Cromwell Argus. AND NORTHERN GOLD-FIELDS GAZETTE. Cromwell: Tuesday, December 9, 1873.

Cromwell Argus, Volume V, Issue 213, 9 December 1873, Page 4

Cromwell Argus. AND NORTHERN GOLD-FIELDS GAZETTE. Cromwell: Tuesday, December 9, 1873.

Our readers will recollect the letter addressed to the Secretary of the Miners’ Association by Mr Bastings, the Secretary for the. Gold-fields, on the subject of commonage for Cromwell, which we published last week, —and in which it was stated that the Government had no power to compel the Crown tenants to alienate any portion of their nins ; and that hence a difficulty had arisen in providing a suitable commonage for this district. It was also further stated that Dr Webster, the Secretary for Lands, had been in communication' with the runholders in our immediate neighbourhood, but had been unable to make any reasonable arrangements with them. The letter goes further’, and makes the very astonishing statement that, owing to the present high value of pastoral property, the present tenants are very unwilling to part with any portions of their runs except at a very high figure. Now, we are either subject to the operation of the Waste Lands Act of 1872, or we are not. If we are, we, can surely claim the benefit of clause 73 of the Act, which provides that: “ Lairds situated within any gold-field over which a pastoral license does not exist, or has been cancelled or suspended, may be sold or otherwise dealt with in the same manner as lands of the same class-not within a gold-field, hut it shall not he necessary to proclaim such lands into hundreds for the purpose of such sale or disposal.” Mark well, —“ it shall not he necessary to proclaim such lands into hundreds;” the framers of the law apparently understanding that a great portion of the .goldfields in this Province was not land of such a description as would meet the requirements of the law under which hundreds are proclaimed. The gist of these requirements is, in the case of our district, that “one third of the area of such hundred” must be “land available for agriculture”’ No person acquainted with the district

needs to be told that one-third of the land is most assuredly not fit for agriculture, and hence the wisdom of , the clause, “ it shall not be necessary to proclaim such land into hundreds.” Clause 76 of the Act provides, in language which admits of no doubt, that: “ It shall be lawful for the Governor at his discretion to cancel the license or lease as regards the whole or any part of such lands.” How does it happen, then, that with clauses 73 and 76—for both must be taken together—staring them in the face, the Government find a difficulty in providing a commonage for a gold-fields district 1 ? The one gives the Governor, his discretion, power to cancel a license or lease upon a gold-field, and the other says the land so acquired shall be sold or otherwise disposed of. As there is no mention specially of the.cancellation being thus effected for commonage purposes, it might be

thought that this would of itself constitute a difficulty,—that wretched, convenient word for Governments. But here clause 160 comes beautifully to our aid in the matter. It says : “ Reserves for the uses of Provincial Government and for other public purposes of a specific character may upon recommendation of the Provincial Council be made by the Superintendent.” And further, as if to avoid the slightest bitch in working, and in.case the Provincial Council was not sitting, it is provided : “ That the Superintendent may, if the Provincial Council he not then sitting, temporarily reserve land for such purposes until the end of the next session of the Provincial Council.” After reading these clauses, we ask any sensible man (a lawyer always excepted) to try and imagine the members of the Government having any difficulty in proclaiming a commonage on any part of the gold-fields if they set their minds in real earnest to the subject. Unless, indeed, it

happened to be an impecunious Government, which, happily for us, ours is not at present, and lias not been for some time past. Before passing from this part of tho question’, wo may remark that clause 16. of the Gold-fields Act of 1866 is almost identical in word and meaning with clause 76 of the Waste Lands Act above quoted. We are quite willing to admit that, as Mr Bastings says, “the Government has no power to compel the Crown tenants to alienate portions of their runs.” There is

no necessity for the Grown tenant to do it: the Governor (which practically means for us, Mr Bastings and a few . others) can cancel the lease whether the Crown tenant wishes it done or no. No difficulty exists here. Nor does any with respect to the “high figure” which' the runholders are disposed to ask as compensation for the land which may be alienated. The same 7Gth clause provides that the amount shall, failing a. mutual agreement between the Waste Lands Board and the runholder, be settled by arbitration, according to the terms laid down in clauses 98 to 103. ....It is very refreshing to hear that Dr Webster, Secretary for Lands, is making some efforts to negotiate with the runbolders ; it is pleasant to know that the matter is being even mentioned ; but it is just as depressing, on the other hand, to be told- that no satisfactory arrangements have been as yet arrived at. We have been painfully aware of that fact for some time,' and we do not feel the better for being reminded of our misfortune. However, let Dr Webster continue his arduous exertion : after a few more years’ despatching of letters to the runholders,—an unhappy despatch for ns, —something may come of it; pastoral property may-decrease in value, and a low figure may then be acceptable. Nearly twelve months ago, when Mr Macandrew. visited. Cromwell, he told us that Mr Tolmie “ was still in correspondence with the rimholderS in the neighbourhood on the question of commonage.” This year, it is Dr Webster who is in correspondence. What chance will he have of solving the question, if Mr Tolmie was not able 1 Our opinion is that all the model correspondents in the country will not help us one jot in matters of this, kind.* what we want is a man who could act a little ; not one who can simply write beautiful despatches, “ and have the honour to be” everybody’s obedient servant.