THE LAND QUESTION.

Dunstan Times, Issue 1034, 2 December 1881, Page 3

THE LAND QUESTION.

[Advertisement.]

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—Mr Pyke in his addresses to tho electors has made tho following definite statement on several occasions The law stands thus : The lessee of one of the new pastoral blocks will have the right to purchase 320 acres anywhere within tho limits of said block. Hence, unless residence he enforced on each of theso pastoral blocks, any person can lease any number, say 10 of such blocks, and consequently claim to purchase 10 sections of 32(1 acres each, or in all 3200 acres, and that in such a manner as to render valueless to any one but himself the balance of pastoral blocks.” The above is tho law according to Mr V. Pvke. Let us see what is tho law according to the Land Act, 1877. I shall quote the whole of each of the clauses referring to this question for those who have not the opportunity of reading the Act Lself. Clause 131.—“ It shall be lawful for the Board to permit the original holder of a pastoral license issued under t his Act to apply for and purchase in one block, and at such price as the Board may do ermine (not being less (ban the upset price of land in the district), an allotment of land not exceeding 320 acres, on which to erect buildings, o*r such other improvements as may be necessary for working the run : Provided that any licensee who has at any time heretofore purchased or become the owner of a preemptive right on such run shall not be entitled to purchase hereunder.” This clause gives power to the Waste Land Board to sell to the licensee 320 acres for a speeilic purpose, but it does not confer any right upon the licensee to purchase a single one. What dues the next clause say?

Clause 132.—“ The Board may refuse any such application for any land supposed to he auriferous, or to contain any mineral or metal, or which in the opinion of the Board may de require 1 for the site of a town or ferry, or for any reserve or public purpose, and such application, if received, shall he surveyed ’a all respects in conformity with tlie regulations as to roads and frontages in force iit the land district.” In the face of this clause, what becomes of MrPykc’s contention that the licensee can select his 320 acres in such a manner as to he prejudicial to the public interest ? Now for the third and last clause referring to this question. Clause 133 —“Notwithstanding that the Board may have received such an application, it shad he lawful for the Board, after survey of the land has been made, if to the Board it shall seem fit, to refuse to grant the application either as to the whole or as to the part of the land applied for, and to return the money (if any) paid on account of purchase money or surveys, or such part thereof as has been paid on account of the portion of Laud the application for which shall not be granted. Not only his the licensee no right to claim to purchase a single acre, but the Board may change its mind at the very last moment and refuse the application in past or in whole even after survey, if to the Board it shall seem lit.” I have thus conclusively proved that there is no right of pre-emption, and the whole argument from this point in lavor of enforced residence on these pastoral block fa Is to the ground. Tho law confers the power on the Board of selling 320 acres (or any lesser area) to the license to enter to his improvements, but it confers no right on the licensee to enforce sale to him of such land Let your readers look up the Act for themselves, and they will find I am correct.

Mr Pyke cannot plead ignorance, ns he was one of the gentlemen who helped to pass the Act, and as a prominent Land Leaguer must have often conned it overflow then is the discr pancy between his version of the Act and the act it.-elf to tie accounted for ? My duty has been to expose the discrepancy. The duty of the electors is to record their opinion respecting it in the ballot box.—l am, etc, W. FK \SER. Clyde, Nov 30th, 1881.