DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.68026#0072
66
MINUTES OE EVIDENCE :
Mr. J3. coal and one square mile for oil ; that is
Robertson. schedule A?—The rule says: “No mining lease
" t shall be granted by a Local Government under
3 Apr., 1908. these rules so as to cause the total area held under
mining leases by the lessee to exceed 10 square
miles.” If he has five leases in a particular pro-
vince, those five leases must not cover more thair
10 square miles. That means that you would make
him take out 5 leases where one would do.
43847. Each lease cannot cover more than two
square miles?—Yes, and you make him take
5 leases for 10 square miles. The practice; hitherto
has been, however, to allow one mining lease to
cover the whole 10 square miles ; that is how it
has been worked ; the strict wording of the rule
might read as you put it.
43848. (Mr. Meyer.) Take the case of gold ; you
may get quite a small gold area ; 10 square miles
might cover all the good part in a find?—That is
so.
43849. The idea is that the prospector gets the
first claim?—He gets the first claim.
43850. Take the case of a small gold area which
did not extend much beyond 10 square miles ;
would you desire that the Local Government should
give 10 square miles in a ring fence to the man who
had prospected?—That is certainly inadvisable.
43851. Then is it not desirable to maintain the
present idea, which is that in that particular block
he should not get more than a quarter of a mile,
though in another block in the next tahsil, say,
he might get another quarter of a mile ?—The diffi-
culty arises then, how do you distinguish your
blocks ; you can leave a yard of land between each
block, and you defeat the object of the rules ; that
has arisen in actual practice.
43852. But the spirit of the rule is that he should
not get more than a quarter of a mile in one par-
ticular spot; is it not desirable to maintain the
spirit of the rule in regard to such a valuable
matter as gold ?—It is ; at present the object is
apt to be defeated by leaving a small piece of land
between two blocks.
43853. In raiyatwari land the Government recog-
nizes no right of private' ownership in minerals?—
In the Central Provinces, of which I know, no
right of private ownership is recognized in raiyat-
wari or zamindari land, except in very exceptional
cases where certain villages were given out under
waste land rules about 40 years ago.
43854. Does it differ in each province ?—It differs
in each province.
43-855. (But, generally speaking, the people who
hold from Government on temporary settlements
are not entitled to mineral rights ?—Thai: is so.
43856. Can you give us any idea when the Secre-
tary of State is likely to pass orders on the report
of the Stores Committee ?—I cannot say; a
despatch went home the mail before last answering
certain queries.
43857. You say that if the 'Secretary of State
accepts your recommendations it will only give an
indirect relief ; surely it will be a very direct relief ?
Jf in any number of cases where now a reference
has to be made to the Government of India through
the Local Government to purchase stores and so
forth, the Local Government can do it off its own
bat, that will be a very direct relief?—At present
a Local Government or a Local Administration, as
long as it keeps within the rules, has full powers
to sanction a local purchase, and its indenting
officers apply to the Local Government.
43858. If a Commissioner or a Superintending
Engineer had the right to do it himself, would it
not save a certain number of references? — No
doubt it would. Here is a statement showing the
sort of thing that at present has to go up justifying
the departure from the present rules in matters of
urgency. This of course will practically disappear.
It is a return which goes at present to the Secretary
of State ; it contains examples of cases in which
purchases have been made outside the rules, with
explanations of the reasons for the local purchase.
Last year the Secretary of State added columns 7
and 8 in order to further test the real urgency.
+ Vide Appendix Ila.
43859. This return goes to a portentous length?
—Yes, this is the return of one railway only.
43860. We have heard a good deal in the pro-
vinces about the necessity for giving -Collectors
and other officers greater latitude in sanctioning
the purchase of typewriters and books of reference
for themselves ; you say that orders have recently
been issued which have given latitude in that
matter?—-Yes ; the order as to typewriters and
rubber stamps is dated the 6th February, 1908 ;
the order about books is dated the 28th May, 1907.
43861. Would you be prepared to go a step fur-
ther and allow the delegation of these powers to
Collectors within certain limits?—I should. The
orders allow such delegation as regards books, if
the Local Government chooses to grant it.
43862. Now as regards ports, may we assume
that your opinion is that the Local Governments
should have the power to deal with port and
pilotage and shipping dues, within the maximum
prescribed by the Port Acts or other Acts which
deal with these matters?'—Yes, I should allow
Local Governments a free hand ; they have a Port
Trust which advises them in all these matters,
and the Act limits the rates of duty ; within those
limits I should allow them a free hand.
