WASTE LAND BOARD

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 208, 25 January 1872, Page 6

WASTE LAND BOARD

(By a Correspondent).

The adjourned meeting of the Board was held on Monday, 15th inst. Present, the Chief Commissioner Mr. J. T. Thomson and Messrs. Reid, Duncan and Hughes.

Mr. Connell (of Connell andMoodie) and Mr. James Smith appeared on behalf of Mr. Clarke, and applied to have his application for 45,000 acres on Moa Flat Station, according to plans prodmed, confirmed. Mr. ' Stout, accompanied by Mr. Mackay, of Roxburgh, (as a delegate appointed by a public meeting) appeared on behalf of the objectors, residents of Mount Benger. (M'\ Stout's objections to the application being granted appeared in our last issue).

Mr. Stout understood that the land was applied for under the 83rd section, and resumed the Board intended to deal under that section.

Tbe Chairman intimated that Mr, Stout's surmise was not quite correct.

Mr. Stout said, that if not dealt with under the 83rd section, the Board had no power to determine the application. M>. Connell directed Mr. Stout's attention to the 123 rd section.

Mr. Stout replied that the 123 rd section did not apply to this matter. It was never contemplated by the 83rd section, the Board should ratify private arrangements made by the pastoral lessee with his own friends. He maintained this was purely such a private arrangement, and not a full consent to sell to whomsoever the Government might think fit, and urged upon the Board not to countenance a precedent by which the eyes of the country would be picked out. It might be said that it would be an act of repudiation on the part of the Board, if this application was not granted ; but under the Act, the Board clearly had the power to refuse without the remotest imputation of repudiation being cast upon it. He submitted that the granting of this application would be most injurious to the Province, and in support of thia view of the case, there was the evidence of His' Honor the Superintendent, Messrs Reid and Bradshaw and others, together with the report of the Select Committee "of the Legislative Council The district which tits sale would more immediately affect was peculiarly unfortunate in the manner in which their lands were being sacrificed- In 1865, a block called "the Shingle Block was opened. This block being found unsuitable for settlement, the Island Block was opened for agricultural leasing,' and afterwards sold,- Mr,

Clarke being enabled to become the purchaser of the whole of it, by means of threats used by his agent to intimidate the would-be settlers. The inhabitants then applied to have some more land opened, and after persistent application, a block of 5000 acres was cancelled from Mr. Clarke's run, under the 16th section of the Goldfields Act, surveyed into sections of 50 acres each ; and now this is also included in Mr. Clarke's application. It had been said , that only a sma'l portion of the land was agricultural ; but even supposing such to be the case, the closing of it against settlement would be most prejudicial to the public interest — for one reason that- there was an adjoining block of land in occupation by the settlers, and if Mr. Clarke was now declared the purchaser of the land comprised in his application, the consequence would be that these men would be hemmed in to the river, and ultimately compelled to quit their holdings. It was simply telling the people of the district that they must leave that portion of the province, for Mr. Clarke required it, and was prepared to pay handsomely for it, and they wanted the money. With regard to the objections w*hich he had urged — 1. That the consent of the runholder had not been obtained. It was simply a private arrangement entered into by Mr. Clarke and his son, and the Board were now asked to ratify it, and where there has been no consent there can be no sale. The sale had not been advertised, and consequently no opportunity of competition afforded ; therefore the laud was not legally opened for sale. It might be replied that the consent of the runholder was not withheld. In that case the land must be sold as if included in a Hundred. There was no evidence whatever that the pastoral lessee had consented to its being opened for honafide sale ; he felt certain he had not, and he therefore inferred it had not been opened for sale under the Act of 1866. ! 2 The land was within a goldfield, and the Boai'd had no power to sell uutil withdrawn: there could be no doubt about that. He submitted there was no cancella f ion of the pastoral license ; only a portion of it had been cancelled over the 5000 acre block. Tbere was no suspension or cancellation of the license over the remainder. Therefore the Board had no power to deal with it. The strongest jegal ground which could be urged agaiust the sale was, that the""pastoral license had not been cancelled, neither had the .runholder given a full and unreserved consent to the sale of the land. On these grounds he thought he had conclusively shown that the sale would be prejudicial to the public interest, and amply justify the Board to refuse the application. He would only now state, if they wished to receive evidence, Mr. Mackay was deputed by a large public meeting to attend, and was prepared to give the opinion of the people of the district, who would be more immediately affected by this sale, if the Board had any doubt of the grievous injury which would be done to the district.

