Royal Commission.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 236, 18 March 1876, Page 20

Royal Commission.

WESTPORT COLLIERY RESERVE. (From the New Zealand Times.) The report of the Royal Commission appointed to enquire into certain claims and other matters connected with the Westport colliery reserve is of more than local importance. The claims made were at first, as it seemed, on the colonial purse, and amounted to a total of £53,479. Now that the report is before us, it is satisfactory to know that the national purse is not likely to suffer, and that no injustice will be done in order that it may not suffer. Three hundred and fourteen claims were preferred, which for the sake of convenience the Commissioners divided into four classes A, B, C, and D. The claims comprised in the first two classes amounted to £42,957, whilst those in the other two made £10,522. The claims arose in consequence of the proposals made by the General Government to permanently utilise as a security on behalf of the colony certain land in Westport originally reserved for a public quay and colliery depot, but occupied by townspeople who, in consequence of the submergence by the Buffer river of the land formerly occupied by them, settled on the reserve, under a most unbusiness-like form of permission by the Nelson Provincial Council. That is to say, the permission was given in a way which has tended greatly to the complications that resulted in the appointment of a Royal Commission. As extensive private interests and a valuable public property were at stake, the Commissioners very wisely determined to conduct their proceedings in the most open and public manner, and assented to hear counsel on behalf of the claimants. The Commission, which was formally opened on Saturday, the 27th of November, reassembled for the transaction of business on the 29th of the same month, and sat continuously in the courthouse at Westport for the reception of evidence until the 18th of December last. The Crown was represented by Mr. Thomas Mackay ; Messrs. J. R. Fisher and Haselden, barristers, representing a number of the claimants, of whom the rest were unrepresented. The Commissioners state that in order to enable them satisfactorily to report upon the matters committed to them, they took evidence, amongst other things, upon : The condition of trade in Westport in the past and at the present time ; the past and present returns, together with the future prospects, of the alluvial goldfields of the district ; the nature and extent of the communication between the Reef ton goldfield, Greymouth, and Westport respectively, and the ability of the last mentioned town to compete satisfactorily with Greymouth for the trade of such inland goldfield ; the coal resources of the district, the probabilities and estimated cost of time, labor, and capital, for their development, and the market likely to be obtained for such fuel ; the character and accommodation of the port and the Buffer river, and the utility, extent, and probable cost of protective works required thei’e. On the immediate points, however, to inquire into which the Commissioners were appointed, they report giving a history of the manner in which the colliery reserve was constituted and came to be subsequently occupied by the claimants. The Hon. J. C. Richmond held office as Commissioner of Crown Lands for Nelson from the 21st day of November, 1862, to the 31st day of January, 1865. It seems that upon the original plan of the town of Westport, prepared in the Survey Office, Nelson, Mr. Richmond wrote over that part denoting the land known as “The Colliery “Reserve,” the words “Reserve for a “ public quay and for a colliery depot.” Mr. Richmond having been in England when the Commission sat, it was found impossible to accurately fix the date. On this the Commissioners report :

It is certain that Mr. Richmond, as Commissioner, had no inherent right to make reserves, and that during the interval above-mentioned reserves “for purposes of public utility” could only have been created under the Nelson Waste Lands Act of 185 S, read with the Waste Lands Act, 185 S, or under the Nelson Waste Lands Act, 1863, subsequent to the passing thereof. It is evident that the Governor in Council did not reserve the land in question under the 12tli section of the secondly-mentioned Act. There is no evidence to show, or to lead the most credulous to suppose, that the Waste Lands Board, acting under the Nelson AVaste Lands Act of 1858, set apart the premises mentioned as a reserve ; and it is equally certain that, during Mr. Richmond’s term of office, the AVaste Lands Board did not, under the Act of 1863, “by resolution published in .the Gazette, reserve the said land,” for any purpose whatsoever. Under such circumstances, we venture-to declare Mr. Richmond’s act to have been ultra vires. Itis difficult to believe that the provincial authorities of Nelson could have relied upon the action taken by Mr. Richmond, inasmuch as on the 3rd September,

