Manganese?

Some Liveliness in the Condominium

Who Should Get Rights To The

The war for rights over supposedly rich manganese deposits in the northern part of Efate Island, in the New Hebrides, has ended in favour of “the big fellows”.

P[E Condominium authority has allotted the area to the Makatea Company (Compagnie des Phos ihates d’Oceanie), which is well nown in the Eastern Pacific as the rganisation which mines the phos hates on Makatea, in French Oceania.

It is reported that, in order to sploit these manganese deposits, tie Makatea Company is building wharf and roads, and purchasing ulldozers, Euclid trucks and similar [juipment.

A New Hebrides Company, origin lly the Jubilee Syndicate, made a ;rong bid to get these mining rights.

The Syndicate consisted of Messrs.

G. Frouin, Chevalier of the egion of Honour, French, who has Ben a planter on Efate since 1901: ndre Houdie, French, a planter of fate, born in New Hebrides; Jean erronnet, French, planter, of Efate,

also born in New Hebrides; G.

Seagoe, British, planter, of Efate, born in New Hebrides; George Hill, British, planter, of Efate, who served as an official in New Hebrides for 25 years.

After the concession had been given to the Makatea Company, the Jubilee Syndicate submitted, in August, through Messrs. Frouin and Hill, a formal protest to the Foreign Ministers of France and Britain, asking that the decision of the British and French High Com missioners in New Hebrides be re viewed in the light of facts sub mitted, and especially directing at tention to the way in which the r.-ghts of the native landowners had been ignored.

The Syndicate’s formal communi cation to the Ministers makes a series of claims, of which the fol lowing is a summary:

THE members of the Syndicate had known, for many years, of the existence of valuable ore in North Efate, on land belonging to the natives; but, because there were in existence no mining laws to cover mining activities, they were not until recently able to induce in vestors to become interested in the recovery of this mineral.

Neither of the two Anglo-French Conventions of October 20, 1906, and August 6, 1914, made any provision for mining rights.

There was an exchange of diplo matic notes on December 16 and 26, 1922, which appeared to establish an understanding, or agreement, that the provisions of the Protocol which applied to property rights In land should apply also to minerals which might be found on or under the surface of that land.

This was not regarded as suf ficient to establish a legal title to minerals; but nothing apparently was done until very recent times, when various mining concerns began to display a lively interest in the New Hebrides manganese deposits.

It is evident that some pressure was brought to bear upon the admin istration, with the result that the Condominium Government issued Joint Regulation No. 2, of February 5, 1957, dealing with mining; and providing that “every deposit . . is held to be and has always been

the joint property of the Resident Commissioners.”

Having thus established their absolute authority in relation to mineral deposits, the Resident Com missioners granted the rights over the Efate manganese ore to the Makatea Company, THE Jubilee Syndicate says that it considered the February regula tions to be contrary to the pro vision of the Protocol, which was completed by the exchange of Notes in 1922; but, having no reason to suppose that its proposals to ex ploit the deposits would be refused, it accepted the 1957 Regulations and went ahead with its plans.

It was then that the promoters associated themselves with the native owners of the lands on which the deposits are found; and so they formed the Jubilee Company, the members of which were 6 Europeans and 44 native chiefs and tribesmen.

The Jubilee Company obtained from an “important” New Caledonian mining company an assurance of technical and financial assistance: and then submitted an application, on March 14, 1957, for the authority needed to proceed with mining.

On April 11, 1957, the Resident Commissioners gave the mining rights to another concern (presum ably the Makatea Company); and the Jubilee Company’s application was refused in a letter dated August 7, 1957.

Say Messrs Frouin and. Hill; “This decision appears to us to be absolutely unjust and inopportune.

The Resident Commissioners seem to have been guided solely by the motive of favouring companies of great importance, capable of invest ing immediately considerable sums In prospecting the Archipelago.”

They point out that the RC’s, April 11, 1957, thus shared out t Archipelago among nine Companii “capable of disposing of imports capital”; while nothing was done give opportunities to private ii dividuals, or to modest compan: like the Jubilee.

The writers challenge vigoroui

3 soundness and fairness of this item; and make a special plea on half of the native landowners and 3 local-born sons of Europeans.

Fhe writers ask the Ministers to 7 (a) whether the native land ners have or have not any rights the minerals which lie in their id and (b) whether the Regula ns of February, 1957, are legal, view of the Notes exchanged in cember, 1922.

I other statements, represent atives of the Jubilee Company allege that Condominium Dis :t Agents have been making rep entations to the native land ners, urging them to co-operate ;h the Makatea Company, t appears that the natives, alerted doubt by non-Makatea people 0 argue that the natives have an lerent right to the minerals in ;ir land, are in some cases re ing to co-operate with the new hers of the mining rights. t is reported that Mr. Roy bbay, of Pentecost, is a victim the new Regulations. He was im issed by the mineral prospects on itecost; did a great deal of pre tinary work, and even succeeded Setting certain Broken Hill .people erested.

But after the new Regulations were unulgated, strange prospectors ived in Pentecost, and went ectly to the area and the deposits ich Mr. Gubbay regarded as his. [*here is some strong feeling in 1 Condominium over these things. ?he Resident Commissioners argue md experience in Fiji and else tere supports them—that man lese ore cannot be profitably

handled except in bulk and on a big scale —and that, in turn, calls for abundant capital and technical re sources.

But critics of the EC's say that a fundamental mistake has been made in ignoring local interests— and especially the apparently funda mental rights of the native land owners. t Judges Smith and O’Malley flew to Aitutaki from Auckland in Sep tember to hear argument there by claimants to Te-Au-O-Tu Islet, Manuae Is., at a sitting of the Cook Is., Apnellate Court. The claim is of long standing and closely linked with the history of the island.