CROWN LAND TRANSACTION

Evening Post, Volume LXXXV, Issue 27, 1 February 1913, Page 3

CROWN LAND TRANSACTION

m THE INVERCARGILL SALE. COAL VALUES. In explanation of the land transactions reported from 'Invefcargill, where it was stated thai the Government had disposed of 173 acres of land ■ for £46 16s, which included coal* deposits estimuted to be worth some £10,000 or £15,000, the Prime Minister, Mr. Matshey, last evening stated that he had referred to the Crown Law Officers the question as to whether there was any | foundation for the assertions whvh up to the present had interested, a. u» he might add, amused him very much to read. For himself he could not speak as a lawyer, but only as a layman with ordinary common sense. "These leaees," he continued, referring i to the Southland leasc-in-perpetuity which , has given rise to so much discussion, "are i in express terms leases of the surface. ' rights only. There is a covenant in the i bases to that effect. I know that coal iv technically not a mineral within the I meaning of the present Mining Act, but i that is a result of a definition made since i these leases were entered into as bei twee n the lessees and the Crown, and I they aie in no way affected by what has j happened since then. I am quite satisi fled that the Crown has a right to resume at surface \alue." j In further explanation, Mr. Massey i staUd that there were at least two varie--1 ties of lcar-e in perpetuity. Under the ; tenure (that of the much-discussed ( Southland louse) the mineral rights are j reserved to the State. Under the other ' lcas,e in perpetuity "land" apparently [ included everything (minerals included) i without exemption or exceptions unless . the Mining Act or the Coal Mines Act intencned. Section 31 of the Land Laws Amendment Act of 1912 empowers the owner I of a lease in perpetuity to purchase the i he-simple "of the land comprised ill the- | lease." It does not empower a tenant to j pun hast mineral right not covered by his lease. The Prime Minister stated that the \\holo position in lcgard to mineral rights in connection with leases would be made oloar by legislation next .session. This did not mean that the State had parted with any mineral rights in the maimer suggested in the message from Southland or that existing statutory provisions were insufficient to protect the State's interest in mineral deposits, but simply that ib was desirable to assemble these statutory provisions in a clear and readily-acces-sible form.