1866, his Honor the Superintendent, acting as the delegate of his Excellency the Governor, by proclamation included the so-called reserve in the Nelson south-west goldfields. Again, the same officer, by another proclamation of the Bth June, IS6B, whilst revoking that lastly mentioned, embraced within the new limits of the gold field inter alia the unsurveved portion of the reserve tinted pink on the map annexed, together with that tinted green, then subdivided into town sections, and held by business licensees under the Goldfields Act. However, on the Bth February, 1872, the Nelson AVaste Lands Board proclaimed the whole of the “ socalled colliery reserve”a reserve for “ public utility; and the question then arises whether, assuming that the land had not been already dedicated by Mr. Richmond, and under the circumstances already' detailed, the Board was capable of dealing with it. The Goldfields Acts of this colony are numerous ; many of their provisions are incongruous aud frequently incomprehensible ; but, notwithstanding the ambiguity with which section 4S of the Act of 1866 is clothed, we are of opinion that at the period mentioned it was necessary to withdraw from a goldfield land included therein before it could be “ dealt with, sold, occupied, and disposed of,” and that the Waste Lands Board had no power to reserve, hut could simply enjoy, after reservations made, such rights in respect of the land so appropriated as their Lands Act might confer upon them. Upon that construction of the section referred to we have no alternative but to pronounce the dedication of 1872 invalid. Taking the invalidity of the acts of Mr. Richmond and the Nelson AA r aste Lands Board as our hypotheses, we are constrained to treat as irregular the proclamation of His Excellency the Governor, dated the 26th December, 1872, which declared that the “Reserve” should cease to form part of the “ Crown lands,” and therefore be no longer available for occupation as a goldfield. That proclamation professes to be made under the sth section of the Goldfields Act of 18GS, and was passed upon the sole, and, as we contend, incorrect, assumption that Mr. Richmond’s act was legal: it must be restricted to that, even if the validity of the proceedings of the Nelson AVaste Lands Board in 1872 could be conceded, inasmuch as the section under notice can, in our opinion, operate only against land “ declared set apart or applied ” prior to the passing of that Act. AVliether action taken by the Governor in Council under section 10 of the Act of 1866 would be tantamount to a withdrawal of land from a goldfield, it is unnecessary to advise : suffice it for us to express the opinion that the Proclamation of December, 1872, was not made under, neither can it be read with, the section mentioned.

If the argument just advanced is sound, it must follow, we apprehend, that at the passing of the Railways Act, 1874, the land colored pink and green was, to all intents, a portion of the Nelson south-west goldfields. AVhether the Railways Act, 1874, and your Excellency’s proclamation of the 19th April, 1875, read therewith, or the Immigration and Public Works Act, 1875, have or has removed the whole of the reserve from the operation of the Goldfields Act, and has enabled the colony to deal with both parcels of land for the purposes mentioned therein respectively, it is, we deferentially suggest, the province of the law officers of the Crown to advise your Excellency. It is, we conceive, enough for us. upon the facts elicited during the progress of this inquiry, to inform your Excellency that the notation by the Hon. Mr. Richmond and the acts of the Nelson AVaste Lands Board in 1872 (although irregular), the declarations and conduct of the Provincial Government and their officers, together with the representations made by them to the occupants of the reserve, are, in our opinion, sufficient to warrant us in pronouncing that the land comprised therein was always intended to be, and that your Excellency’s Government would be perfectly justified in taking all necessary measures to have it utilised as “ a reserve for a public quay and for a colliery depot and inasmuch as without a railway from AVestport to the Mount Rochfort coalfield a coal depot would be useless, and the trade in such town would languish and probably die, we recommend that the “reserve” should be held as a security for the whole or any portion of such railway, and be treated in manner prescribed by the Immigration and Public Works Act, 1875, sections 23 and 28, both inclusive.

