Tuapeka Times. AND GOLDFIELDS REPORTER AND ADVERTISER. SATURDAY, JULY 18, 1874. "MEASURES. NOT MEN."

Tuapeka Times, Volume VII, Issue 374, 18 July 1874, Page 2

Tuapeka Times. AND GOLDFIELDS REPORTER AND ADVERTISER. SATURDAY, JULY 18, 1874. "MEASURES. NOT MEN."

The decision of the Waste Land Board in the case of the applications of James Thompson for certain sections in blocks IV. and VI., Waitahuna East, and for certain«6ection3 in the same neighborhood by J. C. Miller and Andrew Miller, introduces a new feature into the disposal of land in our goldfields. These parties having applied to buy and not to lease the land, have been successful in their applications, the Board, at the suggestion of the Chief Commissioner, only reducing their applications from GSO to 400 acres each. We cannot help regretting this arrangement, as ifc may hinder the settlement of the country. These sections, we believe, lie in the vicinity of the Waitahuna township, and such land should lie reserved for leasing, this plan being . belter filled to strengthen and increase our rising townships than the sale of land in such neighborhood of similar blocks to the above. The question, however, arise 0 , Is thi3 course legal? In so far as surveyed land is concerned, there can be no doubt that the Board have the power to sell. The 73rd section of the Waste Land Act, 1872, clearly shows this. That section runs as follows : — "Notwithstanding anything in any Act to the contraty, lands situated within any goidfields over which apastoral license does not exist, or has been cancelled or suspended, may be sold or otherwise dealt with, in the same manner as lands of the same class not within a goldfield ; but it shall not be necessary to proclaim such lands into hundreds for the pnrpose of such sale or other disposal : provided always that all such lands shall be sold in conformity with the provisions of this Act regulating the sale of rural lands." This section clearly gives the Board power to sell : nay, we go further and say that, according to the ruling of the Supreme Court, the Board must sell in the case of surveyed land at £1 per acre to any one who may apply. The only option left them is to put ifc up to auction, in case of more applicants than one. But the matter is not quhe so clear in the case of unsurveyed land. In that case, according to section 42 of the same Act, the Board may, for sufficient reasons, refuse to sell. Section 42 runs as follows : — " Notwithstanding that the Board may have received an application for unsurveyed land, it shall be lawful for the Board, if it shall by the Board be deemed prejudicial to the public interest to grant the application, either a3 to the whole or to any part of the land applied for, to refuse to grant the application, either as the whole or any part of the land applied for, and to return the moneys deposited, &c." This land which has been granted is, we believe, unsurveyed, and the Board might have refused the application ; and ,we certainly regret they did not take into account the prayer of the inhabitants of Waitahuna digging township, and reserve the land for leasing only. We consider the Board had a fair ground to exercise their discretion in the matter, and by not doing it, we fear have inflicted not so much a blow on Waitahuna, but have introduced a precedent which may affect other digging townships as well. At the same time, now when parties know what the ruling of the Board is, if desirous of settling in the vicinity of a township, they should loose no time in making their selections, as while they are hesitating others may step in and buy.