mr. Chairman, one or two statements contained in the petition presented from Waihi that I should like to refer to at this stage. Clause 3 reads as follows: '' That in the year 1895, it being apparent that mining would be carried on for many years to come, His Excellency the Governor was advised by his Executive Council to proclaim the Ohinemuri and Waihou or Thames Rivers watercourses into which tailings and other mining debris might be discharged, which, after due notice according to law, was done, no objection having been raised." We admit that no objection was raised to the Proclamation; but the knowledge of the residents was based on the then known methods of treatment, and the cyanide process was practically unknown, and the use of ball mills had not then come into operation 'in the district, and people could not foresee the effects of the Proclamation. Paragraph 4: "At the time this was gazetted, the number of farms fronting on the Ohinemuri River did not exceed six." That, Mr. Chairman, is not correct. The statement taken from the county valuation list of 1895, which has been put in, shows, on being analysed, that there were thirty owners, with an area of 1,837 acres, directly affected, on the Ohinemuri River, and forty-one owners, with an area of 9,028 acres, directly affected, on the Waihou River. These make up the total of 10,865 acres referred to by previous witnesses —that is, exclusive of Native and Crown lands adjoining the Ohinemuri and Waihou Rivers. Clause 5: "Since this Proclamation a large amount of tailings has been deposited in the river by the gold-mining companies at Waihi and Karangahake, and a right to recover this material and re-treat it for the percentage of gold therein has been granted by the Warden to a company established for this object. The title to this privilege is as good as the tenure of the Waihi or any other company to its holding, and could not te cancelled without the payment of heavy compensation." With reference to that, the application for those claims were opposed by the Ohinemuri County Council as a River Board, on the ground that the granting of these claims would prejudicially affect any steps that might be taken by the county to get this Proclamation rescinded, or to get the river cleared from this sludge. After a lengthy healing, the Warden decided to grant the claims; but he granted them with a condition, on the 4th March, 1903: "To be worked in accordance with the terms of a document dated the 14th November, 1902, describing the method of working filed in the Warden's office at Paeroa, and without prejudice to any of the powers of the Ohinemuri County Council as a River Board." This latter condition was put in by the Warden to prevent any claim for comnpensation being made, and on a distinct statement from the applicants' solicitors that no compensation would be claimed or expected in the event of its being necessary to cancel the grants. A reference to Mr. Warden Bush's notes on the applications, should show this. Clause 6: "That during the month of January, 1907, owing to an unprecedented downfall of rain in the Provincial District of Auckland, large tracts of land throughout the county were flooded to a greater extent than known since the foundation of the colony, traffic on portions of the Waikato Railway being wholly suspended for weeks, and parts of the country laid under water for the first time since the line was built, over thirty years ago." It is admitted that the floods were heavy in January, 1907, in that portion, as well as in other portions, of the colony; but we state that they were more severe than they would otherwise have teen on account of the obstruction of the channel of the river, and a few hours' rain now causes an overflow where previously it took several days. As against the heavy rainfall in January, we have the fact that in July last, with less than twenty-four hours of rain, the flood was up to within 8 in. of the January level, and a very large amount of silt, which had teen brought down by the January flood, was carried over the lands by the July flood. Paragraph 8: "That it is now sought to be proved that the deposition of tailings in the said river was the cause of these farms being flooded, whereas the natural conditions are such that had the handiwork of man never teen seen in the country the land in question would have been under water when such weather-con-ditions prevailed, as the past history of the district abundantly proves." In reference to that I may say that Mr. William Moore has resided at Netherton for twenty-seven years, and his land was never flooded previous to January and July last. Mr. Nicholls, one of the previous witnesses, has resided in the district for upwards of thirty-four years, and, with a knowledge of more severe rainfalls never had his lands flooded. There are numbers of other instances which Ido not wish to take up the time of the Committee in referring to. Clause 9: " Should the Proclamation of the river as a sludge-channel be revoked, it would prove a very serious blow to the mining industry ; quantities of low-grade ore worked, at a small profit would be left untouched, and numbers of men thrown out of employment, forced to leave the district, and compete for work in other centres of the colony." With reference to that, we say that if an effective scheme could te devised for dealing with this matter the revocation of the Proclamation would not in any way affect or hamper the mining industry, and an alternative scheme-would probably necessitate the employment of a considerable number of men. If this waste product could be turned to commercial utility it might te the means of providing employment in some large industry. Clause 10: "Your petitioners therefore pray that no steps be taken to prevent the gold-mining companies from exercising their legal rights in depositing mining debris in the Ohinemuri River, and that a Commission of inquiry be set up to take sworn evidence on the prevailing conditions." I may say that we are not in any way attacking or disputing the legal rights of the companies to deposit their tailings in the river, and we do not oppose the prayer of this petition that a Commission of inquiry should te set up ; but what we do say is that the result of a Commission of inquiry would take the matter no further than this Committee can take it—that it would simply result in a report —and we wish to urge that something more speedy than that be done; that the matter has become so serious

32

33

I.—4a.

E. W. PORRITT.J

that we would like to have it dealt with immediately if possible. AYe suggest that that result might be attained by offering a bonus or subsidy to induce some of the best men in the colony to set their brains to work to devise some practicable scheme for dealing with this matter. And we also suggest that in order to prevent an increase of the mischief which has already been done the Committee might take into consideration the advisability of in any case recommending the cancellation of the Proclamation so far as regards future mining companies and future operations, so that any scheme devised would only have to deal with the existing companies and the present rights. 1. Mr. Berries.] I understand that there are three main points that all the evidence has been given upon : First of all, the subject of navigation of the river; secondly, the damage from flood; and, thirdly, the damage from silt?— Yes, that is right. 2. You have not given any evidence yourself with regard to the subject of navigation? —I stated on Friday that in order not to unnecessarily drag out. the proceedings I simply corroboratedthe evidence that had been given by the previous witnesses. 3. Do you consider the subject of navigation as serious as the other two?—l do. 4. You consider each of those three things of equal seriousness to the district?— Yes. 5. The Waihi petitioners ask for h Commission of inquiry, and you say that this Committee could inquire equally well ?—I do. 6. Do you think your people have placed any of the facts before us on which we can go into the matter? —You will hear the other side, too, I take it. 7. What 1 mean is that on nearly every question you were asked you seemed not to know — the actual amount of damage appears not to have been calculated—the number of persons affected does not seem to be known 2—lnformation of the damage has been supplied b}' a large number in writing, and handed in by Mr. Laughlin. 8. Are we to take that as the damage that has been done? —To those particular persons. 9. Are we to take those figures as all the damage that is claimed? —No. 10. Well, then, we have not got the facts before us?— You have evidence before you that a great amount of damage has been done. 11. Supposing the Committee wished to recommend that compensation be paid to those persons, have they got sufficient information before them to say how much should be paid? —I take it that, if you wish to get it, you can get it without a Commission of inquiry. 12. The Chairman.] Are these people claiming compensation?— No. Those documents are merely statements of the loss they have sustained. 13. Mr. Berries.] Have we got any data before us with regard to the cost to the mining companies of stacking their tailings?— No. 14. Do you not think that is a very important thing to enable the Committee to come to a decision 2—A skilled person appointed to inquire into this matter and make a report would obtain all that information, and could get it much more speedily than a Commission would. 15. Anyhow, further inquiry would have to be made? —Certainly. 16. With regard to the paragraph you read from the Waihi petitioners about stopping the mines, you said that those whom you represent do not wish to stop the mines at all?—No, they do not. 17. And you went on to say that if an effective scheme could be found, and if something else could be done, it would not result in any harm to the mines?— Yes. 18. But that all depended on those "ifs." Now, if it is found that by no possibility can they stack tailings, and nothing can be done to prevent the mines from putting their tailings into the river, as they have a legal right to do, what would the petitioners want to do then ?—ln any case we should like the Proclamation cancelled so far as regards any further mining rights or mining companies from this date onwards, so as not to aggravate the existing evil. But I am certain that a scheme can be devised by which these tailings could be dealt with. 19. A scheme that would not injure the mines? —That would not injure the mines in any way. 20. Can you tell the Committee any scheme that you have in your mind's eye?—l can mention one. I cannot go into the details, because they are not mine to give. There is a firm that is prepared to take the whole output of the Waikino Mill and turn it to commercial use. 21. To extract further gold from it?—No, to manufacture it into building-material. They estimate that they would be able to put that building-material on the market at a price that would enable people to build in brick cheaper than they can build in timber. 22. Is that firm prepared to operate at once, or does it want a bonus or something like that?— It would require assistance to start the business. It would, I think, eventually become a big industry. 23. That is the sort of thing the Committee wants to know to help them to come to a decision in this matter: it is a scheme that would eventuate —not a wild-cat scheme?—No; it is a wellconsidered scheme, based on the result of a considerable amount of experimenting. Unfortunately they could not cope with the whole output of tailings; they could only take that portion. 24. I understand you to ask that the Proclamation be withdrawn as far as any new mines are concerned 2—Yes. 25. Would that affect the whole river? —Yes 26. Would it affect AVaiorongomai ?—Yes; there is no reason why the Upper Waihou should not be clear of the Proclamation, 27. You would like it withdrawn to as far as where the Waihou goes into the sea? —Yes, over the whole river. 28. Take the navigation question: all your witnesses say that the navigation has been impeded?— That is correct, ■ 29. As far as the AVaihou is concerned?— And the Ohinemuri. AVhen I speak of the AVaihou's navigation being affected 1 speak of the Waihou only up to the Junction,

s—l. 4a.

I.—4a.

[c. w. poeeitt.

