INANGAHUA MINING LEASES.

Westport Times, Volume VI, Issue 988, 19 July 1872, Page 3

INANGAHUA MINING LEASES.

Tho ' Colonist' in reviewing this subject says: —" Wo somewhat fear that the Superintendent, as Governor's delegate for the Goldfields, in endeavoring according to his lights or those of his Executive, to conserve the reefs in the luangahua district, has made a mistake which may not be easily rectified, unless he retires from the position he has taken up. During the latter part of last year, about October, various applications were made for gold-mining leases, the extent of land applied for being generally from 10 to 1G acres, the limit being 16 i acres allowed by law. According to the Groldfieids Act, and the regulations founded thereon, the Superintendent has power to grant or refuse these applications. On April 21th, some months after these applications were made, a ' Gazette' was issued notifying that the Superintendent would grant leases, not of the extent applied for, but generally about one-half the amount of land; where say 12 acres]were asked for, and asked for according to the act, only about six acres were granted. This created a considerable turmoil in the district; and in the Council one of the West Coast members, Mr Donne, anticipating and predicting such turmoil, brought the question up for discussion He moved for a Committee of Enquiry, but his resolution being, as he believed, checkmated, by the Provincial Secretary (obtaining leave thattbe Committee ; should be appointed by ballot, he abandoned the motion, aa the men he deemed best qualified for the purpose \ of such enquiry (being well acquainted [ with mining affairs) were not accepted. In proposing his motion, however, Mr Donne discussed the law of the case, and, amongst other things, after declaring his belief that the Superintendent, as Governor's delegate, had committed a grave mistake, which by his motion he desired to oifer an opportunity for getting remedied, he "The question concerned both policy and law, the law on whieh that policy professed to proceed ; and no policy could be sound which was against law, believed this action of the Government was * * * *, In the first place, the policy of reducing areas of ground applied for, as had been done in twenty cases, was unwise and injurious to the welfare of the Province and the advancement of th'e district more immediately concerned; and, secondly, it was against the law, and ultra vires of the Goldfields Act of 1866." Mr Donne thereafter proceeded to quote from that act, with the view of showing that while the Superintendent, as Governor's delegate, had power to refuse applications absolutely, he had in point of fact, no power whatever to reduce the areas of ground applied for, provided that the applications were made according to law, and the other requisite conditions were fulfilled. He further predicted that if ever the case was brought before a Judge on appeal, this view of the law would be found to be correct, and the mistake of the Superintendent would be proved. In justice to Mr Donne, whose action in the matter was somewhat cavalierly treated in the Council, we notice these facts, because, although the Executive and several members of the Council differed from his views, yet recent events have turned out exactly as he predicted. Judge Harvey, in the District Court, had submitted to him a special case for his opinion. The case arose out of an action for encroachment brought in the Warden's Court at Reefton, for trespass on ground protected under the Act by an application for lease. Thb restriction of area above referred to, also led to the special case being stated for the Judge's opinion. Clarke and party were the plaintiffs, and Keenan and party the defendants. It the 'Westport Times' the following summary of the case is given:— "Oct. G, 1871.—Clarke applies for twelve acres lease.

"Dec. 2.—Application heard and recommended. "Jan., 1872. —Defendants take up claim on ground applied for. " April 24. Superintendent announces intention to grant six acres. "Applicants put in fresh application for twelve acres. " May 7.—Keenan and party again re-peg portion of ground and have it surveyed. "May 7.—Explanatory minute from Executive as to how reduced areas may be taken up. " May 13. Further explanatory minute from Executive relating therei *°- " Mr Button having spoken to the [ point at issue, on hehalf of the plainI tiffs, submitted the following questions I for the discussion of the Court, to I which is appended the answers : 1. Was the ' Gazette' notice of 24th

April, 1872, notifying tho intention to grant the applicants, for the lease, a reduced area of six acres, a granting or refusal of the original application ?—■ No. 2. Was the ground applied for as a lease on the Gth October, 1871, protected under 108 Section of of the Goldfields Act, 18GG, until the applicants decided whether they would accept such reduced area, or abandon their application altogether ?—Yes. 3. Was the fresh application for the lease on the Gth May, 1872, an abandonment in tolo of tho former application ?—No. " His Honor also expressed an opinion that the proclamations in ' Gazetto' made by the Executive Council were totally valueless, they having no power to make order on regulations relating to leases. " £5 5s costs in case were allowed, and the case will be heard before the Warden's Court at Eeefton." The subject of the first question and reply was fully discussed in the Council; and some members deemed Mr Donne's argument, which now appears to be strictly in accordance with the Judge's finding, as being too refining. However, it proves to be strict law ; and, according to Judge Harvey, the the letter raid true moaning of the law. It follows that the Superintendent, after this decision of the Court, will as Governor's delegate, require to retrace his steps, and reinstate the applicants. He can, if he thinks proper, refuse the application absolutely, as he is entitled to do without reason assigned; but that course would be apt to cause a great deal of confusion, and probably much litigation and loss on the part of many miners, and of actual embryo companies. The chief error seems to be in the resolution to restrict tho areas of ground having been made to affect applications existent prior to that resolution being adopted. It is evident, from the finding of the Judge, that the Governor's delegate has only the power of absolute refusal, or absolute granting of the application ; and that no power to lessen the area of ground applied for legally exists. If, therefore, as is set forth in a letter of the Superintendent to the Colonial Government of the 26th ultimo, the object of his Honor is to " arrest the improper and mischievous locking up of block after block of the reefs in the hands of mere speculators," the only legal method by which such a course could be successfully pursued was to intimate the intention to refuse all applications which exceeded a certain limit. That would have been exercising a kind of despotic power, and, in effect, would, practically, be a new and delegate-made law. The Act says sixteen and a-half acres may be applied for on lease, and the Legislature must have had some reason for arriving at this area. The statement that the average area of mining leases on the Thames Goldfields is only five acres, is perfectly true; but the reason of that limit is, not that the areas were restricted, by the Governor's delegate, but that the applications themselves were restricted because the applicants took up ground close to successful claims, and that ground was necessarily limited, sometimes to only two or three acres, always to a much smaller quantity than the law allowed. The Superintendent, to our thinking, must gracefully retire from the position he has occupied. If he takes to the Scylla of refusal all round, he falls upon the Charybdis of destroying the prospects of promising companies, and causing additional expenses and probable ligtigation to the applicants.