THE SWITZERS LAND SALE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VI, Issue 286, 24 July 1873, Page 10

THE SWITZERS LAND SALE.

(To the Editor.) Sir, — This subject has been kept very prominently before the public by one portion of the provincial press. The gist of most of what has. come under my notice has been to throw discredit and blame on the Goldfields Secretary — the owner of the 50 acres. Having been favored with a full report of the evidence taken by the Commissioners, and redeeming a promise that I would publicly express an opinion thoreon, the observations I have to make after a careful perusal of the published documents, though condemning the sale as being unjust, and I may almost say illegal, I fail to see how the part Mr. Bastings holds in the affair should be so severely criticised or condemned. Ido not wish to appear as champion for Mr. Bastings, who can very well defend himself, but claim to look at the case fair and impartially. It would appear by the evidence that the original holder or occupier of the land was a Mr. Acton, who had made great improvements upon it. He also the owner of water races running through it and an adjoining claim, and who also had acquired the right or consent of the squatter to purchase the land. He made three unsuccessful attempts to purchase the land in 1868, the Waste Lands Board always refusing. Subsequently, it would appear, his circumstances became involved, and his whole estate was put to the hammer. After having passed through several hands, it ultimately fell into those of Mr. Bastings, which, his evidence states, cost him £1200, for the whole. The idea of the present purchase seems to have originated with Mr. Allan M'Donald, who had previously sold to Mr. Bastings a hotel, store, and other surface rights belonging to the 50 acres, for which Mr. Bastings paid £900. Mr. M'Donald, thinking to make a little more of the transaction, asked what Mr. Bastings would give him if he could get him the freehold ; and it was agreed, if heshould succeed, he should get £250 over the purchase money. Such, then, is about the extent Mr. Bastings was concerned in the purchase, and I venture to state that nine-tenths of the community, even if you come to M.P.C.'s and M.H.E.'s, would do the same. Here lie was as a man of speculation, enterprise, and business, who became possessed of certain properties, for which he paid £1200, and getting the offer of a title to the same, if it could be procured, for the exßra sum of £250, he was Justified in self-pre-servation to accept it. Had Mr. Bastings thought that a title could be easily got, it is not likely that he would give £250 for another to get it for him ; but it was reasonable for him to argue that if he could purchase, any other that might apply might do the same ; and if granted it is worth the money to him, and if it is refused, so would'be any other application. It is plainly shown that to get the title to this land was a coveted prize ;. the former applicant, even when he became ■ dispossessed of all his estate, still kept and w,ould not part with for any consideration the land which be considered he held the first right to purchape ; and Mr., Warden Wood; one of i e.r.mp4i^ 1 Dj lirch^sqrs1 irch^sqrs of, Dart^

the property, said if he got a title to Acton's Flat, he would make the Government a present of his commission. It is unreasonable to assume that Mr. Bastings' influence, either directly or underhand, could have facilitated the sale, for those in power at the time were his bitter political enemies. That he may have thought the ground was auriferous, may be the case; but he was not supposed to blazen it forth against his own interests. The disposers of the public estate are there to deal with that estate to the interests of the people at large, and the purchaser may be only supposed to look to himself. Hence, then, though I believe that in bis now position of Goldfields Secretary it would have been better for him had he been clear of the transaction, still, impartially speaking, I cannot blame him. I will now refer to the action of the Waste Lands Board. By the evidence of the Chief Commissioner, it appears that Mr. M'Donald made application to purchase this land as agreed to be sold to Acton, granted to him as transferee. The request was granted, provided the transfers were correct. The transfers were found to be correct, and the sale was completed ; but the investigation has brought to light that Mr. M'Donald was incorrect in stating that the Board had " agreed " to sell, which should have been " refused to sell." It is also stated that the Chief Commissioner's duly was to point out the legality of the sale, and not to interfere with the policy or propriety of such, which was the duty of the Provincial Executive; and further, that he considers himself in no way responsible for the prsp*rlety of granting or not granting goldfields applications. This time the Goldfields Secretary, Mr. Haughton, dispensed with the usual routine of asking the Warden for a report before granting the application, and contented himself by simply asking the Chief Commissioner if he knew of any objections* the reply to which was, " I know of none." Here, then, are what I consider the two principal parties who are responsible for this sale, and by the public press and the Commission they have come out almost unscathed. What can be the defence of the paid head of a department that can be taken in by a deliberate lie being told him, when by referring to the books it could have been detected ? and as to the legality, might it not have struck him that the Warden's report was wanting ; and also, what excuse for the Goldfields Secretary to sanction the sale of land he apparently knew nothing about without the Warden's report ? Still, as I have before said, they have come out unscathed. The report of the Commission deals with them generally, but further than bringing to light the facts of the case, the Commission can be of little service to give the people back their rights ;• even their final recommendation of adhering to the practice of calling for a report from the Warden op other suitable person before granting an application is superfluous, for the present Goldfields Secretary, though held up to ridi *ule through this matter, has brought into force that all applications to puictnse land on the goldfields shall be advertised in the local papers, which is no doubt preferable to calling for only a Warden's report. Why should not the Commission have boldly stated that here is a block of land which has been sold contrary to law and precedence, and that public policy demands that the land be again thrown open to the miners, and that the public servants who abused their trusts, by being accessory to the sale be held responsible for what compensation may be awarded. — I am, &c, Justitia. Clyde, July 2, 1873.