30. You admit, I suppose, that* the steamers that come up to the Puke now are of heavier draught?—No; they are of lighter draught. 31. They are bigger steamers? —Bigger steamers, but of lighter draught. 32. Are they of lighter draught than the old " Patiki "or " Despatch " ? —I have not got the draught of the " Patiki," but she was a very light boat as far as 1 recollect—made for the Thames mud-fiats. 33. Is it not a fact that she used to stick sometimes when coming up to the Junction? —At low tide. 34. The steamers that are coming up to the Puke now are larger boats, anyhow?— Yes. 35. And, then, it is alleged that they cannot come up to the Junction? —No, they cannot. 36. Could they, at the top of the tide? —No. 37. When they come up to the Puke there is navigation up to Te Aroha2--From the Puke? 38. Yes: they transfer their cargo into a punt, and then a boat tows that punt up to Te Aroha?—Yes. 39. AYe have it in evidence that latterly the Northern Steamship Company have put on a deeper-draught boat, the '■ Rotokohu," for that trade?-—Yes. 40. That is admitted? —Yes. 41. That would seem to show, would it not, -that the navigation had not become worse, if a deeper-draught vessel can go up from the Puke to Te Aroha ?•—That deeper-draught vessel is still a very light-draught boat. 42. Still, she is of deeper draught than the " Matuku " ?—About 6 in., I think. She has sometimes great difficulty in getting up. 43. The Chairman.] What is the draught of the " Rotokohu ": do you know?—l believe it is 3 ft,; lam not certain of it, but I know she is of slightly deeper draught than the " Matuku." 44. Mr. Berries.] With regard to your second point, the deposit of silt: can you of your own knowledge say approximately how much of this area that is flooded is actually damaged by the silt, I mean on the Waihou River; lam not speaking about the Ohinemuri —I think every one admits that the Ohinemuri has been affected. Can you state, approximately, how many acres are actually damaged with the silt—not the flooding? —I cannot give it to you in acres, but I can point out to you on the map what I have actually seen myself. 45. Do you think there would be a thousand acres, or two thousand?—No, not actually covered with silt. 46. How much would you say was absolutely rendered valueless by the silt on the Waihou?I should say it would be over 100 acres. 47. Can you estimate the value of that land, and state where it is?— For one piece of it the Owner was offered £17 an acre by a Mr. Ward, of Gisborne, and he declined to take it. This was prior to the flooding. 48. The January flood 2—Yes. It has been flooded again in July, and again in August, 49. Is the whole of that piece for which he was offered £17 an acre destroyed by the silt, or only a portion of it ?—lt, has all been covered with silt, but it is not, all destroyed. 50. You say that on the Waihou there are 100 acres that you can say are absolutely destroyed by the silt 2—Yes, and lands further down that I know were purchased at £10 an acre and thereabouts prior to all this trouble—the January, July, and August floods. 51. The acute stage has only been reached by these extraordinary floods? —The July flood was not an extraordinary one. The rainfall then was very light, but it was a severe flood. 52. My man wrote to me from my place, above Te Aroha, and told me that it was only an inch or two below the January flood there?—We had very little rain. 53. What would be the average value of this 100 acres- —£10 or £12 an acre?— About £10 an acre. 54. Take the area that was flooded —I think you said before there was-somewhere about 10,000 acres?—No, I did not. 55. Can you give any indication of what the area that was flooded would be?—l can only give it from the plan which we put in, and which I assisted from my own knowledge in certain parts in preparing. 56. The 24,000-acre one?— Yes. 57. Do you mean to say that the whole of that 24,000 acres is flooded in consequence of the tailings?—No; we say that the whole of that 21,000 acres is depreciated in value by the tailings. 58. By the flooding, not by a deposit of tailings?—By the flood carrying deposits of tailings. 59. Do you mean to tell the Committee that, even if the tailings had not been deposited on the land, the January flood would not have flooded any of that land?—No, I do not say that. 60. You say that it was accentuated by the tailings?— Yes. 61. It would have been flooded, or portions would have been flooded, by the abnormal flood we had in January?— Yes; but the feed would have come on again in that case. 62. You do not mean to tell the Committee that there is no grass on the whole of the 24,000 acres ?—There is not a great deal on it. 63. To your own knowledge, has that happened in the Waikato?—l can only speak from newspaper reports as to that. 64. As a matter of fact, was not the January flood an abnormal flood all over the Auckland Province I —Yes. 65. And did not other people lose cattle and grass in consequence of it, as far as you know? —Yes. 66. You made a statement that when the Proclamation was issued—that was in 1895, was it . not?— Yes. 67. The cyanide process was unknown?—l did not say "unknown." I said "practically

34

I—4a,

35

E. W. POEEITT.

unknown." It was known and used among certain mining companies, but it was not known among the general community of the district. 68. Were not the Crown Mine and the Martha working the cyanide just at that time? —They were working it, but the rights they had were purchased from the Cassels Company privately. 69. But it had by that time been proved a success? —They were working it under a different system. They were dry-crushing. They were not putting through the quantities they are now under the wet-crushing system. 70. 1 think the cyanide was working a good bit before that—it was thoroughly well established by 1895?— I say it was not known to the general community in the district. 71. Yo"u have put in a list showing the number of people who owned farms at that time, and who would have claimed if 'they had known about it or had wished to claim?—l put in the number who were entitled to claim. 72. Did any of them claim, do you know?— None of them did to my knowledge. 73. Were you in the district then? —I did not go to the district till the year after, and my knowledge on this point is only based on what 1 have been told. 74. Tell us the reasons why they did not claim? —I could, from the same source. 75. What were they?— That they did not want to interfere with the mining industry. 76. They considered that the mines would be a good market for them, and did not wish to interfere with them? —Not altogether. They did not know that the deposit of tailings in the river was going to do them any damage. 77. Supposing the Proclamation had not been issued, and was issued now, have you any idea what claims would be made: 1 mean to say, could you give a rough estimate of how much would be claimed ?—They would claim the full value of their lands, so that they could get out of it. 78. Have you any idea what amount the total claims would reach to? —No. They would reach a very considerable sum, though. There would be pretty well the whole of that 24,000 acres, and you can average it at about £10 an acre. 79. They would claim that, but it does not follow they would get it? —No. 80. I suppose this land that is affected has changed hands many times? —Not since January. 81. But before January?— Yes. 82. I mean to say, after the people began to know that silt was coming down the river?— Yes. For some years after the -Proclamation no effects were felt. 83. Is it a fact that any people have bought land at a depreciated price in consequence of the silt coming down and their taking a risk?—No; but the appreciated price is in consequence of the increase of dairying in the district. 84. Then, has the land increased in value ?—From that cause, dairying. 85. Notwithstanding the silt coming down?—l do not think it has increased in value to the extent, it would have increased if there had been no silt. 86. Still, it has increased? —Yes. 87. The 100 acres that you say are absolutely destroyed: would no one buy them? —I doubt very much whether they would. I would not. 88. In case any report was made by a Commission or this Committee that compensation should be paid do you think that those people who came in afterwards and" bought land with the knowledge that the river was a sludge-channel should be compensated 2—l think so. They suffered through no fault of their own. 89. But you say that the land did not increase m value so much as it would have it the silt had not come down 2—Yes. . , , • ,_. 90 Are not those purchasers getting the benefit of that practical depreciation : they are not paying'so much as they would for similar land in other places?—ln that case they would not get so much compensation. . , 91. Still, you think they are entitled to some?— Yes. They are suffering through no fault of their own. „ 92 Bon Mr McGowan..] You say that the flood-waters affect a large area?— Yes. 93' Which do you consider the heavier of the tailings or slimes—the material that may be brought down out of drains, the material that comes with any flood, or the mining debrisl— The mining rw. . g heaviel% would you expect to get that over the whole flood-area? °95 So that, the debris left after a big flood would not be mining dibris, but would be the flood-slimes that come with all floods—in fact, whenever there is a flood the water gets turbid and white?— Yes, there would be a proportion of other dibns in it, but there is a slime m this mining dibris which is carried a very considerable distance-carried over everything. 96 You cannot have it both light and heavy ; it is either heavier or lighter You have stated that you consider it is heavier. If you want to say it is lighter, all right. I only want your statement?— You used the word "tailings," I think. 97 I used the words "slimes or tailings "-call it what you like: are the maning slimes heavier than the ordinary slimes that are carried down in any flood?— No. Experiments that we have made show that.they take about three days to deposit in some instances. _ 98. Do you consider that this 100 acres that you referred to is destroyed, or simply affected?— ' I consider it is destroyed. 99. Absolutely destroyed? —Yes. _ . ,„„-, T , 100. What was that 100 acres valued at before the Proclamation took place m 1895?— I do " 0t loT'Do yott know what the value of the land was when you went to Ohinemuri?—About £6 102. That would be the general value of dairying land?— Yes.

L—4a.

36

[c. w. poeeitt.

