Hawke's Bay Times. NAPIER, MONDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1864.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume IV, Issue 203, 2 December 1864, Page 1 (Supplement)

Hawke's Bay Times. NAPIER, MONDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1864.

We have been favored with the perusal of the correspondence which has passed between Mr. Powdrell and the Commissioner of Crown Lands at Napier, and between that officer and the Secretary for Crown Lands in Auck. land in the matter of Mr. Powdrell’s application to purchase 760 acres of land at 10s. an acre on Messrs. Whitmore & M’Niell’s run at Pdkapeka. This correspondence is particularly interesting, and is of great public value ; but, unfortunately, from its voluminous nature, our space is too limited to admit of its publication in full. We will, however, briefly touch upon the headings of the case, in order that the public may judge of the extraordinary manner in which the lands in this Province are sold.

It would appear, then, from the facts set forth in the letter before us, that Mr. Powdrell, in May last, in accordance (as he thought) with the Land Regulations, made application in due form to the Commissioner of crown lands to purchase a certain piece of land, at the time of the application unsold, on MessrsWhitmore & M’Niell's run. But it would seem that the application was refused upon the ground that the ex-Commissioner had granted the runholder a pre-emption of purchase over all 10s. land which might be.found upon survey to be within the boundaries of this particular run. Herein lies the pith of the whole affair, and the point really at issue is, whether the Commissioner of Crown Lauds has or has not power to grant such pre-emptive right of purchase? We are most decidedly of opinion that he has not, and that in no part of the Land Regulations in question, nor from any extant law having reference to the sale of Crown Lands in this Colony, does that officer derive any such power or authority. * be Secretary of Crown Lands is of the same opinion, but he does not clearly express it, but only allows it cautiously to peep through here and there in the course of the correspondence. That a pre-emptive right of purchase is accorded to runholders over a homestead of 80 acres is the utmost limit to which that prerogative can be stretched by the Commissioner is clear enough. Beyond that no runholder has any legal right whatever to priority of choice or pre-emptive right of pur. chase over any laud within the boundaries of his run or anywhere else. Neither can the Commissioner grant him any such privilege. Clearly, then, this arrangement is perfectly fair and right, for if it was within the power of the Commissioner to allow a runholder the pre-emptive right of purchase of any land which it might please him (the Commissioner) to call 10s. land just when it suited the convenience of himself and the runholder, then it would be utterly impossible for any person other than the runholder to purchase any land at all, and, by consequence, any regulations affecting the sale of land would be rendered perfectly useless, and the whole system of public sales of land would be in theory as they now are in practice, a ridiculous farce. According to fair and impartial reading, in fact, according to the literal and widest acceptance of that part of the Land Regulations referring to the sale of land at IDsan acre, any person may purchase such land if it is proclaimed open for sale, perfectly regardless of any understanding or agreement, short of a direct application, which may have been made at any previous time between the Commissioner and any other person, in reference to the piece of land then in question. Had we been in Mr. Puvvdreli’s place in this matter, instead of wasting time and paper upon a lengthened correspondence with obstinate officials, we should, upon the refusal of our application, have appealed at once to the Judge, and obtained a 'mandamus” to prevent the issue of the Crown Grant to Major Whitmore or anybody else. Had this been done without any discussion ou the subject, it would have effectually prevented the repetition of that illegal formula by virtue of

which Major Whitmore claimed to set aside Mr. Powdrell’s application. Such questions as this should be decided, not according to this or that capricious and whimsical precedent established by this or that official, but according to the laws of the country, which are, after all, the only safeguard we have against unscrupulous or careless officialdom. This curious case, as far as any further interest the public can have in it is concerned, ended in the Attorney-General desiring the Crown Grant to be issued in favor of Major Whitmore, but at the same time stating that if Mr. Powdrell wished still to pursue the matter, he, the Attorney-General, would consent to the issue of at writ of sciri facias in the Supreme Court, each party—that is, Powdrell and Whitmore—to bear their own expenses ; thus settling the oyster dispute in the most ancient and approved style by giving to the Crown Land Commissioner one shell, to Mr. Powdrell the other shell, and to Major Whitmore the oyster. The expense of the proceedings resulting from the issue of the writ in question would probably be a great deal more than the land is worth.