It is with the claims against the reserve thus reported on that the Commissioners had to deal, and these claims, as we have already noticed, shortly arose as follows : —During the years 1871, 1872, and 1873 serious encroachments were made upon the town of Westport by the sea, and by the Buffer river in a state of flood, and the loss to occupants of certain land was considerable. In February, 1872, a number of settlers whose land either had been or was daily expected to be washed away, waited upon the Superintendent of Nelson and requested to be supplied with land in lieu of that lost or likely to be lost. Hereon, after discussion of the request in the Nelson Provincial Council, Mr. Sharp was appointed a commissioner to deal with the colliery reserve, and by an advertisement in the Westport Times he called upon those who had claims to attend at the courthouse, Westport, on July 12fch, to draw lots for choice of sections on the reserve. No rent or tenure was fixed, but a fee of £5 was paid in December; it would appear that the occupation was similar to that conferred on the holder of a business license. The number of sections selected at this time was 98, and they are colored pink on the part of a plain marked B annexed to the report. From a speech made by Mr. Sharp at a public meeting, it would appear that he had stipulated that build ings to the value of £SO should be erected on each section taken up. Iu 1873, under similar circumstances to the foregoing, 66 sections were allotted, under the supervision of Messrs. Giles and Dobson, and afterwards fourteen were appropriated by the Westport Municipal Council. A notice appeared in the Westport Times, dated January 31st, 1873, under the heading Colliery Reserve, in which Mr. Warden Giles intimated a rent of £5 per allotment would be charged on the reserve, and that it Avas the intention of the Provincial Government to apply to the Council for power to grant leases for fourteen years to those who should have built on their allotments before the next 31st of December. Of the claimants before the Commission some admitted their knowledge, whilst others pleaded ignorance of the conditions mentioned by Mr. Sharp at the public meeting. On February 24th, 1873, at a public meeting in Westport, the Superintendent, in reference to modifications of these terms, is reported to have said, ‘ £ In settling the terms upon “ Avhich such sections should be held, the “ Provincial Government had determined “ to withdraw the colliery reserve from

“ the goldfields, and proposed that thft “ same rate of payment as that previously “ made under business license, namely, “ £5 per annum, should be continued “ under lease. But since coming to “ Westport lie had found that owing to <c the necessity of removal of buildings, “ the inhabitants looked upon the pro- “ posed rate of £5 a year for 14 years as “ far too much ; and, after carefully con- “ sidering the subject, he was now in- “ clined to agree with them, and he “ would suggest that, instead of asking “ them to sign leases for 14 years at a “ r'ental of £5 a year, the terms might be “ £1 per annum for the first two years, “ £2 10s. for the next five, and £5 per “ annum for the folloiving seven years, “ thus making the burden lightest when “ difficulties were most pressing.” The original occupiers of certain land, colored green upon the plan annexed to the report, settled under business licenses, and for a time paid the fee. Subsequently, however, they gave up holding under the Goldfields Act, and held as tenants in virtue of the Superintendent’s promises. It was proved to the satisfaction of the Commission that whilst in many cases the holders of allotments had not fulfilled the conditions imposed by Mr. Sharp, on the other hand, the Provincial Government of Nelson made no effort to fulfil the promises made bjr the Superintendent in 1873. . The Receiver of Land Revenue refused to receive rent for the allotments subsequent to November, 1874. Of the different allotment holders under the varying circumstances mentioned above, a number have built aud paid rent, others have built and paid no rent, others paid part rent and did not build, Avhilst many have neither built nor paid rent. The Commissioners report that none of the claimants have a legal or equitable right against the General Government of the colony, inasmuch as by non-payment of the business license fee, some virtually abandoned, whilst others never availed themselves of the provisions of the Goldfields Acts ; and there is no evidence of the creation of. any other tenure. But the Commissioners recommend that of the four classes mentioned above, the first three are entitled to relief at the hands of the Provincial Government of Nelson, and are commended to the Governor’s consideration; but the claims of those who neither built nor paid rent should be discarded. The Commissioners conclude : Such of the claimants in each class and subdivision thereof as hold under derivative titles should be, we conceive, permitted to stand in loco the original allottee and business licensee. To direct otherwise would be to inflict injury upon many who have acted up to the letter of Mr. Sharp’s conditions. Some of the business licensees, who in anticipation of being washed out, succeeded in obtaining fresh allotments in the land colored pink, have sold the compensation sections, yet retain and occupy the original selection. Those cases should be, we think, specially dealt with- . i X At an early stage of the inquiry it became obvious that the nature and extent of the relief which we might thereafter respectively recommend must be governed to a great extent by the present condition and future prospects of this district. It must he admitted, we think, that the buildings erected upon the reserve are, with some exceptions, flimsily constructed, indifferently finished, likely soon to decay, and are in value greatly overrated. It was admitted by the claimants that, as a consequence of the diminution in the yield of gold from the alluvial goldfields, the present inability of AVestport to compete satisfactorily with Grey mouth for theßeefton trade, the cessation of public works and consequent public expenditure, together with the limited area of open and available land in the district, trade had become stagnant, and the value of town property was reduced to a low ebb; so the condition of the future would entirely depend upon the development of the vast mineral resources of the country, the removal of snags from the bed of the Buller river, an improvement in the commu ication with the Reefton goldfield both by land and water, the construction of protective and other harbor works, and a railway between the town of AVestport and the Mount Rochfort coalfield. The uncertainty of an influx of miners to prospect and work the alluvial goldfields, and the limited operations upon the coalfield, were conceded. It must have been apparent to all that, even assuming your Excellency’s Government were prepared to proceed with the public works referred to, and to assist in developing the coalmines, the expenditure of large capital would be necessary to produce and insure a constant supply of coal ; a considerable period of time would be required, not only therefor, but to secure one or more markets, and in overcoming prejudices which shipowners and masters would entertain towards a new and. comparatively speaking, an unknown port. AVhether it would be advisable for the colony to undertake such works, and to aid in coalmining operations, we do not presume to offer an opinion ; it is enough for us to lay before your Excellency the copious, interesting, and certainly.most valuable evidence we have elicited from witnesses, books, and other sources upon the subjects referred to, in the belief that it will be used by your Excellency’s Government to the advantage of the people of this district, and of the colony at large. Taking into consideration the present condition of AVestport, and the improbability of substantial traders and others entering into improvement and restrictive clauses, which a long lease of town property should contain, we are of opinion that, with the sanction of your Excellency, a lease for a reasonable term, at a nominal rental and upon easy conditions, should be granted to the claimants, so that, whilst they will receive consideration at the hands of the Government, the colony will, at no very distant period, be • able to derive from the reserve a revenue commensurate with the value which possibly will then be created by the outlay in the neighborhood in the meantime of large sums of public money. We therefore beg to suggest to your Excellency—1. That, upon payment of all arrears of rent at the rate of LI per annum, the claimants whose names are included in the first and second subdivisions of A and B respectively should be permitted to receive for the allotments claimed by them respectively a lease, in the form appended hereto, for the period of seven years, to he computed from the Ist day of January, 1876, at the yearly rent of £5 per annum, payable half-yearly, clear of all rates and taxes. _ 2. That upon the erection, by the complainants comprised in subdivision 3 of each such class, prior to the Ist day of June next, of an approved building of the value of £SO upon the allotments claimed by them respectively, and upon payment of all arrears of rent at the rate of £1 per annum, they also might be permitted to receive a lease for the term, at the rental, in manner, and upon the conditions referred to in the last preceding paragraph. . , . Provided always that the claimants against whose names we have written our initials shall not be entitled to receive a lease prior to the payment to your