103. Do you know what the land down in the Lower Waihou was purchased at several years ago —say, from 1888 or 1890?— No. I did not go there or have any dealings there till 1896. 104. Have you any explanation as to the evidence you heard given by Mr. Nicholls in regard to the Upper Waihou, and by Mr. Laughlin when he pointed out that the flood was from the front and to the rear of his premises, and that the rear waters were presumed to be from the Piako: do you know anything about that district from personal examination? —Yes, I have been over a portion of it, and there are strong traces —in fact, it is there on the ground. The silt from the Ohinemuri is over the banks of the Waihou River. 105. Did-you notice the lay of the land from the Piako side? —Yes. 106. Do you think that the water from the Waihou would flow towards the Piako? —Yes, for a certain distance. 107. Would you give me the distance, roughly? —I can show it to you on the map. [Map referred to, and distance and places explained.] 108. In other words, there is a bank on the Waihou that is higher than the adjacent laud: that is common to all the rivers? —That is common to all rivers in the district. 109. And that has happened in this case very markedly? —Yes. 110. You said, I think, that there were six owners on the Ohinemuri before the Proclamation? —No. The Waihi petition says there were six. I say there w r ere thirty. ill. The Registration Office says there were four? —The valuation roll for the county says there were thirty. 112. But the Registration Office is the best evidence you can get as regards ownership?—l can give a great many more than four, from my own knowledge. 113. I am speaking of a particular time: you will admit that the Deeds Office would be the best evidence of ownership?— That office and the Land Transfer Office. 114. You admit that is the best evidence?—-Yes. 115. And there are over forty at the present time? —Yes. 116. Mr. Berries.] The county roll would show "occupiers "I —lt also shows "owners." 117. Are you including "occupiers" in your thirty? —No, actual "owners." 118. The Chairman.] With regard to the question of willows on the banks of the river, have you anything to say as to whether the County Council or the people there would be prepared to. clear those willows? —Speaking for the settlers—l represent the settlers only in this matter, and not the country—they are perfectly willing, as far as 1 am aware —and I have spoken to a great many of them—to have a rate struck for the purpose of clearing out the willows, or they are perfectly willing to do it themselves, if the}' can see any object to be gained by doing so. They look upon it as a useless expenditure and a useless labour to clear away the willows, unless the silt is stopped frota coming down the river. It would only be doing the work for nothing. At the present time a large number of them are dependent on the willows for feed; but they would undertake, without any compulsion or anything in the way of regulation, to remove the willows and not to plant a willow within a chain of the river in future if the silt is stopped going into the river. 119. Those statements of losses sustained that ■were put in—were they put in as claims for compensation, or have any claims for compensation been put in by the settlers ?■—No claims whatever have been put in for compensation. These were just statements put in by the settlers to a committee that was formed to go into the question, showing the losses they had sustained in this matter. 120. With regard to the draught of those vessels that come to the Puke at the present time, the " Waimarie " and the "Taniwha": what is about the draught?— The list obtained from the Northern Steamship Company, showing the draught of the different vessels, has been put in by Mr. Kenny. The draught of the " Taniwha " is 5 ft. 6 in., and that of the " Waimarie " 6 ft. The " Paeroa's " draught was 6 ft. 6 in. She was a very much smaller boat—a 91-ton boat. The "Taniwha" is 262 tons. 121. Have you got the " Rotokohu " in that list?— No. She is only a little river-launch. 122. Does the fact of the "Rotokohu " now going up beyond the Puke, where previously the " Matuku " went, in any way affect the question of the " Taniwha " and the " Waimarie " going up ?—Not in the least. 123. Because the "Rotokohu" draws very little now-—about 3ft., I think?—As far as I recollect, about 3 ft. 124. She is only a small boat? —Yes, only a small river-boat. 125. Mr. Berries.] She is a deck boat, more than the " Matuku " is?— She is what they call, I think, a turtle-back launch, 126. Bon. Mr. McGowan.] Do you remember the Minister of Mines being up there on one occasion, and meeting the members of the County Council?— Recently? 127. Yes, and more than once?—l recollect your being up there in May last. 128. Did any deputation meet me then?— Yes, I was a member of a deputation to you on that occasion. 129. Do you remember any suggestion that I made to the County Council?— Well, the County Council was not part of that deputation; but you represented to us that if the settlers would rate themselves you were willing to assist them. 130. Do you know if any such proposal was made to the county?— That 1 cannot say. Mr. W. G. Nicholls recalled. 131. Mr. Berries (to Mr. Nicholls).] It has been mentioned once or twice that the Ohinemuri County Council is a River Board ?—Yes. 132. Has it ever acted or met as a River Board?—lt meets every month, but there is no business done.

37

1.-—4 a.

W. G. NICHOLLS.]

133. I only wanted to know whether it is still acting as a River Board?— Yes. 134. It could levy rates as a River Board? —That I cannot say. The question has never come up. 135. The River Board is still in force?— Yes. 136. Whatever powers the River Board has, the Council is competent to exercise?— Yes. Henry Douglas Morpeth, Town Clerk, Waihi, made a statement and was examined. (No. 6.) Witness: The first thing I should like to point out to the Committee, or to remind those members who are familiar with the subject, is that the oountry through which the rivers in question pass was at one time, according to the best authorities, an inlet of the sea into which the Waikato River discharged itself. In the course of ages this inlet was filled up by the deposits brought down by the Waikato. Naturally the land is of it very flat nature, and from its very nature is liable to flooding at all times. The vegetation that exists on this large tract of country consists of kahikatea, flax, and wiwi swamp; and I need scarcely remind the Committee that country of that description in New Zealand —the northern parts, at any rate—is invariably liable to inundation. From time to time in the past history of this district very severe floods have occurred. I am assured on very competent authority that at times there are tracts of water extending over many miles —in fact, an inland sea exists over which boats can travel. I presume the Committee are quite familiar with the course of these two rivers in question, and I need not point out the direction of them. Our contention is that in time of heavy weather the upper reaches of the Waihou break their bounds, and travelling across this low-lying country join the waters of the Awaiti Creek, and thence, following, 1 suppose, the natural depressions of the country, pass over the Netherton district and surroundings, and then fall into the river. The contention of we respondents is that the damage that is done to the farming community along the banks of the AVaihou does not arise from the river flooding and passing the bounds of its banks and spreading over the land, but that the water comes in from the back, country, travels over that land, and falls into the river. That is what we maintain with regard to the Waihou River. For the last twelve months or so the rainfall in the northern part of the Province of Auckland, at least, has been excessive. In Waihi itself the rainfall now, I suppose, approaches nearly 100 in. for the year. The last time I consulted ihe records it stood at 89 in. Since then there has been a very heavy rainfall, so I think it would be quite safe to say it is up to 100 in. at the present time. In the month of January, as many of you will remember, the Auckland-Waikato Railway was submerged for many, many miles, so much so that railway traffic was impeded for a matter of weeks. 137. The Chairman.] Where was this—in the AVaikato2 —In the Waikato and beyond the Waikato; that is to say, going south from Papakura onwards, parts that were never known to be flooded before were flooded during that unprecedented downfall in January. I will not say anything about from Mercer onwards, because that is naturally swampy country, very much akin to the low-lying land of the Thames A'alley, and it is so natural for that country to be flooded that it is scarcely worth comment,. In connection with the rainfall I should like to put in evidence some prints that appeared in the public Press. In this paper which 1 produce are pictures showing the effects of the January floods. [Paper produced.] This one [indicated] speaks for itself. This is low-lying country, but not so low-lying as that through which the Waihou flows. Here is the same country —the Hikutaia Valley [indicated]. That is not low-lying country, as you can see from the configuration of the water. Of course, there is no question of silt having any reference to these floods. I put that paper in as evidence. [Paper put in.] There are several pictures bearing on the matter. 138. Mr. Seddon.] What is the point you wish to emphasize from these pictures2—That this country is oountry that is liable to floods, irrespective of the question of silt altogether, and I think there is incontrovertible evidence on that subject. I understand that photographs have been exhibited here—in fact, they were exhibited publicly before their arrival here—and I should like to point out that, if they referred to the Waihou River below the Junction and in the farming district, they are rather of a misleading nature, as I will, I think, prove to you. There may be a deposit of silt on the bank there, not extending very far, but undoubtedly there is silt on the right and left banks—particularly on the left bank—and it is a very natural conclusion to come to that this silt extends from that bank across the bed of the river and on to the left bank. But that is not it fact, as I have evidence here to show. It has been the custom to exhibit to all and sundry, especially to Ministers of the Crown on their visits to the district, these piles of tailings on each side of the river, and, of course, it is very natural for a man just seeing it casually to suppose that that deposit exists from bank to bank, across the bed of the river. I have no doubt that considerable point has been made of the impediment to the navigation of the river that has arisen through the deposit of tailings. To any one acquainted with the history of the province, the impediment of the navigation of the Waihou has been the story right from the time the upper country was opened. I can well remember that twenty-five years ago the late Mr. J. C. Firth, who had an estate at Matamata, built a shallow-draught steamer specially for the purpose of navigating these waters, and he spent, it is reported, a very large amount of money in clearing the river from snags, &c, showing that there was trouble in navigating it. Navigation, as I said, has always been difficult, and at the proper time and place, if the opportunity arises, it will be very easy to produce witnesses to certify to the fact that they were passengers on boats that stuck on the river upwards of thirty years ago; and to my knowledge, and to the knowledge of those who take any interest in things outside their own concerns, navigation of the Waihou River was always difficult. I may state that quite recently I was rather disconcerted by a statement I received —it was from my own son—that there was a place in the river where you could take off your boots and socks and tuck up your trousers and walk across at low water. I made inquiries, and I unearthed a man whom I can produce at another time to state that this has always been the

I.—4a.

