CORRESPONDENCE.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 3143, 7 June 1892, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

THE CONFIBMED LEASES. To the Editor of the Star. Sir, — In yoar article npon the West Coast Settlement Reserves Bill, among others yon make the following statement : — " The confirmed-lease holders, previous to the confirmation, admittedly had no title," and " From the date of the legislation of 1881 the confirmed-lease holder stepped oat of the position of a mere trespasser and obtained oertain vested tights." The position of the holders ol land comprised in what are known as the confirmed leases prior to 1881 were certainly, nnder technical law, trespassers upon Grown land, bat they held under the following oiroamBtanoes '.—The leases had been granted by natives, for whose benefit the lands had been set aside by the Grown, although not formally grants. The Government had presoriDed that saoh of these leases should contain oertain covenants for improvements, and no provision was made for removal of buildings or fences at the end of the term or compensation to the tenant for improvements. The leases had been submitted to the Minister for Native Affairs, and the due execution and compliance with con* ditions bad been yonohed before the Trust Frauds Commissioner, and as far as the Legislature was concerned it was an open secret that these lands were in occupation of Europeans nnder leases granted by the Natives, and that the latter were receiving rents. I think you are not patting it quite fairly in Baying the lessees had no title and that they were mere trespassers. The lessees were in occupation of Crown ■Lands with the consent of the Crown, with the knowledge of the Legislature, and neither side of the Dolitioal parties which have divided New' Zealand ever had a word to say against the policy of suoh occupation, and from the time when the Native Minister gave his oonsent to such occupation no one has ever doubted as to tba stability of the title of the leaseholders, even before the date of the confirmation under the Act of 1881. Had the Crown even attempted to eviot these leaseholders it ig a matter of serious doubt whether during the term contraded for a Court of Equity would have permitted a disturbance ot them under the circumstances. You also say: "Mr Mackay (in 1883) represented to the lessees that legislation was about to be passed whioh would enable the Publio Trustee to accept surrender of all confirmed leases and issue fresh ones in exactly the same form as those already issued to the leaseholders on the Waimate side of the river, and that arbitrators would be directed 'by the regulations to be made to assess the rental at 5 per cent on the capital value of the land after deducting the improvements therein." If Mr Mackay made suoh a promise, surely the leeaholders oannot pretend that they were expeoted to accept such a promise. The most Mr Mackay, on behalf of the Government, could promise would be to submit to Parliament such a proposal *, but to pretend to pledge Parliament to any particular legislation would be absurd on the faoe of it. The old idea of obtaining a native lease was that it was a step to a freehold purchase, and no doubt had the Legislature handed these reserves to the lessors in 1881. instead of plaoing them under the administration of the Publio Trustee, the leases might have continued. It appears it is this chance which ia now attempted to be argued into a certainty. In ordinary course of business in N.Z., no one would expend in improvements on leaseholds anything beyond what was covenanted for in the lease upon a verbal promise oi a renewal, and before doing so would obtain a valid agreement in writing. But even supposing these leases were each that within the rulei of good policy thej should be renewed, no reason has been shewn why the native owners should be deprived of the value of the improvements, and that the leases should be renewed at rentfl assessed on the unimproved value. In the legislation of 1884, which is the interpretation put by Parliament on Mr. Mackay 's utterances, the rent was to be assessed on the improved value of the properties. In this the Legislature recognised the covenants contained in the confirmed-leases which secured to the native owners the value of the improrements, while giving a statutory authority to the Publio Trustee to accept surrenders ; and however much the lessees may have misunderstood Mr. Mackay, or however muoh Mr. Mackay might bave contributed thereto, the legislation of 1884 is an emphatic denial of the olaims set up for rents assessed upon unimproved value. The next step in this unfortunate business is the legislation of 1887. The session of 1887 seems to bave committed more than one deed of a questionable charaoter. It was in this session the Legislature was induced by a very innocent- looking clause in the Government Loans to Local Bodies Act Amendment Act to remove the protection afforded to minorities under the Counties and other Acts against reckless borrowing for local publio works, by enabling a majority of one of the ratepayers in any arbitrarily . selected distriot to borrow money, and for 26 years mortgage the properties of the minority ; and during the same session it was the Government carried through Parliament the amendment Act by which an attempt was made to transfer from the native owners to the use of the lessees of the confirmed leases for 30 years the value of the improvements made upon these estates under covenants by virtue of wbioh the leaseholds were increased in value to an extent, I believe, of £100,000, representing an annual rental of £5000. This, it is to be hoped, is one of the greatest blots upon the pages of New Zealand legislation. Fortunately the attempt was an unsuccessful one. The means employed to conceal the intention was the instrument which overturned the work attempted to be done under it. By this statute an attempt to deprive the native owners of, say, £5000 for 21 yeara, the term for wbioh leases might legitimately be granted, but by regulations made by Order-in Council, the term of each lease was to be extended to 80 yearn and under the awards .supposed to have been made under the 'Act and regulations a furthertermby way ofrenewal for another 80 years was attempted, so that for 60 years the natives were to be deprived of £5000 a year, equal, without saying anything about internal and compound interest to £800,000. The subject is too large for one ; le tier, I, therefore, trust you will permit me to resume the subjeot in another. — • I am, *0., Taipoeohbnui.