Excellency’s Government of the amounts received by them upon the sale of the allotments granted to them respectively in anticipation of the submersion . of the allotments for which they now respectively claim. . 3. We make no recommendation for relief to such ' of the claimants as arc included in subdivision 4of 1 each of said classes. We have bestowed much anxious consideration upon the claims for compensation of the sections mentioned in schedules C and D, taken or proposed to be taken for railway and other purposes, and have the honor to recommend as follows : 1. That those included in subdivisions 1 and 2 of classes C and D should be permitted to receive from the Crown an allotment upon the said reserve, and to remove thereto, prior to the Ist day of June next, the buildings erected upon the several allotments so required for railway and other purposes, and upon the re-erection of such buildings they shall be respectively entitled to the sums set against their respective names in our estimate “of the expense of the reremoval" thereof, and to receive a lease of their selection for the term, at the rate, and according to the conditions already mentioned. 2. That those included in subdivision 3 of each class should be allowed to receive from the Crown an allotment upon the said reserve, and upon the erection, prior to the Ist day of July next, of a building to the value of £SO, to receive a lease of the same from the date, for the term, at the rate, and upon the conditions hereinbefore mentioned. 3. That the claims of subdivision 4 of each of such classes we advise should be expunged. We further recommend that the claimants under subdivisions 1,2, and 3of schedules C and Dbe permitted to choose their allotments from the Unoccupied ground in the reserve, at the courthouse at Westport, on the Ist day of April next, at noon, according to the order shown in the exhibit marked “ Order of Choice of New Sections.”