38

H, D. MOEPETH.

case. He is a man who was born at the Thames, and has put in most of his life in the Piako and Thames A'alley district, and he tells me that twenty years ago he was in the habit of doing this very thing —that he could cross the Waihou River by taking off his boots and socks, and could walk across without any difficulty. 139. The Chair man.]. Where was that point?— Somewhere above what they call the Long Reach, I think. 140. Where is that —in the Lower Waihou 2—Yes. 141. Mr. Berries.] That would be at low tide? —Yes. On this subject of navigation the willows naturally crop up. I think that if there is anything that lias done damage to the river and tended to destroy the fairway of the river it is the willows. The subject of willows on the banks of rivers and the amount of damage they do will be familiar to all of you. The roots extend, both as large roots and as a mass of fibre, and naturally arrest anything solid that is flowing down the river, and thereby create the banks and shoals. This matter of willows is notoriouslybad in other parts of the province, particularly about Te Awamutu, Kihikihi, Kuiti, and that part of the AVaikato. I was assured by an Audit Inspector recently that a large portion of the revenue of the local governing bodies is spent in attempting to destroy these willows; and to my certain knowledge it has been their endeavour for years past to struggle with these willows on the Mangahoi and other streams in that locality. I would reiterate the request made in our petition that a Commission of independent men be set up on this question, to go into it thoroughly from an engineering and scientific point of view, and to take evidence on the question as to the conditions in the past and suggestions that might have been made to meet to some extent the trouble that now exists. I should like the Committee to understand that 1 have been speaking principally with reference to the Wailiou River. With regard to the Ohinemuri, I cannot but admit that the tailings are doing damage to it from the Junction at Paeroa upwards towards Mackaytown. Between Mackaytown and Paeroa there has undoubtedly been damage done to the river, and that is arrived at by the evidence that I will produce before you. We took samples from the bed of the river at a number of points, and these samples speak for themselves. AYe admit that the Ohinemuri River in the immediate vicinity of Paeroa and upwards is being damaged to some extent; at the same time, I would point out that for practical purposes this was never a navigable stream. 142. The Chairman.] Where would that be from: where was it never a navigable stream? — Up towards Mackaytown. 143. From Paeroa Township upwards?— Yes, that is what I mean. 1 have no doubt there may have been occasions when vessels may have gone up on the top of high water, but, as a matter of fact, it was never what would be called a navigable stream. 144. In any case, the bridge there would have prevented its being used? —Yes. 145. It has never been used for the last twenty years?— No. With your permission 1 should like to produce evidence as to what the bed of the river consists of. 146. Mr. Berries.] Which river? —Both the Waihou and the Ohinemuri. I produce samples of sediment taken from the river. This sample is of genuine tailings from the mill—tailings that have never been in the water. [Sample produced.] This sample [produced] is of tailings taken from the bottom of the river about a quarter of a mile below the battery under the Tauranga Bridge. -They are from the AVaihi Battery. I should like to point out that, though this sample is taken from within a quarter of a mile of the battery, it appears to be of a coarser nature than the tailings that are now being turned out. No. 8 [produced] was taken from the Ohinemuri River half a mile above the Junction. 147. Were those taken from the centre of the river or from the side?— Well, some of them were taken at the sides, but as far as possible they were taken from the centre of the river. No. 12 [produced] was taken from the Ohinemuri. The place where each sample was taken is marked on this map, the numbers corresponding. No. 10 [produced] was taken from off the bank. No. 12 was taken from midstream. No. 9 [produced] was taken from near the Maori meeting-house. The next sample 1 will show you is a sample of ballast taken off the railway-line at the Kopu Station [produced]. This ballast, I might state, was brought from Te Aroha. No. 7 [produced] was taken from the Waihou River, from the Junction up towards Te Aroha. 148. Is that from the centre of the stream? —As near as possible. 149. That is coarse stuff, is it not? —Coarse brown gravel. I should like to point out the difference that you meet with immediately you leave the Ohinemuri above the Junction and get into the Waihou. No. 5 [produced] was taken half a mile from the Junction— from near the mouth of the Waihou, and from the bed of the river. Now we get into the Waihou proper. No. 6 [produced] was taken from the river in front of Forrest's mill, alongside the Junction wharf. It is coarse brown gravel. No. 11 [produced] was taken from in front of Kenny's house. You will observe the coarseness of the gravel there. 150. The Chairman.] This is out of the bottom of the river?— Yes. No. 3 [produced] is from what is known as Thorp's Bend, and is coarse gravel. 151. These are all out of the bottom of the river?— Yes, every sample that is here, except those that I have explained, is from the centre of the bed of the stream. This one [produced] was taken from the Puke wharf. That now is at the head of the navigation on the Waihou River, I understand. I should like to put it on record, with reference to what has been placed before the Committee, that the Northern Company abandoned the Junction wharf at Paeroa, and now run their steamers only to the Puke wharf. That is significant that they still receive the same freight and passage-money to the Puke wharf as they did to the Junction. 152. Are there any other company's boats running on the river?-—Not that I am aware of. 153. There is no opposition? —No. The boat that runs from the Junction up to Te Aroha — the " Rotokohu "—is a boat of larger dimensions than its predecessor. You will see that there is .a sameness about all these samples that I produce here. They are all brown gravel, every sample

H. D. MOEPETH.]

39

I.—4a.

except one, which is open to explanation. I produce No. 13, taken from opposite Dennerley's house [produced]. I should like to explain' why that consisted of tailings. We missed our shot. We could not get into the middle of the stream, so the launch was propelled right into the bank, and this sample taken in there. A\ 7 e knew we were taking tailings. We knew we should get tailings there. This sample, No. 14 [produced], is its companion. We tried to take up a sample and missed; we got on to the bank, picked up No. 13, backed out from the bank again, and got a small sample. This one [produced] is No. 16, taken from below the island at the top of Long Reach. 154. Is that the island about Hikutaia 2—Yes, it is shown on the map, 1 think. Here it is [island indicated on map]. This sample, No. 17 [produced], was taken from the immediate vicinity of Kopu wharf. As j 7 ou know, the river at that point is of considerable width, and on each side the banks are mud-banks. There is no sign of tailings there. Strange to say, however, there are a few tailings in that sample mixed with brown gravel. 155. Of course, there are some tailings in No. 14, taken from Dennerley's? —According to the report there are some tailings there. No. 15 [produced] was taken from straight below Mr. William Morrison's house. I should like to put it in evidence that during the flood in January John Morrison's farm was not under water until three days after the cessation of the rain. The water then flooded his farm. 156. Did you see that?— No. 157. Have you got any evidence besides what was told you?—No, we are in that unfortunate position. 158. Somebody told you this? —Yes. As a matter of fact, Mr. Morrison told my son long before this petition was initiated at all. Of course, this is all hearsay. The samples are about all I can speak to from actual knowledge. I have a report here from the Waihi School of Mines. May 1 read it? 159. Yes, I suppose it bears on this petition?—lt is the report on these samples : " Method of examination : The samples were dried and separated into grades of varying fineness by means of four sieves having respectively 30, 40, 60, and 90 holes to the linear inch. Five grades were thus obtained, the percentage of each being shown in the table attached. Each grade was then subjected to microscopical examination to enable a comparison to be made of the sediments from the different localities. Conclusions:—The results of the examinations lead to the following conclusions: (1.) The sediment in the Ohinemuri River, consisting, principally of tailings from the various batteries discharging into the river, is practically all fine enough to pass through a 60-mesh sieve (having 3,600 holes per square inch), while by far the greater portion will pass through a 90-mesh sieve (8,100 holes per square inch). (2.) As the largest and heaviest particles naturally settle first, it follows that any particles that will not pass a 60-mesh sieve cannot have been discharged into the Thames River by the Ohinemuri. (3.) Of the five samples taken in the stream between Paeroa and the Netherton ferry, about 98 per cent, on the average remained in the 60-mesh sieve, and therefore could not be tailings, leaving only 2 per cent, of possible tailings. On further examination of this portion under the microscope, it was found that a large part consisted of magnetite, hornblende, and other minerals which are almost entirely absent from the Ohinemuri sediment, but are very abundant in the samples from the Thames lliver above the Junction. The remainder, however, is exactly similar to the Ohinemuri River sediment, and no doubt consists of tailings. (4.) The only places where tailings are deposited to any appreciable extent in the bed of the Thames River is alongside the banks, where the current is sluggish, and towards the mouth, where the river widens out, and therefore decreases in velocity. The velocity of the current in the Thames River apparently increases as it approaches Paeroa, and from its junction with the Ohinemuri flows with still futher increased velocity until well past Netherton. This is supported by the following facts: The sample (No. 7), taken some miles above the Junction, contains 37 per cent, of material fine enough to pass a 60-mesh sieve and 63 per cent. of coarser sand, whereas No. 5, taken half a mile above the Junction, contains only 6 per cent, of material fine enough to pass the 60-mesh sieve and 94 per cent, of fairly coarse sand. Here the current is apparently increasing, so that only the coarser material eroded from the banks is deposited, the finer being carried in suspension further down the river. Again, the samples taken between Paeroa and the Netherton ferry contain still less fine material, only about 2 per cent, on the average being sufficiently fine to pass a 60-mesh sieve. The increased scour at this portion of the river is no doubt due to the additional volume of water brought in by the Ohinemuri, as well as to the action of the ebb tide. Lower down the river, however, towards Kopu, the percentage of fines commences to increase, due probably to the current becoming more sluggish as the river widens out. In conclusion, the samples show that the maximum amount of tailing in that portion of the bed of the Thames River said to be affected —namely, between Paeroa and the Netherton ferry —does not exceed 1 per cent. In all probability the deposit of tailings does not extend more than a few feet from the banks, and the sediment in the centre of the river, where the current is swiftest, is entirely free from tailing. This point could easily be settled by taking a series of samples right across the river from bank to bank at several points on its course." [Document put in.] Dr. Maclaurin, Government Analyst, says in his report, "It is rather remarkable that there should be no tailings in the first five samples below the Junction, and that these should be followed by a sample of almost pure tailings, succeeded again by samples containing small percentages of that material." It may seem remarkable, but this sample was taken from the bank. We knew we were taking tailings ;'we were so close in. " The samples forwarded were not very satisfactory. A number of them were very small. Moreover, they are evidently from the surface of the deposits only, and give no certain indication of the nature of the underlying material." Ido not know what evidence was before Dr. Maclaurin to cause him to come to that conclusion. 160. You are not going to dispute it, are you?—I am, most decidedly.

I.—4a.

40

[h. D. MOEPETH.

