THE WASTE LANDS BOARD.

Tuapeka Times, Volume V, Issue 258, 9 January 1873, Page 8

THE WASTE LANDS BOARD.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —The juggling tricks of the Waste Land Boards are becoming every day more threatening to the mining community. Large blocks, of many thousands of acres, have disappeared, so to speak, from the face of the province, by the touch of the magic waud wielded by the august wizards who compose the above body. Not very long ago they effected ,a coup d' etzt in tbe sale of the Moa Flat block. Public opinion was not silent during the transaction of that^ little bit of jobbery, but the Board" was above taking notice of such trifles. A sale of auriferous land at Switzers, in which the present Secretary for Goldfields figures to no great advantage, is also a daring and novel performance. Tne exploits in the Maerewhenua block, as far as they have transpired, show what the Board could do, and would do, if only sufficient inducement were offered. Last, though not least, we have the sale of a piece of land to Mr. Feraud, at the Dunstan, which is uot only passably auriferous itself, but is at the same time the only outlet for tailings, &c, of a rich, aud in extent, unlimited auriferous country. All these jobs have been perpetrated in districts which are under the charge of goldfields wardens, whose especial duty it is to look after the interests of the miners. And here the question arises, What part have they taken in these transactions, which bear upon the face of them indications of underhand dealings ? The moves of the warden at Switzers in the sale of proved auriferous land, are, in the locality where they are best known and understood, the least appreciated. Indeed, this little job is altogether a matter that stinks the more the more it is stirred. Of the actions of the warden at Clyde it is impossible, at the present time, to say anything but what is speculative, as no report of the proceedings of the sale of land to Mr. Feraud has as yet been published. We can only ask the following questions :—lst,: —lst, Has that officer been consulted at all as to the physical nature of the land applied for, and as to the correctness of the statements upon, which tbe sale of the same land has been, refused to the same applicant? 2nd, If consulted, did he in his report recommend the sale? 3rd, If otherwise, have the Board overruled and set aside the evidence of their own -witness ? In regard to the first question, it is to be remarked that if the Waste Land Board did not consult the Warden, they have committed a most serious and inexcusable oversight. The second question, supposing the Warden capable of such an act as to recommend the sale of such land, it would prove him deficient in his practical knowledge to such an extent as to warrant his immediate dismissal from office. The third question represents the subject in its most sombre aspect. If the Waste Land Board, in spits of previously refusing to sell the land in question, now overrule not only their former decision, but also the just demands of the miners, supported

by the evidence of the warden, who is the recognised highest authority in the matter — when they can do all this repeatedly, whenever they pleuje, the occupation of the miner will soui be gone. These proceedings of the "Wast* Land Board point out with sufficient I force tbe desirability of a reconstrucI tion of the constitution of the Board ; and it is to be hoped that a change for the better will soon be effected. — I am, &c, A Delegate.