DOBSON LEASES.

Grey River Argus, Volume XXXII, Issue 5439, 8 March 1886, Page 4

DOBSON LEASES.

The following letter of R. J.- Seddon, Esq., M.H.R., to Mr G. A. Ansell, on the Dobson leases, will no doubt prove of interest in this much vexed-question : — " Kumara, March 4. "Sir, — According to promise I waited on Mr Mueller, the Commissioner of Waste Lands, on Monday last. I asked to see the correspondence. The principal letters

bearing on the subject are (1) one dated 26th July, 1885, from the Government, and which is a copy verbatim of the one sent to myself and Mr Guinness of the same date, with the difference that the one sent to Mr Mueller was after the Cabinet meeting, and states that the Cabinet ordered those to be the terms of the lease, and ordered the lease so to be drafted ; whilst, as you remember, the letters to myself and Mr Guinness were prior to the Cabinet considering the Premier's f proposal. On receipt of the instructions from Government, Mr Mueller considered the terms too liberal, and suddenly discovered that a portion of the land would for certain be wanted for railway purposes, and told Government that in the public interest the terms should be altered from coal mining purposes to public works, &c. The Minister for Lands concurred with the views of Mr Mueller, and ordered the alteration, thus negativing the views held by the Cabinet. Then instructions were sent to Mr Greenfield to draft the leases. He introduced some of his fads, or, as they are by red tapery termed, "safe-guards." Mr Mueller, however, considered some of the " safeguards" rather powerful for the machine, i.e., the leaseholders, and consented to an alteration. The words "some public work," I told Mr Mueller were as open as Bell's Life, and should be re-defined He admits that at the sale he specified what "public works" meant, viz., railways, roads, tramways, or public buildings. By his own admission the lease is not in accordance with the terms which he asserts he stated at the sale, for the words "some public works" go a long way further than railways, roads, tramways, or public buildings. What strikes me stranger than all else is that the words "coal mining purposes" are altogether omitted from the conditions. As to resumption, and although only a bush lawyer, still, let my opinion be worth | little or nothing, I don't mind backing it for a trifle that the words " some public works" don't cover Government resuming for the purpose of leasing for coal mining purposes. Government are black enoigh, all must admit, still black diamond digging is not yet amongst the public works undertaken by the colony. Hence on a legal technicality the words, " unless the land shall be required and taken over by the Government for some public works," do not cover the only thing that the Cabinet agreed should be the condition, re " only two hundred pounds comp nsation." TheTfirst proviso" covers everything, however ; for in that Government reserves the right at any time on giving six months' notice to determine the lease, paying only the sum of £200 for improvements. Thus, instead of being a 14 years' lease, Government are only giving you six months' lease after the first proviso. The othjr re "some public works "is only padding, and meant to deceive. My reading is that at any time Government on giving six months' notice can resume on paying £200 for improvements. At the end of the 14 years, if no one else purchases the lease, and present lessee's don't care to take new leases on fresh terms fixed by Government, the Government is not held liable for improvements. That during the term of 14 years for any conceivable public works, Government can resume without gixing the six months' notice by paying for improvement £200. Holding these views, I spoke very strongly to Mr Muller, for I consider such onesided conditions militate against settlement. I urged him to let the signing of the leases stand over until I had communicated with the Government on the matter ; also, that I intended to move the matter. Mr Mueller kindly consented to let the signing of the leases stand over until the end of this month. I spoke to Mr Matheson, a member of the Board, and he agrees with me that the conditions are unilateral, unfair and not in accordance with the terms fixed by the Cabinet on the 26th July last. I hold Mr Mueller that if he (the Minister of Lands), Mr Greenshield, and the Land Board were partners with Mr Williams and Taylor in the freehold land at Brunnerton then I could thoroughly understand their actions, and the price paid by Mr Williams was exceedingly low. What had been done benefited private land owners, but prevented hona fide settlement on the public estate.