161. These were your own samples, sent to him?— That is so, but I fail to see that Dr. Maclaurin or any one else could come to the conclusion that they were evidently from the surface. 162. Mr. Herries.] You had better explain how you took them? —This report of Dr. Maclaurin's is before the Committee, and I am only seeking to point out that it is rather a gratuitous assumption on the part of anybody. I will explain how these samples were taken. Our Engineer made a kind of spear, attached to which was a pipe, and it was arranged in such a way that when you jammed it down into the surface of the bed of the river and withdrew it }'ou had a cupful of samples. 163. How far did the spear go into the bed of the river?—l suppose the head of the spear would be about 3 in. in, and I suppose that to get the samples we should have to lift, at least 2 in. or 3 in., or so. It went into the substance on an average of, say, 4 in. to 6 in. 164. The Chairman.] How do you judge that?— You could not judge at all. It depended on the force you exerted, and the possibilities the lauuch afforded; she was jumping about. I may point out that the tailings are very much harder to penetrate than the gravel. We had much more difficulty in getting a decent sample from the. bed of the Ohinemuri River than from the bed of the Waihou. 165. Mr. Bennet.] Do you contend that these tailings, coming down the river and being washed on to the land, are not detrimental to the farming interest ?—They are not washed on to the land to any extent, but merely about the banks of the river'in the farming district. Where the tailings have distributed themselves all over the land is above Paeroa, and. some land has been spoilt by the deposit of tailings between the township and Mackaytown. 166. I am asking the question generally, not with regard to any one particular place?—l meant to admit that there is some small amount of injury being done to the farming interests. 167. The Chairman.] Mr. Bennet asks if it does not do damage where the tailings spread over the land?—Oh, yes, if the tailings spread over the land that does do damage. It would be a question of degree, of course. 168. Mr. Bennet.] AVould it not be likely to be worse as time goes on, when the river is getting silted up?—l do not know that it will, because they are grinding the tailings very much finer than they were doing. See this sample of the tailings that they are actually turning out now [produced]. Those tailings will not spread as much as the former tailings. That is my point. They are so fine that they are carried down by the flow of the river where the heavy tailings of times past would have been arrested. 169. Mr. Herries.] You do not represent the mining companies at all?— No. 170. You really represent the Borough of AYaihi? —Yes. 171. And the settlers of Waihi? —The petitioners. 172. The mining companies are not represented at all in this inquiry?— No. They relyentirely on their legal rights. 173. Every one admits that damage has been done to some of the farmers as far as the Ohinemuri River is concerned? —Yes, if you call them farmers. I would not quite call them farmers. I thought they were more suburban holders. 174. Have you formed any estimate of the damage done on the Ohinemuri?—lt is hard to say what the damage arising from the actual silting-up of the river is. Do you mean the land covered by tailings and rendered practically useless? 175. Yes?—As an outside estimate I should say 30 acres —approximately. 176. That is on the Ohinemuri?—Yes. 177. As far as your knowledge is concerned, is there any land that has been rendered useless on the AVathou? —None that I know of. 178. Do you know the Waihou River? —Yes. I have been up and down it, through Netherton, more than once. 179. Was there land at Netherton damaged by the flood in January?—l visited it some time afterwards, and I could see very little trace of tailings. 180. 1 meant to say, was it. damaged by the flood? —Yes, most decidedly, by water. 181. But you did not see any land damaged by tailings or sand? —Practically none. 182. When did you go over it?—ln March 183. And if any land had been destroyed, you would have seen it?—lf the land had been turned over I should not have seen it. 184. Is it your contention that, the actual flood would have occurred whether the river had been declared a sludge-channel or not?— Most decidedly. 185. The actual flood damage is not the result of the river ?—The natural conditions give rise to the flood damage. Floods occur very much higher up, miles and miles away from where there is any talk of silt at all. In the Te Aroha and surrounding districts in times past there have been miles of country under water, and it is ridiculous to suppose that that is caused by silt. 186. It is said that there is a bank of silt at the Junction :is that so?— Yes. 187. Have you seen that bank? —Yes. 188. To what extent is it?-—The area above water is very small, but it is a considerable bank of tailings. 189. Is that across the Ohinemuri or the Waihou? —It is parallel with the course of the Waihou. It has formed longways, as it were, with the river, not across it. It does not form a bar to the entrance of the Waihou River at, the Junction. 190. It is a continuation of that island?— No. I think really that what caused this was some attempt of the County Engineer's to improve the scour. 191. This is Mr.' Perham's plan that I have here: is this the bar [indicated on plan]?—-Yes. 192. Is this bar composed of tailings, or is it composed of pumice sand?— Just as jovl see it on the map. There are tailings here [place indicated]. I have not the slightest doubt that the

I.—4a.

H. D. MOEPETH.]

41

nucleus of the whole bank was caused by that brown gravel, because further up the river you see banks in course of formation now. 193. Does that bar form an obstacle to navigation?—No, not actually. 194. Does the formation of that bar prevent the steamers going to the Junction wharf? —1 really could not reply to that question. I do not see why they should go to the Junction wharf when they need not do so. 195. In your opinion, does this bank turn any of the Ohinemuri water up stream?— No._ It is just possible that in times of flood, the Ohinemuri being silted up to some extent, tailings might possibly be carried down across the land or anywhere where it was under water, but the actual flow of" the water does not carry tailings up the Waihou River—l mean, in its normal condition. In time of flood it is possible that on the upper reaches some tailings might come along here [place indicated]. 196. Would they go a mile up the river?—lt would be ridiculous to talk about a mile. They might go a couple of hundred yards, or something like that. 197. You say that, as far' as flood damage is concerned, it would have occurred whether there were tailings deposited or not?— Yes, I do. 198. And there were floods all over the country?— Yes. 199. And to your knowledge people lost cattle and grass, and had their land damaged in other places than the Thames Valley?— Yes, decidedly, and to this day, I think, along the railway-line where it was flooded in January, there are signs where the flood-water destroyed the vegetation. 200. How long have you been in the district? —I have known the district for ten years, and have been a resident there five years and a half. 201. You have no knowledge of the time when the Proclamation was issued ?—No. 202. The Chairman.] In that School of Mines report it is stated that the flow of the Waihou River below the Junction is more rapid than above the Junction ?—Yes. 203. And they say they arrive at that from the samples which you showed to them: _ do you know from your knowledge whether the flow below the Junction is greater than that above it? —No. 204. I mean, whether the flow is greater between the Junction and Te Aroha, or below the Junction ?—I cannot say. 205. Do you know whether it is very rapid above the Junction? —I think it is fairly rapid. 206. You say that you did not see any silt at Netherton : did you make any examination to discover silt on the land there?—l went for the purpose of seeing. 207. Did you go over any of the lands, away from the road or the river? —No. 208. You do not know whether any of the" land that had been covered with silt in January had been ploughed up in the meantime?—l said that unless it had been turned over very little silt had been deposited there. . 209. Do you question that such had been the case with some of the land—that it had been ploughed in the meantime? —I thought it probable. 210. You say that you would not call the residents in Paeroa farmers: you would rather call them suburban-section holders. Would you call Mr. Cock's place a suburban section ?—I did not assert it as a fact. 211 You know what sort of land Mr. Nicholls has in Paeroa? —Yes. 212. And you know Buchanan's, Cock's, Tetley's, Cooper's, and other places: you would not call them suburban sections? —I did not lay stress on that point, 213 There is a creamery in Paeroa as well, is there not?— Yes. The Committee may not be aware that the value of the Waihi Township account to the Thames Valley Company is a very large sum per annum. I suppose it runs to £15,000. 214. Do you know whether it does or not?—l know that butter and milk run to nearly £14,000. „,.,.. t, o Tr 215 But do you know whether they get their butter in Waihi from Paeroa?—Yes. 216. In Paeroa they do not; they can buy Taranaki butter cheaper ?—The value to the Thames Valley Dairy Company of the butter used in Waihi is £9,408. _ 217 Do they <*et more for that butter in Waihi than the Taranaki butter would bring.'—l really could not say. Their milk account is worth £3,397. That makes £12,805; and then there are sundries, like eggs and chaff. . 218 Where did you get that from?— From the agent of the Thames Valley Company in Waihi. 219 Mr Bennet.] Will not that fall off very considerably if the silting of the land continues? —I suppose it would. If there were no feed for the cows I do not know how they could sell us butter and milk. ... ■ i ■ o t i. v 220. Mr. Berries.] Do you know whether the supply is increasing or decreasing .'—l should certainly say it is increasing.

Tuesday, 17th September, 1907. Thomas Gilmour made a statement and was examined. (No. 7.) 1 The Chairman.] You are a mine-manager ?—Yes, or used to lie. lam now in the position of consulting engineer for the Waihi Gold-mining Company. Ido not appear here on the Waihi Company's behalf. 2 You are Mayor of Waihi at the present time?— Yes. 3 Will you just make a statement, the same as the others did, first of all?—I may state that I'have been conversant with the Waihou River and the Ohinemuri River for a period of over thirty years I was up at Te Aroha before the mines were opened, and when the river was m

6—l, 4a,

I.—4a.