43863. At present they have to refer to the
Government of India often?—I do not think very
often ; there is a different Act for eadh port.
43864. I was speaking more of the general Indian
Ports Act under which the coasting port dues are
levied ; of course there are Acts for the big Port
Trusts?—Yes, they all have their different Acts ;
we seldom get references from the big ports.
4386'5. Generally speaking, you think that with-
in the limits laid down by the law, Local Govern-
ments might have discretion?—Yes.
43866. Then there is another question about
which references have to come up, namely, about
extending powers to the Local Government in the
matter of some small out-ports ; would you allow
discretion to the Local Government there ? — I
should.
43867. It was suggested to us that the Calcutta
Port Trust might well take over the Hooghly
Pilotage Service which is now under the Govern-
ment of Bengal ; have you any opinion upon that ?
■—No.
43868. Is it necessary to maintain the sanction
of the Government of India which is required by
the Rangoon and Karachi Port Trust Acts for the
dissolution and suspension of Port Trusts ?—I
would not make any differentiation between
Rangoon, Karachi, and other places.
43869. Of course there would always be an
appeal to the Government of -India, but is there
any necessity that the formal sanction of the
Governor-General in Council should be obtained
under the Act?—I think not.
43870. As regards the ports of Karachi and
Chittagong, they are rather tied up by their Acts
in the matter of passing works and establishments ;
they are both growing places ; would you be pre-
pared to give them larger powers ?—I should.
43871. Putting them on a level with, say,
Madras ?—'Certainly.
43872. The Calcutta Port Trust ask for the same
powers as the 'Bombay Trust enjoy with regard to
the passing of works ; it is one lakh in the case
of Calcutta and two lakhs in the -case of Bombay ?
—Yes, I should be prepared to see the Bombay
limit extended to Calcutta.
43873. (Sir Steyning Edgerley.) In your tstate-
ment of returns you include “ Annual reports on
Colonial emigration.” You receive one from the
port of Calcutta, which you send to the Secretary
of -State ; you receive one from Madras, which you
keep yourself and do not send to the Secretary of
State. 'Bombay formally, and Karachi infor-
mally, are also emigration ports, and yet you
receive no reports at all from them. If you do
not require a report from Bombay, why do you
MINUTES OE EVIDENCE :
Mr. J3. coal and one square mile for oil ; that is
Robertson. schedule A?—The rule says: “No mining lease
" t shall be granted by a Local Government under
3 Apr., 1908. these rules so as to cause the total area held under
mining leases by the lessee to exceed 10 square
miles.” If he has five leases in a particular pro-
vince, those five leases must not cover more thair
10 square miles. That means that you would make
him take out 5 leases where one would do.
43847. Each lease cannot cover more than two
square miles?—Yes, and you make him take
5 leases for 10 square miles. The practice; hitherto
has been, however, to allow one mining lease to
cover the whole 10 square miles ; that is how it
has been worked ; the strict wording of the rule
might read as you put it.
43848. (Mr. Meyer.) Take the case of gold ; you
may get quite a small gold area ; 10 square miles
might cover all the good part in a find?—That is
so.
43849. The idea is that the prospector gets the
first claim?—He gets the first claim.
43850. Take the case of a small gold area which
did not extend much beyond 10 square miles ;
would you desire that the Local Government should
give 10 square miles in a ring fence to the man who
had prospected?—That is certainly inadvisable.
43851. Then is it not desirable to maintain the
present idea, which is that in that particular block
he should not get more than a quarter of a mile,
though in another block in the next tahsil, say,
he might get another quarter of a mile ?—The diffi-
culty arises then, how do you distinguish your
blocks ; you can leave a yard of land between each
block, and you defeat the object of the rules ; that
has arisen in actual practice.
43852. But the spirit of the rule is that he should
not get more than a quarter of a mile in one par-
ticular spot; is it not desirable to maintain the
spirit of the rule in regard to such a valuable
matter as gold ?—It is ; at present the object is
apt to be defeated by leaving a small piece of land
between two blocks.
43853. In raiyatwari land the Government recog-
nizes no right of private' ownership in minerals?—
In the Central Provinces, of which I know, no
right of private ownership is recognized in raiyat-
wari or zamindari land, except in very exceptional
cases where certain villages were given out under
waste land rules about 40 years ago.
43854. Does it differ in each province ?—It differs
in each province.
43-855. (But, generally speaking, the people who
hold from Government on temporary settlements
are not entitled to mineral rights ?—Thai: is so.
