WASTE LAND BOARD.

Tuapeka Times, Volume V, Issue 257, 2 January 1873, Page 5

WASTE LAND BOARD.

The Waste Land Board met on the 24th. Present— Tha Chief Commissioner, Messrs Allan, Duncan, Hughes, and Tolmie. Messrs Cargills and M'Lean, agents for Joseph Hutchison, applied to purchase 66 acres, run 177, preemptive right. Approved, subject to inquiry by the Chief Commissioner. John C. Stewart's application to purchase 35 acres, section 59, block 8, Bush Reserve, Duuedin and East Taieri, was refused. Mr K. Gillies, of the firm of billies and Street, appeared as agent for the Munici1 pality of Queenstown to oppose the application of John Robertson to purchase five acres at One-mile Creek as a site for a woollen factory. Consideration of application adjourned until receipt of the Warden's report. Mr M'Kay applied for transfer of a lease of a coal mine from Uren and Tonks. Application withdrawn. Messrs Qillies and Street, for Mr Moore, objected to the issue of a seven years' lime burning license to John Nelson, granted 9th October, 1872. Mr Watson appeared for Mr Nelson. Consideration deferred to next meeting. The resolution of the Executive to have 10,000 acres surveyed for sale in Waipahi, and Glengleuich district was considered. It was reserved that it should be surveyed in sections accor ing to quality of soil in 50 to 320 acres, each to be iinished as soon as possible. Mr Brunton applied to be allowed to put in a return of stock for the Toi Tois Hundred. To be referred to the new Board. THE MAEREWHENXJA BLOCK. Mr Stout appeared on behalf of Mr Taylor, of Oamaru, to oppose the sanction of the Board to a sale to tho Hon. Robert Campbell of 10,000 acres of land applied for by him in July last. Mr Stout said he had several objections to urge against the sale to Mr Campbell. He had no doubt the Board would have befprs jt the report of the Commissioners, Messrs Shepherd and M'Kerrow, appointed to inquire into the saje. He (Mr Stout) had before appeared before the Board to oppose selling land in large blocks, and had pointed out that it was questionable whether, in sanctioning such sales, the Board was acting in the spirit of the Waste Laud Act, Large sales of that sort should be subject to public competion. The application was not on terms of section 83 of the Waste Land Act. There was already provision made by Act of Parliament where two persons agreed not to bid against each other at a sale. Such a conspiracy was punishable by law ; but in the case before the Board, the applicant asked to be allowed to become the purchaser without competition. This was not in consonance with the spirit of the Land Acts of any country. It was an application to purchase without any public competition whatever. It was against every interest excepting that of the runholder. Supposing a man outside the run wished to purchase 500 acres of the land, he oould not buy an acre of it, but the runholder, by the process proposed to be adopted, could buy 10,000 acres. This rery inequality should be sufficient to prevent the' sale. If that principle were established, every ranbolder in the Province might go to the Board and spot his run. He might pick out the best portion of the land, and the rest would be rendered vulueless to anyone but himself. He trusted that the Board would bear in mind that in disposing of land they were dealing with something of a different character from any other Government property, for it w»s ouly limited iff M »o^4

