THAT SOUTHLAND DEAL

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8348, 7 February 1913, Page 6

THAT SOUTHLAND DEAL

We must again mention that it is high time public suspense concerning the now famous Southland land deal was set at rest. Has the Grown, or has it not, any claim upon coal deposits contained in lands which are the subject of barter between the State and its tenants? Are the people, under the Land Act of 1912, presenting to lessees who may purchase the freehold the value of all coal comprised in their selections, plus the difference between original and current value? These are vitally important questions which it is due to Mr Massey,'both as head of the Government and as Minister of Lands, to answer clearly, definitely, and thoroughly. Instead of doing so, Mr Masssv tells us—what? That he is “ amused ; ’ at the criticism and indignation that have been expressed. That he is not a lawyer. That under the tenure of tb© much-discuss©d Southland lease “ mineral rights ” are reserved to the State. That coal is technically not a mineral within the meaning of the present Mining Act, but that is a result of a definition made since these leases were entered into, and they are not affected. That the Crown has a right to resume at surface value. That he is obtaining an official report. That the Crown law officers have been asked to say whether there is any foundation for the assertions that have been made by the New Zealand Times” and many other newspapers.

That tho whole position will he made clear by legislation nest session. It is, we venture to say, as difficultr to gain tho slightest reassurance from the Minister’s inconsistent observations as it is to discover therein any ground for the amusement afforded him by the whole affair. Either tha “mineral rights” in Joases-in-perpetui* ty which Mr Massey says aro reserved include coal or they do not. If they do, why all the mystery and delay f, Why fresh legislation ? Why are Mr Brighton’s later applications held aver? Tho applicant is legally entitled to the freehold which ho has asked for, with or without coal rights according to tho statutory provisions. Yet his applications have clearly been stuck up by tho local authorities, under instructions from Wellington, mi* til tho Crown law officers are able to discover enactments that will relievo the situation. Under the Act of 1907. a policy measure of tho Government over which Sir Joseph Ward presided, there was no doubt or ambiguity, it was definitely laid down that any tenant purchasing the freehold of his holding (at current value) must pay for any coal deposits. The Massey Government, either in shocking ignorance or for reasons even more consul** able, repealed the section so wisely and properly safeguarding tho publia interest 1 The result is that in tha early stages of its operation this par* ticufar blot on tho 1912 Act is revealed, and all the resources of the Crown Law Department are now being exercised in an exhaustive adventure of discovery, a search through the Statutebook for something to wipe out the blot. Meantime, it looks as if Air Brighton is prevented by Alinistenal veto, not by law, from completing the contract of purchase. And tho Minister is “amused”! We are indebted to the “Southland Daily Nows” for directing attention to an important judgment of the Court of Appeal on the question of these very mineral rights. In July, 1909, Mr Jus-! tico Williams, acting as Chief Justice, delivered judgment in the case tha Commissioner of Crown Lands for Taranaki v. Bennie, which hold that subsection 3 of section 177 of tho 1908 Act seemed to be framed expressly to meet the case of such a lease as that in question, “It showed.” according to the judgment, “that it was no part of the policy of tho law that tho Crown should retain tho minerals when the owner of such lease purchased the freehold. Tho interests of tho Crown were protected by tho provision that the value of tho minerals was to be paid for by tho purchaser.” As wo have said, the section which protected the publio by specially providing for payment for coal deposits was repealed by Parliament last session at the instance of tho Massey Government. The law now directs that the lessee may purchase tho freehold at the original value, plus 1 per cent., hut that part of the Act which made reservation in regard to ooa.l is now a blank. Tho law is now apparently being delay* ed until that blank oan be filled, up. Mr Brighton is to-day legally entitled to the freeholds ho asks for. By Mr Massey’s freehold law, ha is entitled to a gift of probably £50,000 worth of coal deposits for a nominal payment of something between £SO and £IOO. Why is Mr Massey delaying tho process of male-, ing Freeholder Brighton a millionaire at the expense of the people?