42

[t. gilmoue.

flood. I went tip with Captain Moore. He took the "Te Aroha " the first time ever she went up the river beyond the Ohinemuri Junction, and then the water was flowing over the banks in a great sheet down below Dibsell's; it was flowing over on to the Paeroa side about twenty miles above Paeroa, and running back into the river again as we came further down. They could not have taken the boat up unless the river was in flood. My object in going up was to look at land that had been surveyed and thrown open by the Waste Lands Board, opposite Waiorongomai. I was then pointed out silt lodged on a clump of trees opposite the hot springs at Te Aroha. The water-mark there on those trees was from 2 ft. to 2 ft. 6 in. While lam speaking about Waiorongomai I may say that I have a brother-in-law there, and the recent flood in January last flooded most ?f his land and destroyed the grass, and his cattle had to be removed to another farm to keep them alive. There was no silt or cyanide in the water there, but, for a fortnight after the flood the stench of the grass rotting was" very bad. 1 also visited Te Aroha when the High School sections were leased, in another flood. 4. Mr. Berries.] In what year was that?—ln 1882 or 1883. I am not very certain of the year, but it was in the early eighties. We stopped in the hotel at Te Aroha, on account of the "storm, from the Thursday till the Monday morning, and coming down the river then the banks were overflowing. AVhen we came to Paeroa it was nearly all under water. I do not know whether that flood extended any further than the Ohinemuri district; but it damaged the Thames Borough and suburbs to the extent of £10,000. I may say that I agree with the statement made by Mr. Morpeth yesterday in every particular, I visited Netherton in company with him and the Engineer in the month of March last, I think it was, to see the damage done by the silt and sand that had been lodged on those farms which I understand our friend Mr. Laughlin is representing. 5. The Chairman.] You mean at Netherton? —Netherton. We went down the road as far as the creamer}- —in fact, as far as Fisher's place. We saw some land ploughed up. It was said that the grass had been destroyed. I would not be surprised at some of the grass being destroyed, but we could see no grass that had been destroyed on the land then lying fallow; but we could see a little destroyed on the edge of the ditch on the main road, where the water had been lying for a considerable time. I understand that the water was flowing in from that side of the river for several days after the river had subsided. I understand, too, that the farmers complain that the water flows over by reason of the sand jamming up the Waihou at the mouth of the Ohinemuri — that the water flowed over at the higher level and came down over the land. I believe that is a fact, that the water did flow, not only from the Waihou, but the Piako, and the whole flat was in a sea for miles. We went up then to see a road that was constructed by the Ohinemuri County from Waitoa, and the Engineer pointed out to us where the flood had gone over there several times, three or four feet above the road; so there is no wonder the water came down and flooded the farmers out at Netherton. I l>elieve it was not from the Ohinemuri River jamming the water in the Waihou that this flood took place, because there is a fall in that river from Paeroa to Te Aroha of over 29 ft., and the distance, as the crow flies, is somewhere about fourteen miles, I think, so the Waihou River has a big fall. It was not anything jamming it up at Paeroa that made it overflow its banks as I have just described. With reference to the Ohinemuri, I must confess that the sand is lying there, and. that the land has been damaged by the battery-sand that has been lodged on the banks; but I do not think it is so serious as we hear. I understand there is a certain amount of river frontage on each side of the river. Sand lodging there does not affect the farmer; it is not his land. My opinion is that those men at Netherton are making a complaint before they have any just cause—that is, that away from that part of the river, away up at Te Aroha, the farmers have as much ground for complaint, but they do not get sympathy from the Government because there is no money up there —there are no batteries above them. And away over to the Waikato River it was just the same. Every farmer on that flat was injured more or less by the flood in January. Then I was pointed out by Mr. Laughlin a paragraph in a paper— a Wellington paper, I think—about a scheme laid down by a Mr. Brown. He would erect a large tailings plant somewhere in the vicinity of Paeroa, and dredge the tailings up and treat them, and lodge the refuse on the swamp or run it away into some level place. I candidly believe that that is not practicable. As far as treating the tailings is concerned, I will not say anything ; they- might treat them to advantage ; but I say they cannot put the tailings out On a flat and keep them -there, for they will run with water no matter where they are put, and if they are banked up for. a time it will only be till the first flood comes and away they go all over the country. lam aware that in Western Australia they have banked their tailings where there were no rivers to run them into. The result was that whole streets of business houses have had to remove their businesses, owing to the tailings being blown about by the wind and piled up in their premises. I have seen that in Victoria myself. If this scheme of treating the tailings at Paeroa is taken on 6. Is that Brown's scheme? — Yes. I hope it will be a success, but I am not going to say it will be. If putting the tailings where they put them now, and having no expense in running them a distance into the flat; if that does not pay, being a much simpler method, I have grave doubts about the other method. I do not believe it is practicable to run tailings into the flat and keep them there in any part of the Ohinemuri district. I have seen the experience at the AYaihi Battery when they were saving tailings for the sake of the bullion that was in them, and then they could not save the liquid matter and slimes that were in the tailings. They went with the water wherever the stuff was run. Ido not know that I have much more to say. I think our petition covers nearly all the ground I would deal with. Tf those men prove their claim, and the Government see fit to recompense them, well and good; but I think it should be done on evidence taken by a Commission and sworn to, and, after all, the evidence that can throw any light on the matter has been taken, especially that of the captains of the vessels that trade up the river. I have spoken to several of them trading to Auckland, and they tell me they can go up

T. GILMOUE.

43

I.— 4a.

the river now as easily as, or with less trouble than, they did twenty years ago. I got that from Captain Sullivan not many days ago. I know that the river is gradually getting narrower, but that is not the fault of the Waihi or Karangahake tailings. The farmers themselves have, encouraged willows to grow, and I was pointed out by Mr. Forrest a place on the Ohinemuii River, a little bit above the Junction, where some willows are growing. At the present time they are 15 ft. in from the bank. Those trees were at oue time on the bank of the river, but they accumulated the dibris and the silt long before the tailings came down, and kept encroaching on the river till now they are 15 ft. back from the bank. 7. Mr. Herries.] Your contention with regard to flood damage is that the floods are common to the whole river, and are not due to any deposit of silt?— Yes, on the AVaihou. That is my firm conviction with regard to the Waihou. 8. And you substantiate that by your knowledge of the district and your having seen previous floods?— Yes. As I told you, 1 saw a flood in 1883 when Paeroa was all under water, with the exception of the higher ground. I remember a man named Lavery—l think that was his name —who lived at the Junction. He was stuck in the hotel up at Te Aroha with me from Thursday till Monday. He told me he never saw his land flooded with water, and that he was offered £30 an acre for it. That was somewhere about the latter end of 1879 or the beginning of 1880. I came down the river with him, and when we came to the Junction there was a Wesleyau minister who had been in the dwelling, having had to take refuge there. He had had to stay there for two or three days, not being able to get out. 9. That was before there were any tailings? —Yes, before there were any mines. 10. You say that the river is subject to floods, and always has been?— Certainly. 11. AVhen you went to look at this land at Netherton which has been the subject of complaint, did you see any silt-deposits on it?—No, seeing that it was a month or more after, and a shower would wash the light silt off the grass. As is the case up at Te Aroha, of which I told you, when this light pumice lodges on the grass the cattle cannot very'well, eat it till a shower washes the pumice off. I presume that might have occurred at Netherton. 12. The silt was so light, if there was any deposit, that it could be washed off by a shower? —Yes. 13. In regard to the Ohinemuri River, you admit that there is some considerable deposit?— There is, certainly. There is sand lying in the river. I admit, further, that if the Government were to try to invent some method of disposing of the tailings from the mines, they could find no better means of getting rid of them than the present river, because once tailings get into the Waihou, with a large flood of water coming down to meet the Ohinemuri, the whole thing is kept on the move, and no sediment settles except when the river overflows its banks. Then it deposits on the banks. 14. You have had considerable experience as a mine-manager, have you not? —Yes, forty-four or forty-five years' experience. 15. In all sorts of mines? —Yes, quartz-mines, not coal-mines. 16. You thoroughly understand mining?— Yes, in all its details. . 17. Do you think it is practicable at Waihi to stack the tailings?—lf they we it to the trouble of taking the tailings out on to the plains they could be stacked, at considerable expense; but in a month or two, when the first fresh came, they would go back into the river. 18. Have you formed any idea what the expense would be?— No. It would take a good deal of time. It would have to be attended to every day to keep the water banked up, and when there was an accumulation of slimes it would burst away and carry all the slimes back to the river very quickly. 19. You think at Waihi it would not be practicable?—lt is not practicable to put the tailings on to the land. It would be very expensive, and then I question whether it would be a success. 20. How about Waikino? —It is impossible there. 21. Will you state why it is impossible?— The little bit of flat ground they have is all built over with batteries and workshops, and they would have to lift the tailings about 500 ft. or 600 ft. I question then whether they would not get into the Waitawheta Creek, and then they would go down to Karangahake. 22. Waikino is the principal battery in the district, is it not? —Yes, there are 200 stampers in the battery. 23. And you say it would be impossible to stack the tailings there?— Certainly. 24. How about Karangahake? —It is worse there, again. 25. Karangahake is situated in a gorge?— The mountain stands up, I suppose, a thousand feet above the mines there. 26. It would be impossible to stack the tailings there? —It would. 27. Is it not a fact that all the batteries are built as low as possible so as to get gravitation 2— Certainly. They take all the power out of the water they can. 28. And if they were prevented from putting their tailings into the river, would they have to shift their batteries?— Well, I think they would. 29. AVould that be possible? —I think it would be impossible for the AVaihi Company to take the tailings away from the Waikino Battery without pumping. 30. If they were prevented from putting the slimes into the river, would they be able to take out the low-grade quartz that they are taking out now? —No; it would be more expensive. If expenses are to be taken into consideration, certainly they could not take out the same grade ore as they are doing now. 31. That would mean they would employ so many less hands ?—Yes. 32. You know the Paeroa district, do you not?— Well, to a certain extent —as far as I have been up and down the roads. I have been visiting Paeroa on and off for the last thirty years. ' 33. Do you know anything of the value of land there? —No. I saw in the paper here the other

I.—4a.

