THE HAURAKI CLAUSE

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8558, 22 October 1913, Page 5

THE HAURAKI CLAUSE

To the Editor “N.Z. Times.” Sir, —Will you kindly permit mo to ask the Legislative Council, through your columns, to elminate the provisions granting the freehold to Hauraki leaseholders. On three occasions I heard Mr Massey denounce tho shady Mofcau deal. In which instance was ho sincere, that, or his defence of the Rhodes business? Deputations at Coromandel and Thames are mentioned. What proof is there they were not got up by tho gentleman who holds 1000 acres and his son another ? 1 would ask Mr Massey were these deputations composed of miners.' I was mining on the Thames in 186<, and have been interested in it ever since, and can only regard this talk of combined farming and mining as specious twaddle intended to influence those who know no better. W’here is the leaseholder at a disadvantage t Grant the freehold and the Government loses its grip. If weeds be allowed to spread on leasehold land, contrary to specified provisions, the lease can be forfeited. With a lease the prospectors’ rights can be more easily asserted. The tenure by lease is secure enough, provided its provisions are adhered to. The clause is a gross infringement of the miners’ privileges. The freehold granted tho facilities for mining, should occasion arise, could not easily be asserted, if at all. Mr Rhodes is at least suspect. I am, 6t ° M IVM. S. AICKIN.