STONEY CREEK FORD.

Lake Wakatip Mail, Issue 2128, 23 October 1896, Page 5

STONEY CREEK FORD.

(TO THE EDITOR, L.W.M.) De\r Sir,—Allow me to preface my remarks, re Mr W. L. Davis's letter in your last issue by stating that thi* Stoney Creek ford affair has been going on for about two years, and on Mr Davis's part, in a very bitter spirit. The public may feel somewhat surprised at this outburst just now, but the above will explain. I will now, Sir, with your permission briefly deal with Mr Davis's letter to the best of my ability. He says the Shotover was declared a sludge channel, but it was never intended that the side stream* should be used as sujh and that there is uo authority for this, TV, the side streams. It is between twenty and thirty years since the Government, through Warden Beetham, declaced that the Shotover, Moke, and Moonlight creeks Stoney Creek. Skippers Creek, the right and left hand hranci e< of the Shotover together with Fews Creek. Twenty-five mile Creek, Buckleburn Creek, and Precipice Creek, running into Lake VVakatipu or the Reas River wtredeclared public tailraces, and I am prepared to swear to the best of my belief that such is so. It is a long time ago but still I don't think I have made any mistake in the matter. If, when the records are hunted up, it is found otherwise, I will acknowledge my error, but not on mere assertion from those who are interested in seeing the side streams excluded. I believe most of these side streams have water enough in them to carry away the tailings if they had a free outlet, and were not blocked, as Stoney is, by the filling up of the Shotover river. Mr Davis makes me say that the Shotover has risen its bed 35 feet since the dredging boom. If you look at my first letter, sir, you will see that I said that, according to Mr Davis's statement the river bed had risen 35 feet at the time of the boom, but not since. We were talking about the payability of dredging at the time, and he said it would never pay with that amount of tailings to lift. I will pass by briefly his assertion that the tailings will never block the ford at Stony crossing. Time will show, I feel certain, to the contrary, and that too, whether I sluice into Stoney or the Shotover.—Mr Davis i> a little ineonsistant, re, my dribble of water, as compared with California's sluicing putting away as much stuff in one day ae I put away in a year. Such a diibble one would think, would never back the tailings or water up on any stream as large as Stoney Creek. This shows something else must do it. Query, do not his own tailings play a prominent part in the backing up affair ? We, I say we, because all of us who have been sluicing on this part of the Shotover, have at one tims or another been put down as wanting in sluicing knowledge by Mr Davis. I see nothiug particular about Mr Davis's plant or gear. His facilities are greater than the rest of As, he having a 250 or 280 feet free gravel face on a false bottom and no rock to cut, This seems to make him pose as a great "lam" in the eluiciug line. How does Mr Davis know that the language I used to his daughter was disgraceful when she would not repeat it to him. Allow me to say I did not stop her. She was passing, when I asked her how the ford was, and to the l*>t of my memory, she said, in an excited manner, it is high, and then went on with a tirade about what her father was going to do to me, and what the County Council wonld have to do to me. This I took to mean that I would have to stop working my claim. This and the strained relationship between Davis and myself made me, I admit, lose my temper, and I said things that would have been better unsaid, but not against Miss 'Davis herself, Jaines, her uncle' or Lovell, her brother, these latter I have the greatest respect for. I regretted very much having allowed my temper to btst me notwithstanding the provocation.—l saw Miss Davis a few hours afterwards passing by, and I at once offered to apologise for what I had said, but she thought good to tarn a deaf ear to everything I had to say, go I could do no more. Mr Davis said he would do eome great things if he only knew what I had said. Well, I will enlighten him and that too without using profane words. To start with, I beg to state that I have heard Mr W. L. Davis use some very strong expletives about his neighbours in passing his opinions about their mining abilities. I have been told by those who have heard him, that on more than one occasion he has expressed the same high compliments on myself with something extra in the adjective line. I heard him use language to his daughter several years ago that would pass muster as being stronu, very strong. We were, a lot of us, skating on his dam, the ice broke and some of us gut a ducking. His daughter was one of the unfortunates, his language then, beat mine that lie rtfers to, so that will enlighten him a little on what I said. However, two wrongs do not make a right, and I regiet what I said. Mr Davis says he tried to get the bridge made fit for horse traffic. Strange, Mr M'Bride, a councillor, said Davis told him

he did not want a bridge acrota Stoney, where the trouble is, but across the Shotover. Mr Davis also has in his letter a great tirade about my putting the " stopper "on something,—what he told the Chairman, what I told the Chairman about the fail in the rock in my claim, 400 pounds plus 20 pounds re tailracea, and in the most ot it he is all wrong Then again he aaterte that I am no sluicer, and how he tried to run atuff into >Stoney hut it would not do. He says nothiug about the length of time he stopped the ford, and how C. Dunlop waa near being drowned, how the Chinese storekeeper lost his goods and saddlea off two hortea, and when the Engineer spoke to him (Mr D.) about it, it is reported, he advised said engineer to go to a warmer climate. He seema a little uncomfortable at the exposure re his pounds for my shillings, but comes to the attack again re ray two extended 'claims, and one held by the borrowed miners tight. Wrong a«ain, and the borrowed miners right business is libellous. Wrong, because I held a 10-acre lease, for a term and then gave it up and took up a 6-acre lease on part of the 10 acres. He Hamilton, W. Davis refers to, Sandy was working a piece of ground on the line of my registered tailrace on the Shotover shieling. I gave him a little water to work with now and agaiu. I told him'abojut the time I would require to run stuff down with a big head of water. He took a trip to the " Point" and stayed about a fortnight. I required the tailrace in the mean time. I sent word to Sandy three or foflr times to come and look after his box, but to no purpose so I turned the water on. In looking over the face 1 could see the box full of gravel, but not washed away, and he had no hose, as Davis says, to wash away, so he is wrong again. A ptetscript is a part added to a letter, and the person writing the letter is responsible for the postscript. The one Mr Davis put to his letter is very close shaving re libel, if not so. I have carefully noted it, but will not follow suit with auy such scurrilous addendum. The question of the rising of the bed of the Shotover, its causes and effects, would be a very proper subject to discuss in a newspaper provided no personal acrimony waa indulged in. It would be of great public interest, as other rivers may be similarly effected. Now, Sir, ff you think I am right, I propose that I and Mr Davis lodge with you £lO each, that we discuss the above subject to the best of our ability, but every time eitrrer of us varies from the text, and gets into personalities of an acrimonious nature, we be fined one shilling, you, sir, to be treasurer and sole arbitrator, and the fines to go to the hospital. I am ready to forward the money, and sign an agreement to the above effect when Mr Davis agrees, and does the samo. I am, etc., Robert JonxsoN, Skippers, October 19th. 1896. (TO THE EDITOR L.W.M.) Dear Sir.—Since penning my last, there has been a flood in the Shotover and Stoney creek. It ha* brought enough gravel down Stoney from its sources, to fill it up to a uniform grade with the river grade, even if it had been all dead waters from the river to the ford before the flood—thus showing that had 1 sluiced into the Shotover direct, it would have been all the same re the ford and bridge. The gravel is nearly up to the bridge, and there is a uniform grade from it to the Shotover. When this bridge was put up after the tailings were washed away from a paddock that was worked almost directly over the bridge site, and lodged there, it was about 18 feet from the normal btd or bottom of the creek. This flood proves what has really been the filling up of the river, and Stoney Creek ; as it gives a very fair data. I dare say the river may have risen its bed something more than ihis amount. However it is a good guide. I am etc., Robert Johnson, Pleasant Creek Terrace, Skippers, October 21, 1896. . , >