THE SOUTHLAND LANDS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 219, 4 February 1913, Page 8

THE SOUTHLAND LANDS.

mi:, massky explains. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington. Lust. Night. The Prime Minister has given the following explanation with regard to the Southland lands, which have been the subject of recent controversy, and wishes to have if published. He had referred to the Crown Law officers the question as to whether there was any foundation for the assertion, which, up to tin/present, had interested and, he might add, amused him much to read. For himself lie could not speak as 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 effect, f know 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 as between the lessees and the Crown, and they are in no way affected bv what has happened since." Then I am quite satisfied that the Crown has the right to resume at surface value." In further explanation, Mr. Massey stated that there were 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 other leases in perpetuity. "Land" apparently included everything (minerals included), without exemption or exceptions, unless the Mining Act or the Coal Mines Act intervened. Seciio» 31 of the Land-Laws Amendment Act of I!H2 empower- the owner of a lease in perpetuity to purchase the fee simple "of land comprised in his lease." It does not empower him to purchase mineral deposits not covered by his lease.- The Prime Minister stated that the whole .- position in regard to the mineral righto in connection with the leases would he 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 statu- ■' tory provisions were insufficient to protect the State's interest in mineral de\ posits, but simply that it was desirable. to disseminate these statutory provisionsin a clear and readily accessible form.

Tn this connection it may be mentioned - that a high authority has expressed the ■ opinion that the clause in the Land •' Laws Amendment Act of 1907 (eonsolidated in the following year), providing ihat a Crown lessee may be given the fight to extract minerals' from his holding in consideration of certain payments, '■ was not only unnecessary but actually dashed with statutory 'provisions ajready existing, which' fully protected the State's interest in mineral deposits. • • However, this and other points will soon be fully cleared up by the Crown Law officers.

One particularly amusing incident has arisen out of the baseless outcry about the Southland leases. The Southland ' Daily News recently reported that the owner of the property in question, a Socialist, intended to'show his disapproval of the legislative action which -' threatened to make him rich. Ho had sold his property of 173 acres, valued (if minerals are included) at, roughlv between £IO,OOO and £15.000, to a syndicate for £SOO. The property, the News stated, contained a seam of coal with a 17ft. face. It is to be renumbered that the property was acquired by Its Socialist pmnhaser for £46 16s. In view of the explanation of the position furnished by the Prime Minister, it would seem that the syndicate fill be left lamenting, and that the lucky Socialist has made a tolerably good bargain.