WASTE LAND BOARD.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2781, 16 January 1872, Page 2

WASTE LAND BOARD.

We continue our report of the proceedings tpat tcjolf place yesterday Me Stout wuid refer to history to show that land that was considered almost for agriculture at one time, became exceedingly valuable. In Cromwell’s time the Bedford Level was thought to bo so worthless as to be only tit for gifts to King Charles’s friends; yet it is now considered the most valuable agricultural land in England. But supposing the land iu question not to be agricultural laud, he apprehended, the nor throwing open the laud to the public still prejudicial jbo the pnWu' interest, for by the applicdtidp: ip wpula lead to this 5 there was a block qf laud taken up by the settlers, and uorogs the land in question there was a road to Mount BengCP pfenmenage, and if they had no right to proceed between Mr Clarke’s property and the river, the consequence must be they must quit their holdings. It was simply telling the poor people of the they must leave that part of the Province for Mr Clarke c mid drive them out, In regard to the pplfey op ‘the sale, he apprehended the Board had wholly to deal with the policy of the sale, The Executive Government, the Provincial Government, and the Governor-, had given them power to deal with the policy. Under the 46th section of the Otago Ky astc Lauds Act the Board had to deal wholly wxUi’thc policy of the sale. It is required by that phuiso that careful enquiry should bo made, and to grant or refuse tl)e application if prejudicial to the public interest ; so that the Board was not a merp lowly machine to carry out the provisions of the Land Act—they were not mere registrars of the sales of the auctioneers } they bad to consider, not only for the district in which the land was situated, but the effect upon the provinces at large of sanctioning such a large §aV>s -that. He need not tell the Board the opinioxis of economist;; ( respecting such large sales. They objected to the sale of such large bjpgkg, even Qif mountains, Every writer on political economy condemned such large aggregations of land. Spencer and Stuart Mil- —. Mr Connell thought it was out of place on pfifi part of Mr Stout to attempt to instruct the Board on political economy. Mr Stout had hd 'doubt political economy did not suit Mr Clarke, and on ’that ground the objection was made. He apprehended, however, that by the 4Cth section the Board was bound—and the resolution of the Provino'sl Council hound them to look at the application ip a pohtjcal economic point of view, What was ; pplitipal epopqmy ? It was simply a record of opinions oxi political and Social science. It was a record of the opinions of the soundest thipkers, telling people what was and what was upt prejudicial to them interest. He apprehended, therefore, sbat thp Board had wholly t® deal with the political economy of the case ; nor did ho think the Board would set itself to be above all treatises op pshtjcal economy. They would not set themselves against the spirit of the age—an age of thinking iu every country. In France large property in land was discountenanced, and Von Stein iu Prussia comlcmucd it. There was also a

