The New Zealand Times. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1913. THE COAL LANDS DEAL

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8351, 11 February 1913, Page 6

The New Zealand Times. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1913. THE COAL LANDS DEAL

The Hon. W. F. Massey and his journalistic satellite, the squatters’ organ, appear to be determined .to shuffle or bluff themselves out of the grotesque difficulty into which they have blindly led eeach other in connection with that Southland lease and the gift of valuable coal rights with the conveyance of the freehold. However, shuffle as they may choose, they are in a veritable legal cul-de-sac from which there is no egress except by the straightforward method of retracing their erring footsteps to the entrance. This is certainly very humiliating for them. We were told by the squatters’ organ yesterday, notwithstanding the emphatic and convincing opinions of three eminent professional men, that “Mr Massey says the position is exactly as it was, and that the Crown law officers have advised him that settlers holding land under lease-in-per-petuity ‘are entitled to the fee-simple of the land comprised in the lease, and they are consequently not entitled to the fee-simple of what is not in the lease.’ ” If this is not bluff, what is it? This title is ho longer a lease. It is a freehold, and the reservations concerning coal deposits having been wiped out by the statutory law of 1912, the coal belongs to the lucky freeholder even if its value is counted in hundreds of thousands of pounds. Mr Massey claims to hold an opinion from the Crown law officers to the contrary effect, but, if he does, we challenge him to produce his opinion. That he will not goes without saying. But even while declaring that Mr Massey is right, the squatters’ organ admits by its apologetic tone of defence that it realises he is wrong, and finally it breaks into a dismal and abusive whine against the Opposition newspapers that have exposed Mr Massey’s deplorable ignorance of his own laws, alleging that this has been done to discredit him in the eyes of the people. The squattcers’_ organ is wrong and unreasonable in its chagrined and maudlin anger. The argument has been pressed to the point of conviction from neither personal nor political reasons, but simply because Mr Massey’s law had opened the way to the spoliation of the public estate, for the profit and advantage of a few speculators in coal lauds. It was desired in the public interests to stop the conveying away of these coal rights. If Mr Massey, under the influence of the squatters’ organ, had consented to bo serious and to listen to the story of a flagrant blunder in his law which was calculated to bring disastrous consequences to the country, he would have saved himself from the ridiculous and humiliating position in which ho stands to-day. But Mr Massey w'ould consent only to be flippantly amused. Encouraged by the squatters’ organ, the amusing fit grew on him until finally, in chorus with the squatters’ organ, be guffawed heartily at what they wore pleased to call “the mare’s nest” that had been discovered. Surely it was a sad and a pitiful occasion for boisterous hilarity by a Prime Minister, to say nothing of his journalistic prompter or echo, or both. There_is one more reflection suggested by the sequel to this deplorable and undignified episode. The squatters’ organ, making the best of a wretchedly bad case for the Prime Minister, says his political opponents are as much to blame as he is because presumably they uttered no warning. This is an example of incorrigible and characteristic mendacity. Within even the last fortnight, it has repeatedly been stated that Mr Hanan made an emphatic protest when the clause was under consideration, and that protest passed unheeded. We printed. Mr Hanan’a words from “Hansard” only a few days ago. Is it necessary to repeat them now? Well, as an unanswerable reply to the latest exhibition of the squatters’ organ’s mendacity, hero they are once more: It is recorded on page 436 of “Hansard” No. 29 that on October 18th of last year, Mr Hanan told the House of Representatives the true position. He said: — “In many parts of New Zealand —for instance, in Auckland — it is well known that there are largo areas of land held under the lease-in-perpetuity tenure, the capital value of which is only 6s per ‘ acre for surface value, while the mineral value has been assessed at £SO to £IOO per acre. Yet, in the face of such facts, it is proposed to allow tho holders to acquire the freehold at 5s per acre plus 1 per cent. In Southland, those of the lease-m----perpetuity holders who have in the past taken advantage of the privilege to purchase the freehold at presentday value have paid an increase upon the original value amounting in the aggregate to between £60,000 and £70,00. That being so, what view will they take of the proposals in this Bill? I am sorry that the rights of the people are not being conserved. If this option is given by tho Massey Government on the terms mentioned it means a considerable sacrifice on the part of the public.” After that, who can say that the Government was not warned? Yet nothing was done, and we have —well, w;hat we hays.