THE Evening Star. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1869.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 2004, 7 October 1869, Page 2

THE Evening Star. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1869.

Having considered the complaints of the agriculturists and the miners, that land could not be obtained for settlement, and having examined the legality or illegality of the sale of land within Hundreds, at an upset price of 10s an acre, the Commissioners on the Administration of Crown Lands turned their attention to the “ covenants be “ tween the Superintendent and the “ runholders outside goldfields 1 ” The complaints against these covenants weir “ that the Provincial Government have ** not only deprived the occupants oi “ Hundreds of existing commonage by “ the sales just spoken of, but have de “ prived themselves of the power oi “ providing move by new or extending “ old Hundreds.” Before considering the terms of the covenants themselves, the Commissioners felt it necessary to decide whether the Superintendent could legally enter into such covenants at all. “ Against his power,” they ob serve, “ it may be urged, that the law u having determined the conditions on

“ which land should he leased for runs, u to make new or additional conditions “ was to make new land laws : a thing u obviously beyond that officer s il power. But the Waste Lauds Act empowers the Superintendent to refuse leases at discretion, and “ in prohibiting sales of land on {< runs without the lessee s consent “ of course empowers the latter to give “ that consent.” In view of these co-existing powers the Commissioners ask, “ Could one party, then, make the “ non-exercise of his power of refusal “ conditional on the other’s exorcise of “ his power of consent 1 ” They conclude that such an arrangement could be made if the object was to carry out the law in its spirit and intention. But if the object and effect of such conditional agreement was to “ defeat the “ law or injuriously cramp its opera- “ tion,” no such agreement could legally be entered into. “ Of course,” the Commissioners observe, “ the time for “ which land was to be provided for “ settlement must be limited, or no “ leases at all could be given, and an “ industrial pursuit which produced “ £400,000 worth of annual export “ would have been ruined—a reductio “ ad absurdum. The limit, then, should “ have been the duration of the leases.'’ Another feature in the consideration was whether the Superintendent “ re- “ served land that might have been “ expected to be sufficient.” The mere quantity appeared to the Commissioners more than sufficient, as the blocks reserved measured 315,500 acres, the land remaining in Hundreds was 415,051 acres, and the area of that over which leases were cancelled or not given, was at least 240,000 acres ; altogether 961,151 acres open for future settlement. Nor could any fault be found with the blocks selected. On those grounds, therefore, the legality of the covenants could not be condemned. It follows, as a matter of course, that the Superintendent could not contract that the Governor’s power of proclaiming Hundreds should not be exercised. “ But,” the Commissioners conclude, “ it does not follow, notwithstanding “ the illegalities, that the covenants are “ not equally binding in honor and “ conscience—if entered into by the “ runholders in good faith on their own “ part, and reliance on the good faith “ of the Provincial Government.” This was rather a slender thread for the runholder, as well as the Province, assuming the conclusions of the Commissioners to be correct ; and one object achieved by the Otago Hundi’eds Regulations Act, is to render binding on both sides those covenants, that otherwise were probably but so much waste paper, whenever it suited the convenience of either contracting party to withdraw from his engagements. This knotty point disposed of, the covenants themselves came under revision. The first—made between the Superintendent and the runholders outside the goldfields—recites, “ among other things, that the “ Superintendent was ‘ empowered to “ ‘ instruct the Waste Lands Board to “ 1 refuse a lease ’ in exchange for a “ license (an exchange provided for by “ the Waste Lands Act of I860), and “ also that by the Act, if the lessee “ performed the conditions of the lease, “ and no Hundred was proclaimed in- “ eluding the leased lands, such lands “ could not be sold without the consent “ of the holder of the lease ; and that “ the Superintendent had deemed it “ expedient that a lease should be “ granted to the ninholder,” The covenant then declares that the runholder agrees to empower the Waste Lauds Board to sell certain parts of the leased land, specifying the number of acres, without demanding or receiving any compensation or consideration for it; that he would give up his lease or license over such parts, or, on refusal, pay a specified sum as damages to the Board. There is also a proviso that nothing in the deed shall “ be construed to abridge, limit, or interfere “ with the rights and powers of the “ Governor ” or the Superintendent. The question to be resolved was the “ legal effect of that covenant.” “ Whether the Superintendent had “ precluded the possibility of the decla- “ ration of hundreds on the covenanted “ runs.” The passing of the Otago Hundi’eds Regulations Bill has set that question at rest. The arguments pro and con of the Commissioners therefore are now mere matters of curiosity. I he resolution to grant leases was oassed according to a minute of the Provincial Executive Council on the 1 7th February, 1807, during the Superintendency of Mr Dick. The Commissioners state that the evident intendon was, not to abandon the right to leclare hundreds, but to make an arrangement to pi’ovide land for sale without the Government paying compensation and without doing injury to the inn-holders. The effect was, according to the evidence to cause “m ny ■' thousands of pounds to be expended “ in stock and improvements cn runs u that would not have been spent ” but “ for the understanding existing when

“ the outlay was made, that the vun- “ holders’ possession would not be iu- “ terfered with.” The Commissioners say, “ Most of the runholders consider “ that, independently of the covenants “ altogether, the increase of rental to “ which under tlie leases they are subjected gives them a right to expect “ their runs will not be declared into “ hundreds for sale. This expectation “ is, no doubt, reasonable; and the ‘• equitable objection to fulfil it has “ acquired double force from the enor- “ mous depreciation on wool and run “ property that has since taken place, “ and for which no reduction of rent “ (even had any been made) would be “ at all an equivalent.”