44

[t. gilmoue.

day a statement that a section in Paeroa Township was sold at £1,000. I cannot guarantee the truth of it. 34. Would you think that the land in Paeroa and that district had increased in value in consequence of the mines, or not? —Certainly it has. You heard from Mr. Morpeth yesterday that there is a creamery and butter-factory down there, and the Waihi people have consumed butter and milk to the extent of £12,000 in twelve months, according to the statement of the agent of the company at Waihi. I think that is a great thing for the farmers down at Paeroa. 35. As a general rule, the mines are a good market for the farmers 2—Yes, in every direction round Waihi. 36. Hon. Mr. Mills.] You said just now, when you were speaking about some river, that the distance was fourteen miles as the crow flies: what river were you speaking about2—The AVaihou. 37. Does this river wind about very much?— Yes. You will see that from the plan. 38. Have you any idea what length this fourteen miles as the crow flies would be by the river 2— I cannot tell you. 39. In your experience of thirty years, have you ever seen a flood equal in height to the one you speak of in last January 2—l was not down the river at the time of the flood; I was up in Waihi. But I never saw any flood equal to it in Waihi. AVhere I live the water was all over the ground. 40. What is your opinion about the depositing of these tailings and slimes in the river : are they doing any injury or not, do you think2 —I say that we cannot deny they are doing injury to the farmers on the Ohinemuri River, but we must not forget that the Ohinemuri is a very rough, ragged river, with large boulders. The Government started a railway for the extension of the line from Paeroa to Waihi, and as far as I can make out they deposited 70,000 or 80,000 tons of dibris into the river, in addition to the tailings, and that has helped to form a cement in the bottom of the river with the tailings. This heavy matter will not go down the river, except for a short distance. 41. Does this slime set hard on grass or anything like that 2—When the water is running over it, it will consolidate. 42. It will not remain on the grass?—lf there is only a slight sprinkling to cover the grass over, it will remain for a considerable time. It will not run away unless there is a fall, or water is running through it. 43. AAUiat depth of this deposit have you seen on any of these lands referred to by different witnesses 2 —l believe there are some hollows where there might be 2 ft. of sand. I have not seen a great deal of deposit. 44. If the discharge of these tailings and slimes into the river continues, what do you think the state of things will be like in the future: is it likely to make matters much worse?-—lf the tailings are run into the river for the next twenty or thirty years, no doubt it will affect the Ohinemuri River to a great extent. Ido not think it will affect the Waihou, because that is such a large stream that it keeps the whole moving till it reaches the Thames foreshore, and there, I suppose, it will get scattered about along the beaches. 45. Speaking from your long experience, can you offer any suggestion to the Committee as to what might be done with those tailings in any other way, without practically compromising the whole industry?—l have been thinking over several schemes. The simplest scheme that I can make out is for the Government to appoint a Commission to see what damage has really been done to the farmers, and either recompense those farmers or purchase the land. I think that would be the best way —to purchase the land at the last Government valuation. 46. Would anything be gained by trying to straighten any portion of the river? —No. It would be a heavy undertaking. 47. Mr. W. Eraser.] Was that country that is liable to be flooded now —where the silt is deposited—was that country in occupation for farming purposes when the river was declared a sludgechannel?—On the Ohinemuri River I believe there were four or five farmers or settlers. 48. How many are there now?—l really could not tell you. I suppose there would be thirty or forty. 49. Then only a portion of the country was used for farming purposes before the river was declared a sludge-channel ?—Yes, and those people who came there since purchased the land with their eyes open. 50. What year was it that the river was declared a sludge-channel2—ln 1895. 51. In the floods that you talk of prior to 1895—the big flood of 1883 or 1884 that you spoke of just now —was there much silt left upon the land after the flood? —In some places there was a light pumice silt, but it did not amount to any depth. It just covered the grass so that the cattle could not eat it, but the first rain washed it off. In some instances it rather improved the ground. 52. Mr. Herries.] That silt did not come from the mines 2 there were no mines there then. 53. Mr. W. Eraser.] But the floods that have occurred during this last year have deposited a very much larger amount of silt on that land 2—The land on the Ohinemuri River, not on the Waihou. 54. I am speaking of the Ohinemuri. Judging by the photographs I think that is a selfevident fact, unless they have been faked 2—l beg to say that a photograph is not much good unless you show a photograph of the original. Then you would be able to judge what the photograph meant. 55. You do not think it practicable, if the mines are to continue w-orking, to devise a scheme by which the tailings could be diverted or put anywhere except in the river—l do not say possible, but practicable?—l do not think it is practicable, and I. think it would be a very expensive experi-. ment to try. My opinion is that if you were going to divert them a chute should be laid from AVaihi to the Thames foreshore, taking in all the batteries as it went along. Then the batteries

T. GILMOUE.]

I.—4a.

45

on the low ground would be below it, and would have to be removed and put higher up. To prove what I said about the tailings in the Waihou River, let me say that 1 have been in batteries where we had a launder running away from the battery- carrying the tailings a long distance, and the tailings did not consolidate in that launder as long as the water was moving. You can carry tailings for miles while there is a flow of, say, one in forty. If you took the tailings down to the Thames foreshore and lodged them there you would meet the same difficulty. 56. If it were practicable to cut a separate channel for the tailings, would there be sufficient water, apart from the river, to carry those tailings down to the sea, and would there be enough fall ? —I think on the whole there might be fall enough; but the Ohinemuri River is so irregular and so hard-banked that it would be nearly impossible to carry a launder of that description. You see the Government had to tunnel through three-quarters of a mile of Mackaytown to get a railwaythrough. It would be hard to make a box to carry tailings. 57. What-sized box would you need? —About 3 ft, or 4ft. square. 58. Would that carry the tailings from the present mines? —Yes, I think so. 59. The whole of them —from Waihi and Karangahake, and all the places?— Yes, if there were such a fall that we would not accumulate too much in it. To be safe it might be better to make it 5 ft. or 6 ft. square. 60. What is the character of the tailings that are now put into the river: are they fine or coarse ?—Very fine. 61. Then they would be all the easier to carry along in solution in the water, would they not?— Yes, Since the tube mills have been introduced the tailings have been ground into a pulp. There is no body in the stuff at all. It is like flour. 62. What would be the distance of such a flume or box as you refer to, from Waihi to the Thames ?—About thirty-five miles, I suppose. 63. If it were practicable to construct a box, and means were found to take away the whole of the tailings, would that obviate any further silting in future? —I do not know. I think that if you entertained that idea of putting a box down you would have to lift a lot of the Batteries on to a higher level. If you got all the tailings into a box there would be no necessity for silt going into the river. 64. Could the Waikino tailings go down such a box? —They could go in such a box if you raised the battery about 10 ft.—raised the whole thing, which has cost about £200,000. 65. Could you not pump the tailings up that 10 ft. more cheaply than lift the whole of the battery? —Tailings are a hard thing to pump, because they wear out all the machinery. We do not attempt to pump tailings now. We elevate them with elevators. 66. Hon. Mr. McGowan.] As an old resident of the Thames, you will remember the lands adjacent to the Thames or Waihou River, between the Town of Thames and Paeroa Township?— Yes. 67. Could you tell about the time when the first settlement took place there?—l went up to Netherton at the time the Waste Lands Board put that land up for sale, aud I went to the sale. The best section was put up at £1 an acre, and the poor sections at, I think, 10s. Mr. William Moore purchased the best section at £2 10s. an acre, I think it was. I bid up to £2 10s., and I think he had to give a little more. 68. The Chairman.] In what year was that? —I cannot remember the year. It was somewhere about 1883 or 1884. 69. Hon. Mr. McGowan.] Do you remember the time the Thames-Paeroa Road was made — the main road between the Thames and Paeroa?—Yes. 70. Before then there were no means of getting to the Ohinemuri district except by river in a boat: is that so?— Yes. 71. None of this land was sold until the road was made, I think?— No. Ido not really knowabout Paeroa. I think there was some land leased from the Maoris about Paeroa. 72. Do you know what Mr. John Morrison gave for his land?—No, I cannot say; but I do not think it was very much. 73. I suppose you are aware that Mr. Morrison bought his land from the Bank of New Zealand—that is to say, that it was a second purchase; it was not an original purchase from the Crown, or anything like that? 74. The Chairman.] Do you know that, Mr. Gilmour?—No, I do not know that he bought the land from the Bank of New Zealand; but I know the man very well, and the land Mr. McGowan is referring to. 75. Hon. Mr. McGowan.] I take it from your remarks that you have come to the conclusion that the best way of providing for the tailings is to make some attempt to keep the Waihou or Thames River clear ?—I do not think you need to make any great attempt to keep the Waihou clear; it will keep clear itself. But I would recommend that the willows be ringed or killed as soon as possible. 76. In order to make more room for the tailings? —Yes. 77. Have you any knowledge of this so-called Brown's scheme? —Only what I saw in the paper —that he has propounded a scheme to treat the tailings, down somewhere near Paeroa, and to run the refuse on to some waste laud. 78. Do you know what he intends to treat the tailings for?— No. It has been kept a secret, as far as I know, about Waihi. 79. You are aware that there is a plant on the Ohinemuri River for treating the tailings and making bricks out of them, and so on?— Yes. 80. Did you ever see any of the bricks from that plant made from tailings?—No, I have not, Unless there was a large amount of clay, or some Other corroding substance introduced to bind the bricks together, I do not think they could be made. I know that the plant has been standing idle and has been under option to several parties from Australia, and that Mr. Thomson,

L—4a,

46

[T. GILMOUE.