43856. Can you give us any idea when the Secre-
tary of State is likely to pass orders on the report
of the Stores Committee ?—I cannot say; a
despatch went home the mail before last answering
certain queries.
43857. You say that if the 'Secretary of State
accepts your recommendations it will only give an
indirect relief ; surely it will be a very direct relief ?
Jf in any number of cases where now a reference
has to be made to the Government of India through
the Local Government to purchase stores and so
forth, the Local Government can do it off its own
bat, that will be a very direct relief?—At present
a Local Government or a Local Administration, as
long as it keeps within the rules, has full powers
to sanction a local purchase, and its indenting
officers apply to the Local Government.
43858. If a Commissioner or a Superintending
Engineer had the right to do it himself, would it
not save a certain number of references? — No
doubt it would. Here is a statement showing the
sort of thing that at present has to go up justifying
the departure from the present rules in matters of
urgency. This of course will practically disappear.
It is a return which goes at present to the Secretary
of State ; it contains examples of cases in which
purchases have been made outside the rules, with
explanations of the reasons for the local purchase.
Last year the Secretary of State added columns 7
and 8 in order to further test the real urgency.
+ Vide Appendix Ila.
43859. This return goes to a portentous length?
—Yes, this is the return of one railway only.
43860. We have heard a good deal in the pro-
vinces about the necessity for giving -Collectors
and other officers greater latitude in sanctioning
the purchase of typewriters and books of reference
for themselves ; you say that orders have recently
been issued which have given latitude in that
matter?—-Yes ; the order as to typewriters and
rubber stamps is dated the 6th February, 1908 ;
the order about books is dated the 28th May, 1907.
43861. Would you be prepared to go a step fur-
ther and allow the delegation of these powers to
Collectors within certain limits?—I should. The
orders allow such delegation as regards books, if
the Local Government chooses to grant it.
43862. Now as regards ports, may we assume
that your opinion is that the Local Governments
should have the power to deal with port and
pilotage and shipping dues, within the maximum
prescribed by the Port Acts or other Acts which
deal with these matters?'—Yes, I should allow
Local Governments a free hand ; they have a Port
Trust which advises them in all these matters,
and the Act limits the rates of duty ; within those
limits I should allow them a free hand.
43863. At present they have to refer to the
Government of India often?—I do not think very
often ; there is a different Act for eadh port.
43864. I was speaking more of the general Indian
Ports Act under which the coasting port dues are
levied ; of course there are Acts for the big Port
Trusts?—Yes, they all have their different Acts ;
we seldom get references from the big ports.
4386'5. Generally speaking, you think that with-
in the limits laid down by the law, Local Govern-
ments might have discretion?—Yes.
43866. Then there is another question about
which references have to come up, namely, about
extending powers to the Local Government in the
matter of some small out-ports ; would you allow
discretion to the Local Government there ? — I
should.
43867. It was suggested to us that the Calcutta
Port Trust might well take over the Hooghly
Pilotage Service which is now under the Govern-
ment of Bengal ; have you any opinion upon that ?
■—No.
43868. Is it necessary to maintain the sanction
of the Government of India which is required by
the Rangoon and Karachi Port Trust Acts for the
dissolution and suspension of Port Trusts ?—I
would not make any differentiation between
Rangoon, Karachi, and other places.
43869. Of course there would always be an
appeal to the Government of -India, but is there
any necessity that the formal sanction of the
Governor-General in Council should be obtained
under the Act?—I think not.
43870. As regards the ports of Karachi and
Chittagong, they are rather tied up by their Acts
in the matter of passing works and establishments ;
they are both growing places ; would you be pre-
pared to give them larger powers ?—I should.
43871. Putting them on a level with, say,
Madras ?—'Certainly.
43872. The Calcutta Port Trust ask for the same
powers as the 'Bombay Trust enjoy with regard to
the passing of works ; it is one lakh in the case
of Calcutta and two lakhs in the -case of Bombay ?
—Yes, I should be prepared to see the Bombay
limit extended to Calcutta.
43873. (Sir Steyning Edgerley.) In your tstate-
ment of returns you include “ Annual reports on
Colonial emigration.” You receive one from the
port of Calcutta, which you send to the Secretary
of -State ; you receive one from Madras, which you
keep yourself and do not send to the Secretary of
State. 'Bombay formally, and Karachi infor-
mally, are also emigration ports, and yet you
receive no reports at all from them. If you do
not require a report from Bombay, why do you