SOUTHLAND LEASES.

Clutha Leader, Volume XXXIX, Issue 51, 7 February 1913, Page 6

SOUTHLAND LEASES.

MR MASSEY EXPLAINS. WELLINGTON, Feb. 3. The Prime Minister has given the following explanation with regard to the Southland leases which have been the subject of a recent controversy, and he is desirous of having it published. He had referred to the Crown law officers the question as to whether there was any foundation for the assertions which up to the present had interested, and he might add, amused him very much. He read for himself—he would not speak as a lawyer, but only as a layman— with ordinary eonimonsense. "These leases,'' ho continued, "are in express terms leases of the surface rights only. There is a convenant in the leases to that effect. 1 know that coal is technically not a mineral within the meaning of the present Mining Act, but that is the result of a definition made since these leases were entered into as between the lessees and the Crown, and they are in no way affected by what has happened since then. I am quite satisfied that the Crown has the right to resume at surface value." In further explanation Mr Massey stated that there were at least two varieties of lease-in-perpetuity. Under one tenure (that of the milch-discus-sed Southland lease) mineral rights are reserved to the State. Under the other lease-in-perpetuity "land" apparently included everything (minerals included), without exemption or exception, unless the Mining Act or the Coal Mines Act intervened. Section 31 of the Land Laws Amendment Act of 1912 empowers the owner of a lease-in-perpetuity to purchase the fee simple "of land comprised in the lease." It does not empower the tenant to purchase the mineral rights not covered by his lease The Prime Minister stated that the whole position in regard to mineral rights in connection with leases would be made clear by legislation next session. This (ho added), did not mean that the State had parted with any nnneral rights in the manner suggested in tho message from Southland, or that the existing statutory provisions were insufficient to protect the State's interest in mineral deposits, but simply that it was desirable to assemble these statutory provisions in clear and readily accessible form. In this connection it might be' mentioned that a high authority had expressed the opinion that tho clause in the Land Laws Amendment Act of 1907 (consolidated in the following year), providing that the Crown leases may be given "the right to extract minerals from his holding in consideration of certain payments was not only unnecessary, but actually clashed with statutory provisions already existing, which fully protected the State's interest in mineral deposits However, this and other points would soon be fully cleared up bv the Crown law officers.

"One particularly amusing incident has arisen out of the baseless outcry ?,!*! ut Southland leases," he continued. the Southland Daily News' recently reported that the owner of the property in question, a Socialist intended to show his disapproval of the legislative action which threatened to make him rich. He had sold his property of 1 1 <3 acres, valued (if minerals are ini M-ZL rou Slil.v between £IO,OOO and £io,ooo, to a syndicate for £SOOO the property, the 'News' stated, contained a seam of coal with a 17 feet race. It is to be remembered that the property was acquired by its Socialist purchaser tor £46 ]6s." In view of the explanation of the position furnished by the Prune Minister it would seem that the syndicate will be left lamenting, and that the lucky Socialist has made a tolerably good bargain