movement against it in England; and', ff ] there was only that single pbjection against! the application, he would take cognisance 1 point out that if they allowed'a ispecies of feudalism to take root in the Province,/they • laid the foundation of a difficulty that could not be got rid of. It was strange that notwithstanding the increase of wealth, at Home, land was getting into fewer hands. Notwithstanding that the law of primogeniture was practically nearly abolished, land in England had got i..to the hands of some 34,000 or 35,000 persons, and a similar pro- , cess had been going on in Scotland. Such a system was, however, acknowledged to be prejudicial to the public interests—and to sanction the application was a step in that direction. Referring to the objections placed on record :—First, the consent of the runholder had not been obtained. It was simply an offer of the runholder to ratify a private arrangement made between Mr Clarke and his father. And if there had been no consent, there could be no sale. The sale had not been advertised. There had been no opportunity of competition. Mr Clarke simply came to the Board and asked it to ratify that private arrangement. The land, therefore, could not be said to have been opened at all. It might be replied —Suppose the consent of the runholder was not withe d, then the land, if sold, must be sold as if included in a Hundred. Was there any record of such a thing being attempted to be done ? There had not been a single indication that the rppholdcr had consented to its being queued up for sale : and he therefore concluded it had pot been open for sale under the Act of 1866. Secondly, the land was within a goldfield, and under the Gqldfjelds Act the Board had no power to self the land. 6?hat was plain enough. It would be monstrous, jh fact, if it bad that power ; for then there might be another Mr Clarke qoming and buying a mountain containing gold. He contended there had been no cancellation of the pastoral license. Only part of it had been cancelled, over a 5000 acre block. There was neither cancellation nor suspension of the pastoral license over 45,500 acres, and therefore the Board could not deal with it. Again, the 83rd section did.not refer to land within goldfields, and if the Bqprd said it did refer to such land, then no consent had been given. The 83rd section could only refer to laud not within goldfields, and if the 123 rd section was the only section that applied to land within goldfields, its provisions did not apply to the present case. The strongest legal ground that could he urged against the sale, was that the pastoral license had not been cancelled, nor had the runholder consented to the sale of the land. He thought he had shewn sufficient under the four grounds to prove that the sale would bo prejudicial to the public interest, and to make the Board refuse to grant the application, In conclusion, he must say the Board had been placed in a difficulty by the resolution of the Provincial Council, for had it not 1 been for that, they would not have enter--1 tained such an application. He sympathised with'the Council, as their action was taken in consequence 'oil the letter ■ addressed by the manager of the Bank of Now Zealand. Sympathy might also bo expressed because of the state of the funds of the Pro--vince not being in a flourishing state, through the passing of the Hundreds Regulation By it he apprehended a grievous wrong-had 1 been dope to the Province, but he trusted'the. would not jjtdop to do ai greater folly tilin' the Hundreds ; .Hpgnjatiou ,l Aiii g)n|jempiat(s;d, by alienating go much lanji fit fqr seftfgnjeuj. Ifg regted plainly on legal grounds, apd that the sale wm m-emdicfcrf to the Public interest. He had only po statg that if M r Smith wopld Jike to reserve ey)4epc§ ? Mp Magkny had bpen , deputed by a large publig meeting to attend, and was prepared to give the opinions of the public, if there was the slightest doubt of the injury that would accrue to the inhabitants of the dfstrigt. Mr Mackay ?4d he believed that when the 50QQ acres survey was made it wag promised to Mr Brown it should not bp sold under any conditions, and therefore to sell ; it would be a breach of faith with the realdents of tiie district. One of the effect tof the sale would be that the position of those i residents who took up the 2,500 acres on Moa Plat would be untenable. They had each taken SO or 100 acres, and were prepared to take some 50 or 100 acres in addition when vM sjlrypy£d, 'Hpcy tf»p|? their lots op pbgse .conditions, apd ijrtney jyerS debarred pf a road t|ia fountains and the river thgy WflMd he ppinppljed fo sell out. The settlers on that 3,000 fterps would be driven off. The question was simply between the sum of L 35,000, and the destruction of the entire district.

Mr Kgul? referring to one remark, thought it ipifertixpate fo haVe $p answer Wfttjggpd promise made ip another place. He cpilld not have made speh a reply to My Brown, for he had oome to the conclusion that 1200 ac-eg would have to he sold to Mr Clarke in order to give him his sheep yards and the buildings he had put up there." He had arrived at that conclusion from Mr McKervow’s report. Mr Mackay examined by Mr Connell. Ypn are a resident settler U J? there ? I am, Ypu kpow the position qf the S,OQQ acre block i I doWith the exception of the portion referred to by Mr Reid, on which Mr Clarke has laid out some, thousand pounds in erecting a wool shed, how much of the balance of that block can you, as an honest man, say is agricultural land ? Can you say ten acres is ? Mr Reid ; I do not think Mr McKerrow npwlh any reference to agricultural land. I tljink lie said that p.eyspn| 'tpojk up land for the pnrpoge of adding tp if. ' ‘ Mr Mackay s Half of {t is very good agricultural land, probably more. That is to say between Mr Clarke’s fence and the back country to the top of Mount Benger ? Exactly. Mr Connell apprehended the Board would allow Mr James Smith to answer the legal points raised by M> Stqpt • but statements bad been made which ha desired, to contradict. Ho had no intention to discuss matters of policy.: Mr Stout should have stood for the Provincial Council if he went into them. With regard to the 46th clause, thbge whpm |je represented read it the same as Mr Stput. Til’ regard tp tfyej sale prejudicial to public interests, it wjj.s nqx true. It was nqt true that there was in the land applied for a large qipanfity of agricultural Jand, Tlje agricultural land in the whole block was abhut a 50() acres, oy less than 5 per cent. Mr Stout laid great stregs upon evidence given in Wellington, but these w}iQ weye examined must only have beep speaking from h ea r s 3y if a ny flf them sa|4 it was agricultural land. I t had been said if the land was purchased it completely shut out the settlers on Moa Flat, and they wouM

be ■ abandon the district; but therowaa ayery large portion of merely pas* of those settlers with thei/cpittle' oil {t. It had been attempted to on the arrangement, but a •portiopiehced by Messrs Cargill and Anderson where "their sheep were Mr Stout asked the acreage of the block. Mr Connell did not know, but notwithstanding there was a large quantity of land owned by Messrs Cargill and^nderson. Mr Mackay: There are only 2500 acres altogether in the blocks and out-of it 2000 are taken up and fenced ; so that there are only 500 acres left. Mr Connell only spoke from his impression through having ridden over it. Mr H ughes, a member of the Board, suggested there was some mistake about the Shingle Block. My Connell called it the Shingle Block, though speaking of Moa flat.