Mr. Mackay showed the result which would inevitably follow if Mr. J Mackay's application was granted : that the settlers now located on Moa Flat would be hemmed in to the river, ; have, no egress to pasturage, and would ultimately be compelled to quit their holdings. They had very great cause of complaint for one reason, that when they took up their present homesteads, they did so in the reasonable expectation that they would be afforded an opportunity of purchasing or leasing some of the laud outside their holdings, so" as to give them more scope for pasturage. He deprecated the conduct of the Government in this matter, which he characterised as a breach of faith. In proof of this he might state that the Secretary of Land and "Works, in his place in the Provincial Council, in reply to a question as to when the 5000 acre block on Moa Flat would be opened for receiving applications, stated, " As soon as the survey plans were ready ; " and the Treasurer also expressed himself to the same effect. He did not ask that tbe sale of the whole of the 45,000 acres be refused ; he only asked that 10,000 acres around and adjoining the occupied block would be reserved for As Mr. Stout remarked, there was the sworn evidence of His Honour the Superintendent, Messrs. Reid and Bradshaw, to the effect that 3000 acres of this land was peculiarly adapted for settlement, and taking into consideration the manner in which the finest lands in the district, and probably in the province, have hitherto been so ruthlessly sacrificed, surely the Board, in the face of such testimony, would not refuse so very reasonable a request as to reserve, for the benefit of the residents,, those 3000 i acres. It appeared to him that the simple question before the Board was, whether they were prepared, for the ! sum of £35.000, to assent to the destruction of an important district. Mr. Reid said that Mr. Mackay put the case very clearly and iufcelligentlv, but it was rather unfortunate to have to answer what is said to have occurred in another place. He could not have made such a promise, for be had come to the conclusion that 12,000 acres would have to be given to Mr. i Clarke for improvements, and for the working of the run. He was acting upon Mr. M'Kerrow'a report. Mr. Mackay said he would refer Mr, Reid to the votes and proceedings of the Provincial Council. Mr, Mackay examined by Mr, Con*

nell : You are a resident at Mount Benger ? — t am.

You know the position of the 6000 acre block ? — I do.

With the exception of that part referred to by Mr. Reid; how much of the balance of that block can you, as an honest man, say ?b agricultural land ? can you say ten acres ? — Half of it is good agricultural land, probably more.

' That is to say, between Mr. Clarke's fence and the top of Mount Benger ? — Not exactly. Mr. Connell stated that only a small portion of the land applied for was suitable for agricultural purposes. The agricultural land in the whole 45,000 acre block was only about 2500 acres ; and notwithstanding what bad been said by Mr. Mackaj , they would have 1500 or 2000 acres of unfenced land for pasturage in the old block. Mr. Mackay : There are only 2500 acres in the block under occupation altogether, and of that there are about 2000 acres fenced in and partly under cultivation ; so that Mr. Connell is not correct in his statement. Instead of 1500 or 2000 acres, there are only 400 or 500 acres unfenced.

Mr. Cunnell only spoke as far as his memory served him, having several times ridden over the land. There was a large area of land there, and the statement that if Mr. Clarke got all the land now applied for, it would compel the settlers to leave the district, was not correct. He should like to examine Mr. M'Kerrow as to the correctness of his statement.

T ! <c Chief Commissioner : Mr. M'Kerrow has given a report with which the Boacd is satisfied.

Mr. Connell knew that it was in tho power of the Board to refuse or grant the application when making the deposit, but pointed out that it wras not only received, but grauted.

On referring to the minutes, Mr. Stoufc pointed to the word " granted " being struck out. He submitted that even if the Board had sold fche land, the sjile was illegal.

Mr. Bradshaw waa firmly of opinion that all the land within a red line which he had marked, and determined on by the G-overnment not to be sold, was fit for settlement. Ho said that in the Wakatip district, which he at one time represented, land which was stated as not fit for settlpinent was now producing fine crops. He could throw some light on the reply alluded to by Mr. Mackay. When the sale of the block was mooted, he received a telegram from Mr. Bnighton, enquiring if the 5000 acre block would be sold, and he replied no, for the Government had determined not to Pell that portion of the land ; and he now asked the Board that, the pastoral license over that portion being- caucel led on the 24th November; 1870, "whether they had the power to sell land cancelled under the 16th clause of the Goldfields Act. Lard cancelled under that clause took it out of the power of the Executive to sell it.

Mr. Smith was about to address the Board, when Mr. Stout objected, as Mr. Conuell had been already heard. The Board decided to hear Mr. Smith.

Mr. Duncan said he would not be guided either by what Mr. Smith or Mr. Stout said ; they had their own legal adviser.

Mr. Smith, after Mr. Duncan's statement that argument on his or Mr. Stout's part would be useless, would not trouble the Board with a reply, but would intimate that Mr. Clarke held the Board bound to complete the contract, failing which he would seek a legal remedy elsewhere.

Mr. Stout : Then in that case wo are prepared to have the case fought out in the Supreme Court ; and if the Board would adjourn their decision for a fortnight or three weeks, we would undertake to get memorials signed in all the surrounding districts and throughout the province.

Mr. Reid was of of opinion that the consent was a valid one under th% 83rd section ; that it suspended the pastoral license, and gave tho Board ample power to deal with the application ; but that it would be prejudicial to the public interest to- grant the whole of the application. He thought Mr. Clarke and the public 'would be fairly dealt with by the motion which he would propose, namely, "That Mr. Clarke be declared the purchaser of this land, with the exception of that portion that lies north-east ot the road line through block iv., comprising about 1950 acres, and also the 10 acres agreed to be reserved for a school site."

The motion was carried, the Chief Commissioner dissenting.