a man who came up there and put his money into it, is now working at wages for the Waihi Company at Waikino. 1 understand that Mr. Brown is interested in it too. 81. You know some of this land on the Ohinemuri River that the tailings have covered —1 think Marsh's place was one of them?— Yes. 82. What was that land valued at as land before there were any tailings on it 2—l do not know really the value of the land; but I know there were settlers came up from the Thames and took out occupation licenses there some thirty years ago, and they were to get a Crown grant for the land, but some of them got it and some did not. 1 think the land was then £1 an acre. 83. "The Chairman.] About the elevation of the tailings: is it a fact that the Waihi Company at present elevate their tailings in the Waikino Battery before taking them into the treat-ment-shed 2—They elevate the concentrates. 84. How do they get the tailings, after they have been crushed by the stampers, into the vatshed? —They have an elevator. They elevate them into a launder, and then they run into the vats. 85. Do-you think there would be any difficulty in elevating those tailings again 10 ft. after they had been treated?— There would, because the tailings are then separated into so many different parts. 86. They are all run out into the river at the finish? —At the present time. The tailings from the battery are put through the tube mills. 87. 'AVhat I want to get at is this: After they have left the vat-shed they are emptied into the river ? —Yes. 88. Instead of emptying them into the river, would it not be possible to elevate them in the same way as they are elevated after being treated by the stampers?—it would be impossible. 89. You suggested that the whole battery, costing £200,000, would have to be lifted 10 ft.: you could not lift the tailings instead of lifting the battery?— You could, but it would take a tremendous lot of leverage to elevate them. There are twenty- different discharges from the Waikino Battery. There is the discharge from the vats when the coarse tailings are treated by the cyanide; then there is the discharge from the filter-presses, and there are others. 90. And they discharge from twenty different drains into the Ohinemuri?—A good deal of the tailings, up till recently, were selected and put into boxes for treatment. 91. Are there twenty different discharges into the Ohinemuri —that is, twenty different drains? —No. 92. How many are there? —1 could not tell you how many vats there are. 93. How many drains are there discharging into the Ohinemuri? —There are two discharges into the main river, one from the vats and another from the filter-presses; but every vat is discharged separately when ready for discharging. 94. If the Ohinemuri River had not been a receptacle for tailings, do you think the Waihi Company- would not have found some other means of disposing of the tailings?—Up to 1895 95. Take the present year, 1907? —1 cannot tell you. You could not keep the tailings up at the present time very well. 96. If there were not any river there to discharge the tailings into there would be no battery and no mine? —I do not say that. If there was no river there I suppose they would be stacked up on the plains somewhere, and the people living in Waihi would have to shift to get away from them. 97. Do you think the Waihi engineers would have been capable of devising some means of disposing of their tailings if they had not had the river to discharge them into? —It would have been a difficult matter. 98. Do you think they would have done it?— Money would do anything. But they would not crush the grade of ore they are crushing now. 99. Do you think it could be done now: do you think it is possible?—No, I do not think it is possible to keep the tailings out of the liver now They would get into the river ultimately. While the companies were treating with the pan amalgamation, and there was a certain amount of bullion in the tailings after they left the battery, they saved them as well as they could; but there was only the coarse part saved. The slimes went with the water, wherever it ran. 100. Do you think that if there was ten shillings' worth of bullion left in the tailings per ton they would still be able to save them?— That is a question for experts. I may say that the Borough Council went down to the river and took a load of tailings away from the bank, and the owner of the dredging license came to the men and stopped them, and asked for 12s. a load. You are aware that at one time the County Council took some gravel out of the bottom of the Ohinemuri River, and Mr. Marsh entered an action against either the county or the contractor and got a verdict. Ido not know whether I could go down and take a load of tailings out of that river now while a man holds a license to dredge. 101. Does not that show that Mr. Marsh has riparian rights there, that his land does not come only to within a chain of the river, but that the property-owners own the land to the centre of the river? There is not a chain on each side that is public property?—l think you give me that information. 102. You stated a little while ago that the river frontage for a chain back was public property? —Yes. Well, I understood that at the time this verdict was given Mr. Marsh had got the Maori title 103. Have you anything to show that that was the fact, except this case of Marsh's, which proves that it was not the fact?—l think he proved that the gravel there injures his land by taking it away; but the river at, that point branches into two streams, and I do not know which is the main one. 104. Did he not prove, by obtaining a verdict, that the land was his down to the centre of the stream 2 As a matter of fact, do you know of any right, or any public rights, along either bank of that river?—No; but T understand it is on all of the lands that came from the Natives.

I—4a.

T. GILMOTJE.

Before Igo may I state one fact which I overlooked ? The low-lying oountry around Paeroa shrinks as it is drained, which brings the river that much higher on to that land, and consequently the flooding is much more severe. I have noticed land up the river that twenty-five or thirty years ago was a swamp which you could not wade through, and you could see no timber on it. Now you can see stumps standing up 2 ft. 6 in. That is conclusive evidence that that land, after draining and drying, has subsided to that extent, and compares that much worse with the river. 105. Mr. Berries.] What you mean to say is that land which would not be flooded before is now, in consequence of the drainage, more liable to flood ?—Just so. Dawson Donaldson made a statement and was examined. (No. 8.) 106. The Chairman.] What are you, Mr. Donaldson? —Boot and shoe dealer, of W T aihi. 107. And a Borough Councillor? —I have been connected with.the local body since the borough was formed. 108. What year was that?—lt was five years ago, I think. My evidence will tend to present the position of our borough, and show how we exist and what we do. First, I have to say that we personally have no quarrel with our neighbours at all. As far as the actual borough is concerned, which I and my friends here represent, we are simply lookers-on. AYe put nothing into the river and we take nothing out. Our desire is to protect our revenue, revenue to which we consider as a borough we are justly and legally entitled. We feel, whether it has been stated or not, that the efforts which are now being made are a covert attack on our revenue. The only harm that we do our neighbours is, as has already been stated, simply to spend from £12,000 to £20,000 a year on their produce. We ask that in any recommendation which this Committee may make or which may be sought to be made, even if thirty, or forty, or a hundred people are'now injured, any attempted solution of the difficulty should not react upon the six or nine thousand people who are affected by the mining industry. We trust that no suggestion will be made to injure the many even for the sake of the few. I would emphasize the point that if our position as a borough is exceptionally good it. needs to be so, because we are not as favourably situated as other boroughs. For instance, apart from the Government, we really could not borrow money for our borough or town works. The Government are about the only people whom we can approach. Therefore all our work must be done out of pur revenue, and if we were deprived of any portion of our revenue we should necessarily be crippled to the extent of the money so taken. If Ihe Government have given the mining companies the right to do an act which in the opinion of the Committee has injured others, we suggest that the Government should bear the responsibility of that act. There are about nine thousand people affected by the mining industry, about six thousand being in Waihi and three thousand in Waikino and Karangahake. The area of our borough comprises 3,500 acres, and the reading sixty-five miles of road. I may say that a Commission decided that we were responsible for an amount not, to exceed £3,500 per year towards the maintenance of the road from Paeroa to Waihi, and we have paid on an average £2,000 a year. Although the railway lias been running two years, we have still gone on and paid our contribution. Then we have to pay heavily towards the maintenance of the Hospital, the amount last year being £1,200, and we cannot look for any diminution of that sum in future years. We contribute from our resources to the School of Mines the sum of £150 a year, and to the Library, which is used for the benefit of the miners, about £200. Those are yearly obligations of £3,550. I may say that the predominating amount of property in our borough happens to be mining property, and we have no power to levy any rates upon mining property; but as compensation for that the Gold Duty Act, which was passed in 1876, allocated the gold duty, which I think is 2s. per ounce on gold won, to the county in which the mine happened to be placed. It transpired in the following year that an omission had been made in that the gold duty was not allocated to boroughs or towns. Therefore, in 1877, the Legislature passed an amending Act which allocated the gold duty to the borough or local body where the mining was in operation. As a town we rate ourselves as nearly as possible to a sum equalling 2s. 6d. in the pound on the annual value. 109. You are speaking, from your own point of view, as to the possibility of losing some of your revenue? —Exactly. We have borrowed from the Government £21,000 for water, and we have borrowed another" £20,000 from the bank. That is the extent to which we can operate in borrowing money, so that we are simply, as it were, jammed against our limit, and we are now face to face with the biggest problem that we have ever yet tackled, and that is the question of the drainage of our town. If any proposal were made to take any of our revenue away I am afraid it would mean a very big difficulty to Waihi, and I think that greater damage would be done to the many than the good to the few. On the question of the alleged silting-up of the river, I may say that I have not yet heard whether the silt, which the scores of drains covering hundreds of miles of low-lying ground and draining into the river carry, has been any factor in the damage which is alleged to have been done. We had one case cited close to Te Aroha, I think, where a man cut out an ordinary drain, and in a few months the drain was 40 ft. across and almost the same depth owing to the flood-waters carrying the debris from the banks into the Waihou. I understand that a suggestion has been made to relieve the Waihou where it overflows its banks some few miles above Paeroa. Our friends at Netherton seem to be quite agreed that the Waihou does overflow its banks, and that the water comes tearing down and joins the Waihou again somewhere about Netherton ; and it has been suggested that if a drain were cut from the low-lying part of the Waihou—it seems to be all low-lying really, because the banks seemed to be just about a foot above the water when we went up there and when it was not in flood—down to Netherton, that might provide a solution of the difficulty for many years to come. Before I sit down I should like to emphasize this: that the Government gave the rights to the mining companies to drain into the river, and if any injury has resulted from that act we feel strongly that it is the Government that should provide the remedy. We trust that in devising any remedy

47

I.—4a.

[D. DONALDSON.

you will have the goodness to remember that as far as we are concerned it will take.us all our time to hoe our own row and keep things going in our own town. I might say that Mr. Gilmour suggests that the surface of the swamps has sunk, which accounts for the stumps of trees now showing. 110. Mr. Berries.] You said you had an overdraft of £21,000 2—£20,000. 111. And that you had borrowed from the Government £21,000 2—Yes, we cannot borrow from any one else. 112. That is £41,000 2—Yes. 113. What is your security for that2 —The security to the Government for the borrowed money is the gold duty, the goldflelds revenue, and rates. 114. If any of the gold duty were taken away from you it would be destroying the security of the Governments —Assuredly. 115. You say you cannot borrow from any one else: will you explain why? —Because the tenure of our land is all leasehold, and we are advised that if we were to issue debentures nobody would buy them, because to begin with we are a mining town, and that is not looked upon as the very best security. Then we have only leasehold tenure, which does not commend the security to investors. And the men at Waihi who have tried to build their own homes have had to borrow money at a very high rate of interest on that account. 116. The same thing would apply to your rating-powers —they would be small in consequence of your having no freehold? —That is so. 117. You have no personal knowledge yourself of the state of the Ohinemuri River at the time of the Proclamation being issued? —No. 118. The Chairman/] Could you say what was the revenue of the Waihi Borough for the last financial year?—I think, roughly speaking, it was about £20,000.

Approximate Cost of Paper.— Preparation, not given; printing (1,500 copies), £24 18s.

Authority : John Mackay, Government Printer, Wellington.—l9o7.

Price Is. 3d.]

48