Mr Connell was speaking of Moa Flat. There was a large quantity of land there. Another point was that Mr Clarke, by taking the laud within the red line, left the settlers without a road to the back country. This was not correct, as there was another road ; so that the statement that the settlers would have to leave the district was quite unfounded.- If the Board had any doubt of the correctness of his statements, he should like Mr M ‘Kerrow to be examined. The Chief Commissioner: Mr M‘Kerrow has given a report which quite satisfied tho Board. Mr Connell: When the application was made through him, Mr Clarke was perfectly awpre ef the existence of the clauses in the Act wjiich had been to, apd knew it was in the power of the Board to refuse tp grant the application. And, as he was mak? ing a large deposit, be did not wish to be plaped in spot an unfavorable position, and therefore distinctly brought those very clauses before the Board. It was in fact made a nine <i>m jw i that the Board should not only receive t e application, but have all those matters distinctly undertood. As agent for Mr Clarke be was not satisfied with merely mentioning the subject, but took care to have it properly and duly minuted. By referring to the application it would be seen it was signed by the Chairman to the effect that the application was not only received but granted. The Chief Commission : Who was the the Chairman ? Mr. Connell : Mr Outten. The Board entered into a distinct equitable understanding that those points were duly considered : so that if objections were raised now, they must be fresh points. The legal points he must leave to Mr Smith, who would tell the Board the effect of repudiating the contract;

On 'reference to the minutes, Mr Stout pointed to the word “ granted” being struck out:. His contention was that even if the Board sold the land,the sale was illegal The attention of the Board was called to the word “granted,” having only a pencil mark drawn across it. Mr Connellbelieved he had noticed all the points not strictly of a legal character. Of course the Board understood his principal whs prepared’to cojujiletfe the ‘purchase. Mr Bradshaw (Provincial Treasurer) asked leave to make one or two remarks. Two'df the members of the General Assembly who gave evidence, did so on hearsay. He hi d read over the report, and he was clearly of opinion that all the land within a red line he had iparjted had been determined upon by the (ibvernmeiit riot £o be sold ai being fij; for |arge portion of it fbjr agri? settlement. He said so far m the district, \f}P6h hp represented? similar land, which one time was stated pot fit for settlement, was puw producing fine props. He thought he could throw some light on the reply alluded to by Mr Mackay, When the sale of that land was mooted, he received a telegram from Mr Beighton, asking if the 590 acre block would be sold, and he telegraphed « No,” for be was certainly of opinion tie Executive Government had determined to prevent the sale of that land ; and he now asked the Board whether that leas? was not cancelled on the 24th. November, 1870, GV(;e//eNo. 701- whether they could sell lai d cancelled under the IGth clause of the Goldfields Act. He stood strongly on that point. Laud cancelled under that clause was taken out of the hands of the Superintendent and Executive to deal with. Mr Connell considered ’that evidence (jliyuld be |a}pn as to the character of the strip of reftymf * After an puimportaptdiscnssiou, James Smith WM about to address th§ Board, Mr §topt objected, as Mr Copt nell had been already heard. The Board decided Mr Smith should be heard.

Mr I)iincan, p a member of the Board, tp"bp guided by either Mr Stout Of Mr Sipith, Board fed their own legal adviser to refer toMr Smith, in view of Mr Stout’s objection, and Mr Duncan’s statement that argument on his. part would be useless, would not trouble the Board with any reply. He would only say generally that Mr Clarke held the Board bound to complete the sale already commenced. The Board having deliberately in view section 46, agreed to sJjT a pertain tract qf lapd- Thg only thing remaining to he done was that the boundaries should be determined by survey, Ml' Clarke hold the Waste Land Board bound to complete the contract, or he would seek a legal remedy elsewhere. ; ' Mr Stout said the obj ctors would also elsewhere seek a legal remedy ; and as Mr Clarke was rich, and they were poor, he hoped the expense would be thrown upon him. He wophl only say that, if the Board had any dfebt ag to the interests of the district being prejudiced, and would adjourn their decision, he would, unde take to get memorials signed in every neighboring district in Tuapeka, (Roxburgh, Tapanui, and else'-' where. The Board proceeded to consider the question, but ultimately, ou the motion of Mr Duncan, adjourned to three o’clock. (We published the result yesterday).