be carefully guarded. It was distinctly provided iv the minute, on receipt of the application, that auriferous land, or any laud the sale of which would be prejudicial to the public interests, should be reserved from sale. It was plain, from the report of the Commissioners, that a large portion of the land applied for was auriferous, and although the remainder was not considered so, to sell it would be against the public interest. He believed there were about 5000 acres of auriferous land, but it was not so much a question whether or not that should be reserved, as whether the application should be refused altogether; for it was necess-iiy to take water races across the land applied for in order to work the auriferous ground ; and were the water taken away, the gold-containing ground woul-1 bo useless. The Commissioners, in their report, did not say the other portion of the land applied for was not auriferous, but that the laud not having been tested by them, they did not know whether it was so or not. That meant that the development of the goldfield would be slow and gradual, and that, if prospected, payable geld might b ; found there. Water was all-necessary to a goldfield's development, and races were projected, for one of which a Warden's certificate had been granted ; but by selling the land applied for, miners would be deprived of a water supply— which fact of itself should be sufficient to deter from selling it. And further, unless some of the land was reserved for agricultural purposes, there could be no settlement on the goldfield. Not only should that be done, but there should be a reserve for purposes of commonage. It seemed extraordinary to him that, with the prospect of an iuflux of immigrants, land should not be thrown upon for settlement ; and not only should there be reserves for ag icultural but grazi< g purposes. There was no such excuse now as for the sale at the Teviot, when it was necessary to provide for satisfying the claim upon the Province, of the Bank of New Zealand. It was not now necessary to sell land in large blocks. In conclusion, he would summarise his objections thus .—- lat. Half of the land applied for was proved to be auriferous, and as the other half had not been tested, it was quite possible it might be gold-bearing also. 2nd. A large portion of the land not marked auriferous was required for the purpose of constructing water-races for the working of that proved to be auriferous. 3rd. If settlement was to be encouraged on the goldfields, a portion should be reserved for agricultural settlement and commonage. j Mr Campbell said that when be made the arrangement with Mr Reid, it was distinctly agreed that all the land proved auriferous should be shut out. The only claims on the ground were these, and as to saying the ground was auriferous, that was only the opinion of one man. It had been stated that one person applied to him to purchase part of his present lreehold, and he refused to sell it. He distinctly denied it. Mr M'Kerrowhad told him that he considered all the circumstances of the case would be met by excluding ISOO acres. (Mr Campbell showed the land alluded to, to the Board on the plan.) Ihere was no doubt he bought the land ot the Board. The Chief Commissioner : I do not think you are right in saying that. The application waß merely received. Mr Campbell : The deposit was paid and the survey made. What is the use of the survey of the land, if the land is not sold. This row has been got up by two or three men who would have been content with 300 acres. He should like Mr M'Kerrow to be called. The Commissioner did not think it right that the Comm ssioners should be crossexamined upon their report. Mr Shepherd, who was present, and Mr M'Kerrow said they were perfectly agreed as to their report in every particular. Mr Duncan — From the evidence, it appears that all the ground that has been worked has proved auriferous. The Commissioner read the minute of the 11th July in reference to Mr Campbell's application as folbws :— That the application be received and registered, survey to be made . by the applicant ; surveyor to be approved ; right to reserve suph lauds as may be found auriferous or necessary for public purposes retained. Mr Campbell said it was distinctly agreed , between Mr Reid and himself that only land proved to be auriferous should be excluded. Mr Reid said that between the commencement and the close of the survey four or five months would elapse, which was sufficient time to test it. Mr Hughes distinctly recollected there was no such provision made at the time of the application. The application was referred to tbe Government for further information. Thejquestion was adjourned to Dec. 31. THE LEANING BOCK SALE. Mr3aggitt, for the Superintendent, applied for a rehearing of the application to purchase 41 to 45, and b'7, block 2, Leaning Rock District, being lands held by J. D. Feraud under an agricultural lease granted by the Waste Land Board on 11th December, 1872. The application for purchase was made on December 18th, 1868, nearly four years before the tin.c at which it came before the Board. The application was approved by Mr Pyke, the then warden of the district ; and, on the application being referred to the 22nd June, 1869. It came before the Waste Laud Board, 11th August, 1869, and was referred back to the Government, one of the sections having been found to be an education reserve, and a Crown Grant issued. The matter appeared to have come before the Waste Land Board on the 11th December, when, without further reference to the information before them, excepting to a letter by Mr Warden Simpson, stating that he knew no reason why the sale should not be completed, tho purchase was sanctioned. Mr Feraud must have known that it was a misstatement, for he knew there were reports and documents in the hands of the Government which, if laid before the Board, would have caused them to refuse the application at once. Important additional evidence that should have been before the Board, was a resolution of the Provincial Council last session, which will be found in page 95 of the Votes and Proceedings. It was brought up by Mr Shepherd, on the 23rd May last, and recommended the Leaning Rock district to be reserved from sale, and there was an express resolution that land held under agricultural leases that had not been sold Should not be sold. In the face of those resolutions, the Waste Land Board should not have sold the land. Acting under the resolution of the Provincial Council, the Government, on the 28th Jane, 1872, referred it to the Chief Surveyor to obtain a report on the matter. He furnished a plan, lb was agreed at the laat meeting that Mr Feraud's land was that referred to in the report. The plan was referred to Mr Carew, the Warden of tho district, and he was asked to report on the I resolution of the Provincial Council. His report of the 9bh October, 1872, was in the hands of the Government at the time the decision was arrived at with regard to Mr Feraud's application. He reported that the application included land at the back of a creek and extending to the foot of a range, as well as some gold workings. The land was necessary to enable sluicing operations to be carried out, for it was required for depositing tailings. A further report by Mr Sjmpsou, who succeeded Mr Carew,' as Warden of tbe district, w»i

secured, too late for altering the decision of the Board. The rehearing was asked for on several grounds :— Ist. Tbe miners were at work there, and required the ground for their taking*. 2nd. The land is required for the construction of water-races. 3rd. Wi.hout the ground, tailings for sluicing would b© deposited. He, therefore, asked for a rehearing, and was of opinion that the Board had power tc grant it, under the 17th section of the Waste Lands Act. He thought he had said sufficient to show that the Board acted hastily in coming to a conclusion. He made the application on behalf of the Superintendent, as representing the public in the matter, and of Mr Shepherd, the holder of a miner's right. Mr M'Keay, for Mr Feraud, opposed, the application. He said there had been misrepresentation. The Commissioner was of opinion that the | sale having been sanctioned, and the money paid, it was beyond the power of the Board to deal with the land in any way. After some discussion amongst the members of the Board, it was ultimately agreed to ask the opinion of the Judge of the Supreme Court, as to the power of the Board to grant a rehearing under the circumstances.