THE SOUTHLAND LANDS.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXV, Issue 31, 5 February 1913, Page 3

THE SOUTHLAND LANDS.

MR MASSE i' EXPLAINS. Wellington, Eebruary 13. | The Prime Minister hao given tlic j following explanation, vvitii regard to I ilie Southland lands, which have been j tlio subject of recent controversy, and | wishes' to have it published, lie had lefcrred to the Crown Law oilicers the question as to whether there was any foundation for the assertion, which, up to the present, had interested and, he might add, amused him much to read. For himself he could not speak al a lawyer, but only as a layman with ordinary common sense. “These leases,” he continued, ‘‘are in express terms leases of the surface rights only. There is a covenant in the leases to that elfect. 1 know that coai is technically not a mineral Within tiie meaning of the present Mining Act, but that is a result of a definition made since these leases were entered into as between the lessees and the Crown, and they are in no way affected by what has happened since. Then lam quite satisfied that the Crown has the right to resume at surface value.” In further explanation, Mr Massey stated that there w;ere at least two varieties of leases in perpetuity under the tenure of the much-discussed Southland lease. Mineral rights are reserved to the State under pther leases in perpetuity. “Land” apparently included everything (minerals included), without exemption or exceptions, unless the Mining Act or the Coal Mines Act intervened. Section 31 of the Land Laws Amendment Act of 1912 empowers the owner of a lease in perpetuity to purchase the fee simple “oi laud comprised in his lease.”. It does not empower him to purchase min oral deposits not covered by his lease. The Prime Minister stated that the whole position in regard to the mineral rights in connection with the leases would be made clear by legislation next session. This did not mean that the State had parted with any mineral rights in the manner suggested in a message from Southland, or that the existing statutory provisions were insufficient to protect the State’s interest in mineral deposits, but simply that it was desirable to disseminate these statutory provisions in a clear arid readily accessible form. In this connection it may be mentioned tfiat a high authority has expressed the opinion that the clause in the Land Laws Amendment Act of 1907 (consolidated in the following year), providing that a Crown lessee may be given the right to extract minerals from his holding in consideration j of certain payments, was not only un- | necessary but actually clashed with ! statutory provisions already existing, 1 which fully protected the State’s interest in mineral deposits. How1, ever, this and other points will soon ! bo fully cleared up by the Crown Law i officers.